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

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 618.—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi&/kkjk ¼8½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjr ds mPpre U;k;ky;]

ubZ fnYyh esa uosUnz dqekj cuke Hkkjr la?k rFkk vU;ksa ls lEc)

ekeys esa ¼,l,ylh la- 34834@2013½ rFkk vihyksa@iqujh{k.kksa ;k

blls lEc) ,oa blh laO;ogkj esa vU; ekeyksa esa mifLFkr gksus ds

fy, Jh dsñ ijklju] vf/koDrk dks fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i

esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ 225@58@2013&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2013

S.O. 618.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

hereby appoints Shri K. Parasaran, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor for appearing in the matter related to

Navendra Kumar Vs. UOI and Others (SLP No. 34834/2013)

in the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi and appeals/

revisions or other matters connected therewith and

incidental thereto.

[No. 225/58/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 4 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 619.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi&/kkjk ¼8½ }kjk

iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼dsñvñ

C;wjks½ }kjk laLFkkfir ekeyk lañ vkjlh&1 ¼,l½@2009 rFkk vkjlh&2

¼,l½@2009@lhchvkbZ] ,llhch] psUubZ ¼iqfyl vkSj enzkl mPp

U;k;ky; ds vf/koDrkvksa ds chp fgalk ls lacaf/kr½ dk fopkj.k enzkl

mPp U;k;ky; esa djus rFkk vihyksa@iqujh{k.kksa ;k blls lEc) vU;

ekeyksa vkSj blh laO;ogkj esa lapkyu djus gsrq Jh ,eñ jfoUnzu] ofj"B

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

[Qkñ lañ 225@55@2013&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] 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- 8]

ubZ fnYyh, iQjojh 16—iQjojh 22] 2014] 'kfuokj@ek?k 27—iQkYxqu 3] 1935

No. 8]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 16—FEBRUARY 22, 2014, SATURDAY/MAGHA 27—PHALGUNA 3, 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)

537 GI/2014

(1697)

1698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 4th February, 2014

S.O. 619.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

hereby appoints Shri M. Ravindran, Sr. Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor for conducting trial in case No. RC 1(S)/

2009 and RC 2(S)/2009/CBI, SCB, Chennai (relating to

violence between Police and Advocates of Madras High

Court) instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment

(CBI) in the Madras High Court and appeals/revisions or

other matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.

[F. No. 225/55/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

foÙk ea=ky;

¼jktLo foHkkx½

vkns'k

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2014

LVkEi

dkñvkñ 620.—Hkkjrh; LVkEi vf/kfu;e] 1899 ¼1899

dk 2½ dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 25-50 yk[k #i;s ¼iPphl

yk[k vkSj ipkl gtkj #i;s dsoy½ dk 'kqYd ekQ djrh gS ftlds

lkFk ty vkSj LoPNrk iwYM QaM ¼MCY;w,lih,Q½] E;qfufliy

iz'kklu vkSj ty vkiwfrZ foHkkx] rfeyukMq ljdkj }kjk tkjh fd,

x, 51-00 djksM+ #i;s ¼bD;kou djksM+ #i;s dsoy½ jkf'k ds

8-71% vlqjf{kr foeksP; vifjorZuh; dj ;ksX; iwYM ca/k i= ¼cksaM½

ds :i esa of.kZr ca/k i= ¼cksaM½ mDr vf/kfu;e ds rgr vU;Fkk

izHkkj.kh; gSaA

[lañ 01@2014&LVkEi@Qkñlañ 33013@2@2010&,lñvksñ ¼,lVh½]

fot; dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

ORDER

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2014

STAMPS

S.O. 620.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Indian

Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby

remits the duty of Rs. 25.50 lakh (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh

and Fifty Thousand only) with which the bonds described

as 8.71% Unsecured Redeemable Non-Convertible taxable

pooled bonds amounting to Rs. 51.00 crore (Rupees Fifty

One Crore only) issued by Water and Sanitation Pooled

Fund (WSPF), Municipal Administration and Water Supply

Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, are otherwise

chargeable under the said Act.

[No. 01/2014-STAMPS/F.No. 33013/2/2010-SO (ST)]

VIJAY KUMAR, Under Secy.

¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 7 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 621.—Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad vf/kfu;e] 1981

¼1981 dk 28½ dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼³½ ds

mi&[kaM }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj]

,rn~}kjk] okf.kT; foHkkx] okf.kT; ,oa m|ksx ea=ky; ds lfpo

Jh jktho [ksj dks vxys vkns'k gksus rd Jh ,lñvkjñ jko ds LFkku

ij Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad ¼,fDte cSad½ ds funs'kd e.My esa

funs'kd ds :i esa ukfer djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 24@27@2002&vkbZ,Q&I]

xqykc flag] mi lfpo

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2014

S.O. 621.—In pursuance of the powers conferred

by Sub-Clause (i) of Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section

6 of the Export Import Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981),

the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Rajeev Kher,

Secretary, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce

and Industry, as Director on the Board of Directors of Export

Import Bank of India (Exim Bank) vice Shri S.R. Rao until

further orders.

[F. No. 24/27/2002-IF-I]

GULAB SINGH, Dy. Secy.

lkaf[;dh vkSj dk;ZØ e dk;kZUo;u ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 622.—dsUnz ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr 1987½ ds

fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] lkaf[;dh vkSj dk;ZØe

dk;kZUo;u ea=ky; ds v/khu {ks= ladk;Z izHkkx] jk"Vªh; izfrn'kZ losZ{k.k

dk;kZy; ds mi&{ks=h; dk;kZy;] dUuwj dks] ftlds 80 izfr'kr

deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] Hkkjr ds

jkti= esa vfèlwfpr djrh gSA

[lañ bZ&11011@2@2006&fganh]

,lñ,lñ c/kkou] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF STATISTICS AND PROGRAMME

IMPLEMENTATION

New Delhi, the 28th January, 2014

S.O. 622.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Language (use for official purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended-1987), the Central

Government hereby notify the Sub-Regional Office, Kannur

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1699

of Field Operation Division, NSSO under the Ministry of

Statistics and Programme Implementation in the Gazette of

India where 80 percent of the staff has acquired the working

knowledge of Hindi.

[No. E-11011/2/2006-Hindi]

S.S. BADHAWAN, Jt. Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 623.—dsUnz ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr 1987½ ds

fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] lkaf[;dh vkSj dk;ZØe

dk;kZUo;u ea=ky; ds v/khu {ks= ladk;Z izHkkx] jk"Vªh; izfrn'kZ losZ{k.k

dk;kZy; ds mi&{ks=h; dk;kZy;] f='kwj dks] ftlds 80 izfr'kr

deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] Hkkjr ds

jkti= esa vf/klwfpr djrh gSA

[lañ bZ&11011@2@2006&fganh]

,lñ,lñ c/kkou] la;qDr lfpo

New Delhi, the 28th January, 2014

S.O. 623.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Language (use for official purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended-1987), the Central

Government hereby notify the Sub-Regional Office,

Thrissur of Field Operation Division, NSSO under the

Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation in

the Gazette of India where 80 percent of the staff has

acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. E-11011/2/2006-Hindi]

S.S. BADHAWAN, Jt. Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 624.—dsUnz ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr 1987½ ds

fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] lkaf[;dh vkSj dk;ZØe

dk;kZUo;u ea=ky; ds v/khu {ks= ladk;Z izHkkx] jk"Vªh; izfrn'kZ losZ{k.k

dk;kZy; ds mi&{ks=h; dk;kZy;] ikyDdkM dks] ftlds 80 izfr'kr

deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] Hkkjr ds

jkti= esa vf/klwfpr djrh gSA

[lañ bZ&11011@2@2006&fganh]

,lñ,lñ c/kkou] la;qDr lfpo

New Delhi, the 28th January, 2014

S.O. 624.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Language (use for official purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended-1987), the Central

Government hereby notify the Sub-Regional Office,

Palakkad of Field Operation Division, NSSO under the

Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation in

the Gazette of India where 80 percent of the staff has

acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. E-11011/2/2006-Hindi]

S.S. BADHAWAN, Jt. Secy.

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

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tuojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 625.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

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

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud

LFkkfir frfFk

Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ tks

jí gksus dh

la[;k

¼dksa½ dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj

fd jí gksus gSa] vxj gSa]

frfFk

'kh"kZd

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

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

vkbZ ,l 1725 % 2013

31 tuojh] 2014

vkbZ ,l 1725 % 1982

31 tuojh] 2014

lkekU; Hkou fuekZ.k esa

iz;qDr LFkk;hd`r e`nk

dh CykWd—fof'kf"V

dh CykWd ds fy,

¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

fof'kf"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 3023 % 2013

31 tuojh] 2014

vkbZ ,l 3023 % 1965

31 tuojh] 2014

FkeZy fNM+dko }kjk

fcfYMax&vi ds fy,

vuq'kaflr jhfr ¼igyk

vuq'kaflr jhfr

iqujh{k.k½

1700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkbZ ,l 7750 % 2013

31 tuojh] 2014

vkbZ ,l 7750%1975

31 tuojh] 2014

dktw fxjh—fof'kf"V

dktw fxjh ds fy,

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fof'kf"V

vkbZ ,l 15977% 2013

31 tuojh] 2014

vkbZ ,l 7280%1974

31 tuojh] 2014

lajpuk bLikr dh

lajpukRed bLikr dh

fueXu vkdZ osfYMax ds

fueXu vkdZ osYMu gsrq

fy, [kqyh Bksl rkj

uaxs rkj okys bysDVªsM

bySDVªksM ,oa rkj Q~yDl

vkbZ ,l 3613% 1974

dafcus'ku ds oxhZdj.k

fueXu vkdZ osYMu gsrq

,oa Lohdk;Z ijh{k.k—

ok;j Q~yDl la;kstu ds

fof'kf"V

fy, Lohdk;Zr] ijh{k.k ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 16056% 2013

31 tuojh] 2014

N.A.

rjy phuh&fof'kf"V

vkbZ ,l 16095% 2013

31 tuojh 2014

gSteSaV okgu&fof'k"V

vkbZ ,l 16127% 2013

31 tuojh] 2014

dku ds ihNs yxk, tkus

okys Jo.k lgk;d ;a=&

fMftVy— fof'kf"V

vkbZ ,l 16128% 2013

31 tuojh] 2014

,eisx&4 fMftVy dscy Vhoh

lsokvksa ds fy, lSV

VkWi ckWDl&fof'k"V

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

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

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

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

[kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

fnukad 10 vDrwcj

[lanHkZ ic@,lVhMh&1@th,u]

dyk ek/koh okfj;j] funs'kd ¼fons'kh Hkk"kk ,oa izdk'ku½

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2014

S.O. 625.—In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the

Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the second column

of Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it in third column. The particulars of the

standards, if any, which are given in the fourth column shall also remain in force concurrently till they are cancelled on the

date indicated against them in the fifth column.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1701

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. & Year of the

Date of

No. & Year of the

Date of

No.

Indian Standards

Establishment

Indian Standards

cancellation

Established

to be cancelled, if any

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

IS 1725:2013 Stabilized

31 January 2014

IS 1725:1982

31 January 2014

Soil Blocks used in

Specification for soil

General Building

based blocks used in

construction—

general building

Specification (Second

construction (first

revision)

IS 3023:2013

31 January 1014

IS 3023:1965

31 January 2014

Recommended Practice

for building-up by

thermal spraying (First

thermal spraying.

Revision)

IS 7750:2013 Cashew

31 January 2014

IS 7750:1975

31 January 2014

Kernels—Specification

Specification for

(First Revision)

cashew Kernels

IS 15977:2013

31 January 2014

IS 7280:1974

31 January 2014

Classification and

Bare wire electrodes

acceptance test for bare

for submerged are

solid wire electrode and

welding of structural

wire flux electrodes and

steels

wire flux combination

IS 3613:1974

for submerge Arc

Acceptance test for

welding of structural

wire flux combination

steel.

for submerged arc welding (First Revision).

IS 16056:2013 Liquid

31 January 2014

N.A.

Sugar—Specification

IS 16095:2013

31 January 2014

—

Hazmat Vehicle—

Specification

IS 16127:2013 Behind

31 January 2014

—

The Ear (BTE) Hearing

Aid-Digital—

Specification

IS 16128:2013 Set Top

31 January 2014

—

Box for MPEG-4

Digital Cable TV

Services-Specification

Copies of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah

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

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

Kochi.

[Ref. Pub/STD-1/G-N]

Date: 10 October.

KALA M. VARIAR, Director

(Foreign Languages & Publication)

1702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dks;yk ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 17 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 626.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd] blls mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa ls dks;yk vfHkizkIr fd,

tkus dh laHkkouk gS(

vkSj] mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ds vUrxZr vkus okys {ks= ds C;kSjs js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e ¼ih,yth½@Hkwfe@443

rkjh[k 02 ebZ] 2013 dk fujh{k.k dysDVj] ftyk vuqiiqj ¼e/;izns'k½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkÅl LVªhV]

dksydkrk&700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkÅFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼jktLo vuqHkkx½] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006 ¼NÙkhlx<+½ ds

dk;kZy; es 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,] iwoksZDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ls dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k

djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gSA

vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) dksbZ O;fDr bl vf/klwpuk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu ds Hkhrj] Hkkjlk/kd vf/kdkjh ;k

foHkkxkè{k ¼jktLo½] lkÅFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006 ¼NÙkhlx<+½ dks]

¼i½ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds v/khu dh xbZ fdlh dk;Zokgh ls gqbZ ;k lEHkkO; gksus okyh fdlh {kfr ds fy, mDr

vfèfu;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 ;k mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh

mi&èkjk ¼4½ ds v/khu [kuu iVVs ds izHkkoghu gksus ds fy;s 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 minf'kZr djus ds fy;s iwoksZDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr lHkh ekufp=ksa] pkVks± vkSj

vU; nLrkostksa dks ifjnÙk djsxkA

vuqlwph

euiqjk Cykd] lksgkxiqj {ks=]

ftyk&vuqiiqj] e/;izns'k

¼js[kkad la[;kad ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼ih,yth½@Hkwfe@443] rkjh[k 2 ebZ] 2013½

Øe

xzke dk

iVokjh

cankscLr

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=

fVIif.k;ka

lañ

uke

gYdk

la[;kad

gsDVj

la[;kad

esa

dsYgkSjh

109

vuqiiqj

935-492

laiw.kZ

nsojh

449

vuqiiqj

500-000

Hkkx

ldksyh

952

vuqiiqj

52-000

Hkkx

ppkbZ vkckn

275

vuqiiqj

100-000

Hkkx

Hkkuiqj

848

vuqiiqj

15-000

Hkkx

iksM+h

313

vuqiiqj

450-000

Hkkx

cdsyh

167

vuqiiqj

500-000

Hkkx

[kkaMk

30-

167

vuqiiqj

60-000

Hkkx

dqy % 2612-492 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 6455-59 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

lhek o.kZu%

d&[k

js[kk fcUnq ^d* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dsYgkjh] cdsyh ds mÙkjh lhek ds lkFk] xzke cdsyh] iksM+h ds mÙkjh Hkkx ls] vkSj xzke

[kkaMk ds e/; Hkkx ls xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^[k* ij feyrh gSA

[k&x

js[kk fcUnq ^[k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke [kkaMk ds if'peh Hkkx ls] xzke Hkkuiqj ds mÙkjh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^x* ij

feyrh gSA

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1703

x&?k

js[kk fcUnq ^x* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke Hkkuiqj ds mÙkjh Hkkx ls] xzke iksM+h ds nf{k.kh Hkkx ls] xzke ppkbZ vkckn ds e/; Hkkx

ls] xzke ldksyk ds mÙkjh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^?k* ij feyrh gSA

?k&d

js[kk fcUnq ^?k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke nsojh ds e/; Hkkx ls] xzke nsojh ds Hkkxr% if'peh lhek ds lkFk] xzke dsYgkjh dh

if'peh lhek ls xqtjrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq ^d* ij feyrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 43015@06@2013&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]

nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2014

S.O. 626.—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 SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/443 dated 2nd May, 2013 containing details of

the areas of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Collector, District-Anuppur (Madhya

Pradesh) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 or at the office of the South Eastern

Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh).

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 land described in the aforesaid Schedule.

Any person interested in the land described in the 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 thereof; or

(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 Officer-in-Charge or Head of the Department (Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road,

Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh) within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification.

SCHEDULE

Manpura Block, Sohagpur Area

District-Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh

(Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/443, dated 2nd May, 2013)

Sl.

Name of

Patwair

Bandobast

Tahsil

District

Area in

Remarks

No.

village

Halka

number

hectares

number

Kelhauri

109

Anuppur

935.492

Full

Deori

449

Anuppur

500.00

Part

Sakola

952

Anuppur

52.00

Part

Chachai Abad

275

Anuppur

100.000

Part

Bhanpur

848

Anuppur

15.000

Part

Podi

313

Anuppur

450.000

Part

Bakeli

167

Anuppur

500.000

Part

Khanda

167

Anuppur

60.000

Part

Total: 2612.492 hectares (approximately) or 6455.59 acres (approximately)

1704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tuojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 627.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj tokgj uoksn;

fo|ky; 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 30@2002½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31@01@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@137@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2014

S.O. 627.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 30/2002 of

the Cent. Govt. lndus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

31/01/2014.

[No. L-42012/137/2001-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/30/2002

SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Ramkumar Rawat,

S/o Shri Radhacharan Rawat,

Near Nagapalika,

Bunglow No. 9,

Navgaon, Chhattarpur (MP)

…Workman

Versus

The Principal,

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,

Navgaon,

Chhattarpur (MP)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 3rd day of January 2014)

1. As per letter dated 28-1-2002 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-42012/

137/2001-IR(CM-Il). The dispute under reference relates

to:

"Whether the action of the management, Principal

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Navgaon, Chhattarpur

in not regularising he services of Shri Ram Kumar

Rawat inspite of taking the work of Mess Helper

from 1-1-91 to 7-4-2000 and terminating the services

of workman from 8-4-2000 is justified ? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled for?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist Party workman filed Statement of Claim at

Page 3/1 to 3/2. The case of Ist Party workman is that he

was employed as Mess Helper in Jawahar Navodaya

Vidyalaya Navgaon, Distt Chhattarpur from 1-1-1991. That

he continued to work on said post till termination of his

services i.e. 8-4-2000. He further submits that he had

completed 9 years continuous service, he was drawing

Boundary description:

A-B

Line starts from point 'A' and passes along northern boundary of village Kelhauri, Bakeli, through northern

part of village Bakeli, Podi and middle part of village Khanda and meets at point 'B'.

B-C

Line starts from point 'B' and passes through western part of village Khanda, northern part of village Bhanpur

and meets at point 'C'.

C-D

Line starts from point 'C' and passes through northern part of village Bhanpur, southern part of village Podi,

middle part of village Chachai Abad, northern part of village Sakola and meets at point 'D'.

D-A

Line starts from point 'D' and passes through middle part of village Deori, along partly western boundary

village of Deori, western boundary of village Kelhauri and meets at starting point 'A'.

[F.No. 43015/06/2013-PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1705

salary Rs.700 per month. On 8-4-2000, his submissions were

terminated without notice without any reason. No written

order was issued to him for termination of his services.

That Principal only told that his services were no longer

required as other person will be employed in his lace. That

he was not paid retrenchment compensation, he was not

paid one months’ salary in lieu of notice. The workman

submits that termination of his services is in violation of

Section 25-F of I.D. Act. That he had completed 240 days

continuous service during all calendar years. On such

ground, he prays for reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement opposing the

relief prayed by workman. Preliminary objection is submitted

that IInd party is discharging sovereign functions of

imparting school education. That it is not an industry

covered under I.D Act. That all the cases relating to service

matters of Navodaya Vidyalaya were initially heard by

various Courts are being heard and decided by Central

Administrative Tribunal. That Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti

has been notified as Society/ statutory organizations w.e.f.

1-1-99. The notification is issued on 17-12-98 under Section

29(2) of the Act.

4. IInd party further submits that workman was

appointed purely on part time basis on staff gap

arrangement pending regular appointments on post of

Mess Helper. He is not covered as workman. The

appointment in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti are covered by

Central Service Rules as adopted by Society. The workman

is not entitled for regularisation. There is no scheme of

regularisation of part time employees. IInd party is not

covered as Industry under I.D. Act. It is denied that workman

completed 240 days in any calendar year. Workman is not

entitled to retrenchment compensation. On such ground,

IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of

In Affirmative

the management, Principal

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,

Navgaon, Chhattarpur in

not regularizing he services

of Shri Ram Kumar Rawat

inspite of taking the work

of Mess Helper from

1-1-91 to 7-4-2000 and

terminating the services of

workman from 8-4-2000 is

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief

Workman is not entitled to

the workman is entitled to?"

relief prayed by him.

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging termination of his services

for violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. He has pleaded

that he has completed 240 days continuous service during

each calendar year, his services were terminated without

notice, he was not paid retrenchment compensation. He

was continuously working for more than 240 days during

each of the year. IInd party denied all material contentions

of workman.

7. Workman failed to adduce evidence in support of

his claim. The workman was proceeded exparte on

22-11-2012. Management also failed to adduce any evidence.

The evidence of management is closed on 1-1-2014. Thus

both the parties failed to participate in reference proceeding.

Both parties are proceeded without evidence. Workman

has failed to substantiate his claim therefore I record my

finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

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

(1)Action of the management in terminating services

of workman is proper.

(2)Workman is not entitled to relief prayed by him.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tuojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 628.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñbZñlhñ,yñ

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

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

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 99@1998½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31@01@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@124@1997&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2014

S.O. 628.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2002)

of the Cent. Govt. lndus.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 31/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/124/1997-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

1706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/99/98

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

Working President,

Rashtriya Colliery Workers Federation (INTUC),

Po Sough Jhagrakhand Colliery,

Distt Surguja (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

SECL, Seepat Road,

Bilaspur (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 26th day of November, 2013

1. As per letter dated 9-6-98 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 ID Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/

124/97/IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the Chairman-cum-Managing

Director, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Seepat Road,

Bilaspur in not allowing travelling allowances to

employees on their retirement, proceeding to their

hometowns or the place where they intend to settle,

in contravention of Rule 14 of CIL TA Rules is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the employees are

entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. The Union submitted Statement of Claim at

Page 3/1 to 3/7. The case of 1st Party Union is that strike

notice dated 26-1-97 has placed demand before the

management under Rule 14 of the Coal India Travelling

Allowance Rules 1983. The employee of South Eastern

Coalfields Limited on his retirement is entitled to fare of the

class to which his pay entitles him as per Rule 9 for himself

and family members proceeding to his hometown or to

place where he intends to settle. That it was also submitted

that the employees entitled to reimbursement of expenditure

incourred by him on transporting his personal household

effects as referred in Rule 13. Rule 17 provides for grant of

TA to family members of an employee in the event on his

death during service. That surprisingly the management

refused to give those benefits to non-executive employees

only. The benefit for Rule 14, 17 are extended only to

executive cadres against the rules. That refusing to give

benefits to the non-executive cadre is illegal and amounts

to discrimination. After failure of conciliation proceedings,

the reference has been made to the Tribunal. Union claims

to be registered and recognized Union. The Union has

large membership in colliery of SECL. That the wage

structure and other conditions of service including fringe

benefits of employees of coal industry are governed under

the recommendations of the Central Wage Board. The

employees working in mines/collieries owned by Coal India

Limited are also governed by the Coal India Travelling

Allowance Rules, 1983. The rules are reproduced in para-3.

The employee has been defined under rule 4(c)(d), Rule

17(b) entitles to get actual expenses incurred on

transportation of the family members. Rule 17 has been

reproduced in para-4 of the Statement of Claim.

3. As per the Union, the employees and their family

members were entitled to TA, actual fare of the claim to

which his pay entitles under Rule 14 & 17 but management

of SECL surprisingly refused to give such benefit to non-

executive cadre from 1990 under pretext of amendment in

TA Rules. The Union submits that non-executive cadre

employees are also governed by same TA Rules. They are

entitled to get benefits of Rule 14 & 17 retired employees

are entitled to actual fare.

4. Management filed Written Statement at Page 2/1

to 2/3 and exhaustive Written Statement is filed on 11-9-08,

Objection is raised that the reference is not tenable under

Section 10 of the I.D. Act. No Industrial Dispute existed at

time of making reference. Service conditions of employees

in Coal Industry are covered on recommendations of Central

Wage Board for Coal Mining Industry accepted by

Government of India. In Coal industry, there are more than

4 lac employee. That the question under reference to the

Tribunal involves question of national importance. As the

industrial establishment situated in more than one State

are likely to be interested in or effected. That employees in

Coal Industry in State of Assam, Meghalaya. West Bengal,

Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra

Pradesh are interested on the matter , therefore the reference

would have been to the National Tribunal under Section

7-A of the Act. Management further submits that the power

of holding the Rule 14 of Coal India travelling Allowance

Rule provide for Travelling allowance to workmen which is

neither factual nor legally correct. It is highly disputed

question. Central Government while exercising power under

Section 10 would not have decided the question.

5. IInd party further submits that Coal India Limited

was formed in 1975 as holding company. Just prior to

formation of this holding company in 1975, Bharat Cooking

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1707

Coal Limited was functioning as a separate company of its

own. There was Coal Mines Authority of India Limited

having various divisions such as Central Division, Eastern

division and Western Division. Both these companies were

having their own Travelling Allowance Rules. The rule was

originally framed by Bharat Cooking Coal Limited which

was constituted in 1972. Subsequently in 1973, other non-

cooking coal mines were also nationalized and placed under

administrative control of Coal Mines Authority of India.

That in 1976, Shri O. Maheepathi, the Chief of Personnel

Division, CIL vide letter dated 9-4-76 addressed to Vice

Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Cooking Coal Limited

clarified that the word employee covers only the executives

and non-executives were excluded so far as application of

Rule 9.6 of BCCL TA Rule and Rule 15 of CMAOIL TA

Rules. That Shri A.V. Brahma, the then Chief of Personnel

Division of Coal India Limited vide letter dated 27-6-88

addressed to all CMDs of the subsidiary company had

given clarified regarding the application of Rule 14 which

provides for grant of Travelling Allowance to the employees

proceeding for their final settlement. That General Manager,

(Personnel), CIL in 1992 vide letter dated 2-1-92 again

clarified that provisions of Rule 17 would cover executives

and non-executives both. Rule 14 is restricted only to the

executives. That Rule 14 is not made applicable to all

subsidiary companies of CIL. The provision of Rule 14

empowers authority to restrict the application of Travelling

Allowance Rules to include or exclude any such employees.

6. IInd party management denied allegations of

discrimination that Rule 14 of CIL TA Rules provides that

competent authority has no right to interpret regarding the

application of Rule 14, rather they have the authority to

impose restrictions. IInd party has submitted that the

employees employed in Coal Industry more than 5 Lac

have understood that they are not entitled to TA on their

retirement and their service conditions are governed by

NCWA-I to VII. Any of the NCWA do not provide for such

TA. That NCWA has settled under I.D. Act are binding of

management and workman under Section 18 of the Act.

That since 1-5-73, no such demand was made by the

workmen. The demand has to be raised in the Joint Bipartite

Committee for Coal Industry. Process of completion of

NCWA is remedy if the workman take up the demand before

Committee. On such grounds, the IInd party submits that

there is no justification for giving TA to the employees

retiring with persons are not getting such allowances. Such

allowance are allowed to one Industry. It will create

industrial unrest. The Union has no peace. Award be passed

in favour of the management.

7. IInd party has denied all material contentions of

the Union. That CIL TA Rule 14 also applied to non-

executive employees. It is emphasized that claim made by

Union has no status. The Clause of TA Rules has to be

implemented with circulars issued from time to time, the

circular become part of it.

8. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

Chairman-cum-Managing

Director, South Eastern

Coalfields Ltd., Seepat

Road, Bilaspur in not

allowing travelling

allowances to employees

on their retirement,

proceeding to their home-towns

or the place where

they intend to settle, in

contravention of Rule 14

of CIL TA Rules is legal?

(ii) If not, what relief

Demand of Union is

the workman is entitled to?"

rejected.

REASONS

9. Union has raised present dispute claiming that

the non-executive employees working in SECL are entitled

to TA Rules after their retirement for place of their settlement

of shifting. IInd party denied claim of the Union on multiple

ground raised in the Written Statement. Though the Union

has raised the dispute filing Statement of Claim, it did not

adduce evidence to substantiate its demand. The reference

was proceeded exparte against Union on 25-6-2012.

10. However Union has filed documents Exhibit W-l,

W-2, W-3 admitted by the IInd party. Document Exhibit

W-l is notice of strike for demand. Exhibit W-2 is copy of

order of reference. Exhibit W-3 is copy of TA Rules of CIL.

Rule 14 provides subject to such restrictions as may be

imposed by Competent Authority, an employee on his

retirement or on cessation of employment in cases of

re-employed officer may be granted actual fare of the class

to which his pay entitles him (Rule 9) for himself and his

family proceeding to his hometown or the place where he

intends to settle. He will also be reimbursed the actual

expenditure incurred on transporting his personal effects.

11. Though contentions are raised in Statement of

claim and Written Statement filed by the management with

respect to Rule 17. The reference is restricted to the denial

of benefit of Rule 14 of CIL TA Rules. Therefore it is not

1708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

appropriate to discuss the benefit of Rule 17 of CIL TA

Rules. The documents Exhibit W-4 is copy of amendment

of CIL Rules dated 4-12-90 consequent on implementation

of NCWA IV, entitlement of non-executive cadre employees

under Rule 9, 11.3.1 and 11.4 has been revised and amended.

However for the executive cadre employees the entitlement

for travel in Ist/2nd class air conditioned two tier sleeper

coach will be the pay of Rs. 2030 and above. Exhibit W-5 is

copy of the amendment of TA Rules dated 10-5-92 with

regard to the transfer of employee.

12. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri P.K.

Agrawal, Affidavit is devoted extensively that the reference

to this Tribunal is not tenable. The reference should have

been made to the National Tribunal. That NCWA are settled

under I.D. Act are binding on management and the workman

as per Section 18 of the Act and they have over riding

effect on all of them including the TA. That no such demand

was raised by the workmen. The clarifications were issued

that Rule 14 does not apply to non-executives. The copy

of judgment by CG1T Bombay is also produced on record.

I have carefully gone through the judgment. That under

CIL TA Rule 14, the power of restriction is given to

Competent Authority. The Competent Authority has

repeatedly clarified that Rule 14 does not apply to non-

executive employees. In present reference, Union has failed

to adduce evidence. The witness of the management was

not cross-examined. The management has produced copies

of letters issued by Personnel Manager Shri A.V. Brahma,

General Manager R.G. Singh, That CIL TA Rule 14 does not

apply to non-executive employees. As the evidence

remained unchallenged and Union failed to adduce

evidence, I do not find substance in the demand. Rule 14

contemplates powers of restrictions to the competent

authority. Said power has been exercised and the benefit of

TA Rules is restricted to executive cadres only. It cannot

be discriminatory or illegal. The services of employees

working in Coal Mines are governed by NCWA. The

demand claiming benefit of Rule 14 was never raised before

the Competent Authority. Therefore it appears that the

employees working in Coal Mines were satisfied and there

were no demand. Secondly the demand was not raised

before appropriate forum. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Affirmative.

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

(1) Action of IInd party Chairman-cum-Managing

Director, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Seepat Road,

Bilaspur is not allowing travelling allowances to employees

on their retirement, proceeding to their hometowns or the

place where they intend to settle, in contravention of

Rule 14 of CIL TA Rules is proper.

(2) Demand of Union is not accepted.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 629.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos izcaèra=

ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

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

tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 288@97½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-41012/113/94-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 629.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 288/

97) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of South Eastern

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 03/02/2014.

[No. L-41012/113/94-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/288/97

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRl R.B. PATLE

The Secretary,

South Eastern Railway Mens Union,

Shahdol Unit,

Shahdol.

....Workman/Union

Versus

The Divisional Railway Manager,

South Eastern Railway,

Bilaspur.

....Management

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1709

AWARD

Passed on this 13th day of January, 2014

1. As per letter dated 26-9/8-10/97 by the Government

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

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

L-41012/113/94-lR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates

to:

"Whether the action of the Divisional Railway

Manager, South Eastern Railway, Bilaspur in

suspending Shri B.S. Naidu Painter Gr-III under Signal

Inspector, S.E.R.Shahdol from 19-2-98 to 16-4-88 ,

removing him from Railway Service 30-11-89 to

17-4-90 and after reinstatement reducing his pay from

Rs.1400 to 1350 in Pay Scale of Rs. 950 to 1500 with

postponing further increments is legal and justified?

To what relief the workman Shri B.S. Naidu is

entitled?"

2. After receiving reference notices were issued to

both the parties. 1st Party workman submitted Statement

of claim at Page 9 to 13. The case of Ist Party workman is

that he was working as Painter Grade-III under Sr. Section

Engineer (Signal), Shahdol. He was put under suspension

on report of the fact finding Committee of 3 officers. That

Committee had no powers to decide upon suspension of

the workman. Such power is not given to the Committee

under Railway Servants Disciplinary and Appeal Rules,

1968. The findings of the Committee is illegal and

unjustified. That memo of suspension dated 20-2-88 was

issued by the ASTE, Shahdol. It was not his decision rather

it was dictate of the committee. He had no authority to

suspend him. That his suspension was with prejudice on

part of the Fact finding committee. The Committee had not

started enquiry by the time suspension was ordered. There

was no material before Committee and no decision to initiate

disciplinary proceeding against him. That his suspension

is illegal,

3. That chargesheet was issued to him on 26-5-88 by

S. Divnl. Signal and Telecom Engineer, SF Railway, Bilaspur.

He was alleged on committing misbehaviour with Area

Suptd. Shahdol on 19-2-88, That enquiry was ordered to be

conducted by DST Microwave, Bilaspur. He was not

supplied documents as per his request. He was not given

opportunity for his defence. Such enquiry is vitiated.

Enquiry was conducted exparte. As per Rule 9(12) of Railway

Servants Disciplinary Appeal Rules, 1968 if Railway servant

fails to appear within specified period, the Enquiring

Authority is required to direct Presenting Officer for

producing evidence. The documents were not mentioned

in the chargesheet, list was not given. It is reiterated that

the enquiry is vitiated.

4. That there is no evidence to support charge against

him. Enquiry Officer illegally held him guilty. That defective

enquiry is no enquiry. Punishment of removal from service

was imposed by Disciplinary Authority is unjustified. That

punishment was challenged by him filing appeal before

Addnl. Divisional Railway Manager. The punishment of

removal was modified and the same was reduced to next

lower grade for a period of 3 years., 1st Party workman

submits that revision was filed challenging order in appeal.

However revision was decided by Railway Divisional

Manager. He was not competent to decide his revision.

That his pay was reduced from Rs.1400 to 1350 with

cumulative effect is illegal, reduction of his pay is unjustified.

On such ground, workman is praying to quash order of his

suspension dated 20-2-88 , order of removal dated

29-11-90, order of Appellate Authority dated 6-7-90.

5. IInd Party filed Written Statement at Page 22 to 25.

IInd Party denies contention of workman that his suspension

is illegal. It is denied that the suspension of workman was

decided by fact finding committee without authority under

Railway Servants Disciplinary and Appeal Rules 1968.

According to IInd party, suspension order was issued under

Rule 5(1) of the Rules. As workman had violated

instructions issued by higher Railway Authority. While

RPF were clearing the unauthorized pan venders from

Railway Platform Shahdol. The contentions of workman

about illegality of suspension order are denied. The

grounds are baseless. The workman was supplied

documents as per request. The enquiry was conducted

properly. Every representation of workman was officer and

he was advised to attend enquiry proceeding with the

assurance that the additional documents will be supplied

subject to relevancy. That workman failed to appear in the

Enquiry Proceeding despite six opportunities given to him.

The enquiry was conducted exparte. Punishment of removal

was imposed against him considering gravity of

misconduct. In appeal preferred by 1st Party workman,

punishment was modified. The revision was dismissed,

IInd Party submits that contentions of workman are

baseless. The same have been denied. IInd Party prayed

for rejected of claim of workman.

6. Workman filed rejoinder at page 11/4 to 11/12

reiterating his contentions in Statement of claim that the

enquiry was not properly conducted. Enquiry is vitiated.

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 enquiry

In Affirmative

conducted against workman

is legal and proper?

(ii) Whether the action of

In Affirmative

the Divisional Railway

Manager, South Eastern

Railway, Bilaspur in

suspending Shri B.S.Naidu

Painter Gr-llI under Signal

Inspector, S.E.R. Shahdol

from 19-2-98 to 16-4-88 ,

removing him from Railway

1710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Service 30-11-89 to 17-4-90

and after reinstatement

reducing his pay from

Rs.1400 to 1350 in Pay

Scale of Rs. 950 to 1500

with postponing further

increments is legal and

justified?

(iii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not entitled

workman is entitled to?"

to relief claimed by him.

REASONS

8. From terms of reference itself, it is clear that the

order of removal from service to workman was modified by

Appellate Authority. Punishment of removal was quashed

Workman was reinstated in service reducing his pay from

Rs, 1400 to 1350. Though the workman has challenged

legality of enquiry proceedings on different grounds that

he was not supplied documents, the enquiry was conducted

exparte, he was not given reasonable opportunity for his

defence. The workman has not adduced evidence to

substantiate his contentions. Workman was proceeded

exparte on 7-7-2005, 21-9-2000. Workman failed to adduce

evidence in support of his contentions, Management has

filed affidavit of evidence of its witness Shri R.Shankaran

and Shri B.S.Naidu. Both the witnesses of the management

have given details of the enquiry conducted against

workman. The affidavit of evidence of management's

witness Shri A.K.Singh also given how the enquiry

conducted the exparte against workman. Workman had filed

to appear in the enquiry proceedings. The documents

Exhibit M-1 to M-7 are proved from evidence of

management's witness. The evidence of management's

witness remained unchallenged. I therefore do not find

reason to disbelieve their evidence that workman failed to

appear in Enquiry Proceedings and therefore the enquiry

was proceeded exparte against him. For above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

9. Point No. 2- normally preliminary issue needs to

be decided. However in present case, workman has not

participated. He has not adduced evidence. He failed to

participate in the matter. Under such set of fact, it would be

mere formality to postpone finding on Issue No. 2. the

record of enquiry is proved from evidence of management's

witness Exhibit M-1 to M-7 . The charge against 1st Party

workman is about commitiing serious misconduct by not

allowing Railway Servant Staff on duty on 13-9-97 at

Shahdol evicting pan staffs using unparliamentary

language etc. He caused complete stoppage of trains at

Shahdol for more than 4 hours. Exhibit M-2 finds reference

of enclosing statement of articles of chargesheet, statements

of imputations etc. The documents of enquiry proceeding

further shows statements of witnesses Shri C.K. Kundu,

A. Laxman Rao, booking clerk, Hari Ram Pandey,

Bhagwandeen Driver, U.K. Topno were recorded. The notice

of removal was issued Exhibit M-5 the charges against

workman are supported by statement of their witnesses.

The workman failed to participate in the Enquiry

Proceedings, Enquiry was conducted exparte. The findings

of Enquiry Officer are supported by evidence of the

management's witness sufficiently proves the charge. The

punishment of removal from service of workman was

modified by Appellate Authority. Workman was reinstated

in service reducing his pay from Rs.1400 to 1350. It appears

that workman is not interested to prosecute his claim under

reference. He may be satisfied that his order of reinstatement.

Considering those aspects, I record my finding in Point

No. 2 in Affirmative,

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

(1) Action of the Divisional Railway Manager, South

Eastern Railway, Bilaspur in suspending Shri B.S. Naidu

Painter Gr-lll under Signal Inspector, S.E.R. Shahdol from

19-2-98 to 16-4-88 , removing him from Railway Service

30-11-89 to 17-4-90 and after reinstatement reducing his

pay from Rs.1400 to 1350 in Pay Scale of Rs. 950 to 1500

with postponing further increments is proper.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief prayed by

him.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 630.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds ¼iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 46@2003½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12012/243/2002-vkbZ vkj (ch-1)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 630.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2003)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tnbunal-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

03/02/2014.

[No. L-12012/243/2002-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1711

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/46/2003

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE

Shri Babulal Dixit,

S/o Mishrilal Dixit,

189, Bhim Nagar,

Birla Mandir Road,

Bhopal (MP)

....Workman

Versus

The Asstt. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Region-I, Zonal Office,

Hamidia Road,

Bhopal (MP)

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 21st day of January 2014

1. As per letter dated 14-2-2003 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-120l2/

243/2002-IR(B-l). The dispute under reference relates to:—

" Whether the action of the management of Asstt.

General Manager, State Bank of India, Region-I,

Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Babulal

Dixit S/o Mishrilal Dixit w.e.f. 23-4-97 and not

regularizing him is justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled for?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the Parties, Case of 1st Party workman is that by oral order

dated 23-4-97 by Shri Hemant Kumar Ojha, Branch Manager,

workman was prevented to attend his service from 24-4-97.

No dismissal or order of termination or retrenchment were

given. Workman was illegally prevented from attending

service. It is further submitted that workman was engaged

as messenger in Jehangirabad Branch, Bhopal. He worked

for 244 days from November 81 to 82, more than 90 days in

November 82 to March 83, 193 days during April 83 to

Jan.84 & 1370 at Vindyanchal Branch, Bhopal from 20-7-93

to 23-4-97. He was orally discontinued from service. That

IInd Party had admitted in its submissions dated 8-2-02

that workman had worked for 244 days during November

81 to November 82, 193 days during April 83 to January 84,

142 days from 17-7-93 to 31-12-93 and 840 days from 1-4-94

to 29-4-97. Workman further submits that he had completed

240 days continuous service in each calendar year. He is

entitled for absorption as permanent employee. Instead of

regularizing his services, he was terminated orally.

3. Workman submits that Respondent Bank had

invited applications for absorption of temporary employees

in Bank. He had submitted application on 18-5-91. His name

was in Waiting List, he was allowed to resume at

Vindyanchal branch as protected employee. He was

accordingly working in said branch from 23-7-93 to

13-4-96. He further submits that Bank is denying permanent

appointment on the ground that his date of birth was

1-12-65. After attaining age of 18 years, he worked for only

38 days. He is not entitled for absorption as permanent

employee. Other temporary persons who had worked even

for 30 days were absorbed but the workman after working

for more than 30 days , he was denied absorption. Rather

his services are terminated illegally. On such grounds,

workman prays that respondent be directed to appointment

him with full back wages.

4. IInd Party filed Written Statement at Page 10/1 to

10/11. Ilnd party submits that workman was engaged purely

on daily wage basis as Messenger, working days are shown

49 days during November 91 to December 81, 195 days

during January 82 to November 82 & 193 days during April

83 to Jan. 84 at Jehangirabad branch. At Vindhyanchal

branch, working days are shown as 142 days during July

93 to Dec. 93 & 840 days from April 94 to Dec. 97. The

workman was engaged on contract basis on exigency of

work and as soon as the work is over, the employee was

not required to report for work. The dispute was raised by

workman. Working days are reiterated by the IInd Party.

However it is pleaded that workman was not continuously

working for 240 days in any calendar year as provided

under Section 25-F of ID. Act. The engagement of workman

was contractual depending on exigency of work. His

termination is covered under Section 2(oo) (bb) of I.D.

Act.

5. IInd Party advertised in newspapers for furnishing

application on the prescribed formats for such a daily rated

employees/casual workers who have worked for the

stipulated period as provided under the settlement during

the period w.e.f. 31-7-88 to 14-8-91. Workman was also

considered. However he had worked only for 38 days after

attaining majority during the relevant period. Therefore he

cannot be empanelled for permanent employment in the

vacancy available. As per the settlement, the panel was

required to be kept alive till March, 1997 so that opportunity

for permanent employment could be given to the permanent

candidates. The action of the management is legal. It is

further pleaded that the candidates were interviewed and

panel of selected candidates was prepared by Bank in

accordance with settlement of candidates working from

31-7-88 to 14-8-91. That after attaining majority, workman

has worked only for 38 days. Therefore he could not be

given permanent employment. It is reiterated that the

1712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman has not completed 240 days continuous service.

On such ground, IInd Party prays for rejection of claim of

workman.

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 Asstt. General

Manager, State Bank of

India, Region-I, Bhopal in

terminating the services of

Shri Babulal Dixit S/o Mishrilal

Dixit w.e.f. 23-4-97 and not

regularizing him is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?

REASONS

7. 1st Party is challenging oral discontinuation from

service. That he has filed affidavit of his evidence. He has

stated that he had worked 90 days as waterman in the year

1982, 193 days from April 83 to January 84, Employer

conducted his interview for permanent absorption. He had

applied for the post. He was called as per letter dated

28-10-92. On 12-2-97, he was informed by the employer that

he was interviewed earlier. He did not appear for interview.

That his name was included in the waiting list, he was

directed to join at Vindhyanchal branch on his completing

majority. He was paid salary and DA through Banker

cheque. He was continued till 23-4-97. Suddenly he was

discontinued from next date. In his cross-examination,

workman says that he denied suggestion of management

about working days—49 days during November 81 to

December 81, 195 days during January 82 to November 82

and 193 days during April 83 to January 84 at Jehangirabad

branch, Bhopal. It is denied that he worked for 142 days

during July 93 to December 93 and 840 days during April 94

to December 97 at Vindhyanchal branch, Bhopal. Workman

has not produced any evidence about his working days

but as per admission in Written Statement filed by

management and suggestion in cross-examination of

workman, it is clear that workman was working for 840 days

from April 94 to Dec. 97. The said period is decided when

working days comes more than 240 days during each of

the calendar year. Workman in his cross-examination claims

ignorance about permanent appointment made in the Bank

as per settlement. He has stated that he was called for

interview for permanent post. He claims ignorance whether

he was not given permanent employment as his working

days were 38 days after attaining majority. Workman in his

statement of claim has pleaded that one Anil Kumar Narvria

working for 30 days was given permanent employment.

However any evidence is not produced. Management filed

affidavit of witness Shri Kulkarni. He has given working

days of 1st Party workman in para-2 of his affidavit during

the period from July 93 to Dec. 93, he worked for 142 days

and from 1-4-94 to 20-4-97, he worked for 840 days. Though

in further paras, he denied workman working for 240 days

during any of the calendar year. The calculation of working

days during April 94 to April 94 comes more than 240 days

during each calendar year. In his cross-examination,

management's witness says that only after looking report,

he could say whether the workman had worked for more

than 240 days in each calendar year. With respect to Shri

Anil Kumar Narvria, witness claims ignorance. He also

claims ignorance whether name of workman was

recommended by the Selection Committee but the workman

was not given appointment for permanent post.

8. The documents Exhibit W-1 shows working days

of workman as 244 days from November 81 to November

82. Exhibit W-2 shows 90 working days since 1982. Exhibit

W-3 shows payment of wages for 193 days from April 83 to

Jan. 84. Exhibit W-4 is letter given by Asstt. General

Manager. That workman had worked for only 38 days

during 1-7-75 to 31-12-93. Me could not be given

appointment on permanent post. Copy of Supreme Court

Judgment is produced at Exhibit W-5. The claim of workman

cannot be decided on such judgment. Copies of settlements

are produced at Exhibit W-7. The settlement Exhibit M-1

deals with the temporary employees in subordinate cadre

will be given chance for being considered for permanent

appointment in the Bank's service against vacancies likely

to arise in 1987 to 1991. (i) Category A employees those

who have compleled 240 days temporary service in 12

months or less after 1-7-75, (ii) Category B- those who

have completed 270 days aggregate temporary service in

any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-75.

The documents produced Exhibit W-1 shows 244 working

days of workman during November 81 to November 82.

Workman in his cross-examination has stated that his date

of birth is 1-12-1965. Thus he would complete 18 years of

age on 30-11-1983. The working days of workman were not

considered till the date of attaining majority. The

management found that the workman had worked only for

38 days after attaining majority.

9. From statement of claim of management, working

days of workman is 193 days during April 83 to Jan. 84 and

142 days during July 93 to Dec. 93 & 840 days from April 94

to Dec. 97. The working, days clearly shows that the

workman is entitled to permanent post and he had worked

more than 30 days after 1975. The denial of permanent post

to the workman cannot be said legal. Besides above, the

workman had completed 240 days regular service during

1994 to 1997. The workman was not given notice for

termination of service. His services were orally terminated.

He was not paid retrenchment compensation.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1713

10. Learned counsel for IInd party Mr. Tripathi on

the point relates on ratio held in plenty of cases.

"In case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others

versus Abhishek Shukla and another reported in

2009(5) supreme Court Cases 368, Their Lordship

held validity of selection list is ordinarily one year. In

the case where respondents had made

representations for appointment within one year of

such approval of select list, the said requirement

stood fulfilled."

The facts of present case are not comparable. The

Bipartite settlement provided for absorption of temporary

employees working till initially 1993 and onwards 97. The

ratio held in the case cannot be applied beneficially in the

present case at hand.

"In case of State of MP and others versus Raghuveer

Singh Yadav and others reported in 1994(6) Supreme

Court Cases 151. Their Lordship dealing with

appointments, selection, fresh selection after

changing qualifications for eligibility, legality

notification inviting applications from eligible

candidates. Held withdrawal of the said notification

at this stage and issuance of fresh notification

inviting applications from candidates eligible under

the new rules held not illegal."

The facts of the present case are not comparable.

The services of workman is covered by Bipartite Settlement.

The Bipartite Settlement provided for absorption of

temporary employee working for certain number of days

during July, 1975 till extended period 1993. Workman was

continuously working from 1993 till his discontinuance in

1997. The ratio cannot be applied to the present case at

hand.

"Ratio in case of Shankarsan Dash versus Union of

India reported in 1991(3) Supreme Court Cases 47.

That candidate included in merit list has no

indefeasible right to appointment even if vacancy

exists."

It cannot be applied to present case. The claim of the

applicant is based on the settlement to absorb temporary

employee for certain days as per the settlement. There was

no execution for selection of the candidates as per the

settlement.

"In Case of Range Forest Officer versus S.T. Hadimani

reported in 2002(3) Supreme Court Cases 25. Their

Lordship held retrenchment compensation—

completion of requisite length of continuous service

where the workman claim that he had worked for

more than 240 days in the year preceding his

termination was denied by the employer held it was

for the claimant to lead evidence to that effect held

workman's affidavit was not sufficient evidence for

that purpose."

In present case, IInd party has admitted in Written

Statement and evidence of management's witness that

during April 94 to 97 workman had worked for 840 days. If

it is decided by 3, working days comes to 280 days during

each calendar year. The burden is already discharged.

Therefore the ratio in above cited case cannot be applied

to present case at hand.

11. Learned counsel for workman Mr. Pranay

Choubey relies on ratio held in

"Case of Medical versus Dashrathsingh. In para-19

of the judgment their Lordship observed the judgment of

the constitution bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka

versus Uma Devi and other decisions in which this Court

considered the right of casual, daily wage, temporary and

adhoc employees to be regularised/continued in service or

paid salary in the regular time scale, appears to have unduly

influenced the High court's approach in dealing with the

appellant's challenge to the award of the Labour Court. In

our view, none of those judgments has any bearing on the

interpretation of Section 25-F of the Act and employer's

obligation to comply with the conditions enumerated in

that section."

Ratio held in above cited case is clear that workman

cannot be denied benefit for violation of Section 25-F of

I.D. Act as per ratio held in case of State of Karnataka

versus Uma Devi.

12. In present case, the applicant's claim is based on

Bipartite Settlement providing absorption of temporary

employees. Workman was called for interview, thereafter

he was working continuously from April 94 to April 97, His

services are terminated without notice retrenchment

compensation is not paid. Therefore discontinuation of

workman is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. For

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

Negative.

13. Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No. l

that discontinuation of services of workman is in violation

of Section 25-F of I.D.Act and as such illegal, question

arises whether the workman is entitled for regularization.

Considering the working days of workman from 1983-84 as

193 days, workman has fulfilled conditions for absorption

as permanent employee. He was then working from

April 94 to 97 for 840 days. Workman was entitled for

protection of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. His services were

terminated without notice. Workman was not absorbed as

per settlement Exhibit W-7. Exhibit M-1 working days of

workman are considered for the period 87 to 91. Workman

has completed more than 30 days, 70 days provided in

clause III "C" Category. Workman should have been

absorbed as permanent employee. Management has not

produced documents about vacancy of messenger during

the relevant period. Workman is discontinued in 1997. His

evidence is silent what work he was doing after

1714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

discontinuation from service. Management has also not

adduced that the workman was in gainful employment.

Considering facts of the case, workman deserves to be

reinstated. On the point of back wages, learned counsel for

workman Shri Pranay Choubey produced copy of judgment

in R/4/2007 decided by the undersigned. In said case, 50 %

back wages were allowed considering length of service of

workman in said case during 79 to 99 almost 22 years.

Workman was called for interview on 22-9-89 and allowed

to work in branch from 1992 to 1997. Considering the facts,

reinstatement of workman with 30 % back wages would be

appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.

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

(1) Action of the management of Asstt. General

Manager, State Bank of India, Region-I, Bhopal in

terminating the services of Shri Babulal Dixit S/o Mishrilal

Dixit w.e.f. 23-4-97 and not regularizing him is illegal for

violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act.

(2) IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with

continuity of service 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] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 631.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]

tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 170@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@276@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd Fabruary, 2014

S.O. 631.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 170/2001) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Trbunal-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 03/02/2014.

[No. L-12012/276/2001-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/170/2001

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

General Secretary,

Dainik Wetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari

Sangathan, 9, Sanwer Road,

Ujjain (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Dy. General Manager,

State Bank of Indore

(now State Bank of India),

Zonal Office, Jail Road,

Bhopal (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 15th day of January 2014

1. As per letter dated 15-11-2001 by the Government

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

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

276/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of Indore (now State Bank of India) Bhopal in not

regularising the services of Shri Nirmal Sen,

temporary peon after continuing him to work

continuously from 15-4-96 to 16-10-2000 but

terminating him and not paying bonus for the above

period is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference notices were issued to

the parties. Ist Party workman filed Statement of Claim at

Page 2 to 6. The case of workman is that IInd party Bank

had issued circular dated 29-8-89 prohibiting employment

to daily wage employees. The circular dated 7-9-92 was

issued prohibiting employment of daily wage employees.

The workman submits that similar circulars were issued on

11-9-97 for implementation of above circulars. That he was

engaged on daily wages Rs. 30 per day from 15-4-96. The

wages were increased to Rs. 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65 & 70.

That Branch Manager reduced wages from Rs. 70 to

Rs. 50 per day. That he was performing different kind of

work in store, stationery. Documents are available in the

Bank. That he had completed 240 days continuous service.

He was paid bonus. His services were discontinued from

15-10-2000 without notice. He was not paid retrenchment

compensation. His services are terminated in violation of

Section 25-F. G, H of I.D. Act workman prays for his

reinstatement and bonus.

3. IInd party filed written statement at Page 7/1 to

7/8. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 7/1 to 7/8.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1715

IInd party submits that service conditions of Bank

employees are governed by Sastry Award, Desai Award.

That sub staff remained absent therefore employees are

engaged on daily wages. The name of workman was not

sponsored through Employment Exchange. He was daily

engaged for 2-3 hours. The workman was paid wages at

the agreed rate. His engagement came to end at end of

each day. That the dispute is not tenable under Section

2(k) of I.D. Act and deserves to be rejected. Workman was

not appointed following recruitment process therefore he

is not entitled to any relief. IInd party has referred to ratio

held in various cases. It is contented that the dispute is

raised after long delay is not tenable. The workman is not

entitled to regularization. On such grounds, IInd party prays

for rejection of the claim of the workman.

4. Workman through Union representative Ram

Nagwanshi filed rejoinder at Page 12/1 to 12/3. Workman

has reiterated that his services were terminated without

notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid. Other

junior employees were continued Termination of his service

is illegal.

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

Termination of service

management of State Bank of

of workman is in

Indore (now State Bank of India) violation of Section

Bhopal in not regularizing the

25-F of I.D.Act.

services of Shri Nirmal Sen,

temporary peon after continuing

him to work continuously from

15-4-96 to 16-10-2000 but

terminating him and not paying

bonus for the above period is

legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

As per final order.

is entitled to?"

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging termination of his services

for violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, His services were

terminated without notice, he was not paid retrenchment

compensation, he was not given employment. IInd party

denied material contentions of workman rather it is pleaded

that workman was engaged for 2-3 hours. Wages at

A-Grade rate were paid to him. Workman filed affidavit of

his evidence supporting his contentions that he had

completed 240 days continuous service. He was working

in the Bank from 15-4-96 to 16-10-2000. His services were

terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation was

not paid to him. In his cross-examination, workman says

that he was doing cleaning work, supplying drinking water,

he was paid weekly wages. He was working under different

Branch Managers. He denies suggestion that he was

working only for 2-3 hours. The Bank has filed affidavit of

evidence of Shri Mahadeo Barapatre. The affidavit of

management's witness is consistent with the contentions

raised in written statement filed by IInd party that the

workman was engaged for 2-3 hours. He was not appointed

following recruitment procedure. His name was not

sponsored through Employment Exchange. Management's

witness in his examination has admitted vouchers and

marked Exhibit W-3 to W-74. Those vouchers relating to

payment of wages clearly shows that the workman was

working in the Bank from 1996 to 2000. He had completed

240 days continuous service preceding his termination.

Management's witness claims ignorance about payment

of retrenchment compensation. Evidence of management's

witness is also silent about serving notice for termination

of his services. Thus the evidence of workman is

corroborated by documents W-3 to W-74. It is established

that the workman was working for more than 240 days

continuous service. Section 25-F of I.D. Act was not applied,

therefore termination of service of workman is illegal.

7. Union Representative Ram Nagwanshi relies on

ratio held in—

"Case of Samishta Dube and City Board Etawah and

another reported in I999(81)FL. R 746. Ratio held in

the case by their Lordship is that in absence of any

agreement between the employer and the workmen

in behalf the employer shall ordinarily retrench the

workmen who was the last person to be employed in

that category, unless for reasons to be recorded, the

employer retrenches any other person."

Next reliance is placed in case of Regional Manager,

SBI versus Rakesh Kumar Tiwari reported in 2006(108) FLR

733. Their Lordship held provisions of Section 25-G, H of

I.D. Act doesnot require continuous employment of

workman within meaning of Section 25-B of I.D. Act before

he could have been retrenched.

In present case, the evidence of workman that he

was continuously working from 1996 to 2000 is corroborated

by document Exhibit W-3 to W-74. Therefore the ratio held

in those cases cannot be beneficially applied. For same

reasons, ratio held in case of Jaipur Development Authority

versus Ramsahai and another reported in 2007(1) Supreme

Court Cases (L&S) 518 cannot be beneficially applied in

the case. The facts of present case are not comparable.

However the evidence on record clearly shows that services

of workman arc terminated in violation of Section 25-F of

I.D. Act.

8. Learned counsel for IInd party Mr. Praveen

Chaturvedi relies on ratio held in case of—

"Mahboob Deepak versus Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula

and another reported in 2008(1) Supreme Court Cases

1716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

575. Their Lordship dealing with point of

regularization of daily wages and their claim for

regularization held that respondent is local authority,

no appointment can be made by local authority

without following recruitment rules. Any

appointment made in violation of the said rules as

also the constitutional scheme of equality as

contained in Article 14, 16 of the constitution. Their

lordship further held merely because an employee

has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding

the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean

that his services were liable to be regularized."

Present reference doesnot relate to the claim for

regularization of workman. Rather it relates to illegal

termination. Therefore the ratio held in above case cannot

be beneficially applied.

9. Next reliance is placed in case of—

"Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., versus

Ashok Ranghba Ambre reported in 2008(2) Supreme

Court Cases 717. Their Lordship dealing with Section

25-F of I.D. act setting aside of illegal termination is

violative of Section 25-F held doesnot necessarily

follow that workman is entitled to status of

permanency. The word "regular"' and "regularization"

donot connot "permanence."

10. The reference doesnot relate to regularizat ion of

workman rather it relates to illegal termination. As discussed

above, the services of workman are terminated in violation

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

on Point No. 1 accordingly.

11. Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No. 1

that termination of service of workman is in violation of

Section 25-F of I.D. Act, question arises whether the

workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages. As

per evidence, workman was working in the Bank from 1996

to 2000 for less than 5 years. His name was not sponsored

through Employment Exchange, recruitment procedure was

not followed. In my considered view, it would not be proper

to grant relief of reinstatement to workman rather grant of

reasonable compensation would meet the ends of justice.

In my considered view, compensation Rs.75,000 would be

appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in

Point No. 2.

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

(1) The action of the management in terminating the

services of Ist Party workman is in violation of Section

25-F of I.D. Act, as such illegal.

(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs. 75,000 to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid lo 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] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 632.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

chdkusj ,.M t;iqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 114@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@51@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 632.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 114/2005)

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 Bikaner and

Jaipur, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 03/02/2014.

[No. L-12012/51/2005-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/114/2005

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

The Vice President,

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Employees Union,

6, Kanti Mansion, P.B.No-145,

Sanyogita Ganj,

Indore.

....Workman/Union

Versus

The Asstt. General Manager,

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur,

Zonal Office, 746, P.B. Hinduja Marg,

Khar (West), Mumbai.

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 13th day of January 2014)

1. As per letter dated 5-10-2005 by the Government

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1717

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

51/2005-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Asstt.

General Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur

in not offering full time employment to Shri Kailash

Singh Chauhan w.e.f. 1-1-91 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled for?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties, Ist party workman filed Statement of claim at

Page 5/1 to 5/3. Case of Ist party workman is that at the time

of initial appointment, the Bank erroneously given

designation of sweeper which denotes a person employed

exclusively to perform menial jobs such as cleaning toilets,

urinals etc. That Ist party workman was performing duties

of peon cum Farrash. He had to perform manual and not

menial work- That since beginning, workman was doing

job of dusting, sweeping of Branch Floor, walls, roof etc.

and keeping and taking out of books and stationery from

Almirah, That he was paid 1/3rd, 1/2, 3/4th wages

respectively from 21-5-89, 1-8-90 and 1-1-91. He wages were

paid to commensurate to increase in work load arising out

of increase in business. There is old policy in the Bank that

even wages of sweeper are decided on basis of area of the

premises of the branch office. The sweeper working in the

Bank having more than 5000 sq. feet premises is eligible for

full time employment. As per Bank's circular dated 29-4-92,

the wages are paid. The existing premises of the Branch

was increased by an agreement dated 25-3-03 to 5709 sq. ft.

that workman was doing cleaning, dusting, sweeping work

of walls, roof, furniture etc.

3. The service conditions of workman are determined

as per Bipartite Settlement. That he was employed by

Branch Manager of SBI regularly. He had submitted

repeated representations to the management. As per para

20.6 of Ist Bipartite Settlement workman claims to be entitled

to preferential treatment. He further submits that he is

superseded by many juniors who were observed as full

time members of the sub staff. The workman prays for full

time employment from 1-1-91. As per recruitment policy of

the Bank he has right to gainful employment. The action

on part of the management not giving him full time

employment is illegal. On such ground, workman prays for

status of full time employee.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 11/1 to

11/9. IInd party submits that the wages of the employee

were upgraded form 3/4th scale to full scale w.e.f 25-6-07.

As per order dated 30-10-07, his designation is changed

from part time sweeper to sweeper-cum-peon. Workman

had written letter dated 5-11-2007 to his Advocate

Shri Krishnakant Dubey for withdrawal of the case as his

demands are satisfied. It is submitted that the workman

wants to withdraw case immediately. That said information

has not been given to this Tribunal. It is the reason case is

proceeding despite the grievances are settled. The case is

not maintainable as Ist party workman was one among 45

employees in R/75/89 Raj Kumar Pateria versus State Bank

of Bikaner and Jaipur. The claim was rejected holding that

there was no case for interference. That the reference is

barred on principles of res-judicata.

5. IInd party further submits that workman was

appointed as part time sweeper as per his application dated

1-9-88. He was paid lumpsum salary Rs. 100/- per month.

Subsequently he was paid 1/3rd salary from 25-5-89, he

was confirmed as l/3rd part time employee from 19-6-90.

His pay was increased to 3/4th. That Ist party workman

was working for 29 hours per week. The area which is

required to be cleaned is less than 4500 sw. ft., therefore

workman is not entitled to claim full time wages. That the

circular specifically provides if area is to be cleaned between

3501 to 5000 sq. ft, and working hours between 19 to 29

hours per week. Such an employee is entitled to 3/4th pay

scale. IInd party has reiterated that area of the branch was

less than 5000 sq.ft. workman is not entitled to full pay. All

other contentions of workman are denied. It is incorrect

that based on increase in area of the branch office, the

workman is entitled to full wages as the total area of the

premises is 5709.05 sq. ft. whereas the carpet area is 4445.72

sq. ft. Therefore workman is paid 3/4th pay scale with

proportionate annual increment., workman was working

for 29 hours per week and the area which he is required to

clean is less than 4500 sq. ft. that the recommendations of

Branch manager are not accepted by Controlling Authority.

All adverse contentions of workman are denied.

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

Partly in Negative

management of Asstt.

General Manager, State Bank

of Bikaner and Jaipur is not

offering full time employment

to Shri Kailash Singh Chauhan

w.e.f. 1-1-91 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

7. Workman is claiming status of full time employee

(Sweeper) from 1-1-1991. Claim of workman is denied by

IInd party. As per IInd party, the area of the branch office is

less than 5000 sq. ft. such employee is entitled to 3/4th pay

scale. The area of the Bank was less than 5000 sq. ft.

Therefore the workman was not entitled to status of full

time employee. Workman has been upgraded to full scale

wages w.e.f. 25-6-07 as per order dated 30-10-07. Thus the

Bank has already accorded status of full time employee to

the workman from 25-6-07. The marginal dispute is between

1718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

parties whether the workman is entitled to status of full

time employee from 1-1-91 or whether he is entitled to such

status from 4-4-03 when premises of the Bank's office was

increased to 5709 sq. ft. as per agreement. The documents

produced by workman are admitted. Exhibit W-l is copy of

appointment letter of workman at Rs.100/- per month. Exhibit

W-2 is appointment of Ist party workman as part time

sweeper on l/3rd wages w.e.f. 1-6-90, Exhibit W-3 is

permission granted for appointment to workman on 1/3rd

wages. Exhibit W-4 is permission granted for appointment

of Ist party workman on 1/2 scale of wages. Exhibit W-9

shows 29 working hours of the workman from 1-1-1991.

Exhibit W-6 is circular providing working hours and scale

of pay to be paid as per area of the branch office. If the area

of the branch office is 5001 sq. ft and above, 29 weekly

working hours, the employee is to be paid full scale wages.

Exhibit W-7 also provides the same rates. Exhibit W-9 to 16

are copies of representations submitted by workman time

to time for claiming status of permanent employee. The

workman filed affidavit of his evidence but remained

unchallenged.

8. Documents produced by IInd party M-1 shows

name of workman in R/75/89, award passed by this Tribunal

in favour of the management. The dispute under reference

in said case was about termination of service and not

providing employment etc. The relief prayed by workman

in present dispute is not identical. Therefore dispute in

present reference is not barred by Exhibit M-l. M-2 is

application submitted by workman conveying his

willingness to work as part time employee on wages

Rs. 100/- per month. Documents Exhibit M-3 to M-9 are

copies of documents produced by workman discussed

earlier. As per documents Exhibit M-10, workman was

allowed full scale wages w.e.f. 25-6-07 subject to withdrawal

of keys. By said documents, IInd party has virtually

accepted claim of workman for status of full time employee.

Workman has not proved agreement about increase of the

area of office building by agreement dated 4-4-03. There is

no evidence from management that area of the office

building of the Bank was changed at any time, the workman

is claiming status of full time employee from 1-1-1991, 4-4-

03. He is granted full time status from 25-6-07. The legal

position is shattered that the award should be made

operative from the date of order of reference. The present

reference was made as per order dated 5-10-2005, therefore

full time status to the workman can be granted from 5-10-05

and not prior to said date. Therefore 1 record my finding in

Point No. 1 in partly Negative.

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

(1) Action of the management of Asstt. General

Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur in not offering

full time employment to Shri Kailash Singh Chauhan w.e.f

1-1-91 is illegal.

(2) IInd party is directed to give status of full time

employee to the workman from 5-10-05 with difference of

wages. The difference of wages be paid within 30 days.

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 realisation.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 633.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 49@2004 dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@276@2003&vkbZ vkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 633.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 49/2004

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industiral Dispute

between the management of State Bank of India, and their

workmen, received by the Central Govenrment on

03/02/2014.

[No. L-12012/276/2003-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/49/2004

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE

Shri Ganesh Vila,

S/o Shir K.L. Vila,

R/o 1124, Harifatak,

Mhow, Tehsil Mhow,

Indore (MP)

......Workman

Versus

Zonal Managar,

State Bank of India,

Region III, Zonal Office,

Hamidia Road, Bhopal

........ Management

A W A R D

Passed on this 26th day of November 2013

1. As per letter dated 5-4-04 by the Government of

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1719

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

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

12012/276/2003-IR (B-I). The dispute under reference relates

to:

''Whether the action of the management of Zonal

Manager, State Bank of India, Region-III Bhopal in

terminating the services of Shri Ganesh Vila, S/o Shri

K.L. Vila, w.e.f. 1994 is justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled for?''

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman has submitted statement of claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/4. The case of Ist party workman is that he

has submitted application for post of clerk as per

advertisement issued by the IInd party Bank, After Written

Test held on 24-6-84, he was found successful. He was

appointed as clerk at Narsinghgarh Branch, Distt. Damoh

on 29-7-85. He worked satisfactorily till January 94. That

workman was suffering from serious illness. He had

proceeded on long leave. He had given intimation of his

illness by Telegram on 16-8-94 and by UPC on 9-8-94. The

original medical certificate were submitted.

3. It is alleged that IInd party issued letter dated

22-6-94 to him for reporting duty within 30 days otherwise

he will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from service.

He was called to deposit one month salary and allowance

within 15 days. However he did not deposit the amount as

he could not have said to be voluntarily retired from service.

IInd party issued letter dated 27-9-94 asking Ist party

workman for receiving termination benefits. That he wanted

to serve the Bank after his complete recovery of illness, he

did not accept termination benefits. That letter dated

7-10-94 was issued by the IInd party illegally treating him

voluntarily abandoned from serivce from 13-8-94. Ist party

was directed to pay one month's pay and allownce to the

Bank otherwise the Bank would file Civil Suit against him.

IInd party did not allow him to join duty on 14-12-94. He

submitted joining letter alongwith medical certificate. Ist

party workman submits that his services are terminated

without enquiry which is illegal. On such grounds, Ist party

workman prays for his reinstatment with back wages.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement. IInd party totally

denied claim of the workman. the IInd party did not dispute

that 1st party workman was appointed as clerk and he was

working in the branch. 2nd party submits that workman

remained unauthorisely absent from duty since 4-10-93

except for few days on October 1993, November 1993 and

January 1994. The notices were sent to workman regarding

his unauthorized absence calling upon him to join duty.

The final notice was served on workman on 22-6-94 to

report on duty within 30 days. The notice was received by

workman on 14-7-94 but did not report on duty within

stipulated period. He voluntarily abandoned the service.

The notice was sent to workman on 7-10-94 on address

1124, Kanchan Gali. Hari Phatk, Mhow. Said notice was

returned with postal remark - unclaimed returned to sender.

That as per the Bipartite Settlement, caluse 17 even after

service of notice to join duty within 30 days, the employee

fails to join duty is deemed to have voluntarily retired. The

IInd party reiterates that despite of notices issued, the

workman failed to join duty within 30 days. Consequently

he is deemed to have abandoned serivce. On such ground,

IInd party submits that the action of the IInd party

management is legal. Workman is not entitled to relief

claimed 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 action of the

In Negative

management of Zonal

Manager, State Bank of

India, Region-III Bhopal in

terminating the services of

Shri Ganesh Vila, S/o Shri

K.L. Vila, w.e.f. 1994 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?''

REASONS

6. Termination of service is challenged by the

workman. There is no dispute that the workman was working

in Bank from 29-7-85 till termination of his serivce. i.e. from

October 1994. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence

stating that he has selected as cleark cum cashier in the

Bank. He was posted at Narsinghgarh Branch, Damoh Distt.

from 29-7-85. That letter dated 22-6-94 was served on hims

by IInd party Bank for reporting for duty within 30 days

failing which he would be deemed to have voluntarily

retired. That IInd party issued letter dated 7-10-94

unilaterally treating him to have voluntarily retired from

Bank Service from 13-8-94. That Bank did not allow him to

join duty. That he had recovered from illness. He had written

letter dated 14-12-94 requesting to resume duties in the

Bank. Medical Certificates were submitted by him of

different dates. That his serivces were terminated

unilaterally by the Bank. In his cross examination, workman

admit that he was attending duties for 2-3 days and

remaining absent from duty as he was suffering from

illness. After he suffered illness, he has send telegram.

Receipts are filed by him. He had sent letter by UPC on

9-8-94. Telegram was send on 16-8-94. Thereafter he was

absent in the Bank. Prior to it, he was remaining absent.

The evidence in cross-examination of the workman shows

that he was absent from duty on account of his illhealth.

when he was absent earlier in time, he was not sanctioned

leave. He received notice dated 19-11-93, 15-2-94 and final

notice dated 22-6-94 asking him to attend duty. That after

1720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

receiving notice dated 19-11-93, he attended duty for 2-3

days. In January 1994, he worked for 2-3 days.

7. The evidence of management's witness Ms.

Madhu Arora is consistent with the contentions of IInd

party in Written Statement that workman remained absent

from October 1993 except few days in October, November

1993 and January 1994. Workman remained absent, notice

was issued to him on 22-6-94. Said notice was issued on

14-6-94. In his cross-examination, management's witness

claims ignorance whether the notice was signed by

registered post. After lapse of more than 90 days, no enquiry

was held against him. Chargesheet was not issued to him.

8. At the time of argument, learned counsel for IInd

party Shri Shroti submits that for unauthorized absence,

notices was issued to the workman and as he did not attend

duties within 30 days as per notice, as per Para-17 of the

Bipartite Settlement, he is deemed to be retired. For sake of

clarity it is necessary to give verbatim of Para-17 (a) of

Bipartite Settlement.

''Para-17(a)—When an employee absents himself from

work for a period of 90 or more consecutive days,

without submitting any application for leave or for

its extention or without any leave to his credit or

beyond the period of leave sanctioned originally/

subsequently or when there is a satisfactory evidence

that he has taken up employment in India or when

the management is reasonably satisfied that he has

no intention of joining duties, the management may

at any time thereafter give a notice to the employee

at his last known address calling upon him to report

for duty within 30 days of the date of the notice,

stating interalia the ground for coming to the

conclusion that the employee has no intention of

joining duties and furnishing necessary evidence,

where available. Unless the employee reports for

duty within 30 days of the notice or gives an

explanation for his absence within the said period of

30 days satisfying the management that he has not

taken up another employment or avocation and that

he has no intention of not joining duties, the

employee will be deemed to have voluntarily retired

from the Bank's service on the expiry of the said

notice. In the event of the employee submitting a

satisfactory reply, he shall be permitted to report for

duty thereafter within 30 days from the date of the

expiry of the aforesaid notice without prejudice to

the Bank's right to take any action under the law or

rules of service."

The notice issued to the workman Exhibit W-4 finds

reference that the workman was unauthorisely absent from

duty since 4.10.93 except for following dates in October

1993- 19th & 21st, In November 1993-1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th,

6th, 9th, 10th, 11th & 12th and in January 1994- 21st, 22nd,

24th, 25th, 28th, 29th to 31st. The notice is not stating that

the workman was absent more than 90 days. The period of

unauthorized absence is not stated. In para-2 of the notice,

there is reference of Para 522(3) of Sastry Award. Vide Exhibit

W-5, letter dated 27.9.94 workman was requested to collect

his retiral dues. Notice vide Exhibit W-6 dated 7.10.94

workman was informed that he was absent from duty

unauthorisely from 4.10.93 with reference to letter dated

22.6.94 sent to him. He was called to report for duty within

30 days. To be precise, notice Exhibit W-6 doesnot also

show that he is unauthorized absence for more than 90

days.

9. The period of absence is not disclosed in said

notice. Workman was repeatedly informed to collect his

retiral dues as per Exhibit W-7, W-8. Evidence of workman

that he had sent letter by UPC on 9.8.94 and telegram on

16.8.94 is not shattered. Workman also stated that he has

submitted original Medical Certificate.

10. Management's witness in his cross-examination

says that workman was regular employee. Workman was

terminated from service on ground of unauthorized

absence. Workman submitted medical certificate after lapse

of more than 90 days. Evidence of the management's

witness doesnot show what action was taken on the

medical certificates submitted by the worker. If an employee

is suffering from illness and submits medical certificates,

the management is expected to take rational decisions.

Notice issued to the workman Exhibit W-4 does not find

reference to Bipartite Settlement Para-17-A, rather it finds

reference of Para 522(3) of Sastry Award. The evidence

shows that management was not clear about violation of

Para-17-A of Bipartite Settlement. The period of

unauthorised absence was not disclosed in the notice. The

language in notice Exhibit W-4 and W-6 is not clear about

unauthorized absence. Ist party workman was working in

the Bank as clerk from 1985. There is not evidence that he

was absent from duty in the past. When workman suffers

from illness and he submits Medical Certificates, he also

given letter requesting him to join the duty. The

management did not consider the facts that workman was

suffering from illness. Management even did not considers

whether any kind of leave was in his credit. Why leave at

his credit was not granted to him. IInd party has acted

mechanically.

11. Learned counsel for IInd party relies on ratio held

in—

"Case of Punjab and Sind Bank and others versus

Sakattar Singh reported in 2001(1) Supreme Court

Cases 214. Their Lordship considering unauthorized

absence for 90 days or more consecutive days

beyond sanctioned period of leave. Under Clause 16

of IVth Bipartite Settlement, termination of service in

such circumstances held is not a punishment of

misconduct but only a recognition of the realities of

the situation and doesnot result in violation of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1721

principles of natural justice. Therefore no domestic

enquiry is necessary.

In case of Regional Manager Bank of Baroda versus

Anita Nandrajog reported in 2009(9) Supreme Court Cases

462. Their Lordship of the Apex Court dealing with dismissal

without enquiry when permissible. Their Lordship

considering unauthorized absence by respondent on two

occasions of more than 266 days condoned by Bank,

subsequent absence of more than 150 days without

sanction of leave. Appellant Bank invoking Clause 17(b) of

Vth Bipaprtite Settlement issuing notice to the respondent

to join service in 30 days, failing which it would be presumed

she had voluntarily terminated service. Their Lordship

held the management was extremely lenient by condoning

respondent's absence. Respondent's behavior of remaining

absent without leave for such long periods regrettable and

unfortunate. No establishment can function if it allows its

employees to behave in such a manner.

The facts of the present case are little different.

Workman has submitted medical certificates about his

illness. He sent telegram as well as letter by UPC. His

evidence on above point is not shattered. As discussed

above, notices Exhibit W-4 to 6 issued to workman doesnot

clearly shown the period of unauthorized absence. When

workman suffers from illness and submits medical

certificate, his absence may not amount to unauthorized

absence.

12. Next reliance is placed by Learned counsel in

case of

"Regional Manager, Central Bank of India versus

Vijay Krishna Neema and others reported in 2009(5)

Supreme Court Cases 567. Their Lordship held

normally unauthorized absence is a grave misconduct

but statutory rules or employer employee agreement

such as Shastri Award may provide that unauthorised

absence consititutes cessation of employment."

13. Considering the evdience of management's

witness that medical certficates were submitted by the

workman after 90 days appears to have not been considered

by the management. The order of voluntary retirement

passed by IInd party is mechanically passed. The ground

of illness, explanation submitted workman that he was

suffering from illness and medical certificate produced are

not taken into consideration. Therefore the ratio in above

case cannot be applied to case at hand. For above reasons

action of the management terminating services of workman

cannot be said proper. Accordingly I record my finding in

Point No. 1.

14. Point No. 2—In view of my finding in Point No. 1

that the termination of services of workman is not proper,

question arises to what relief workman is entitled? The

evidence of workman is not clear what work he was doing

after voluntary termination of his service. Reinstatement

with full back wages would not be appropriate. In my

considered view, considering facts and evidence on record,

reinstatement without back wages would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.

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

(1) Action of the management of Zonal Manager,

State Bank of India, Region-III Bhopal in terminating the

services of Shri Genesh Vila, S/o Shri K.L. Vila, w.e.f. 1994 is

not proper and legal.

(2) IInd party management is directed to reinstate

workman but without back wages.

R.B. P ATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 634.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fNunokMk fluh

{ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad 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 16@97½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@161@96&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 634.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/97)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industiral Dispute

between the management of Chhindwara Seoni Kshetriya

Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Govenrment on 03/02/2014.

[No. L-12012/161/96-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/16/97

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE

Shri Manasram

S/o Shri Bapu Nagre,

PO Khamra, Soser,

Chhindwara

...... Workman

Versus

The Chairman,

Chhindwara Seoni Kshetriya Gramin Bank,

Chhindwara (MP)

..... Management

1722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Pressed on this 3^rd day of January 2014

1. As per letter dated 31.12.96 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/

161/96-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the Chhindwara Seoni

Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chhindwara (MP) in

stopping from duty to Shri Mansaram S/o Babu

Nagare from the Bichua (kamnpani) Branch of

Chhindwara Seoni Kshetriya Gramin Bank w.e.f.

1-8-84 is justified or legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed Statement of Claim at

Page 7/1 to 7/4. The case of Ist party workman is that he

belongs to Schedule Caste. His name was registered in

Employment Exchange, Distt. Chhindwara. He has passed

8^th standard. Considering conditions of eligibility, he was

offered post of peon by IInd party. He was continuously

working as peon with IInd Party from 21-8-91 to 2-11-93 he

completed 240 days continuous service, he was given

undertaking that after completion of probation period of

240 days, he would be offered permanent status and

monthly pay of regular peon. That IInd party did not follow

said undertaking. His services were not regularized. He

has submitted representations for regularization of

services. He was suddenly discontinued from 1-8-94

without assigning reasons. He was not paid retrenchment

compensation. The termination of his service is illegal. On

such ground, he prays for reinstatement with regularization

in service.

3. IInd party failed to file Written Statement IInd party

was proceeded exparte on 14-6-2003.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

Chhindwara Seoni Kshetriya

Gramin Bank, Chhindwara (MP)

in stopping from duty to

Shri Mansaram S/o Babu Nagare

from the Bichua (Kamnpani)

Branch of Chhindwara Seoni

Kshetriya Gramin Bank w.e.f.

1-8-84 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to relief

prayed by him.

REASONS

5. Ist party workman is challenging termination of

his services for non-payment of retrenchment

compensation. That he had completed 240 days continuous

service in the branch. His services were suddenly

terminated without notice. IInd party has failed to file

Written Statement. Though IInd party is proceded

exparte,workman has failed to adduce evidence in Supoort

of his claim. The evidence of workman is closed on 31-12-

2013. IInd party was already proceeded exparte. Parties

have not participated in reference proceeding, no evidence

is adduced by either parties. Therefore I record my finding

in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

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

(1)The action of the Chhindwara Seoni Kshetriya

Gramin Bank, Chhindwara (MP) in stopping from duty to

Shri Mansaram S/o Babu Nagare from the Bichua

(kamnpani) Branch of Chhindwara Seoni Kshetriya Gramin

Bank w.e.f. 1-8-84 is proper.

(2)Workman is not entitled to relief prayed by him.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 635.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkQ

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

vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 219@98½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@57@98&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 635.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 219/98) of the

Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as

shown in the Annexure, in industrial dispute between the

management of State Bank of Indore and their workman,

received by the Central Government on 03/02/2014.

[No. L-12012/57/98-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/219/98

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRl R.B. PATLE

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1723

General Secretary,

Daily Wages Bank Employees Association,

9, Sanwer Road,

Ujjain

...Workman/Union

Versus

Managing Director,

State Bank of Indore,

Head office,

5, Y. N. Road, Indore.

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 16th day of January 2014

1. As per letter dated 23-9-98 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

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

57/98-lR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Managing

Director, State Bank of Indore in terminating the

services of Shri Suresh Purohit w.e.f. 4-1-97 is

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

for?"

2. After receiving reference notices were issued to

the parties. Case of Union is that workman Shri Suresh

Purohit was engaged by the IInd party Bank for cleaning

work from 10.30 AM to 6 PM. Said workman was engaged

on daily wages from 24-4-95. The workman was rendering

his service with devotion. He was working under Branch

Managers. He was paid wages for six days in a week. He

was working for more than 8 hours a day. The record about

payment of wages is available with the Bank. That workman

was paid wages changing different names. When the

workman asked for regularization and demanded for bonus,

IInd party engaged other persons Sudhir, Santosh. Services

of workman were discontinued from 4-1-97. Workman was

not served with notice. 3 months pay was not paid to him.

Workman have completed 240 days continuous service.

He is covered as workman under Section 25(B) of I.D. Act.

His services are terminated in violation of Section 33, 25-F,

G & H of I.D. Act. Para 507, 520 of Sastry Award be not

complied. Retrenchment compensation is not paid to the

workman. On such ground, Union prays for reinstatement

with consequential benefits to the workman.

3. IInd party management filed Written Statement at

Page 7/1 to 7/6. Claim of Union is denied. It is contented

that statement of Claim is not properly signed and verified.

That Suresh Purohit is not member of Union. Union is not

competent to workman. That contractor is not necessary

party. Claim is bad for misjoinder of parties. Statement of

Claim is not submitted as per rules in prescribed proforma.

All material contentions of the Ist party are denied. That

workman was continuously working with the IInd party

and completed 240 days continuous service. It is denied

that workman was paid weekly wages. IInd party submits

that workman was engaged as per exigencies. The wages

were paid to him. Workman is not covered under Section

25B of I.D. Act, he is not entitled to protection under

Section 25-F, G, H of I.D. Act Para 527 of Sastry Award is

not applicable to the claim of the Ist party. That workman

was not engated following recruitment process. Workman

was engaged on daily wages as per exigencies. Workman

is not entitled for retrenchment compensation or notice for

termination. On such ground, IInd party prays for rejection

of his claim.

4. Ist party filed rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/3 reiterating

its contentions in Statement of claim that termination of

services of workman is illegal for violation of Section 25-F,

G, H of I.D. Act, workman had completed 240 days

continuous service.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of

In Affirmative

management of Managing

Director, State Bank of

Indore in terminating the

services of Shri Suresh

Purohit w.e.f. 4-1-97 is

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not entitled to relief

workman is entitled to?

"prayed by him.

REASONS

6. Workman through Union is challenged termination

of his services for violation of Section 25-F, G, H of I.D. Act.

He claims that he was continuously working for more than

240 days. His services are terminated without notice,

retrenchment compensation is not paid to him. IInd party

denies above contention of workman. Workman produced

document Exhibit w-1, circular dated 23-2-01 prohibiting

engagement on daily wage employees for cleaning work

etc. W-2 is reply submitted before ALC, Bhopal. IInd party

had submitted that workman Shri Suresh Purohit was

engaged as peon for filling water in cooler, cleaning work.

He was not appointed as regular employee.

7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence stating

that he was working from 10.30 AM to 6 PM as peon in the

Bank from 24-4-95. His services were discontinued from

4-1-97. Evidence of workman was closed vide order dated

22-5-08. The management field evidence by affidavit of

Shri Dayaram Verma. Management witness has stated that

workman was not continuously working from 24-4-95 to

1-1-97. In his cross-examination management's witness says

that he has not knowledge about attendance of Ist party

workman. He had not received any information about

1724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

payment of retrenchment compensation or notice for

termination of service. Management's witness was unable

to tell for how many days workman was working in the

Bank. The pleadings in Statement of Claim are that the

workman was paid wages in name of different persons.

The evidence of workman though unchallenged is not

disclosing in whose name he was paid wages, such persons

are not examined if the workman received wages in name of

different persons it may amount to fraud and therefore

such evidence cannot be accepted. For above reasons, the

evidence of the workman cannot be relied that he was

continuously working in the branch for more than 240 days.

Union Representative Shri Ram Nagwanshi relies on ratio

held in:

"Case of Samishta Dube and City Board Etawah and

another reported in 1999(81)FLR 746. Ratio held in

the case by their Lordship is that in absence of any

agreement between the employer and the workmen

in behalf the employer shall ordinarily retrench the

workmen who was the last person to be employed in

that category, unless for reasons to be recorded, the

employer retrenches any other person."

Nex reliance is placed in case of Regional Manager,

SBI versus Rakesh Kumar Tiwari reported in 2006(108) FLR

733. Their Lordship held provisions of Section 25-G, H of

I.D. Act doesnot require continuous employment of

workman within meaning of Secton 25-B of I.D. Act before

he could have been retrenched.

In present case, termination of workman is alleged

for violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. There is no evidence

about any junior persons engaged after retrenchment of

workman. Violation of Section 25-G, H of I.D. Act is not

substaintiated from evidence on record. Therefore ratio

held in above case cannot be benefitially applied to case at

hand. The evidence of workman is not cogent to establish

continuous working for more than 240 days preceding his

retrenchment. Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1

in Affirmative.

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

(1)The action of the management of Managing

Director, State Bank of Indore in terminating the services

of Shri Suresh Purohit w.e.f. 4-1-97 is proper.

(2)Workman is not entitled to relief claimed by him.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 636.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947

dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj dksVd efgUnjk

c®d ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèdj.k fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 113@2011½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@53@2011&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 636.—In pursuance Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 113/

2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

No. II, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Kotak Mahindra Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

03/02/2014.

[No.-L-12011/53/2011-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT-II

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI

Present:—Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 113/2011

Sh. Shashi Bhushan Chaudhary

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-12011/53/2011-[(IR(B-1)] dated

01.12.2011 referred the following industrial Dispute to this

tribunal for the adjudication:—

"Whether the action of the management of Kotak

Mahindra Bank Ltd., New Delhi and Chekmet

Services pvt. Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri

Shashi Bhushan Choudhary S/o. Late Shri Rama

Nand Choudhry, Ex-Guards, w.e.f. 23.02.2010, is legal

and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?"

On 19.12.2011 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D. No. 113/2011 and claimant was

called upon the file claim statement with in fifteen days

from date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant Sh. Shashi

Bhushan Choudhry not filed claim statement but

management in response to reference filed response wherein

it mentioned as follows:—

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1725

Subject:—Reference ID. No.-113/2011

Dear Sir,

Honorably, we state further with reference to above

case between Shri Shashi Bhushan Choudhary Vs.

M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vide award dated

23.06.2011 reference No. ID. 17/2011 that

1. We had reinstated the services of Sh. Shashi

Bhushan Chaudhary through the posting order dated

25.06.2011 at Indus Ware House, Delhi. Vide the reference—

(Annexure 1).

2. The company had paid the backwages at 20% of

the minimum wages through A/c Payee Cheque on dated

21/11/2011 for Rs. 17696 (Annexure-2) and the said workman

had received on Dated 30.11.2011 (Annexure-3).

3. That there was no dispute further between workman

& management and the said workman had performed duty

& paid accordingly during that period.

4. That Shri Shashi Bhushan Chaudhary had worked

with as till April 2012 and his payments are made to his

bank account vide the payslip/wageshop 7 July'11 to April

2012 (Annexure-4).

5. That the said workman has not filed submitted any

statement of claim within the stipulated period as directed

nor he wants to be party of this case by not coming for

hearing on dates.

Prayer

It is prayed at your good self that the said case be

disposed off considering above facts and evidence.

For Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd.

D. K. Samal

DGM-Human Resources.

Following Annexure No.-I Posting Letter.

Annexure No.-2 Cheque of ICICI Bank in favour of

Workman Sh. Shashi Bhushan Chaudhary for an amount

of Rs. 17696.

Annexture No.-3 Cash Voucher dated 20.09.2011 for

an amount of Rs. 17696.

Annexure-4 Containing wages slip since July, 2011

to April, 2012 as well as photocopy of Award dated

23.06.2011 passed by Dr. R. K. Yadav, P.O. CGIT-No. 1,

Karkardooma Court Complex, Delhi.

ID.No. 17/2011 Sh. Shashi Bhushan Chaudhary V/s.

The Manager M/s. Checkmet Services Pvt. Ltd., 58/61

Vashishtha Park, Sagarpur, New Delhi-110045 and others.

In these circumstances there remains no dispute

between Claimant/Workman & Respondent No. 1 and No. 2.

Had it been workman/Claimaint had filed Claim

Statement, Rejoinder etc. and come forward to proceed

further.

In these circumstances it is a fit case for passing No

Dispute Award.

Reference in decided in favour of Management and

Against Workman.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 3/1/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 637.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 36

dk 2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@79@2008&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 637.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 36/2010) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

03/02/2014.

[No. L-20012/79/2008-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D)(2A)

OF I.D. ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 36 of 2010

Employers in relation to the management of Govindpur

Colliery, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen.

Present:—Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran,

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman :- Shri R. R. Ram, Rep.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry : Coal

1726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dated 10/01/2014

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/79/2008-IR-(C-I), dated 24/05/

2010, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Govindpur

Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Durga Manjhi

M/Loader from the services of the company vide

order dated 14/16.10.1999 is Legal & Justified? To

what relief the claimant workman entitled to?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 08.06.2010. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed, the workman files their written statement on

23.06.2010. And the management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 26.11.2012. The point involved

in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed

from his services on ground of absenteeism.

3. During preliminary hearing it is revealed that this

case is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty. It is

found that he has already out of service for 14 years. It is

felt to give another chance to the workman to serve.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee.

Therefore the question of back wages does not arise at all.

Communicated.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 638.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,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; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 83 dk 1998½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@72@1997&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 638.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83/1998) 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 M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 03/02/2014.

[No. L-20012/72/1997-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT

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. 83 of 1998

Parties:

Employer in relation to the management of Tetulmari

Colliery of M/s. BCCL and their workman.

Appearances:

On behalf of the Workman : Mr. N. G. Arun, Ld. Adv.

On behalf of the Management : Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld. Adv.

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 5th March, 2013

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order

No. L-20012/72/97-IR (Coal-I) dt. 24.03.1998.

SCHEDULE

"Whether action of the management of Tetulmari

Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Shri Dil

Mohammad Mia, Miner Loader in absentia is

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

entitiled?"

2. Mr. N. G. Arun, the Advocate/Representative for

the Union-R.C.M.S. and Mr. D. K. Verma, the Ld. Advocate

for the Management are present. No. Management witness

for evidence of the management on merits produced, though

a joint petition under the signatures of the Representative

for both the parties along with the Memorandum of

Settlement in Form H. (Rule 58) arrived at between the

management of Sijua Area and the workman and his

representative has been filed under the signatures of the

Representative of the management and of the Union as

well as the workman concerned (without any date), and

moved by the Representative concerned that both the

parties have amicably settled the Industrial Dispute as per

the terms of their settlement as stated in their Form H; and

accordingly it has been solicited for passing a Settlement

Award.

The present reference relates to the issue about the

dismissal of workman Dil Mohammad Mia, the M/Loader

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1727

in absentia. While the case was pending for the evidence

of the management on merits, the Joint petition of both the

parties duly signed by their representatives has been filed

for the settlement as per the Memorandum of their

Settlement accordingly. The term of their Settlement

between both the parties are as such:

1. That the management has agreed to reinstate Sri

Dil Mohammad Mia as M/Loader subject to his medical

fitness.

2. That the concerned workman has agreed that he

will not claim any back wages from the date of his dismissal

to the date of his reinstatement.

3. That it has been agreed that the period of his

idleness shall be treated as dies-non and shall be treated

as in continuous service for the purpose of payment of

gratuity only.

4. That the workman concerned will give assurance

that he will not commit the similar misconduct in future.

5. That both the parties agreed to file memorandum

of settlement before the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad with a prayer to pass an Award in

terms of settlement Award.

6. That this settlement resolves the entire dispute

once for all.

The settlment between both the parties today appears

to be quite amicable and wilful to bind and abide themselves

by the terms & conditions arrived at by both the parties,

leaving no room for determination of the Schedule Issue

and relief in this forum. Accordingly, the Settlement Award

is passed. The terms and conditions of the Settlement to

form the part of the Award. Therefore it is hereby ordered:

Let there be a settlement Award and the same is

passed. The Memorandum of Settlment shall form the part

of this Award. The copies of the Settlement Award be

forwarded to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for information and needful. The Reference is

accordingly disposed of.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

FORM-H

(See Rule-58)

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT ARIVED AT

BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT OF SIJUA AREA

AND THE WORKMAN REPRESENTED BY

SRI N. G. ARUN, TREASURER, RASTRIYA

COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH

Short Recital of the Case

The workman Shri Dill Mohammad Mia, Minor

Loader of Tetulmari Colliery was dismissed from the

services of the company w.e.f. 30.08.1988. The Rastriya

Colliery Mazdoor Sangh raised an Industrial dispute before

ALC© which was referred to Central Government Industrial

Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad for adjudication vide Notification

No. L-20012/72/97-IR-Coal-I dated 24.03.1998 with following

schedule:

"Whether action of the management of Tetulmari

Colliery of BCCL in dismissing Shri Dil Mohammad

Mia, Miner Loader in absentia is justified? If not, to

what Relief the workman is entitled."

The Hon'ble Tribunal Registered the said reference

as Ref. Case No. 83 of 1988. That during the hearing of the

case the workmen concerned submitted application before

the Tribunal for settlement of the dispute amicably on the

following terms of settlement:

Terms of Sttlement

1. That the management has agreed to reinstate Shri

Dil Mohammad Mia as Miner Loader subject to his medical

fitness.

2. That the concerned workman has agreed that he

will not claim any back wages from the date of his dismissal

to the date of his reinstatement.

3. That it has been agreed that the period of his

idleness shall be treated as dies-non and shall be treated

as in continuous service for the purpose of payment of

gratuity only.

4. That the workmen concerned will give assurance

that he will not commit the simllar misconduct in future.

5. That both the parties agreed to file memorandum

of settlement before the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad with a prayer to pass an Award in

terms of Settlement Award.

6. That this settlement resolves the entire dispute

once for all.

REPRESENTING

MANAGEMENT

UNION/WORKMAN

GENERAL MANAGER

(NG ARUN)

SIJUA AREA

TREASURER, RCMS UNION

PROJECT OFFICER

TETULMARI COLLIERY

CHIEF MANAGER (PERS). (DIL MOHAMMAD MIA)

SIJUA ARE

CONCERNED WORKMAN

SR. MANAGER (PERS.)/IR

SIJUA AREA

Witnesses:

1728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 639.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds

izca/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; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@1992½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@159@1991&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February 2014

S.O. 639.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 12/1992 of

the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

03/02/2014

[No. L-20012/159/1991-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.1, DHANBAD

Reference No. 12/1992

In the matter of reference U/s 10(1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947.

Employer in relation to the management of Kenduadih

Colliery M/s. BCCL

AND

Their Workmen

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers:

None

For the Workman:

None.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 13/11/2013

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/159/91/IR (C-I) Nil the Central

Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of

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

sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to

this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether Shri Ramadhar and 65 others (Copy

enclose) contractor workers are workmen of

Kenduadih colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

and whether the demand that these persons be

regularized in the services of the said management is

justified? If so to what relief are these persons

entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

List of the Workers of Kenduadih (Khaira) Workshop

who were terminated from their services in 1976 after

closure of the Workshop

1. Sri Ramadhar

Kenduadih Colliery,

P.O. Kusunda (Dhanbad)

2. Sri Ram Autar Ram,

S/o. Sri Bitul Ram,

Village Kendi Nagar,

P.O. Kanha Chatti,

P.S. Chatra

Dist. Hazaribagh.

3. Sri Ram Charan Singh Yadav,

S/o. Sri Har Nandan Singh Yadav,

Vill. Bahdura,

P.O. Samanpur, P.S. Nandgunj,

Distt. Gajipur

4. Sri Kanhaiya Prasad Singh,

S/o. Sri Bhagwan Singh,

Vill. Chanwath,

P.O. Kaisath, Dist. Bhojpur.

5. Sri Ajoy Shankar Bahadur,

S/o. Sri Tara Shankar Bahadur,

Vill Nutandih,

P.O. Jagjiwan Nagar, Dhanbad.

6. Sri Radhey Shyan Paswan,

S/o. Sri Somar Paswan,

Vill. Raundi, P.O. Karki,

P.S. Ariyari

Dist. Munghyr.

7. Sri Bilash Rajbhar,

S/o Sri Nanho Rajbhar,

Putkee Loyabad Centre,

P.O. Loyabad, P.S. Putkee,

Dist. Dhanbad.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1729

8. Sri Udai Bhan Yadav,

S/o. Sri Ram Karan Yadav,

Vill. Ajorwa,

P.O. Dumduma,

P.S. Handi,

Dist. Allahabad.

9. Shri Arbind Kumar Upadhya,

S/o. Sri Ram Najar Upadhya,

Vill. Osanow,

P.O. Caanow,

P.S. Tarka, Dist. Rohtas.

10. Sri Sanjoy Kumar Sinha,

S/o. Shri Balkrishna Prasad,

At Bhuli Nagar, Qr. No. B/22,

Dist. Dhanbad.

11. Sri Raj Kumar Sinha

S/o. Sri R.K. Prasad,

At & P.O. Jagjiwan Nagar,

Dist. Dhanbad.

12. Sri Dipak Chandra Paul,

S/o. Late Mahadeb Chandra Paul,

Vill. Kenduadih Basti,

P.O. Kusunda, Dist. Dhanbad.

13. Sri Upendra Yadav,

S/o. Sri Ram Das Yadav,

Vill. Kaua Khap,

P.O. bhadwa, P.S. Rafigunj,

Dist. Aurangabad (Bihar)

14. Sri Subodh Paswan,

S/o. Sri Keshava Paswan,

Vill. Noni, P.O. Noni,

P.S. Chandradih,

Dist. Munghyr.

15. Sri Bechu Rajbhar,

S/o. Sri Tilak Rajbhar,

Putkee Loyabad Centre,

P.S. Putkee, P.O. Loyabad,

Dist. Dhanbad.

16. Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav,

S/o. Sri Malapati Yadav,

Vill. Bujuruk,

P.O. Saidabad,

Dist. Allahabad.

17. Sri Govind Yadav,

S/o. Sri Prayag Yadav,

Kendwadih Colliery,

P.O. Kusunda, Dist. Dhanbad.

18. Sri Bijoy Kumar Verma,

S/o. Sri Tarni Prasad Verma,

Vill, Matkuria,

P.O. Dhanbad, Dist. Dhanbad.

19. Sri Surendra Paswan,

S/o. Sri Manrup Paswan,

Vill. Tajpur, P.O. Tilkai,

Dist. Jahanabad.

20. Sri Balmiki Singh,

C/o. Bhola Singh,

South Baliphari Colliery,

P.O. Kusunda, Dist. Dhanbad.

21. Sri Karu Yadav,

S/o. Sri Gopal Yadav,

Vill. Uprawa,

P.O. Uprawa,

P.S. Bihar Sarif,

Dist. Nalanda,

22. Sri Balmiki Paswan,

Kendwadih Colliery,

P.O. Kusunda P.S. Kendwadih,

Dist. Dhanbad.

23. Sri Ram Keshwar Mistry,

S.O. Sri Brahamdeo Mistry,

Vill. & P.O. Bank Basar,

P.S. Sanke Bazar,

Dist. Gaya.

24. Sri Surendra Mistry,

S/o. Late Parmeshwar Mistry,

Vill. Turkadih,

P.O. Lesligunj,

P.S. Lesligunj,

Dist. Palamu.

25. Sri Nandlal Sharma

S/o. Sri Mahadeo Mistry,

Vill. Ghurwa,

P.O. Poldih Jagdishpur,

P.S. Husanabad, dist. Palamu.

26. Sri Mahadeo Lal,

S/o. late Barati Lal,

Vill. Chute,

P.O. Chute, P.S. Gomia,

Dist. Giridih.

27. Sri Sanjay Kumar Sinha,

S/o. Sri Chandrika Lal,

Mohalla New Area Pipar Panti,

P.S. Kotwali,

P.O. Gaya (R.S.) Dist. Gaya.

28. Sri Rajendra yadav,

S/o. Sri Ram Baldeo Yadav,

Vill. Pipari,

P.O. Prithabipur-via-Handia,

Dist. Allahabad.

1730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

29. Sri Chhotelal Passi,

S/o. Sri Sukhu Passi,

Vill. Aura, P.O. Baraut,

P.S. Handia, Dist. Allahabad.

30. Sri Nand Lal Yadav,

S/o. sri Basdeo Yadav,

Vill. Kubi, P.O. Urij via Bicl

P.S. Gopigunj, Dist. Banaras.

31. Sri Balgovind Thakur

S/o. Late & Jagarnath Thakur,

Vill. Basupur, P.O. Handia,

P.S. Handia, Dist. Allahabad.

32. Sri Ram Bilas Pasi,

S/o. Sri Faudar Pasi,

Vill. Balihari Colliery (S.B.S.)

P.O. Kusunda, Dist. Dhanbad.

33. Sri Mahendra Ram,

S/o. Late Sarjug Ram,

Vill Bardan Khar,

P.O. Salonja, P.S. Atalsi,

Dist. Munghyr.

34. Sri Sumiran Yadav,

S/o. Sri Nath Yadav,

Vill. Muflispur Nawada,

P.O. Muflispur,

Dist. Jonpur (U.P.).

35. Sri Satrughan Prasad Bhujan,

S/o. Kamdeo Bhujan,

Vill. Bania, P.O. Nagmatia,

P.S. Madanpur,

Dist. Aurangabad (Bihar).

36. Sri Mahendra Pratap,

S/o. Ram Ugrah Rai,

Vill. Naharchak,

P.S. Jahanagunj, P.O. Sevata,

Dist. Azamgarh (U.P.).

37. Sri Sudhir Kumar,

Kendua Pull, P.O. Kusunda,

Dist. Dhanbad.

38. Sri Rajendra Prasad Swarnkar

S/o. Budhan Swarnrkar,

Vill. Bishnugarh,

P.O. & P.S. Bishnugarh,

Dist. Hazaribagh.

39. Sri Jamir Alam,

S/o. Ismail Mian,

Kendwadih (Khoira) Colliery,

P.O. Kusunda Dist. Dhanbad.

40. Sri Jai Prakash Mistry,

S/o. Sri Arjun Mistry,

Vill. Mohudi, P.O. Brindaban,

Dist. Hazaribagh.

41. Sri Dhaneshwar Yadav,

S/o. Sri Sukh Ram Yadav,

Palihari Colliery (K.B.Sec.),

P.S. Putkee, Dist. Dhanbad.

42. Sri raj Keshwar Singh,

S/o. Late Randeo Singh,

Vill. Bahera,

P.O. Poldih Jagdishpur,

P.S. Husanabad, Dist. Palamu.

43. Sri Arbind Prasad,

S/o. Late Ram Sewak Prasad,

Vill. Uchauli, P.O. Rengania,

Dist. Aurangabad (Bihar).

44. Sri Satendra Singh,

S/o. Sri Dwarka Singh,

Vill. Bherhia, P.O. Kanbehari

P.O. Aurangabad (Bihar)

45. Sri Arbind Kumar Sinha,

S/o. Sri Kedar Sinha,

Vill. Bania, P.O. Erki via Deo,

Dist. Aurangabad (Bihar)

46, Sri Dilip Kumar Sinha,

Kendua Pull, P.O. Kusunda,

Dist. Dhanbad.

47. Sri Ajit Kumar Verma,

S/o. Sri Bipin Bihari Verma,

Mohalla Gandhi Path Lane,

P.O. & P.S. Danapur Cantt,

Dist. Patna.

48. Sri Pram Kumar Sinha,

S/o. Sri R.K. Prasad,

At & P.O. Jagjiwan Nagar,

Dist. Dhanbad.

49. Sri Awadhesh Prasad,

Kendwadih Colliery,

P.O. Kusunda, Dist. Dhanbad.

50. Sri Binod Kumar Mishra,

S/o. Sri Ramyad Mishra,

Vill. Saraiya, P.O. Malhara

P.S. Deo, Dist. Aurangabad (Bihar).

51. Sri Pradip Kumar Ambastha,

S/o. Late Raghubar Prasad,

Vill,&P.O. Darwan via Goh,

Dist. Aurangabad (Bihar).

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1731

52. Sri Jai Prakash,

S/o. Sri Chakradhar Lal,

Kendwadih Basti No. 5,

P.O. Kusunda, Dist. Dhanbad.

53. Sri Ram Sewak Ram,

S/o. Late Lilo Ram,

Vill, Ganga Ahar

P.O. Pudibara, P.S. Choparan,

Dist. Hazaribagh.

54. Sri Sheo Kumar Yadav,

S/o. Sri Pun Yadav,

Vill. Lalpur Bara, P.O. Dangara,

P.S. Mahanpur, Dist. Gaya.

55. Sri Ramchandra Yadav,

S/o. Ram Prasad Yadav,

Vill. Padumchak, P.O. Barachati,

P.S. Barachati, Dist. Gaya.

56. Sri Anup Kumar Sinha,

S/o. Sri Basdeo Nandan Prasad,

Red House Compound

West Charch Road,

Gaya.

57. Sri Muna Saw,

S/o. Ramchandra Saw,

Vill. Repura, P.O. Daudnagar,

Dist. Aurangabad (Bihar).

58. Sri Rameshwar Saw,

S/o. Sri Mahadeo Saw,

P.O. Papaur Via Siwan,

P.S. Pach Rukhi, Dist. Siwan.

59. Sri Pashupati Saw

S/o. Uma Shankar Saw,

Vill. Barhaka Gano,

P.O. Papaur via Siwan,

P.O. Pachrukhi, Dist. Siwan.

60. Sri Krishnadeo Yadav,

S/o. Sri Banwari Yadav,

Vill. Garhala,

P.O. Basahi, R.S. Karchhana,

Dist. Allahabad.

61. Sri Rabo Ram,

S/o. Sri Munshi Ram,

Vill. Aijhi, P.O. Katari,

P.S. Korina, Dist. Munghyr.

62. Sri Bhusan Prasad,

S/o. Late Kameshwar Prasad,

Bhuli Township, Dist. Dhanbad.

63. Sri Pradip Kumar,

S/o. Sri Girendra Prasad,

Vill. Kalayanpur,

P.O. Bedoli, P.S. Pratapur,

Dist. Hazaribagh.

64. Sri Sheo Nandan Ram,

S/o. Sri Balchand Ram,

Vill. Kandi Nagar,

P.O. Kalhaiya, P.S. Chatra,

Dist. Hazaribagh.

65. Sri Sambhu Singh,

S/o. Sri Tribeni Singh,

Vill. Sultanpur,

P.O. Sultanpur,

P.S. Mahadi Nagar,

Dist. Samastipur.

66. Sri Lalan Singh,

S/o. Ghul Singh,

Vill. Araila,

P.O. Manu Dihari,

P.S. Jagdishpur,

Dist. Bhojpur.

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 640.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vjksQyksV

jf'k;u ,vjykbZUl 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; uañ 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 47 of 2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

03@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&11012@4@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 640.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award Ref. 47/2009 of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Aeroflot Russian

Airlines, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 03/02/2014.

[No. L-11012/4/2008-IR (CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 47/2009

Shri Suresh Kumar & Ors. through

The President

1732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Aeroflot Employees Union,

C/o Shri Bir Singh, V.P.O. Goyala Khurde,

P. No. 22, New Delhi-110071.

... Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

M/s. Aeroflot Russian Airlines,

Ground Floor, 15-17, Tolstoy House,

Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001.

... Management

AWARD

Self ground handling services at Indira Gandhi

International Airport, New Delhi, were undertaken by the

Aeroflot Russian International Airlines (hereinafter referred

to as the Airlines). The Airlines had employed a few persons

for that purpose. Director General, Civil Aviation, vide

circular dated 28.09.2007, took a decision to enlist agencies

which can undertake ground handling services at various

aerodromes. In anticipation of that decision, a press release

was made on 01.02.2007 by Press Information Bureau,

Government of India, New Delhi, informing that approval

has been grnated by the Ministry of Civil Aviation,

Government of India, New Delhi regarding ground handling

policy at metropolitan airports, including IGI Airport, New

Delhi. It was further detailed in the press release that ground

handling services at metropolitan airports would be carried

out by respective Airport Operators itself by its joint

venture and the airlines, involved in gound handling, will

not be permitted to undertake self handling with effect

from 01.01.2009. This press release made the employees of

the Airlines panicky of their future, since on the date of the

press release, the Airlines was doing self handling at the

IGI Airport, New Delhi. They began approaching other

agencies for employment and also informed the Airlines

about their decision to take employment elsewhere. 22

employees, including operators of the Airlines, tendered

their resignation in August 2007. Since ramp ground hanling

service calls for team work in a fixed time frame, it could not

be engaged in piece-meal. Hence, the Airlines approached

Combata Civil Aviation Pvt. Ltd. to provide them complete

ground handling services.

2. Aggrieved by the said Act, Aeroflot Employees

Union (in short the union) sent a demand letter dated

02.05.2005. Since the demand was not acceded to, the union

was forced to file claim statement before the Conciliation

Officer. Since the Airlines contested the claim preferred by

the union, conciliation proceedings ended into a failure.

On consideration of failure report submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order

No. L-11012/11/2006-IR (CM-I), New Delhi dated 01.01.2006,

wherein issues relating to demand of proper pay scales

and other facilities under well defined service conditions

applicable to the employees of the Airlines, doing ground

handling jobs, were sent for adjudication.

3. During pendancy of the said dispute for

adjudication, S/Shri Rishi Pal, Suresh Kumar, Sunil Kumar

Rathi and Jagpal were charge sheeted on 28.03.2007 alleging

that they had reported to a news channel that there was

great security threat at IGI Airport, New Delhi due to certain

actions of the Airlines. It was also reported that they were

not aware for whom they were working from last 12 years,

even though they were employees of the Airlines. Since

replies, submitted by the aforesaid employees, were found

to be not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was constituted.

The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Airlines,

who dismissed them from its services vide order dated

14.08.2007.

4. When report of the Enquiry Officer was under

consideration with the Airlines, the union moved an

application before this Tribunal seeking directions to

restrain the Airlines from changing service conditions of

members of the union, besides seeking status of protected

employees in terms of Sub-section (4) of section 33 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 197 (in short the Act) read with

rule 61 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 (in

short the Rules). The said application was disposed of by

this Tribunal vide order dated 13.8.2007, commanding the

Airlines to comply with the provisions of section 33 of the

Act, in case it opts to discharge or dismiss the charge

sheeted employees.

5. The Airlines dismissed the employees referred

above. Irked by the above act, the union raised an industrial

dispute before the Consciliation Officer by way of filing a

claim statement. Conciliation proceedings resulted into a

failure. Conciliation Officer submitted his report to the

appropriate Government, as contemplated by Sub-section

(4) of section 12 of the Act. On consideration of the said

failure report, the appropriate Government referred the

dispute to this Tribunal, vide order No. L-110012/4/2008-

IR(CM-I), New Delhi dated 14th of August, 2008 with

following terms:

"(i) Whether the action of the management of Russian

International Airlines, New Delhi, in dismissing the

services of S/Shri Suresh Kumar, Jagpal, Sunil Kumar

Rathi and Rishi Pal is justified and legal? (ii) To what

reliefs are the concerned workmen entitled?"

6. Claim statement was filed by the union pleding

that despite orders passed by the Tribunal, the Airlines

terminated services of two office bearers and one ordinary

member of the union, who were protected employees. Vide

letter dated 13.12.2006, the union sought status of protected

workmen from the Airlines. However, the Airlines failed to

respond, though there was an obligation on it to reply the

said communication within a period of 15 days. The union

was left with no option but to approach the Assistant

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1733

Labour Commissioner seeking declaration of protected

workmen. Being office bearer of the union, they were

protected workmen. The Airlines had committed an unfair

labour practice in not declaring them as protected

employees. Their services were terminated in violation of

the provisions of Sub-section (3) of section 33 of the Act,

hence approval applications moved by the Airlines are

irrelevant. The Airlines acted in utter disregard to the order

dated 13.8.2007 passed by the Tribunal. It was projected

that this Tribunal may not approve the illegal action taken

by the Airlines, dismissing the aforesaid employees from

their services and to reinstate them in service with

continuity, full back wages, and consequential benefits.

7. The Airlines demurred the claim pleading that the

employees, referred above, had committed serious acts of

misconduct, hence they were charge sheeted vide charge

sheet dated 5th of April, 2007. Explanations submitted by

them were found to be unsatisfactory, hence a decision

was taken to hold domestic enquiry. Shri Jitesh Pandey, an

independent and impartial person, was appointed as Enquiry

Officer, vide letter dated 4.5.2007. Shri Pandey conducted

the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural

justice and submitted his report dated 1st of August 2007

to the Airlines. Since charges stood proved against the

aforesaid employees, they were served with a show cause

notice dated 4.8.2007, alongwith the copy of the enquiry

report, calling them to submit their explanations as to why

they should not be dismissed from service. Explanation

submitted by them were considered and found to be

unsatisfactory. The Airlines decided to dismiss their

services. Accordingly their services were dismissed vide

letter dated 14.8.2007. Since an industrial dispute was

pending before this Tribunal, approval applications as

contemplated by clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of section 33

of the Act, were moved and simultaneously one month's

salary was sent to them by money order. It has been

disputed that the aforesaid employees were protected

workmen. The Airlines claimed that letter dated 13.12.06

and its postal receipts were manipulted documents. No

such letter was ever received by Airlines, hence there was

no question of its reply. It has been projected that when

ramp ground handling services were given to Combata

Civil Aviation Pvt. Ltd., the Airlines had to retrench 29

employees on 14th of September, 2007. Since the Airlines

is not doing ramp ground handling services, claim of the

union, for reinstatement of services of the aforesaid

employees, had become infructuous. The Airlines projected

that the provisions of clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of

section 33 of the Act are applicable to the controversy

under reference, hence approval applications were moved.

The dismissed employees were never declared as protected

employees, hence claim of the union that provisions of

Sub-section (3) of section 33 of the Act are attracted, is

uncalled for. It has been agitated that the dispute referred

by the Government may be dismissed and action of dismissal

of the aforesaid employees may be approved.

8. On perusal of pleadings, following issues were

settled:

1. Wehther the enquiry conducted by the

management was just, fair and proper?

2. As in terms of reference.

3. Relief.

9. Issue No. 1 was treated as preliminary issue.

10. To discharge onus resting on it, Airlines examined

Shri Jitesh Pandey, the Enquiry Officer. The union brought

Shri Suresh Kumar in the witness box to rebut facts unfolded

by Shri Pandey. No other witness was examined by either

of the parties on the preliminary issue.

11. On hearing Shri M.A. Niazi, authorized

representative on behalf of the claimant union, and Shri

M.K. Dwivedi, Authorized representative for the Airlines,

consideration of evidence adduced by the parties and on

apppreciation of submissions made at the bar, preliminary

issue was answered in favour of the claimant union and

against the Airlines, vide order dated 12.11.2010.

12. Shri Anil Chaudhary was examined to prove

misconduct of the claimants. Shri Suresh Kumar entered

the witness box again to rebut facts testified by

Shri Chaudhary.

13. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri M.A. Niazi,

authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the claimant union, but in part. Case was adjourned for

further arguments. On adjourned date, the authorized

representative was changed on behalf of the claimant

union. Thereafter, serveral adjournments were granted to

the claimant union to advance arguments. However none

came forward to advance arguments on behalf of the

claimant union. When proceedings were abandoned on

behalf of the claimant union, Shri M.K. Dwivedi, authorized

representative of the Airlines, was called upon to advance

arguments. He raised submissions on behalf of the Airlines.

I have given my careful considerations to the arguments

advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record.

My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as

follows:—

Issue No. 2

14. In affidavit Ex. MW2/A, tendered as evidence,

Shri Anil Chaudary declares that Shri Suresh Kumar,

Shri Jagpal, Shri Sunil Kumar Rathi and Shri Rishipal

expressed their view on IBN:7 news channel on 28.03.2007.

On the basis of views expressed by them, the aforesaid

channel reported on 28.03.2007 that there was great security

thereat at IGI Airport due to the Airlines. In the news report,

aforesaid claimants have clearly stated before the camera

that they have been working for the last 12 years, but do not

know as to whom they are serving. They were well aware

that they were on the rolls of the Airlines, since they were

1734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

receiving salaries and other benefits from the Airlines. They

deliberately made false statements to the news media. Their

statements to the news media is nothing but deliberate and

malicious imputation on the Airlines. Based on their

baseless and malafide information, it was reported that the

Airlines has submitted false affidavit to the Indian

Government while it has sub contracted ground handling

services to some unknown private agency and there is

"benami" settlement between the Airlines and a person by

the name of Tony Singh. On the information submitted by

the claimants, false and malicious imputation was levelled

against the Managing Director of the Airlines. Their

conduct is highly deplorable since they were well aware

that the information furnished by them was false and

baseless, which would tarnish image of the Airlines. Their

acts show their unfaithfulness to the establishment. They

levelled imputation solely with an intention to harm

reputation of the Airlines. Thus they committed serious

misconducts detailed as below:

(i)

They intentionally worked against the interest

of the establishment for their personal ulterior

motive/gains.

(ii)

They showed their unfaithfulness to the

establishment and worked contrary to the

nature of their duties.

(iii)

Their acts amount to dereliction of their duties.

(iv)

They caused damage and irreparable loss to

the reputation and goodwill of the Airlines

intentionally and with ulterior motive by making

false and baseless allegations against the

Airlines in their interview to IBN:7 news

channel.

Due to their misconduct, reputation of the Airlines

has been badly affected and it has suffered consequences

of the said misleading and wrong information telecasted to

general public.

15. Shri Chaudhary unfolds that a charge sheet dated

05.04.2007 was issued to the claimants, to which they

submitted their replies. Charge sheet served on them is

true and correct. Claimants nether took any permission to

express their views to the news channel nor they were

authorized to do so. On account of their false and baseless

allegations, the Airlines lost confidence in them. Even

otherwise, there remained no work for them on account of

fact that all ground handling work having been transferred

to Combata Aviation Pvt. Ltd., following new policy of

Government of India. The Airlines had retrenched services

of 29 employees with effect from 14.09.2007. Claimants were

concerned with ramp ground handling services.

Retrenchment of other employees have been held to be

legal and justified by this Tribunal, vide award dated

16.09.2010.

16. In his affidavit Ex.WW1/B, tendered as evidence,

Shri Suresh Kumar unfolds that he as well as Shri Jagpal

were office bearers of the Aeroflot Employees Union and

Shri Sunil Kumar Rathi was an ordinary member of the said

union. He projects that Shri Jagpal and Shri Sunil Kumar

Rathi had not made any reporting. In the reporting, version

of Shri Rishi Pal and Shri Suresh find place. He asserts that

there was a lot of truth in the news reporting and the Airlines

was looking for excuses to get rid of them. They have been

victimized by the Airlines. When contents of the news

report are scanned, nothing would be noted which could

be termed as serious misconduct, justifying their dismissal

from service. The Airlines had been projecting different

versions to different authorities relating to its ground

handling staff and had made arrangement with a company

called AFL (Ground Handling) Services, belonging to one

Shri Kanwaljeet Singh (Tony Singh). Documents in this

regard have been brought over the record. They do not

dispute relationship of employer and employee between

them and the Airlines. However, they were always harassed

when they were not made known before whom they had to

address their grievances. Shri Suresh Kumar has been an

employee of the Airlines since 1995 while appointment letter

was issued in his favour in 1997. Shri Jagpal is also an

employee of the Airlines. Shri Arun Sharma and Shri G.V.

Sharma were also employees of the Airlines. However,

certificates were issued by the company M/s. AFL (Ground

Handling) Services projecting them to be its employees.

Shri Suresh Kumar asserts that they were not at all

responsible for any reporting made to the aforesaid news

channel. No misconduct was committed by them. They

had been made scapegoats in an internal fight between the

Airlines and M/s. AFL (Ground Handling) Services.

17. When facts unfolded by Shri Anil Chaudhary

and Shri Suresh Kumar are appreciated, it emerged over

the record that the Airlines has four departments, viz. B.S.P.

Department, Reservation Department, Airport Department

and AFL (Ground Handling) Department. Employees are

transferred from one department to the other. Appointments

are made by the General Manager or under his authority by

any Head of Department. When there are various

employees in a department, their salaries arfe being

disbursed through Head of Department and in other cases,

it is being disbursed by the General Manager. In AFL

(Ground Handling) Department, salaries are being disbursed

by the Head of Department. Claimants were employees of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1735

the Airlines working in AFL (Ground Handling) Department.

Shri Suresh Kumar made a candid admission in that regard.

Thus, it is apparent over the record that the claimants were

employees of the Airlines, working at the relevant time in

its AFL (Ground Handling) Department. Shri Kanwaljeet

Singh alias Tony Singh was one of the consultants

appointed by the Airlines. He used to handle problems

relating to loaders/workmen.

18. As unfolded by Shri Chaudhary, claimant

deliberately made false statements on IBN:7 news channel,

which channel telecasted its report on 28.03.2007. It was

reported by the channel that there was great security threat

at IGI Airport by the Airlines. Claimant clearly stated before

the camera that they have been working from last 12 years,

but do not know for whom they were working. Shri

Chaudhary proceeds further that knowing fully well that

they were on the rolls of the Airlines from whom they were

receiving salaries and other statutory benefits, they

deliberately made false statements to the news media. On

baseless and malafide information furnished by the

claimants, the news channel reported that 'the Airlines has

submitted false affidavit to the Indian Government or they

have sub contracted the ground handling services to some

unknown private agency and there is benami settlement

between the Airlines and a person by the name of Tony

Singh'. On false information furnished by the claimants,

malicious imputations were levelled against the Managing

Director of the Airlines. Facts unfolded by Shri Chaudhary

get reaffirmation from testimony of Shri Suresh Kumar. In

his cross examination, he conceded that besides four

claimants, there were 7-8 employees of the Airlines who

faced the camera. Reporter of the channel talked to four

out of above persons. They were present outside the office

of the Labour Commissioner, when reporter of the channel

talked to them. He declares that they had gone to the office

of the Labour Commissioner in January 2007 when the said

interview was given. The said report was telecasted by

IBN:7 news channel on 28.03.2007. He concedes that when

he viewed the report on television, he found various

objectionable facts therein. According to him he was not

told that information furnished by them would be telecasted.

He opted not to question transcript of the telecast made by

IBN:7 channel on 28.03.2007, which transcription runs as

follows:

"Reporter—On being asked to comment, none of

the officials of Aeroflot was willing to facr the camera,

but out investigation continued. Now the name of

Tony Singh appeared. Shri Tony Singh was

responsible for everything. He was responsible for

the fraudulent activities. Who are the persons

responsible for putting the security of the IGI Airport

at stake. Our investigations revealed that it was a

person by the name of Tony Singh. He is seen as a

remedy for all ills. He is also the legal advisor of the

Airport.

It has been confirmed by the ground handling

staff that they are working for Aeroflot but on enquiry

about their salary and promotion, they were sent to

Shri Tony Singh. It was told that they were

employees of AFL and not of Aeroflot. He will redress

their grievances. The aggrieved claimants have now

approached the Conciliation Officer.

Rishipal—I have been working here for the last 12

years but still not aware as to what is AFL.

Suresh Kumar—No appointment letter nor

confirmation letter has been issued to us. They were

not informed as to where they have to perform duties

on the next morning. They are also not aware as to

where they will get salary for the month.

Shri S.K. Rathi—Sub-staff tells them that they are

employees of AFL. There is no agreement with them.

Whatever would be done for them would be done by

Shri Tony Singh".

The reporter projected that Aeroflot has given an

affidavit stating that ground handling would be done by

themselves and the ground handling staff is their own....it

is clear that the Russian airline company Aeroflot has either

given a false affidavit to the Government of India or the

ground handling has been sub-contracted to a benami

company, which is being run by Shri Tony Singh. Look at

this letter which has been written by the Station Officer to

Tony Singh mentioning that ground handling workers are

continuously lodging complaints. There have been

negotiations in this regard earlier also. Their salaries may

be hiked at the earliest.

It is learnt from reliable sources that settlement was

going on between corrupt employees of the Airlines and

Shri Tony Singh for the last 11 years. However, nothing

recorded on papers in respect of the said settlement.

Officers of the Airlines and Shri Tony Singh were making

huge profits. On account of benami settlement, question

mark has been put on security of the airport. Airlines is not

aware as to who is appointed in its name. It is also not

known to it as to who enters the premises of the airport on

identity card issued by it.

It is not the first time that Aeroflot has been pulled

up for flouting laws. It is questionable as to how Russian

1736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

General Manager, Dr. Igor Ivliev entered India. The manner

in which he is running the day to day affairs of an Indian

Company has left much to be desired. Dr. Igor Ivliev, General

Manager, who came to India on 16.01.2006 on an 11 month

employment visa has been converted to business visa.

FRRO has made clear that his person cannot be

allowed to remain in the country, but 3 days later, one more

report has been filed on his visa. Dr. Igor's visa had been

converted to employment visa. What was the reason for

changing decision of the Indian Government. When his

stay in India was questionable, how is it possible to obtain

a pass to roam in IGI Airport freely and continue to work

here. Therefore, it is evident there was certainly something

which made them overlook the security of the airport."

Shri Prabhanajan Verma was also interviewed.

"Reporter—How is it that the Russian Airlines been

allowed to continue with its nefarious activities and

security of the airport put to stake? Isn't the Ministry

of Civil Aviation doing anything?

Prabhanjan—It is certainly looking into it. Will the

enquiry be done only after the entire facts are out.

Prior to our reporting the workers had approached

Labour Court. The Government knows that

something is wrong somewhere. The way things are

going on and the work is being got done through a

benami company in a successful way, nothing has

come to the forefront. Aeroflot gives an affidavit to

the Government that the workers are working for the

company. When facts came to light it was found that

there is vast difference in the salary and perks of the

actual workers of Aeroflot and those working for the

benami company, which make the workers of Aeroflot

to approach the Conciliation Officer.

Reporter—It is being said that there is a nexus

between Aeroflot, Tony Singh and various agencies,

due to which the company has been able to carry on

its activities.

Prabhanjan—The way in which things are being

done, it is obvious that the security agencies have

been hoodwinked and definitely there is an

understanding between some high level official or

Minister due to which they have been favoured.

Otherwise it is not possible to break the strict security

at the airport.

Reporter—Thank you Prabhanjan for all the

information. All in all, there is security threat at the

Delhi Airport. The employees of Aeroflot working at

the Delhi Airport are working against all norms with

the full knowledge of the Government. In spite of the

fact that the matter is under consideration at the

Labour Court, there is no restriction from the side of

the Government, restraining the activities of

Aeroflot".

19. I have viewed contents of CD Ex.MW2/2

personally. When CD was viewed, it came to light that the

claimants, namely, Shri Rishi Pal, Shri Suresh Kumar and

Shri S.K. Rathi faced the camera and furnished information

to the aforesaid news channel. Shri Jagpal was also standing

by their side. By his posture, as viewed in CD, it became

apparent that he also approved the information given by

the above claimants to the news reporter. From contents of

CD. Ex.MW2/2, one cannot form an opinion that Shri Jagpal

was a silent spectator to the entire melodrama. By his

conduct of being present, besides the aforesaid claimants,

he made it well known that he was a party to the entire

episode.

20. Transcript of contents of telecast made by IBN:7

news channel on 28.03.2003 highlight that Shri Rishi Pal

asserts that he was working for last 12 years but not aware

as to what AFL was. Shri Suresh Kumar also alleged that

neither appointment letter nor confirmation letter was issued

to them. They were not informed as to where they would

perform duties on next morning. They are also not aware as

to whether they would get salary for the month. Shri S.K.

Rathi projects that the sub-staff tells them that they are

employees of AFL. There is no agreement with them.

Whatever would be done for them would be done by Shri

Tony Singh. Out of aforesaid facts furnished by the

claimants, Reporter could projects that settlement was going

on between corrupt employees of the Airlines and Shri

Tony Singh for the last 11 years. However, nothing was

recorded on papers in respect of the said settlement.

Officers of the Airlines and Shri Tony Singh were making

huge profits. On account of benami settlement, question

mark has been put on security of the airport. The Airlines is

not aware as to who is appointed in its name. It is also not

known to it as to who entres premises of the airport on

identity card issued by it.

21. The above facts bring it to light of the day that

the claimants gave interview to the press, without obtaining

permission from their employer. The said interview was

given by them when Conciliation Officer was seized of the

dispute. When Conciliation Officer had taken cognizance

of the dispute, either of the parties was not required to take

resort to the press, to make situation surcharged. Here in

the case, the Airlines projects that the claimants made

statements to the press, which were wrong to their own

knowledge. They were well aware that they were employees

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1737

of the Airlines but claimed before the press that they were

not aware of their status in that regard. They question as

to who Shri Tony Singh was and expressed apprehensions

as to whether their services would continue and they would

get wages. Statement/information furnished by them to

the press make it apparent that the claimants had shown

rebellious conduct against their employer.

22. Question for consideration would be as to

whether the above conduct, depicted by the claimants,

amounts to misconduct. For an answer, it would be

appropriate to know definition of term 'misconduct'. The

dictionary meaning of the word 'misconduct' is: "improper

behaviour, intentional wrong doing or deliberate violation

of a rule of standard of behaviour. "Misconduct is a

transgression of some established and definite rule of

action, where no discretion if left except what necessity

may demand: it is violation of definite law, a forbidden act

and differs from carelessness. It comprises of positve acts

and not mere neglect or failure".

23. Under Indian Penal Code and other special and

local laws some acts or omissions are offences for which a

person can be punished by the sovereign power of the

State. These offences or acts are considered to be prejudicial

to the interest of the society in general and, therefore, they

are prohibited by law. There are, however, various other

organizations such as professional bodies, educational

institutions, clubs, corporate etc. and any one who wants

to be admitted to such bodies, by being member or

otherwise, is also required to act under certain rules and

remain subject to certain discipline. If he does anything in

violation of rules, regulations, or any law inconsistent with

his position as a member of that society, then he is liable to

lose advantage and facilities of the association with that

society or organization. Any such act is, therefore, generally

called misconduct. Primary meaning of the word

'misconduct' is bad management, mis-management and

malfeasance or culpable neglect of an official in regard to

his office. Both in law and in ordinary parlance, the term

misconduct usually implies an act done willfully with a

wrong intention and as applied to professional acts, even

though such acts are not inherently wrongful, it means

also dereliction of or deviation from duty. Even assuming

that a particular act is negligence and not misconduct, such

a negligence which amounts to dereliction of or deviation

from duty cannot be execused. See in re:—Mehboob

Alikhan (AIR 1958 AP 116).

24. In N.M. Roshan Umar Karim & Co. (AIR 1936

Mad. 508) following three different meaning of the word

'misconduct' were given:

"(a) Misconduct is not established by proving even

culpable negligence. It is something opposed to

accident of negligence and is doning of something

which the doer knows to be wrong or which he

does recklessly not careing what the result would

be.

(b) Misconduct is distinguished from accident and

is not far from negligence—not only gross and

culpable negligence and involves that a person

misconducts himself when it is wrong conduct

on his part, in the existing circumstances to do or

to fail or omit to do a particular thing or to persist

in the act, failure or omission or acting with

carelessness. It is incorrect that a misconduct

only refers to acts of gross or culpable negligence

and nor mere negligence.

negligence. The test of misconduct is not what a

reasonable man would have done in the

circumstances. It means that servant is guilty of

something which was inconsistent with the

conduct expected of him by the rules of the

company."

Above three meanings were quoted by the Apex

Court with approval in Shiv Nath (AIR 1965 SC

1666).

25. Whether mere negligence is a misconduct or not

will depend upon the nature of negligence and the

requirement of care which the employee was obliged to

use on the nature of services he was expected to perform.

Misconduct could be of three kinds:

(i) technical misconduct which leaves not trail of

indiscipline,

(ii) misconduct resulting in damage to the employer's

property which might be compensated by

forfeiture of gratuity or part thereof, and

(iii) serious misconduct such as acts of violence

againt the management or other employee or

riotous of disorderly behaviour in or near the place

of employment, which though not directly causing

damage, is conducive to grave indiscipline.

26. In Ram Singh (1992 Lab. IC 2391) the Apex Court

observed that though the expression "misconduct" is "not

capable of precise definition, its dereliction receives its

connotation from the context, the delinquency in its

performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature

of duty. It may involve moral turpitude, it must be improper

or wrong behaviour, unlawful behaviour, willful in character,

forbidden act, a transgression of established and definite

rule of action or code of conduct but not mere error of

judgement, carelessness or negligence in performance of

duty, the act complained of bears forbidden quality or

character. Its ambit has to be construed with reference to

1738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs,

regard being had to the scope of the statue and the public

purpose it seeks to serve."

27. In industrial law, the word 'misconduct' has

acquired a specific connotation. In Shalimar Rope Works

Ltd. (1953 L.A.C. 584) the Labour Appellate Tribunal laid

down the criteria for determination as to whether an act

would be misconduct, viz. the act (i) is inconsistent with

the fulfillment of the express of implied conditions of service,

or (ii) is directly linked with the general relationship of

employer and employees, or (iii) has a direct connection

with the contentment or comfort of the men at work, or (iv)

has a material bearing, on the smooth and efficient working

of the concern. If the answer to any of these criteria is in

affirmative, the action in question would amount to an act

of misconduct. In industrial law, there are two kinds of

misconduct, namely; (I) gross or major misconduct which

justify punishment of dismissal or discharge, and (II) minor

misconduct which do not justify punishment of dismissal

or discharge, but may call for lesser punishment. See also

Caltex India Ltd. [1966 (2) LLJ 137].

28. Resorting to press by the claimants cannot be

said to be in consonance with the rules. Their behaviour

was contrary to normal or regular pattern of behaviour. In

case of their having any grievance, they were under an

obligation either to make protest with their employer or to

approach authorities under the Act. Instead of acting in

consonance with the rules, claimant approached the press

and made rebellious statements against their employer.

Statements, made by the claimants, raised questions

relating to smooth working of the Airlines, its Managing

Director and redressal mechanism being adopted therein.

Behaviour, depicted by the claimants, had not only

jeopardized interest of the Airlines but raised serious

concerns about its working pattern. An employee who

undermines its employer tends to upsent or destroy

discipline in the establishment. Therefore, such an act

certainly amounts to misconduct within the meaning of

industrial arena.

29. Acts which have tendency to overthrow, upset

or destroy discipline in an establishment would be termed

as acts subversive of discipline. All acts which tend to

destroy discipline tantamount to 'acts subversive of

discipline, which may include misconduct relating to duty,

negligence, going on illegal strikes, go slow, besides riotous

and disorderly behaviour. Acts which are subversive of

discipline constitute serious misconduct. Press reports

made by the claimants, have connection to affairs of the

establishment where they were working. False information,

submitted by them, were likely to affect smooth relationship

between the Airlines on one hand and a group of workmen

on the other, besides tendency to distrub discipline and

peace in the establishment. Acts, committed by the

claimants subvert discipline in the establishment even

though committed outside the work place. Such proposition

was laid by the Apex Court in Dem Dima Tea Estate [1963

(1) LLJ 250] wherein speech made at a meeting of a workmen,

which was inflammatory, was held to undermine discipline

of the workmen or incite them to violence or breach of

peace. It was held to be a misconduct.

30. Misconduct committed outside premises or

precincts of the establishment would enable the employer

to deal with the employee departmentally when

consequences of such an act manifests itself within the

premises of the establishment. When act committed outside

the premises or precincts of the establishment, if it had

effect of subverting discipline, or good behaviour within

the premises or precincts of the establishments will amount

to act of misconduct subversive of discipline. Such

proposition was laid by the Apex Court in Moolchandani

Electrical & Radio Industries Ltd. [1975 (1) LLJ 391].

Replying on above proposition of law, it is concluded that

misconduct committed by the claimants outside the

premises or precincts of the Airlines could be dealt with

domestically. As pointed out above, claimants made

rebellious statement which were subversive of indiscipline,

hence a grave misconducts. In view of above reasons it is

concluded that the Airlines has been able to establish

misconduct against the claimants.

31. What should be appropriate punishment, which

can been awarded to the claimants, is a proposition which

would be addressed to by this Tribunal? Right of an

employer to inflict punishment of discharge or dismissal is

not unfettered. The punishment imposed must

commensurate with gravity of the misconduct, proved

against the delinquent workman. Prior to enactment of

section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short

the Act), it was not open to the industrial adjudicator to

vary the order of punishment on finding that the order of

dismissal was too severe and was not commiserative with

the act of misconduct. In other words, the industrial

adjudicator could not interfere with the punishment as it

was not required to consider propriety or adequacy of

punishment of whether it was excessive or too severe. Apex

Court, in this connection, had, however, laid down in Bengal

Bhatdee Coal Company [1963 (I) LLJ 291] that where order

of punishment was shockingly disproportionate with the

act of the misconduct which no reasonable employer would

impose in like circumstances, that itself would lead to the

inference of victimization or unfair labour practice which

would vitiate order of dismissal or discharge. But by

enacting the provisions of section 11-A of the Act, the

Legislature has transferred the discretion of the employer,

in imposing punishment, to the industrial adjudicator. It is

now the satisfaction of the industrial adjudicator to finally

decide the quantum of punishment for proved acts of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1739

misconduct, in cases of discharge or dismissal. If the

Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal

is not justified in any circumstances on the facts of a case,

it has the power not only to set aside order of punishment

and direct reinstatement with back wages, but it has also

the power to impose certain conditions as it may deem fit

and also to give relief to the workman, including award of

lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal.

32. It is established law that imposing punishment

for a proved act of misconduct is a matter for the punishing

authority to decide and normally it should not be interferred

with by the Industrial Tribunals. The Tribunal is not required

to consider the propriety or adequecy of punishment. But

where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate,

regard being had to the particular conduct and past record,

or is such as no reasonable employer would ever impose in

like circumstance, the Tribunal may treat the imposition of

such punishment as itself showing victimization or unfair

labour practice. Law to this effect was laid by the Apex

Court in Hind Construction and Engineering Company Ltd.

[1965 (I) LLJ 462]. Likewise in Management of the

Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry

[1971 (II) LLJ 630] the Apex Court ruled that the employer

made a mountain out of a mole hill and had blown a trival

matter into one involving loss of prestige and reputation

and as such punishment of dismissal was held to be

unwarranted. In Ram Kishan [1996 (I) LLJ 982) the

delinquent employee was dismissed from service for using

abusive language against a superior officer. On the facts

and in the circumstances of the case, the Apex Court held

that the punishment of dismissal was harsh and

disproportionate to the gravity of the charge imputed to

the delinquent. It was ruled therein, "when abusive

language is used by anybody against a superior, it must be

understood in the environment in which that person is

situated and the circumstances surrounding the even that

led to the use of abusive language. No straigth-jacket

formula could be evolved in adjudicating whether the

abusive language in the given circumstances would

warrant dismissal from service. Each case has to be

considered on its own facts."

33. In B.M. Patil [1996 (II) LLJ 536], Justice Mohan

Kumar of Karnatka High Court observed that in exercise of

discretion, the Disciplinary Authority should not act like a

robot and justice should be moulded with humanism and

understanding. It has to assess each cases on its own

merit and each set of act should be decided with reference

to the evidence recording the allegation, which should be

basis of the decision. The past conduct of the worker may

be a ground for assuming that he migth have a propensity

to commit the misconduct and to assess the quantum of

punishment to be imposed. In that case a conductor of the

bus was dismissed from service for causing revenue loss

of 50p to the employer by irregular sale of tickets. It was

held that the punishment was too harsh and

disproportionate to the act of misconduct.

34. After insertion of section 11-A of the Act, the

jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment is there with

the Tribunal, who has to see whether punishment imposed

by the employer commensurate with the gravity of the act

of misconduct. If it comes to the conclusion that the

misconduct is proved, it may still hold that the punishment

is not justified because misconduct alleged and proved is

such as it does not warrant punishment of discharge or

dismissal and where necessary, set aside the order of

discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement with or

without any terms or conditions as it thinks fit or give any

other relief, including the award of lesser punishment, in

lieu of discharge or dismissal, as the circumstance of the

case may warrant Reference can be made to a precedent in

Sanatak Singh (1984 Lab. I.C.817), The discretion to award

punishment lesser than the punishment of discharge or

dismissal has to be judiciously exercised and the Tribunal

can interfere only when it is satisfied that the punishment

imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to

the decree of the guilt of the workman. Reference can be

made to the precedent in Kachraji Motiji Parmar (1994 (II)

LLJ 332). Thus it is evident that the Tribunal has now

jurisdiction and power of substituting its own measure of

punishment in place of the managerial wisdom, once it is

satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal is not

justified. On facts and in the circumstances of a case, section

11-A of the Act specifically gives two folds powers to the

Industrial Tribunal, first is virtually the power of appeal

against findings of fact made by the Enquiry Officer in his

report with regard to the adequacy of the evidence and the

conclusion on facts and secondly of foremost importance,

is the power of reappraisal of quantum of punishment.

35. In Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (2005 (2) S.C.C.

481) the Apex Court was confronted with the proposition

as to whether power available to the Industrial Tribunal

under section 11-A of the Act are unlimited. The Court

opined that "there is no such thing as unlimited jurisdiction

vested with any judicial or quasi judicial forum and

unfettered discretion is sworn enemy of the constitutional

guararantee against discrimination. An unlimited

jurisdiction leads to unreasonableness. No authority, be it

administrative or judicial, has any power to exercise the

discretion vested in it unless the same is based on justifiable

grounds supported by acceptable materials and reasons

thereof". The Apex Court relied its judgement in C.M.C.

Hospital Employees Union (1987 (4) S.C.C. 691) wherein it

was held that "section 11-A cannot be considered as

conferring an arbitrary power on the Industrial Tribunal or

the Labour Court. The power under section 11-A of the Act

has to be exercised judiciously and the Industrial Tribunal

or Labour Court is expected to interfere with the decision

of a management under section 11-A of the Act only when

1740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the

management is highly disproportionate to the degree of

guilt of the workmen concerned. The Industrial Tribunal or

Labour Court has to give reasons for its decision". In

Hombe Gowda Educational Trust (2006 (1) S.C.C, 430) the

Apex Court announced that the Tribunal would not normally

interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the

employer unless an appropriate case is made out therefore.

36. Power to set aside order of discharge or dismissal

and grant relief of reinstatement or lesser punishment is

not untrammeled power. This power has to be exercised

only when Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge

or dismissal was not justified. This satisfaction of the

Tribunal is objective satisfaction and not subjective one.

It involves application of the mind by the Tribunal to

various circumstances like nature of delinquency committed

by the workman, his past conduct, impact of delinquency

on employer's business, besides length of service rendered

by him. Furthermore, the Tribunal has to consider whether

the decision taken by the employer is just or not. Only after

taking into consideration these aspects, the Tribunal can

upset the punishment imposed by the employer. The

quantum of punishment cannot be interfered with without

recording specific findings on points referred above. No

indulgence is to be granted to a person, who is guilty of

grave misconduct like cheating, fraud, misappropriation of

employers fund, theft of public property etc. A reference

can be made to the precedent in Bhagirath Mal Rainwa

(1995 (I) LLJ 960).

37. To assess the quantum of punishment for the

claimant, facts are again taken note of. At the cost of

repetition, it is said that the claimants made a rebellious

statement and questioned working pattern of the Airlines.

They raised issues about their status of being an employee

of the Airlines, knowing fully well themselves to be

employees of the Airlines. On the basis of their statements,

the reporter put a blot not only on the Airlines but on the

status of its Managing Director, An employee who makes

rebellious statements against top executive of the Airlines

cannot expect his retention in service. Such an employee

loses confidence of his employer. In case such an employee

is retained in service, discipline would be the first casualty.

It is well known that misconduct is contagious. When such

gross misconduct is suffered, it would give opportunity to

others to behave in the same manner. Work culture,

discipline and smooth functioning of the establishment

would be put to stake. Taking into consideration all these

aspects, I am of the considered opinion that employees

like the claimant do not have a right to be dealt with leniently.

38. Whether claimants were victimized for their union

activities? Answer lies in the negative. Claimants

approached the Conciliation Officer for redressal of their

grievances. When they came out of office of the Conciliation

Officer, they approached the press and made derogatory

statements against their employer. Their employer had not

taken any action to restrain them to pursue their union

activities. No evidence has been brought over the record

to indicate that the employer took steps to harass or

victimize them. In such a situation. I do not find it to be a

case to conclude that punishment of dismissal from service

was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct

committed by the claimants. No case for interference with

the punishment, awarded to the claimants, is made out

Resuitantly, it is concluded that punishment of dismissal

from service commensurate to the misconduct of the

claimants. The issue is, therefore, answered in favour of

the Airlines and against the claimants .

Issue No.3

39. Whether the penalty of dismissal would relate

back to the date of order of dismissal passed by the Airlines?

For an answer, it is expedient to consider the precedents

handed down by the Apex Court. In Ranipur Colliery [(1959)

Supp. 2 SCR 719] the employer conducted a domestic

enquiry though defective and passed an order of dismissal

and moved the Tribunal for approval of that order. It was

ruled therein that if the enquiry is not defective, the Tribunal

has only to see whether there was a prima facie case for

dismissal and whether the employer had come to the

bonafide conclusion that the employee was guilty of

misconduct Thereafter on coming to that conclusion that

the employer had bonafide come to the conclusion that the

employee was guilty, that is, there was no unfair labour

practice and no victimization, the Tribunal would grant the

approval which would relate back to the date from which

the employer had ordered the dismissal. If the enquiry is

defective for any reason, the Tribunal would also have to

consider for itself on the evidence adduced before it

whether the dismissal was justified. However on coming to

the conclusion on its own appraisal of evidence adduced

before it that the dismissal was justified its approval of the

order of dismissal made by the employer on defective

enquiry would still relate back to the date when order was

made.

40. In Phulbari Tea Estate (1960 (I) S.C.R. 32) the

domestic enquiry held by the employer culminating in the

order of dismissal was found to be invalid, being in gross

violation of the rules of natural justice. Even before the

Tribunal, the employer did not lead proper evidence to

justify the order of dismissal and contended itself by merely

producing the statement of certain witnesses recorded

during the domestic enquiry and the workman had no

opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses before the

Tribunal. In the absence of any evidence before it, justifying

the dismissal, the Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal

and granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement, which

order was upheld by the Apex Court. In that case question

of relating back of the order of dismissal did not arise.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1741

41. In P.H. Kalyani [1963 (1) LLJ 673] the employer

dismissed the workman after holding a domestic enquiry

into the charges. Since some dispute was pending before

the Industrial Tribunal, the employer applied for "approval"

of action of dismissal in compliance with the proviso to

Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. The workman made an

application under section 33-A of the Act Apart from relying

on validity of domestic enquiry, the employer adduced all

the evidence before the Tribunal in support of its action.

On basis of evidence before it the Tribunal came to the

conclusion that the facts of misconduct committed by the

workman were of serious nature involving danger to human

life and therefore dismissed the application under section

33-A and accorded "approval" to the action or dismissal

taken by the employer. In this situation the Apex Court

held that if the enquiry is not defective and the action of

the employer is bonafide, the Tribunal will grant the

"approval" and the dismissal would "relate back to the

date from which the employer had ordered dismissal". If

the enquiry is invalid for any reason, the Tribunal will have

to consider for itself on the evidence adduced before it,

Whether the dismissal was justified. If it comes to the

conclusion on its own appraisal of such evidence that the

dismissal was justified, the dismissal would "still relate

back to the date when the order was made". Sasa Musa

Sugar Works case (supra) was distinguished saying that

observations made therein "apply only to a case where the

employer had neither dismissed the employee nor had come

to the conclusion that a case for dismissal had been made.

In that case, the dismissal of the employee takes effect

from the date of the award and so untill then the relation of

employer and employee will continue in law and in fact".

42. D.C.Roy [(1976) Lab. I.C. 1142] is the illustration

where domestic enquiry held by the employer was found

to be invalid being violative of principles of natural justice

and the employer had justified the order of dismissal by

leading evidence before the Labour Court, on appraisal of

which the Labour Court found the order of dismissal

justified. In appeal, the Apex Court upheld the award with

the observation that "the ratio of Kalyani's case (supra)

would therefore, govern the case and the judgment of the

Labour Court must relate back to the date on which the

order of dismissal was passed".

43. In Gujrat Steel Tubes Ltd. [1980 (1) LLJ 137]

inverted image of the D.C. Roy's case was presented by a

majority of three Judges Bench wherein it was held that

"where no enquiry has preceded punitive discharge, and

the Tribunal for the first time upholds the punishment,

this court in D.C. Roy vs. Presiding Officer (supra) has

taken the view that full wages be paid untill the date of

the award, There cannot be any relation back of the date

af dismissal when the -management passed the void

order". Though the court ruled that law laid in D.C.Roy is

correct yet it followed obiter instead of the decision.

Observations of the Apex Court in above decision,

bearing on the relate back rule, were faulted in

R.Thiruvirkolam [1997 (1) SCC 9] on the ground that they

"are not in the line with the decision in Kalyani which

was binding or with D.C. Roy to which Learned Judge

Krishna Iyer J. was a party. It also does not match with

the juristic principle discussed in Wade". The view taken

in R.Thiruvirkolam (supra) was affirmed in Punjab Dairy/

Development Corporation Ltd, [1997 (2) LLJ 1041].

44. In view of the catena of decisions, detailed above,

it is clear that an employer can justify its action by leading

evidence before the Tribunal. This equally applies to cases

of total absence of enquiry and defective enquiry. A case

of defective enquiry stands on the same footing as no

enquiry. If no evidence is led or evidence adduced does

not justify the dismissal by the employer, the Tribunal can

order reinstatement or payment of compensation as it may

think fit. But if it finds on the evidence adduced before it

that the dismissal is justified, the doctrine of relate back is

pressed into service to bridge the time gap between the

rupture of the relationship of employer and employee and

the finding of the Tribunal.

45. In view of the facts detailed above, punishment

of dismissal from service without notice would relate back

to the date of the order Claimants could not bring it to light

that the order of dismissal from service would be applicable

from the date of the award and not from the date of the

order. All these facts would project that punishment of

dismissal without notice, awarded to the claimants, is legal,

fair and justified. Claimants could not show any illegality

in the order of dismissal passed by the Airlines against

them.

46. Since punishment of dismissal awarded to the

aforesaid four claimants is found to be legal an justified, no

case is there for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion of

awarding lower punishment, as provided by Section 11-A

of the Act. Punishment awarded to the claimants is

appropriate, Claimants are not entitled to any relief,

muchless relief of reinstatement in service with continuity

and full back wages. Claim statement filed by them deserves

dismissal. Accordingly, the same is, hereby, dismissed. An

award is passed in favour of the Airlines and against the

claimants It be sent to the appropriate Government for

publication

Dated: 08.01.2014

DR. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 641.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wñlhñ,yñ ds

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

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

1742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 14@2009½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@136@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 641.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2009)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Rayatwari Sub Area of WCL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

03/02/2014.

[No. L-220l2/136/2008-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND. PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT. NAGPUR

Case No.CG1T/NGP/14/2009

Date: 13.01.2014.

Party No. 1

The Sub Area Manager

Rayatwari Sub Area of WCL,

Post- Rayatwari,

Yabatmal (MS)- 445307.

Versus

Party No. 2

Vice President,

Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union,

Dadmahal Ward, Hanuman Khidki,

Chandrapur (MS)

AWARD

(Dated: 13th January, 2014)

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 Rayatwari Sub Area of WCL and the Union,

Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor union for adjudication, as per

letter No. L-22012/136/2008-IR (CM-II) dated 31.03.2009,

with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of M/S WCL

in denying employment to the dependent of late

Shri Ramdhari Mukaram is legal and justified? To

what relief the claimant is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the union "Jharkhand Colliery

Mazdoor Union the ("the union" in short) filed the statement

of claim on behalf of the applicant, Shri Dinesh Ramdhan

Mukaram ("the applicant" in short) and the management

of WCL (here-in-after referred to as the "Party No, 1") filed

its written statement.

The case of the applicant as projected by the union

in the statement of claim is that the deceased father of the

applicant, Ramdhari Tukaram was appointed as a loader by

Party No. l on 19.10.1972 and he worked with Party No. l till

22.07.2001, the date of his death and deceased Ramdhari

was a permanent employee of Party No. l and after the

death of Ramdhari, his widow applied for compassionate

appointment for her son, the present applicant by

submitting applications dated 15.01.2005 and 11.11.2006,

but the Party No. l deliberately and illegally avoided to

give employment to the applicant by applying illegal

parameter, which is clear cut discrimination towards the

applicant and as in the mean time, mother of the applicant

died, the applicant approached it (union) and authorized it

to pursue the matter before the concerned authority on his

behalf and though it raised the issue before the Party No. l,

on behalf of the applicant to provide him compassionate

employment, Party No. 1 failed to take cognizance of its

application.

It is further pleaded by the union that the deceased

workman had discharged his duty for 24 years as a

permanent employee till his death and as per the provisions

of Coal Wages Agreements, the applicant is entitled for

employment on the basis of compassionate and the claim

of the applicant was rejected by the Party No. 1 saying that

deceased Ramdhari, the late father of the applicant was a

"Badli" worker, but "Badli' worker also falls within the

definition of "workman" and "Badli" worker is also entitled

to the benefits under all industrial laws and the applicant is

entitled for employment on compassionate ground and as

Party No. 1 refused to give employment to the applicant,

the union raised the dispute before the ALC and ultimately,

the dispute was referred by the Central Government to this

Tribunal for adjudication.

Prayer has been made by the union to direct the

management to provide employment to the applicant with

all consequential benefits.

3. The party No. 1 in the written statement has

pleaded inter-alia that the present reference is vague, as

the establish in which, the workman was working, his

designation etc. have not been mentioned and hence, the

reference is not maintainable and the dispute has been

raised by the union, but the union has not produced any

material on record to show that deceased Ramdhari

Mukaram was a member of the union and the union is not

competent to raise an industrial dispute of this nature and

the dispute is not an industrial dispute as defined under

section 2 (k) of the Act.

It is further pleaded by Party No. 1 that deceased

Ramdhari was appointed as a loader on 19.10.1972 at

Ballarpur Pit No. 3 & 4 and as Ramdhari was unauthorisedly

absent from duty, the management vide its communication

No. 373 dated 06.05.1996 advised him to join duties and

also informed him that in case of his failure to join duties,

he would be treated as a 'Badli' worker and as Ramdhari did

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1743

not join duties vide letter 489 dated 12/15.06.1996, he was

made a Badli worker and the placement/ conversion of

Ramdhari as a Badh worker was not protested by the

workman or his union and Ramdhari joined at Mahakali

colliery as a Badli worker w.e.f. 15.06.1996 and worked as

such till his death on 21.07.2001 and due to his death, his

name was removed from the roll of Badli workers of Mahakali

colliery and Ramdhari did not complete 240 days as Badli

worker in any calendar year and wife of deceased workman

after a gap of 4/5 years, requested the management to

consider the case of her son for employment vide

applications dated 15.01.2005 and 11.11.2006 and there was

inordinate delay on the part of the applicant requesting the

management to appoint him on compassionate ground and

the applications were rejected by the competent authority

on the grounds that deceased workman, Ramdhari Mukaram

was not a permanent employee and he was on Badli roll at

the time of his death, which was in tune of the prevailing

policy and therefore, its action is justified and legal and

interestingly, the applicant, Dinesh did not make any

application himself for employment, soon after the death of

his father, even though he was already a major at that time

and it is obvious that he was not interested in securing the

employment and the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

4. Both the parties have adduced oral evidence in

support of their respective claim, besides placing reliance

on documentary evidence. The union has examined

Shri Kishore Potanwar, the Vice-President of the union as a

witness in support of the claim. Shri Shrikrishna Shelke,

the Senior Personnel Manager of Rayatwari Sub Area has

been examined as a witness by the Party No. 1. The evidence

of the witness examined by the union and the witness for

the Party No. 1 is in the same line of the stands taken in the

statement of claim and written statement respectively.

5. The witness examined on behalf of the union in his

cross-examination has admitted that he has not filed any

document to show, that deceased Ramdhari was a member

of their union and there was no resolution by the general

body or Executive committee of the union to espouse the

claim of the dependents of Ramdhari and at the time of his

death, Ramdhari was working as a Badli worker and he was

treated as a Badli worker as he remained absent regularly.

6. The witness for the Party No.l in his cross-

examination has admitted that the definition of workman in

the Standing Order includes "Badli". The witness for the

Party No. 1 has further admitted in his cross-examination

that the provisions of NCWA are binding to WCL and the

coal industry and in NCWAs, there is provision of giving

employment to the dependents.

At the time of argument, it was submitted by

the learned advocate for the union that the union is a

registered union and the union is entitled to raise the dispute

on behalf of the dependent of late workman Ramdhari and

the appointment of late Ramdhari was made as a permanent

loader in 1972 and there is no force in the contention made

by the Party No. 1 that late Ramdhari was a habitual

absentee, as not a single document has been filed in

support of such claim and the applicant has claimed

employment on the basis of the provisions of the NCWA,

the settlement between the WCL and its workmen and not

on compassionate ground and there is no bar in the NCWA

or in the Certified Standing Order of WCL for providing

employment to the dependents of a Badli worker and as

such, the action of the Party No. 1 in not providing the

applicant employment on the ground that his father was a

Badli worker is not sustainable and as such, the applicant

is entitled for employment.

In support of such contentions, reliance has been

placed by the learned advocate for the union on the

decisions reported in 1993 (I) BLJ- 52 (M/s. BCCL Vs.

Their Workmen), 2004 I-CLR-872 (Panyanm Cement

Employees Union Vs. Commissioner of Labour Hyderabad).

8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for Party No. 1 that the union has no locus standi to raise

the present dispute and deceased Ramdhari Mukaram, the

father of the present applicant though was appointed as a

permanent loader in 1972, he used to remain unauthorised

absent from duties and as per the order. Ext. M-III the

deceased workman was converted to Badli worker and he

worked as Badli worker till his death and such facts have

been admitted by the witness for the union and temporary,

casual and Badli workers are not regular employees of the

coal mines, so their dependents are not entitled to get the

benefits of compassionate appointment as provided under

the NCWA, It was further submitted that compassionate

appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and

such appointment is granted to tide over the financial

hardship of the family and it can be granted only, if there is

a specific provision provided for the same and as there is

no specific provision for providing the benefit of

compassionate appointment to the family of a Badli worker

and as the family of late Ramdhari sustained for more than

5 years, after the death of Ramdhari, the applicant is not

entitled for compassionate appointment.

9. Before delving into the merit of the case, I think it

proper to mention about the principles enuciated by the

Hon'ble High Courts in the two decisions cited by the

learned advocate for the union.

In the judgment reported in 2004 ICLR-872 (Supra),

the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh have held that:—

"Badli workers/employees-Working in Panyam

Cement factory-Whether workman under I D Act?

Whether entitled to be included in voters lists of

Trade union-Held that Badli workers are 'Workmen"

as contemplated under section 2 (S) of the I.D. Act.

Entitled to benefits under all industrial laws. Denial

of right of Badli workers to join Trade union, amounts

to unfair labour practice-Person employed even for a

day is "Workman".

1744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10. In the judgment reported in 1993 (i) BLJ-52 (Supra),

the Hon'ble High Court, Ranchi Bench have held that:—

Section 10(1) (d) National Coal Wages Agreement

No. II- Dispute referred to Respondent No. 1 for us award

an question whether dependant of a workman who died

while in service of the company should be employed by

Company. Respondent No. 1 gave his award in affirmative

for giving employment to the son of the deceased employee.

The award was challenged before the High Court in writ

petition.

Held that in any event, there is nothing in National

Coal Wages Agreement No. II to show that clause 10.4.2

thereof is applicable only to a permanent workman.

Keeping in mind the principles enunciated by the

Hon'bile Courts in the decisions cited by the parties, the

present case at hand is to be considered.

11. So far the first contention regarding the union

having no authority to raise the dispute on behalf of the

applicant is concerned, it is found from the pleadings of

the parties, the facts that the union had raised the dispute

before the ALC on behalf of the applicant and that the

Central Government has referred the matter for adjudication

and so also the provisions of Section 36 (3) of the Act that

the union is competent to raise the dispute,

12. Admittedly, compassionate appointment is not

a matter of right. However, this is not a case of providing

employment to the applicant on the ground of

compassionate appointment. The applicant has claimed

employment on the basis of the provisions of NCWA.

which are binding on the Party No. 1. Moreover, the

prayer of the applicant to give him employment was

rejected by Party No. 1 on the ground that his father

was a Badli worker and that the provisions of NCWA are

not applicable to Badli worker and not on any other

ground including the ground of compassionate

appointment. Hence, it is held that there is no force in

the contention raised by the learned advocate for the

Party No. 1 that the applicant is not entitled for

employment as family of the late Ramdhari sustained

five years after the death of Ramdhari.

13. It is clear from the pleadings of the parties,

evidence on record and the submissions made by the

learned advocates for the parties that the claim of the

applicant to give him employment was rejected by the Party

No. 1 only on the ground that he being the dependent of a

Badli worker is not entitled for employment. So, the only

point for consideration is whether the dependent of a Badli

worker is entitled for employment as per the provisions of

NCWA.

14. The appointment of deceased Ramdhari in 1972

and that he was working as a Badli worker on 22.07.2001

the date of his death has not been disputed by the

parties. It is also not disputed that there were and are

provisions in NCWAs for giving employment to one of

the dependents of a worker, who dies while in service.

As on the date of death of Ramdhari NCWA-VI was in

force, it is necessary to consider as to whether the

applicant is entitled for employment as provided in

NCWA-VI.

The relevant portions of clause 9.3.0, 9.3.1, 9.3.3 and

9.3.4 of NCWA VI, which are in respect of giving

employment to the dependent of a workman, who dies while

in service are as follows:

9.3.0:—Provision of Employment of dependants.

9.3.1:—Employment would be provided to one

dependant of workers who are disabled permanently and

also those who die while in service. The provision will be

implemented as follows.

9.3.3:—The dependant for this purpose means the

wife/husband as the case may be, son and legally adopted

son …………………….

9.3.4:—The dependants to be considered for

employment should be physically fit and suitable for

employment and aged not more than 35 years provided

that the age limit in case of female spouse would be 45years

as given in clause 9.5.0. In case of male spouse is concerned,

there would be no age limit regarding provision of

employment.

It is clear from the above provisions that a dependant

of a workman is entitled to employment if the workman dies

while in service. The specific word mentioned in the said

clause is "workman" and nothing else. It does not specify

the category of workman. It also does not say that

dependants of Badli workman are not entitled for the benefit

of the same. It also does not provide that dependents of

Badli worker, who had not done 190/240 days of work in

any calendar year, are not entitled to get the benefit of the

provision.

Now, it is to be considered as to whether a Badli

worker is a workman or not. NCWA VI does not have any

such definition. it is admitted by the parties that the

provisions of certified standing orders of the WCL were

applicable to deceased Ramdhari. Clause 3 of the certified

standing order provides the classification of "Workman".

In clause 1 of the said standing order (Commencement and

Application), it is mentioned that it shall apply to all

workman employed in all units of M/s. Western Coalfields

Limited situated in different place in the country which

come within the definition of Industrial Employment

(Standing Orders) Act, 1945 and include all workmen

governed by the National Coal Wage Agreement. Section

3.1 of the said Standing Order provides the classification

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1745

of workman for the purpose of the Standing Order. The

same reads as follows:

(a)Apprentice

(b)Badli or Substitute

(c)Casual

(d)Permanent

(e)Probationer

(f) Temporary

The above classification shows that Badli or

Substitute employee is also a workman.

When there is no bar either in the NCWA or in the

Certified Standing Order Io give the benefit of provisions of

the NCWA VI to dependants of Badli workman (whether he

had done 194/240 days of work in any calendar year or not),

the decision of the Party No. 1 that the applicant is not

entitled for employment is not justified. Hence, it is order:—

ORDER

The action of the management of M/S WCL in

denying employment to the dependent of Late Shri

Ramdhari Mukaram is illegal and unjustified. The applicant

Dinesh S/o. Ramdhari Mukaram is entitled for employment

in accordance with the provisions of the NCWA in force at

present. The Party No. 1 is directed to give employment to

the applicant in accordance with the provisions of NCWA

and other rules as applicable within a month of the

publication of the award.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 642.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSñ ,lñ dsñ dksy

balisD'ku izkñ fyñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

25@2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ 22012@25@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 642.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2009)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of M/s. Mitra S.K. Coal Inspection

Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 03/02/2014.

[No. L-22012/25/2009-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/25/2009

Date: 17.01.2014.

Party No. 1 :

The Agent,

M/s. Mitra S.K. Coal Inspection P. Ltd.,

Shrachi Centre, 74 B, AJC Bose Road,

5th Floor,

Kolkata-700016,

Versus

Party No. 2

Shri Neelkanth M. Walode.

R/o, Village Gujri Chowk Pohara,

Taluka Lakhmi, Distt. Bhandara,

Maharashtra

AWARD

(Dated: 17th January, 2014)

In exercises 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 M/s. Mitra S.K Coal Inspection Pvt. Ltd.

and their workman, Shri Neelkanth M. Walode, for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/25/2009-IR (CM-II)

dated 13.07.2009, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Mitra S.K. Coal Inspection Pvt. Ltd., a contractor

of M/s, WCL, in terminating the services of

Shri Neelkanth M. Walode, Sampler is legal and

justified? To what relief is the workman concerned

entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Neelkanth

M. Walode, ("the workman" in short), filed the statement

of claim and the management of M/s. Mitra S.K. Coal

Inspection Pvt. Ltd., ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their

written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim is that M/s. Mitra S.K. Coal Inspection

Pvt. Ltd., took his interview for five times and issued

appointment letter and engaged him as a Sampler at the

siding of Majri Colliery of WCL on 08.03.1999 and then he

was transferred by order No. 239 dated 27.04.1999 to CHP

Ballarpur siding and at Ballarpur, he worked alongwith

Bilash Atram, Sunil Petkar and Supervisor, Netaji Giradkar

and after some days, Bilash Atram left the job and

Sunil Patekar was transferred by the company on 06.10.1999

to another siding and the company also transferred

Netaji Giradkar in February, 2000 to another siding and

posted one Ajay Pindalwar as the Supervisor of Ballarpur

siding and Ajay Pindalwar also left the job on 01.06.2004,

1746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

so he worked with Technical Inspector, Shri Raman Satpute

of WCL as a Sampler and he himself and Shri Satpute were

signing the sample reports.

The further case of the workman is that when he

asked the Manager of the company, Shri Choudhary about

P.F. slip and letter of permanent appointment,

Shri Choudhary asked him to resign and subsequently to

send him the authorization letter alongwith the letter of

permanent appointment and on 12.05.2005, he was issued

with the authorization letter and by such statement of

Shri Choudhary he was disappointed and he did not resign,

so Shri Choudhary harassed him and put pressure on him

for his resignation and declared that unless and until he

would resign, neither payment would be made nor any

document would be given to him and Shri Choudhary

stopped the payment of his wages for June, 2005 and on

14.07.2005, he sent an application by fax to the Manager.

Head Office, Kolkata. requesting for payment of his wages,

but no action was taken in the matter and though he

repeatedly requested Shri Choudhary over phone for

payment of his wages, Shri Choudhary insisted for his

resignation, so on 21.07.2005, he approached the Labour

Commissioner by filing an application and on 20.09.2005,

Shri Choudhary appeared before the Commissioner and

signed on the proceedings to make the full payment on

23.09.2005, but he did not make any payment, rather handed

over a back dated illegal termination letter, which was

received by him on 01.10.2005 from Chandrapur branch

office of the company.

It is also pleaded by the workman that he intimated

the facts to the ALC (c) Chandrapur and the ALC noticed

the management of Sasti Area of WCL, Director and

Manager of the company, besides himself to appear on

03.08.2006 and management of WCL appeared before the

ALC(C), Chandrapur and agreed to make recovery payment

of four months and signed on the proceedings and the

Labour Commissioner issued a letter to him to appear in

the office of the WCL on 16.10 2006 to receive the recovery

payment and though he went to the office of WCL on

16.l0.2006 no payment was made to him, so being harassed,

he filed an application before the ALC (C), Chandrapur on

27.11.2006 intimating him about the non-payment of the

recovery payment and on 15.02.2007 WCL made the

payment of Rs. 11,232/- by way of a cheque, which was

handed over to him by the office of ALC (C). Chandrapur

and as the termination of his services is illegal and without

compliance of the mandatory provisions, he is entitled for

reinstatement in service permanently with full back, wages

and all other consequential benefits.

3. The Party No. 1 in the written statement has

pleaded inter-alia that it is registered under the Bombay

Shops and Establishment Act, 1948, since the year 1990

and it undertakes contractual jobs for execution of the work

of third party sampling of coal and analysis for coal

companies including WCL and contracts are being given

to it by floating tenders and such works are being awarded

for fixed terms and normally, the duration of such contract

is for a period of one year and for execution of the awarded

contracts, it engages skilled and unskilled workers as

samplers or supervisors for a fixed term on contract basis

and on termination of the contract, the services of the

employees engaged by it on work also terminate

automatically. It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1 that it

is not an industry and the business carried on by it was not

by or under the authority of the Central Government and it

is a private limited company and as such, the Central

Government is not the appropriate government as per

Section 2(a) of the Act and the dispute does not come

within the purview of the Act and the Central Government

has no jurisdiction to entertain and refer the dispute to the

Tribunal and the reference is bad in law and thereby, this

Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

The further case of Party No. 1 is that it does not

have perennial nature of work, which continues permanently

and on getting a fresh contract, as per requirement, it

engages employees temporarily for a fixed term on contract

basis and once the contract is over, the services of the

employees so employed are automatically terminated and

it is not under any obligation to continue them on permanent

roll and at times, when the contract work of one place is

over and there is necessity of employees at any other

contract work at another place, such employees are offered

job and the workman was appointed as a sampler mazdoor

on contract basis as per the work order from time to time

and he was first engaged at Majri siding of WCL and he

was not appointed by following the due procedure of

employment and the period of employment was limited to

the period of sampling work as per the contracts awarded

to it by WCL and MSEB and as per order No. 339 dated

27.04.1999. the workman was asked To join Ballarpur

Railway siding from Majri CHP Railway siding as per

requirement and accordingly, the workman joined Ballarpur

siding and the letter dated 2299/247 dated 04.05.1999

mentioned by the workman is about the explanation sought

from him for leaving duly assigned to him at the work spot,

without permission of the completed authority and treating

the period of his absence as leave without pay and the

appointment order itself speaks that the workman was

appointed for a specific period till the expiry of the work

order and the services of the workman automatically came

to an end, as soon as the contract work was over and the

workman accepted the letter of appointment knowing fully

well that after completion of the work order, his services

would stand terminated, so the workman cannot claim

regular work and the workman was never authorized to

sign the sampling reports, as he was not competent to sign

such reports and the documents submitted by him relate to

the supply of racks by the Railway and the loading done

and the reports were signed by the Technical Inspector

only and none else and it appears that the workman had

signed the same at his own, which has no significance and

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1747

as per letter dated 24.09.2005, the workman was intimated

that his contract ceased w.e.f. 01.06.2005, after expiry of the

contract work and the wages of the workman was never

with held and as he was not in service from 01.06.2005, he

was not entitled to any wages and the provisions of the

Act are not applicable to the case of the workman, as there

was no termination or retrenchment at all and his

appointment was on contract basis and the claim of the

workman is vague and the proceedings has been filed only

to extract money from him and though the workman was

not engaged from 01.06.2005, he filed a complaint before

the ALC (C), Chandrapur and the dispute was settled after

payment of Rs. 11,232 by WCL, the principal employer

through ALC (C), Chandrapur and termination of the

workman after completion of the contract does not amount

to retrenchment within the meaning of S.2(oo) of the Act

and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. In support of his claim, the workman has examined

himself as a witness, besides placing reliance on

documentary evidence.

5. The workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in

the statement of claim, in his examination-in-chief, which is

on affidavit.

However, in his cross-examination, the workman has

admitted that Exts. W- I and W-II are his appointment letters

dated 29.03.2000 and 31.03.2001 respectively and he did

not raise any objection to the conditions mentioned in

Exts. W- I and W-II and reported for duty and in Exts. W-I

and W-II, it had been clearly mentioned that his tenure of

service with the management was contractual service and

that his services would be terminated at the end of the

contracted period or completion of the assignment

mentioned in the said letters, which ever would be earlier

and Ext. W-III is his termination letter dated 24.09.2005 and

after getting Ext W-III he did not give any letter to the

management and Ext. W-IV is his application to become a

member of Provident Fund and Ext, W-IV bears his signature

and in Ext. W-IV, the nature of his appointment has been

mentioned as, "on contract " basis.

6. It is to be mentioned here that subsequent to

11.07.2013, the parties did not appear, so on 19.12.2013, the

case was closed and fixed for award.

7. On perusal of the materials on record including the

pleadings of the parties and the documentary and oral

evidence, it is found that the Party No. 1 is a private limited

company. There is no material on record to show that it is

an industry carried on by or under the authority of the

Central Government or a controlled industry as specified

in this behalf by the Central Government. So, the Central

Government cannot be said to be the appropriate

Government to refer the dispute to the Tribunal for

adjudication. The Hon'ble Apex court in a number of

decisions have enunciated the principles that "a dispute,

which can be referred for adjudication under section 10(1)

of the I.D. Act of necessity, has to be an industrial dispute

which would clothe the appropriate Government with power

to make the reference and the industrial Tribunal to

adjudicate it.

At this juncture, it is to be mentioned here that by

the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010, which came

into force on 09.09.2010, the Central Government amended

sub-clause (ii) of Section 2 and added a proviso, which

reads that, "Provided that in case of a dispute between a

contractor and the contract labour employed through the

contractor in any industrial establishment, where such

dispute first arose, the appropriate Government shall be

the Central Government or the State Government, as the

case may be, which has control over such industrial

establishment.

If the above proviso is applied to the present case,

then it can be said that the Central Government is the

appropriate Government to refer the dispute for

adjudication. However, the amended proviso cannot be

applied as the alleged dispute in this case arose prior to

such amendment.

As the Central Government is not the appropriate

Government, the reference should not have been made for

adjudication.

8. So far the merit of the case is concerned, the

workman has claimed that Party No. 1 took his interview

for five times and issued the appointment letter and

engaged him as a sampler at the siding of Majri Colliery of

WCL on 08.03.1999 and then he was transferred to Ballarpur

siding of WCL and he worked there till June, 2005 and

Party No. 1 stopped payment of his wages for the month of

June, 2005.

It is to be mentioned here that in the schedule of

reference, the alleged date of termination of the services of

the workman has not been mentioned. The workman has

also not mentioned the date of his termination in the

statement of claim. In the statement of claim, the workman

has only mentioned that on 01.10.2005, he received the

termination order from Chandrapur branch office of Party

No. 1 and his termination is illegal due to non compliance

of the provisions of the Act.

Party No. 1 has claimed that the appointment of the

workman was on contract basis and once his contract came

to an end, his appointment automatically was over and as

such, the case of the workman is not a case of retrenchment

and there was no need to comply with the provisions of

section 25-F of the Act. According to Party No. 1, from

01.06.2005, the workman was not engaged by it as it had no

further contract work.

On perusal of the admission of the workman in his

cross-examination as already mentioned above and the

documents Exts. W-I to W-IV, it is found that the

appointment of the workman by Party No. 1 was on contract

basis. It is also found that termination of the service of the

workman was as a result of the expiry of the contract as per

the stipulation on that behalf contained in the contract. As

1748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

such, the termination of the workman cannot be said to be

retrenchment as per the definition of Section 2 (oo) of the

Act. So, there was no necessity for Party No. 1 to comply

with the provisions of Section 25-Fof the Act.

From the materials on record and the discussion made

above, it is found that the workman is not entitled to any

relief. Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The action of the management of M/s. Mitra S.K.

Coal Inspection Pvt. Ltd., a contractor of M/s. WCL, in

terminating the services of Shri Neelkanth M. Walode,

Sampler is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled

to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 643.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QñlhñvkbZñ 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;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 36@2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@249@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 643.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/2007)

of the Cent. Govt. lndus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Food Corporation of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 03/02/2014.

[No. L-22012/249/2007-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 36/2007

Date of Passing Award-20th January, 2014

Between

1. The General Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Khadya Bhavan, Vani Vihar,

Bhubaneswar, Orissa- 751 004.

2. The District/Area Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

District Office, Berhampur, Orissa.

...1st Party-Managements

(And)

Shri Gajendra Kumar,

At. Nayagingda,

PO. Angeswarpada,

PS. Nuagaron, Distt. Jagatsinghpur,

Orissa.

... 2nd Party-Workman

Appearances : M/s. B.K. Mohanty, ... For the 1st Party-

Advocate.

Managements

M/s. P.K. Das,

... For the 2nd Party-

Advocate.

Workman

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

has referred an industrial dispute existing between the

employers in relation to the management of Food

Corporation of India and their workman in exercise of the

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

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

1947 vide its letter No. L-22012/249/2007-IR(CM-II), dated

25.10.2007 in respect of the following matter:—

Whether the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India in dismissing Shri Gajendra Kumar

w.e.f. 08.12.2004 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?

2. The 2nd Party-workman in his statement of claim

has stated that the 2nd Party workman being a departmental

worker applied to the Management on 31.12.2002 for change

of his name from Gajendra Kumar to Udhab Charan Swain

after swearing an affidavit dated 19.10.2001 and furnishing

the news paper publication in daily "The Sambad" dated

10.8.2002 as his name was recorded as Udhab Charan Swain

in revenue record which he came to know lately. He is an

active member of the FCI Workers Union and having a

long back-ground of his struggle and litigation in various

courts for the interest of the FCI workers. For this and

various other reasons the then Senior Regional Manager,

Orissa, Shri P.K. Mohapatra, IAS became vindictive and

bias and wanted to victimize him. Therefore he issued a

letter dated 18.10.2003 to the 2nd Party-workman alleging

that Shri Gajendra Kumar has got employment in FCI by

impersonating his name with malafide intention and on

enquiry from different sources the actual recorded name of

Shri Gajendra Kumar was found to be Udhab Chandra

Swain son of Shri Chandramani Swain. He was called upon

to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be

taken against him under the provisions of the Standing

Order for furnishing false name at the time of employment

in FCI. The 2nd Party-workman sent his reply vide letter

dated 17.11.2003 denying all the charges. On 9.12.2003 the

District Manager, FCI, Berhampur vide his letter dated

9.12.2008 issued a memorandum enclosing therewith a

statement of article of charges, imputation of misconduct

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1749

or misbehavior, list of documents and witnesses on the

proposed charges. The 2nd Party-workman was asked to

submit his written statement within fifteen days and also

to state whether he desired to be heard in person. From the

letter dated 21.2.2003 of Tahasildar, Balikuda it was revealed

to the 1st Party-Management that Shri Chandramani Swain

has two sons namely Shri Narasingha Charan Swain and

Udhab Charan Swain, Some sale deeds have also been

executed in the name of Shri Udhab Chandra Swain and

there is no revenue record in the name of Gajendra Kumar

Swain. In the voter list dated 21.2.2003 furnished by the

Collector, Jagatsinghpur it was revealed that

Shri Chandramani Swain has no son by name of Gajendra

Kumar Swain. The 2nd Party-workman vide his letter dated

27.12.2003 addressed to the District Manager replied to the

memorandum dated 9.12.2003 denying the alleged charges

and making a request to withdraw the show cause notice

and allow a chance for personal hearing. Thereafter Shri

L.A. Swamy after being appointed as an Enquiry Officer

issued a memorandum of charges dated 9.12.2003 intending

to conduct the domestic enquiry. The domestic enquiry

was conducted on various dates. The Presenting Officer

examined Shri G.B. Rath, Assistant Manager (Vigilance).

Regional Office, Bhubaneswar as P.W.-1, but his cross

examination was not concluded due to non-availability of

certain documents. The cross examination was again

deferred due to some reason. In the meantime the 2nd Party-

workman has submitted his list of documents to be relied

upon and also supplied copies of such documents to the

Enquiry Officer. Since P.W.-l Shri G.B. Rath was not available

for cross examination on 21.8.2004, P.W.-2 Shri A.K. Lenka

Chief Labour Inspector, District Office, FCI, Cuttack was

examined and cross examined partly. The Enquiry Officer

informed that he will issue written notice for the next date

of hearing in due course. On 27.8.2004 the 2nd Party-

workman submitted a list of seven witnesses to the Enquiry

Officer making a request for sparing them on the next date

of hearing. The defence assistant of the 2nd Party-workman

wrote two letters on 14.9.2004 and on 24.9.2004 to the

Enquiry Officer for fixing up next date of enquiry at least

seven days before so that he can attend the enquiry without

fail, but the Enquiry Officer kept silent and no date of

enquiry was intimated neither to the 2nd Party-workman

nor to his defence assistant.

3. Surprisingly the 2nd Party-workman was served

with a memo dated 10.11.2004 issued by the District Manager

stating that the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report of

enquiry. Copy of enquiry report was enclosed therewith

without proceedings of the enquiry. The 2nd Party-

workman was directed to submit his representation within

fifteen days of the receipt of the same. The 2nd Party-

workman sent his reply within time and urged not to accept

the report since the enquiry is incomplete and there is

violation of principles of natural justice. But before the

expiry of fifteen days of receipt of the said letter dated

10.11.2004 the District Manager, Berhampur issued a memo

dated 23.11.2004 stating that after going through the reply

submitted by the workman against the enquiry report which

held him guilty of the said charges he proposed to impose

penalty of dismissal from the service of the Corporation.

The workman may submit his representation on the

proposed penalty by 3.12.2004 failing which final orders in

the case would be passed accordingly. The 2nd Party-

workman submitted his reply to the show cause notice on

3.12.2004 and prayed for personal hearing, but the

disciplinary authority without considering his reply hastily

passed the dismissal order dated 8.12.2004. The 2nd Party-

workman thereafter made an appeal to the Senior Regional

Manager, FCI Orissa, Bhubaneswar vide his application

dated 3.1.2005 but the same was turned down. Then the

2nd Party-workman made a review petition to the Executive

Director, East, FCI, Kolkatta vide his application dated

16.2.2006 but the same was rejected on the ground that no

such provision of review is there in the Certified Standing

Order of the Corporation. Thus the 2nd Party-workman

has been dismissed from service illegally and in a most

unjustified manner. The domestic enquiry is just an eye

wash vitiated on the principles of natural justice. The

domestic enquiry was not completed in lawful manner, even

the cross examination of P.W.-l Shri G.B. Rath was not over.

The 2nd Party-workman was not given any opportunity to

examine his witness of defence. His documents were not

allowed to be exhibited which all speaks the unfairness of

the domestic enquiry. The principles of natural justice have

been violated. The Certified Standing Order under Clause-

16(2)(c)(l) has not been adhered to. The Enquiry Officer

hurriedly completed the enquiry within a period of three

months as required under clause 16(2)(c)(iv) of the Certified

Standing Order without giving adequate opportunity to

the 2nd Party-workman to defend his case. Therefore the

action of the Management of FCI in dismissing the 2nd

Party-workman with effect from 8.12.2004 be held illegal

and unjustified and he be reinstated in service with back

wages and continuity in service.

4. The Ist Party-Management has averred in its written

statement that the above proceeding is not at all maintainable

according to law. The bio-data of the worker which is duly

recommended by the workers Union is accepted by the FCI

Management. Hence the bio-data of this workman which

was recommended by the workers Union was accepted by

the FCI Management. It is false and frivolous to allege that

the then Senior Regional Manager became vindictive, biased

and hostile to the Union and the 2nd Party-workman due to

his active participation in the Union activities. When the

2nd Party-workman applied for change of his name, his bio-

data and other relevant records along with those of other

workers who have applied for change of name were referred

to the concerned Collectors for enquiry. On the strength of

the report of said enquiry, disciplinary proceeding was

initiated against the 2nd Party-workman under Clause - 16 of

the Certified Standing Order. To enquire upon the charges

contained in the statement of imputation of charges

1750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Shri L.A. Swamy, the then Assistant Manager (General),

District Office, FCI, Berhampur was appointed as Enquiry

Officer, who after conducting enquiry had submitted his

enquiry report on 10.11.2004 in which the charges were found

proved against the workman Shri Gajendra Kumar and it

became clear that Shri Gajendra Kumar had fraudulently got

appointment in FCI in his name, when his father

Shri Chandramani Swain had no son in the name of Gajendra

Kumar. According to the report of the Tahasildar, Balikuda,

Shri Chandramani Swain had two sons, namely,

Shri Narasingha Charan Swain and Shri Udhab Charan Swain.

Their names have also been shown in the votor list. The

disciplinary authority being District Manager, FCI,

Berhampur, thereupon imposed the penalty of dismissal from

service of FCI on Shri Gajendra Kumar, handling worker,

FSD, Jagatsinghpur on 8.12.2004 under clause 16(2)(b)(v) of

the Certified Standing Order Shri Gajendra Kumar filed an

appeal before the appellate authority who after going through

all the records, documents, enquiry report and appeal petition

and upon personal hearing rejected the appeal saying that

ample opportunity was given by the Enquiry Officer to the

charged workman to defend his case. All the allegations of

the workman are false and frivolous so far the conduct of

enquiry is concerned. He was also asked by the Enquiry

Officer to submit list of defence documents and defence

witnesses, but he stated that he has no defence documents

and witnesses during the preliminary enquiry. Then the

charged workman was again given scope by the Enquiry

Officer to produce defence documents and witnesses from

time to time, but he failed even till commencement of hearing.

Since the proceedings of the enquiry were required to be

completed within a stipulated period the charged

workman had deliberately tried to prolong the enquiry. The

Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry after giving ample

opportunity to the charged worker. The allegations of the

workman are baseless and vague and his case is liable to be

dismissed.

5. The 2nd Party-workman in his rejoinder has

disputed the allegations made by the 1st Party-

Management in its written statement and reiterated his own

assertions made in the statement of claim.

6. On the pleadings of the parties following issues

were framed by my learned predecessor.

ISSUES

1. Whether the reference is maintainable?

2. Whether the departmental enquiry started against

the workman Shri Gajendra Kumar was conducted

fairly with due regard to principles of natural

justice,

3. Whether the dismissal of the workman

Shri Gajendra Kumar with effect from 8.12.2004 is

legal and justified?

4. If not to what relief the workman is entitled?

7. The 2nd Party-workman has examined five

witnesses namely, W.W.-1 Shri Gajendra Kumar the

aggrieved workman. W.W.-2 Shri Chandramani Swain,

father of the aggrieved workman, W.W.-3 Shri Kapileswar

Mallick, W.W.-4 Shri Rabi Narayan Das and W.W.-5 Shri

Banchanidhi Behera and relied upon a number of

documents marked as Ext.-A to Ext.-Z and Ext.- AA to Ext.-

AH.

8. The 1st Party-Management has examined four

witnesses in all, namely, M.W.-1 Shri Murari Charan Tarai,

M.W.-2 Shri Akshaya Kumar Lenka, M.W.-3 Shri Nishith

Kumar Pradhan and M.W.-4 Shri L. Appala Swamy and

relied upon several documents marked as Ext,-1 to Ext.-11.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. 1

9. The 1st Party-Management has alleged in its written

statement that the proceeding of the case is not at all

maintainable according to law, but no ground of uprooting

the maintainability of the case has been mentioned either

pertaining to law or facts. Even no evidence has been led

on this issue. Nor any argumentative step has been taken

at the time of hearing. As such it seems that the 1st Party-

Management has for saken this issue. Therefore there is

no ground to hold that the reference is not maintainable.

This issue is accordingly decided in the affirmative and

against the 1st Party-Management.

ISSUE NO. 2

10. The departmental enquiry conducted against the

2nd Party-workman has been challenged on the ground of

being unfair and in violation of the principles of natural

justice. The cause for departmental enquiry arose on the

making of an application by the 2nd Party-workman for

change of his name from Gaiendra Kumar to Udhab Charan

Swain supported with a sworn affidavit and news-paper

cutting. As no mention of the name of Gajendra Kumar was

there in revenue records he felt it necessary to get his

name changed from Gajendra Kumar to Udhab Charan Swain

in his office record maintained by the 1st Party-

Management, Admittedly the father's name of Shri Gajendra

Kumar, the 2nd Party-workman is Chandramani Swain,

resident of Village Nayasingda, PO. Angeswarpada, P.S.

Nuagaon, Distt. Jagatsinghpur. Shri Chandramani Swain

has two sons, namely, Udhab Charan Swain, who according

to the 2nd Party-workman is also known as Gajendra Kumar

and Narasiagha Charan Swain. On receipt of application

for change of name made by the 2nd Party-workman, the

1st Party-Management got it verified from the Tahasildar

and Collector concerned. The report of Tahasildar revealed

that there is no revenue record in the name of Shri Gajendra

Kumar Swain. It was also revealed that Shri Chandramani

Swain has two sons, namely. Shri Narasingha Charan Swain

and Shri Udhab Charan Swain and some sale deeds have

been executed in the name of Shri Udhab Charan Swain,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1751

son of Chandramani Swain. But there is no iota of evidence

that Shri Udhab Charan Swain is not known by the other

name of Gajendra Kumar. It seems possible as the sale

deeds were executed in the name of Udhab Charan Swain

son of Chandramani Swain, Shri Gajendra Kumar moved

the application to the 1st Party-Management for change of

his name from Gajendra Kumar to Udhab Charan Swain so

that he might not be deprived of the property recorded in

the name of Udhab Charan Swain. Shri Chandramani Swain

the father of the 2nd Party-workman has been examined on

behalf of the 2nd Party-workman as W.W.-2 who has

categorically stated in his evidence that "he has two sons.

The elder son is Shri Udhab Charan Swain and the second

son's name is Shri Narasingha Charan Swain. In the service

record the name of Gajendra Kumar took place, but in the

land record the name of Shri Gajendra Kumar stands as

Udhab Charan Swain". He has confirmed that he has filed

an affidavit to that effect before the Executive Magistrate.

The 2nd Party-workman Gajendra Kumar has also given

evidence in support of his claim. There is no difference in

the name of father and residential address of Shri Gajendra

Kumar and Udhab Charan Swain.

11. However, on the basis of report of the Tahasildar

and the Collector the 1st Party-Management initiated a

domestic enquiry against the 2nd Party-workman. The

enquiry was conducted by Shri L. Appalla Swamy on

charges that he got employment in FCI fraudulently by

impersonating his name and thereby committed gross

misconduct, which is unbecoming of a Corporation labour.

The Enquiry Officer in a slip shod manner completed the

enquiry without giving full opportunity to the 2nd Party-

workman to cross examine the management witness Shri

G.B. Rath, P.W.-1. He was also not given chance to examine

his defence witnesses and produce and prove the defence

documents. The Enquiry Officer Shri L. Appala Swamy

examined as M.W.-4 on behalf of the 1st Party-Management

has very straight forwardly admitted in his cross

examination that "the cross examination of G.B. Rath was

not over due to the demand of the original document by

the defence assistant". He has further stated that "the last

enquiry was fixed on 21.8.2004, on 21.8.2004 the 2nd Party-

workman has submitted 11 documents, which I received as

Enquiry Officer. I did not fix any further date for enquiry.

The defence assistant from Kolkatta sent through courier

a list of seven witnesses to be examined from the workman

side, which was received by me on 21.8.2004, but I did not

issue any further notice for further enquiry". The enquiry

proceedings filed through Ext.-11 series shows that on

13.8.2004 cross examination of Shri G.B. Rath, P.W. could

not be concluded since the charged official wanted some

papers of Regional Office, Bhubaneswar enabling him for

further cross examination in the matter. The list of defence

documents, witnesses was received on that date, but it

was recorded that the same will be sent to Enquiry Officer

on or before 21.8.2004. The next date of hearing was fixed

on 21.8.2004. But it is surprising to note that the enquiry

was not taken up on 21.8.2004 and it was not proceeded

further. There is no proceeding recorded on 21.8.2004. The

Enquiry Officer thereafter in his report marked as Ext.-6 has

mentioned that the proceedings began on 28.4.2004 and

concluded on 21.8.2004, but there is no recorded

proceeding of 21.8.2004. Therefore it is established that no

proceeding in the enquiry took place on 21.8.2004 and

thereafter.

12. In this view of the matter a definite conclusion

can be arrived at that the Enquiry Officer has not conducted

the enquiry fairly and properly, even ignoring the principles

of natural justice. The charged employee could not get

proper and sufficient opportunity to cross examine the P.W.

Shri G.B. Rath. He was also not allowed to examine his

defence witnesses and prove his documents of defence

which was received by the Enquiry Officer on 21.8.2004 as

he himself admitted in his cross examination. He has

categorically stated in his evidence that “I was transferred

from Berhampur to Jeypore after 21.8.2004 for which I could

not fix any date for domestic enquiry and coming from

Jeypore I submitted my enquiry report on 11.10.2004”. He

has earlier stated that "I know there is a Standing Order of

FCI where there is provision to accord and sufficient

opportunity to the delinquent officer in the enquiry

proceeding to defence his case". Therefore there is no iota

of doubt that the domestic enquiry was not conducted

fairly and properly. It was left incomplete and no

opportunity to adduce defence evidence was given to the

charge-sheeted employee, thus conducted grossly

violating the principles of natural justice. The Issue No. 2

is therefore decided in the negative and against the

1st Party-Management.

ISSUE NO. 3

13. When it has been held under Issue No. 2 that the

domestic enquiry was not conducted fairly and properly

with due regard to the principles of natural justice, dismissal

order of the 2nd Party-workman Shri Gajendra Kumar with

effect from 8.2.2004 cannot be said to be legal and justified.

Moreover the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer seems

to have been given mechanically without discussing the

evidence with respect to the charges levelled and the

conclusions derived there-under. The Enquiry Officer has

certainly not applied his mind in arriving at a conclusion

regarding establishment of charges beyond reasonable

doubt. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Anil

Kumar-Versus-Presiding Officer and Others [Civil Appeal

No. 4692 (NL) of 1984] reported in AIR 1985 SC 1121 has

held that "where a disciplinary enquiry affects the

livelihood and is likely to cast a stigma and it has to be held

in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the

minimum expectation is that the report must be a reasoned

one. The Court then may not enter into the adequacy or

sufficiency of evidence. But where the evidence is annexed

to an order sheet and no correlation is established between

the two showing application of mind, we are constrained

1752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to observe that is not an enquiry report at all. Therefore,

there was no enquiry in this case wroth the name and the

order of termination based on such proceeding disclosing

non-application of mind would be unsustainable." The

Disciplinary Authority acting on such enquiry report is

too supposed to have passed the dismissal order without

application of mind. The evidence led in the case or in the

enquiry is also not sufficient to hold the workman guilty of

the charges. Therefore the dismissal order cannot be

sustained. This issue is decided in the negative and against

the 1st Party-Management.

ISSUE NO. 4

14. Since the action of the Management of FCI in

dismissing Shri Gajendra Kumar from service with effect

from 8.12.2004 is not found be legal and justified and in

consonance with the principles of natural justice, the

workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with full

back wages and continuity of service.

15. The reference is answered accordingly.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 644.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wñlhñ,yñ

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

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 38@2009½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@36@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II)]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 644.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/2009)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Durgapur O/C Mines of WCL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

03/02/2014.

[No. L-22012/36/2009-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/38/2009

Date: 20.01.2014

Party No. l

The Sub Area Manager,

Durgapur O/C Mines of WCL,

Post: Urjanagar,

Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)

Versus

Party No. 2

Shri B.S. Ishwarkar,

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress,

Vijay Bhawan, Vitthal Mandir Ward,

Chandrapur (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 20th January, 2014)

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 Shri Sachin Thamke, for

adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/36/2009-IR (CM-II)

dated 09.11.2009, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. WCL,

in not providing employment to Shri Sachin, the

dependant Son of Late Shri Thamke is legal, proper

and justified? To what relief is the dependent entitled

for?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the applicant, Shri Sachin

Thamke, ("the applicant" in short) filed his statement of

claim and the management of WCL, (here-in-after referred

to as the "Party No. 1") filed its written statement.

The case of the applicant as presented in the

statement of claim is that his father, deceased Suresh

Thamke was working as a general mazdoor from 02.04.1984

continuously without any break till 21.01.2002 and his father

was a permanent employee of Party No. 1 and due to the

death of his father while in service, he is entitled for

employment as per the provisions of clause 9.3.0 of NCWA-

VII, which is in regard to giving of employment to dependent

of a workman and he is eligible for such employment by

Party No. 1 and in accordance with such provisions, he

filed his claim for employment before the Party No. 1, but

Party No. 1 refused for the same.

It is further pleaded by the applicant that Party No. 1

refused their claim for gratuity, but the same was sanctioned

by the competent authority, the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner and the appeal preferred by Party No. 1 before

the Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur against the

order of sanction of gratuity was rejected, so, the Party No. 1

paid gratuity to his mother and later on the amount of

CMPF fund was also paid by Party No. 1 and the action of

Party No. 1 in not providing him employment as per the

provisions of the NCWA-VII is unjustified and illegal.

The applicant has prayed for a direction to Party No.

1 to provide him employment as the dependent son of the

deceased workman, Shri Suresh Thamke.

3. In the written statement, Party No. 1 has pleaded

inter-alia that the dispute had been raised by advocate

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1753

Shri B.S. Ishwarkar, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress

and Shri Ishwarkar being an advocate cannot become an

officer bearer of the Trade union, until the bye laws and

constitution of the union specifically provide for the same

and no document has been filed on record to establish

such facts and as such, Shri Ishwarkar, advocate has not

locus standi to raise the dispute and on bare persual of the

reference, it can be found that the reference is vague, in as

much as it does not specify the establishment, where late

Suresh Thamke was working and the date of his death and

therefore, the reference is not maintainable.

The further case of the Party No. 1 is that the

statement of claim filed on 08.12.2009 has been signed and

verified by the applicant and the applicant is neither the

workman nor the authorized representative of the union

and he is not competent to sign the statement of claim to

fulfill the tests required to treat the grievance as industrial

dispute either under section 2(K) or 2-A of the Act and

more so, there is no resolution filed on record to signify

that the union has espoused, championed and supported

the present dispute and on these grounds, the reference is

not maintainable.

It is also pleaded by the Party No. 1 that deceased

Suresh Thamke was appointed in its services as Badli worker

in the year 1990 and his performance was all long very poor

and he did not attend his duties for 240 days in any year

since his appointment and therefore, he was not granted

benefit of permanency in job, as provided under the

provisions of Certified Standing Order and unfortunately,

Suresh Thamke died on 21.0l.2002 as Badli worker and

ceased to be its employee from the date of his death and

under the NCWA, permanent employees are entitled for

LTC and earned leave and deceased Suresh Thamke was

neither qualified for earned leave or LTC, even once during

the entire service career and the provisions of providing

employment to the dependent of a deceased employee of

NCWA do not say that the benefit has to be extended to

Badli workers, hence the claim of the applicant was not

considered by it and accordingly, he was informed by its

letter dated 10/14.06.2006 and as a policy matter, similar

decisions had been taken in other identical cases as per

the guidelines received from the company and no exception

can be made in the case of the applicant and payment of

gratuity and CMPF has no bearing on the issue involved

in the present reference and its action was justified and

legal and the applicant is 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.

The applicant in his evidence on affidavit has

reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim.

However, in his cross-examination, the applicant has

admitted that he is not a member of the union and he has

filed and verified the statement of claim and he has not

filed any document to show that he had authorized the

union to raise the dispute or that the union had passed any

resolution to raise the dispute on his behalf and he does

not know as to whether his father had worked for 240 days

in a calendar year or not and his father was still a Badli

worker at the time of his death and WCL had intimated him

that as his father was a Badli worker, no employment could

be given to him.

5. One Ramkrishna Singh has been examined as a

witness by the Party No. 1. The evidence of the witness for

the Party No. 1 on affidavit remained unchallenged, as none

appeared on behalf of the applicant to cross-examine him

on 31.10.2013, to which date, the case was fixed for cross-

examine of the witness for the management. Hence, "No

Cross" order was passed. Order was also passed to proceed

exparte against the applicant.

6. During the course of argument, it was submitted

by the learned advoate for the Party No. 1 that the applicant

is not a member of the union and no document has been

filed to show that any resolution was passed by the union

to espouse the claim of the applicant and applicant has

filed and verified the statement of claim, without any

authorization from the union and the applicant was not a

workman and as such, the reference is not maintainable. It

was further contended by the learned advocate for the

Party No. 1 that the father of the applicant was appointed

as a Badli worker in 1990 and he also died as a Badli worker

on 21.01.2002 and he was not given permanency, as he did

not complete 240 days of work on surface in any year,

since his appointment and the provisions of giving

employment to one dependent of the workman, who dies

while in service as given in the NCWA are not applicable to

Badli worker and such provisions are applicable only to

permanent worker and as the father of the applicant was a

Badli worker, the applicant is not entitled to any relief.

7. As in his case evidence has been adduced by the

applicant in support of his claim, I think it proper to dispose

of the reference on merit.

Two points have been raised by the learned advocate

for the Party No. 1 to answer the reference in the negative.

The first point is regarding the maintainability of the

reference. No doubt, the dispute had been raised by the

union through advocate, Shri Ishwarkar and the statement

of claim has been filed and verified by the applicant, after

the reference was made for adjudication of the dispute

raised on behalf of the applicant. There is nothing wrong

in filing and verifying the statement of claim by the

applicant himself. Moreover, advocate Ishwarkar has also

signed on the statement of claim. So, for filing of the

statement of claim by the applicant, it cannot be said that

the reference is not maintainable.

8. At this juncture, I think it proper to mention about

the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in

2000—I-LLJ-196 (Municipal Employees Union Vs. Secretary

1754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(Labour) Government of NCT of Delhi & Another in this

regard. The Hon'ble High Court have held that:—

"Industrial Disputes Act. l947-Sec.2 (k)-Industrial

Dispute Definition of word "Person" appearing in

section is wide enough to permit any person to raise

an industrial dispute when condition of labour is

involved.

9. I also think it apropos to mention about the two

decisions of the Hon'ble Apex court in this regard. The

Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (2000) 1

SCC-371 (National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. State of

Rajasthan and others) have held that:—"Industrial Tribunal

cannot examine the validity of a reference."

The Hon'ble Apex court in the decision reported in

(1984) 4 SCC-392 (Workmen employed by Hindusthan Lever

Ltd. Vs. Hindusthan Lever Ltd.) have held that, "Labour

and services- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—Sections 10

& 2 (k) -Once a reference is validly made appropriate

Government, Tribunal must adjudicate the dispute on

merits- Practice of raising preliminary objections to the

reference disapproved."

On perusal of the materials on records and applying

the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble courts as

mentioned above to the present case in hand. it is found

that the reference is maintainable and the reference is to be

adjudicated on rnerits.

10. The second contention raised by the learned

advocate for the Party No. 1 was that deceased workman

was a Badli worker till his death and such facts have been

admitted by the applicant in his cross-examination and

temporary, casual and Badli workers are not regular

employees of the coal mines, so their dependents are not

entitled to get the benefits of compassionate appointment

as provided under the NCWA. It was further submitted

that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a

matter of right and such appointment is granted to tide

over the financial hardship of the family and it can be granted

only, if there is a specific provision provided for the same

and as there is no specific provision for providing the

benefit of compassionate appointment to the family of a

Badli worker, the applicant is not entitled for compassionate

appointment.

11. The contention regarding the union having no

authority to raise the dispute on behalf of the applicant is

concerned, it is found from the pleadings of the parties, the

facts that the union had raised the dispute before the ALC

on behalf of the applicant and that the Central Government

has referred the matter for adjudication and so also the

provisions of section 36 (3) of the Act that the union is

competent to raise, the dispute.

12. Admittedly, compassionate appointment is not a

matter of right. However, this is not a case of providing

employment to the applicant on the ground of

compassionate appointment. The applicant has claimed

employment on the basis of the provisions of NCWA, which

are binding on the Party No. 1. Moreover, the prayer of the

applicant to give him employment was rejected by Party

No. l on the ground that his father was a Badli worker and

that the provisions of NCWA are not applicable to Badli

worker and not on any other ground including the ground

of compassionate appointment. Hence, it is held that there

is no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate

for the Party No. 1 that the applicant is not entitled for

employment.

13. It is clear from the pleadings of the parties,

evidence on record and the submissions made by the

learned advocates for the parties that the claim of the

applicant to give him employment was rejected by the Party

No. 1 only on the ground that he being the dependent of a

Badli worker is not entitled for employment. So, the only

point for consideration is whether the dependent of a Badli

worker is entitled for employment as per the provisions of

NCWA.

14. It is not disputed that there were and are

provisions in NCWAs for giving employment to one of the

dependents of a worker, who dies while in service. As on

the date of death of Thamke, NCWA-VII was in force, it is

necessary to consider as to whether the applicant is entitled

for employment as provided in NCWA-VII.

The relevant portions of clause 9.3.0, 9.3.1, 9.3.3 and

9.3.4 of NCWA VII, which are in respect of giving

employment to the dependent of a workman, who dies while

in service are as follows:

9.3.0:— Provision of Employment of dependants.

9.3.1:— Employment would be provided to one

dependant of workers who are disabled permanently and

also those who die while in service. The provision will be

implemented as follows.

9.3.3:— The dependant for this purpose means the

wife/husband as the case may be, son and legally adopted

son ...................................

9.3.4:— The dependants to be considered for

employment should be physically fit and suitable for

employment and aged not more than 35 years provided

that the age limit in case of female spouse would be 45years

as given in clause 9.5.0. In case of male spouse is concerned,

there would be no age limit regarding provision of

employment.

It is clear from the above provisions that a dependant

of a workman is entitled to employment if the workman dies

while in service. The specific word mentioned in the said

clause is "workman" and nothing else. It does not specify

the category of workman. It also does not say that

dependants of Badli workman are not entitled for the benefit

of the same. It also does not provide that dependents of

Badli worker, who had not done 190/240 days of work in

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1755

any calendar year, are not entitled to get the benefit of the

provision.

Now, it is to be considered as to whether a Badli

worker is a workman or not. NCWA VII does not have any

such definition. It is admitted by the parties that the

provisions of certified standing orders of the WCL were

applicable to deceased Ramdhari. Clause 3 of the certified

standing order provides the classification of "Workman".

In clause 1 of the said standing order (Commencement and

Application), it is mentioned that it shall apply to all

workman employed in all units of M/S. Western Coalfields

Limited situated in different place in the country which

come within the definition of Industrial Employment

(Standing Orders) Act, 1945 and include all workmen

governed by the National Coal Wage Agreement Section

3.1 of the said Standing Order provides the classification

of workman for the purpose of the Standing Order. The

same reads as follows:

(a) Apprentice

(b) Badli or Substitute

(d) Permanent

(e) Probationer

(f) Temporary

The above classification shows that Badli or

Substitute employee is also a workman.

When there is no bar either in the NCWA or in the

Certified Standing Order to give the benefit of provisions

of the NCWA VII to dependants of Badli workman (whether

he had done 194/240 days of work in any calendar year or

not), the decision of the party No. 1 that the applicant is

not entitled for employment is not justified. Hence, it is

order:—

ORDER

The action of the management of M/S. WCL in not

providing employment to Shri Sachin, the dependant son

of late Shri Tamke is illegal and unjustified, The applicant

Shri Sachin S/o. Shri Tamke is entitled for employment in

accordance with the provisions of the NCWA in force at

present. The party No. 1 is directed to give employment to

the applicant in accordance with the provisions of NCWA

and other rules as applicable within a month of the

publication of the award.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 645.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wñlhñ,yñ

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

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

U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 52@2004½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@259@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 645.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/2004)

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 Coalfield Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 03/02/2014.

[No. L-22012/259/2003-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/52/2004

Date: 09.01.2014.

Party No. l

The General Manager,

Central Workshop, Tadali,

Western Coalfields Limited,

Post- Tadali, Dist.-Chandrapur. (M.S.)

Versus

Party No. 2

Shri B.C. Sukhadeve, President,

Sanyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh ( AITUC)

Br.-Central Workshop Tadali, Post- Tadali,

Dist.-Chandrapur (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 9th January, 2014)

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 Central Workshop, Tadali of Western

Coalfields Limited and their workmen, for adjudication, as

per letter No. L-22012/259/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 18.05.2004,

with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management in relation

to Central Workshop, Tadali of Western Coalfields

Limited in denying the wages of Cat. II to S/Shri

Navlesh Kumar Sukhdeve, Turner/ Machinist, for

the period 29.07.1997 to 06.10.1998, Dinesh Shamrao

Bodhane, Moter Mechanic, for the period 29.07.1997

to 06.10.1998 and Pramod Madhao Gandhare, Moter

Mechanic for the period 18.07.1997 to 06.10.1998 is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief they are

entitled?"

1756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the union, Sanyukta Khadan

Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC), ( "the union" in short ) on behalf

of all the three workmen, namely, S/Shri Navlesh Kumar

Sukhdeve, Dinesh Shamrao Bodhane and Pramod Madhao

Gandhare, ("the workmen'" in short), filed the statement of

claim and the management of Central workshop, Tadali of

Western Coalfields Limited ("Party No. 1" in short) filed

their written statement.

The case of the three workmen as presented by the

union in the statement of claim is that it is a registered trade

union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and party No.1 is

a government company and is a "state" within Article 12 of

the Constitution of India and the workmen were appointed

as apprentices for one year on stipend of Rs. 770/- per

month by the management of Ballarpur Area and after

medical examination and successful completion of 24 days

of vocational training, the workmen were posted at Sasti

Colliery vide office order dated 27.07.1996 and they were

deployed in production and maintenance jobs as regular

employees of party No. l, due to acute shortage of

manpower and party No. 1 on its own interest did not

discontinue them from duties, even on completion of one

year and issued an office order dated 21/24.07.1997 and

there has been practice and system to absorb such

apprentices in all the Areas of WCL and to regularize them

in time rated category II, after completion of one year of

apprenticeship period.

It is further pleaded by the union that the union,

RKKMs (INTUC) raised several issues by strike notice

with the management of WCL, including the issue of

regularisation of 979 apprentices, who had been trained,

but not offered appointment after the period of their

apprenticeship period and it was pointed out by the RKKMs

union that such apprentices had been allowed to continue

in Ballarpur and Umrer Areas and a meeting was held

between the representatives of RKKMs union and WCL

on the issues contained in the strike notice dated 06.07.1998

and it was agreed that, " Such of the apprentices who have

completed one year of apprenticeship and the Area

Management Has engaged them beyond one year and are

still working will be paid difference of Cat. II wages till the

date of their continuance.' And the minutes so drawn was

circulated vide reference No.1482 dated 07.07.1998, under

the signature of the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager (IR).

WCL head quarter, Nagpur.

The further case of the workmen as presented by the

union is that party No 1 discontinued the services of the

workmen without notice and without payment of the

difference of wages of Category II for the period they were

allowed to work, beyond the period of one year of

apprenticeship i.e. from 29.07.1997 to 06.10.1998 to workmen,

Navlesh Kumar Sukhdeve and Dinesh Shamrao Bodhane

and from 18.07.1997 to 06.10.1998 to workman Pramod

Madhavrao Gandhare and the workmen were engaged

again as daily wages workers Category II and were posted

at Central workshop, Tadali by order no. 1335 dated

29.12.1998 and the workmen and so also the union

approached the party No. 1 time and again for payment of

the differential wages, but party No. 1 did not pay the

same, even though, other similarly situated employees had

been paid the differential wages of category-II and the

stipend, as provided under NCWA-VI, which was in

operation during the relevant period and there should not

be any discrimination by party No. l and once such benefit

had accrued, the same cannot be withdrawn subsequently

even by enactment and the workmen are entitled for the

differential wages for the period they were allowed to work

after completion of the period of apprenticeship of one

year.

3. The party No. 1 in the written statement has

pleaded inter-alia that the workmen were continued beyond

the period of one year of apprenticeship, but they were

paid stipend of Rs. 580/- per month and not Rs. 770/- as

claimed and they did not raise any objection for their

continuance as apprentices after expiry of the

apprenticeship period and they had the advantage of

getting more experience while working as apprentice and

the settlement arrived at by it with RKKMS union is not

applicable to the workmen, for the reason that the dispute

raised by the said union was in respect of the

127 apprentices, who were discontinued after completion

of the apprenticeship period and the facts and dispute

raised by RKKMS union were altogether different and the

same cannot be applicable to the facts of the present case.

It is also pleaded by party No. l that the workmen after their

discontinuance did not claim regularisation of their services

and after few months, there arose clear vacancies and the

workmen submitted applications for their appointment and

were required to pass a written test for their appointment

and in case of regularisation of an apprentice in services, it

is not necessary for the said apprentice to pass the written

test and as such, the facts of the case of the workmen are

altogether different from the facts of the cases raised by

RKKMS union and the workmen having passed the written

test and their names being included in the seniority list of

apprentices, they were given priority in appointment than

the other candidates and the workmen did not raise any

claim till the time they were confirmed and the claim has

been raised as an afterthought and the workmen are not

entitled to any relief.

4. In the rejoinder, the union has pleaded that party

No. 1 has misinterpreted and misrepresented the facts

related to the terms of reference and the workmen were

appointed as apprentices for one year on stipend of

Rs. 580/- per month, which was subsequently enhanced to

Rs. 770/- only per month and the settlement dated

06.07.1998 entered into between RKKMS union and the

management of party of No. 1 is squarely applicable to the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1757

workmen and they are entitled for the differential wages for

the excess period for which they were allowed to continue,

beyond the period of one year of apprenticeship.

5. The union has examined, Shri Babuchand

Sukhdeve, the President of the union of Central Work shop,

Tadali branch and workman Shri Dinesh Shamrao Bodhane

as the two witnesses in support of its claim, besides placing

reliance on documentary evidence.

No evidence has been adduced by the party No. 1 in

support of its claim.

6. In their respective examination-in-chief on affidavit,

both the witnesses examined by the union have reiterated

the facts mentioned in the statement of claim and rejoinder

In their cross-examination, they have admitted that after

one year of apprenticeship of all the three workmen, the

period of their apprenticeship continued, but they did not

raise any objection to the same and after 06.10.1998, they

did not continue as apprentices and for regular appointment

of apprentices, management of. WCL had prescribed a

written examination and the three workmen appeared in the

written examination without any objection and as they

cleared the examination they were appointed against regular

vacancies and the workmen did not raise any objection

regarding their appointment on regular vacancies, before

accepting the appointment orders.

7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the union that it is admitted by the

party No. 1 that the three workmen were allowed to continue

till 06.10.1998, beyond the period of one year of their

apprenticeship and in view of the settlement dated

06.07.1998, between RKKMS union and party No. 1, the

workmen are entitled for the differential wages for the excess

period they were allowed to continue, after the expiry of

the period of one year of apprenticeship.

8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the party No. 1 that it is the admitted case that the

workmen were appointed as apprentices and even after

connection of one year period of apprenticeship, they

continued as apprentices without raising any objection to

the same and it is not the case of the workmen that they

were assured that after completion of their training as

apprentices, they would be absorbed by the management

as regular employees and it is clear from the materials on

record that the workmen gave their deemed consent by

accepting the order of their continuance as apprentices

and as there was no contract to provide them regular

employment after completion of the period of

apprenticeship, they did not have any right to claim

absorption in service and as the workmen were discontinued

as apprentices and as they applied for employment in

response to the advertisement given by the management

to till up the clear vacancies and appeared in the written

examination held far the said purpose and as they passed

the written examination, they were appointed as regular

employees and as there was no settlement between the

three workmen and the management, they are not entitled

to any relief.

It was also submitted by the learned advocate for

the party No. l that the claim raised is a belated claim and

the same cannot be entertained and the reference is liable

to be answered in the negative.

9. So far the submission made regarding the delay in

raising the claim is concerned, it is settled beyond doubt

that there is no limitation for raising an industrial dispute,

but a labour court may decline to decide a dispute, if due to

delay prejudice has been caused. In this case, the party

No. l in the written statement has not raised any ground of

delay in raising the dispute or that due to delay in raising

the dispute, any prejudice was caused to it. Hence, the

submission made regarding delay in raising the dispute

cannot be taken into consideration Moreover, from the

materials on record, it is found that the delay in raising the

dispute cannot be attributed to the workmen. Hence, it is

found that there is no force in the contention raised by the

learned advocate for the party No. 1 on that score

10. In this cast, almost all the facts are admitted by

the parties. According to the party No. l, the workmen are

not entitled for payment of the differential wages, as they

did not raise any objection regarding their continuance as

apprentices, even after completion of the one year of

apprenticeship and as they did not demand for employment

after the period of apprenticeship and they applied for

employment and appeared in a written test and cleared the

same and then they were given appointment and the

settlement dated 06.07.1998 between the RKKMS union

and the management does not have any application to

their cases, as the same was not in respect of them and the

facts of their cases and the facts of the cases raised by the

RKKMS union were quite different.

However, on perusal of the documents on record

including the settlement dated 06.07.1998 in question, it is

found that there is no force in the contention raised by the

party No. 1 and party No. l has tried to complicate the

dispute by raising untenable contentions.

Admittedly, the one year of apprenticeship of

workmen, Navlesh Kumar and Dinesh Shamrao Bodhane

ended on 28.07.1997 and of workman, Pramod Madhavrao

Gandhare ended on 15.07.1997 and all the workmen

continued as apprentices till 06.10.1998.

On perusal of the settlement date 06.07.1998, it is

found that the dispute of all the apprentices, who have

been trained, but not offered appointment after completion

of their apprenticeship period in general was raised by the

RKKMS Union and not for any particular apprentice or

apprentices. It is also found from the said settlement that

party No. 1 had introduced a written test to offer

appointment to the apprentices and the union had raised

objection for such test, but management clarified that the

1758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

written test is being conducted with a view to draw a panel

of merit list so that trained apprentices are offered

appointment on regular basis against sanctioned vacancies.

It is also found from the said settlement that the union

pointed out that some of the apprentices who have

completed their apprenticeship period of one year have

been allowed to continue particularly in Ballarpur Area and

Umrer Area and are being engaged on production activities

and the union demanded their regularization. However, the

management of WCL and the union agreed that such of

the apprentices who have completed one year of

apprenticeship and the Area management has engaged them

beyond one year and are still working, will be paid

differential of Cat-II wages till the date of their continuance.

The workmen involved in this reference had

completed one year of apprenticeship and the Area

management had engaged them beyond one year and they

were still working on 06.07.1998, The date of the settlement

and thereafter also till 06.10.1998. So, the settlement dated

06.07.1998 is squarely applicable to the workmen As already

mentioned above that it was the management, who had

introduced the written test for the apprentices to give them

appointment in the regular vacancies, so the appearing of

the workmen in such test and thereafter being given

appointment does not make them disentitled for getting

the difference of Cat. II wages from the date of expiry of

their one year apprenticeship period till 06.10.1998, i e. the

date of their continuance. It is also found from the materials

on record that though the authority of central workshop

Tadali had taken steps to allow the workmen the differential

wages as per the settlement mentioned above, no payment

was made. Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The action of the management in relation to Central

Workshop, Tadali of Western Coalfields Limited in

denying the wages of Cat. II to S/Shri Navlesh Kumar

Sukhdeve. Turner/Machinist, for the period 29.07.1997

to 06.10.1998, Dinesh Shamrao Bodhane, Moter

Mechanic, for the period 29.07.1997 to 06.10.1998 and

Pramod Madhao Gandhare, Moter Mechanic for the

period 18.07.1997 to 06.10.1998 is illegal and unjustified.

The three workmen are entitled to get the differential

wages of category-II and stipend of apprentices

workmen, Navlesh Kumar Sukhdeve and Dinesh

Shamrao Bodhane are entitled to get the differential

wages for the period from 29.07.1997 to 06.10.1998 and

workman Pramod Madhao Gandhare are entitled to get

the differential wages for the period from 18.07.1997 to

06.10.1998. The party No. 1 is directed to pay the

differential wages as aforesaid to the three workmen

within one month of the date of notification of the award

in the Official Gazette, failing which, the amount will

carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 646.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,Qñ lhñ vkbZñ

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

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

U;k;ky; uñ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 164@2005½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@144@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 646.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Govt.

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh (164/

2005) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of FCI

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 03.02.2014.

[No. L-22012/144/2000-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 164/2005

Registered on 30.7.2005

Sh. Dalbir Singh S/o Sh. Amar Singh, C/o Sh. Krishan Lal,

S/o Raj Kumar Model Town, Bhattu Mandi, District

Fatehbad.

...Petitioner

Versus

The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Hissar.

...Respondents

Appearances :

For the workman

Ex-parte

For the Management

Ex-parte

AWARD

(Passed on 9.1.2014)

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22012/

144/2000/IR(CM-II) Dated 21.11.2000, by exercising its

powers under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and

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

(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in

terminating the services of Sh. Dalbir Singh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1759

S/o Sh. Amar Singh, Security Guard, w.e.f. August,

97 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?"

In response to the notice the workman submitted

statement of claim pleading that he was appointed by a

contractor named Aman Security and Detective for the work

of Food Corporation of India, Bhattu Kalan, as Security

Guard. His services were terminated in August 1997 against

the provisions of the Act and he was not paid any

compensation though he completed more than 240 days of

service. That respondent management is his principal

employer and control of the labour vested in it and as such

he is the employee of the respondent management. His

termination being illegal, he is liable to the reinstated with

all the benefits.

Respondent management filed written statement

controverting the averments and pleaded that workman

was not its employee. It is pleaded that the workman was

engaged by a contractor i.e. Aman Security and Detective

to work as Security Guard under the direct supervision and

control of the said agency. He was never appointed by the

respondent management. It is also denied that he has

completed more than 240 days of service. It is further

pleaded that respondent management is not the principal

employer of the workman. He is not entitled to any relief.

In support of its case the workman appeared in the

witnesses box reiterating the case as set out in the claim

petition.

On the other hand the Respondent management led

evidence and examined Sh. Vijay Prashar who filed his

affidavit supporting the case of the management as set out

in the written statement.

The workman was proceeding against ex-parte vide

order dated 7.2.2013

The respondent management was also proceeding

against ex-parte vide order dated 7.1.2014.

I have carefully perused the file.

It is the case of the workman himself that he was

appointed by a contractor by the name of M/s Aman

Security and Detective i.e. respondent No. 4 to work as

Security Guard for Food Corporation of India. When he

was employed by a private agancy, he cannot claim that he

was an employee of the Food Corporation of India. His

plea that he was working under the direct control of the

FCI who was his principal employer and as such there was

relationship of master and servant. This plea is categorically

denied by the FCI. No evidence has come on the file that

the workman was actually working under the control and

supervision of the FCI.

Thus it is not proved that the workman was an

employee of the management of FCI and his services were

terminated by the FCI. He is not entitled to any relief and

the reference is answered accordingly. Let hard and soft

copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for

further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 647.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½] dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,Qñ lhñ vkbZñ

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

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

U;k;ky; uñ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 165@2005½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@146@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 647.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central

Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh

(165/2005) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of FCI and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 03.02.2014.

[No. L-22012/146/2000-IR (CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 165/2005

Registered on 31.8.2005

Sh. Mani Ram, C/o Krishna Lal, Model Town, Bhattu Mandi,

District Fatehbad.

...Petitioner

Versus

The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Hissar.

...Respondents

Appearances

For the workman

Ex-parte

For the Management

Ex-parte

AWARD

(Passed on 9.1.2014)

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22012/

146/2000/IR(CM-II) Dated 21.11.2000, by exercising its

1760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in

terminating the services of Sh. Mani Ram S/o

Sh. Math Ram, Security Guard, w.e.f. August, 97 is

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

is entitled?"

In response to the notice the workman submitted

statement of claim pleading that he was appointed by a

contractor named Aman Security and Detective for the work

of Food Corporation of India, Bhattu Kalan, as Security

Guard. His services were terminated in August 1997 against

the provisions of the Act and he was not paid any

compensation though he completed more than 240 days of

service. That respondent management is his principal

employer and control of the labour vested in it and as such

he is the employee of the respondent management. His

termination being illegal, he is liable to the reinstated with

all the benefits.

Respondent management filed written statement

controverting the averments and realised that workman

was not its employee. It is pleaded that the workman was

engaged by a contractor i.e. Aman Security and Detective

to work as Security Guard under the direct supervision and

control of the said agency. He was never appointed by the

respondent management. It is also denied that he has

completed more than 240 days of service. It is further

pleaded that respondent management is not the principal

employer of the workman. He is not entitled to any relief.

The Workman was proceeding against ex-parte vide

order dated 7.2.2013

Respondent management led evidence and examined

Sh. Vijay Prashar who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand

taken by the respondent management in the written

statement.

The respondent management was also proceeding

against ex parte vide order dated 7.1.2014.

I have carefully perused the file.

It is the case of the workman himself that he was

appointed by a contractor by the name of M/s. Aman

Security and Detective i.e. respondent No. 4 to work as

Security Guard for Food Corporation of Inida. When he

was employed by a private agancy, he cannot claim that he

was an employee of the Food Corporation of India. His

plea that he was working under the direct control of the

FCI who was his principal employer and as such there was

relationship of master and servant. This plea is categorically

denied by the FCI. No evidence has come on the file that

the workman was actually working under the control and

supervision of the FCI.

Thus it is not proved that the workman was an

employee of the management of FCI and his services were

terminated by the FCI. He is not entitled to any relief and

the reference is answered accordingly. Let hard and soft

copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for

further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 648.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,Qñ lhñ vkbZñ

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

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

U;k;ky; uñ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 166@2005½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@142@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 648.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Govt.

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh (166/

2005) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of FCI

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 03.02.2014.

[No. L-22012/142/2000-IR (CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

PRESENT : SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 166/2005

Registered on 1.8.2005

Sh. Krishan Lal, C/o Raj Kumar, Model Town, Bhattu Mandi,

District Fatehbad.

...Petitioner

Versus

The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Hissar.

...Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Ex-parte

For the Management

Ex-parte

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1761

AWARD

(Passed on 9.1.2014)

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22012/

142/2000/IR(CM-II) Dated 21.11.2000, by exercising its

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

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

(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in

terminating the services of Sh. Krishan Lal S/o

Sh. Raj Kumar, Security Guard, w.e.f. August, 97 is

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

is entitled?"

In response to the notice the workman submitted

statement of claim pleading that he was appointed by a

contractor named Aman Security and Detective for the work

of Food Corporation of India, Bhattu Kalan, as Security

Guard. His services were terminated in August 1997 against

the provisions of the Act and he was not paid any

compensation though he completed more than 240 days of

service. That respondent management is his principal

employer and control of the labour vested in it and as such

he is the employee of the respondent management. His

termination being illegal, he is liable to the reinstated with

all the benefits.

Respondent management filed written statement

controverting the averments and pleaded that workman

was not its employee. It is pleaded that the workman was

engaged by a contractor i.e. Aman Security and Detective

to work as Security Guard under the direct supervision and

control of the said agency. He was never appointed by the

respondent management. It is also denied that he has

completed more than 240 days of service. It is further

pleaded that respondent management is not the principal

employer of the workman. He is not entitled to any relief.

In support of its case the workman appeared in the

witness box reiterating the case as set out in the claim petition.

On the the other hand the Respondent management

led evidence and examined Sh. Vijay Prashar who filed his

affidavit supporting the case of the management as set out

in the written statement.

The Workman was proceeding against ex-parte vide

order dated 7.2.2013

The respondent management was also proceeding

against ex-parte vide order dated 7.1.2014.

I have carefully perused the file.

It is the case of the workman himself that he was

appointed by a contractor by the name of M/s. Aman

Security and Detective i.e. respondent No. 4 to work as

Security Guard for Food Corporation of Inida. When he

was employed by a private agancy, he cannot claim that he

was an employee of the Food Corporation of India. His

plea that he was working under the direct control of the

FCI who was his principal employer and as such there was

relationship of master and servant. This plea is categorically

denied by the FCI. No evidence has come on the file that

the workman was actually working under the control and

supervision of the FCI.

Thus it is not proved that the workman was an

employee of the management of FCI and his services were

terminated by the FCI. He is not entitled to any relief and

the reference is answered accordingly. Let hard and soft

copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for

further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 649.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñlhñlhñ,yñ

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

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

U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 19@2012½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@57@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 649.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2012)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 03/02/2014.

[No. L-22012/57/2012-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Dated the 4th day of December, 2013

Industrial Dispute No. I.D. 19/2012

Between:

The Vice-President,

(Sri Bandari Lingaiah)

Singareni Collieries Employees Union (CITU),

Qtr. No. 39-T, Somagudem Corner,

Somagudem (Via Bellampally)

Andhra Pradesh-504 251

....Petitioner

1762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

The Chief General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,

Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri,

Adilabad district-504231.

.....Respondent

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner:

NIL

For the Respondent: Representative

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

order No. L-22012/57/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 26.4.2012

referred the following dispute between the management of

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman

under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication

to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the General Manager of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area,

in terminating the services of Sri Mahadevi Mondi,

Ex-Coal Filler, MK-4 Incline, Mandamarri Area, with

effect from 8.2.2008 is fair and justified? To what relief

the concerned workman is entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.

No. 19/2012 and notices were issued to the parties.

2. The case stands posted for appearance of

Petitioner union and for filing of claim statement and

documents.

3. Petitioner union called absent and there is no

representation. Inspite of receiving the notice again

and again Petitioner union is not appearing before the

court and is not making any claim. In the circumstances,

taking that Petitioner union is not interested in the

proceedings, proceedings are closed. As such a 'Nil'

Award is passed.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant

transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 4th day

of December, 2013.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 650.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wñlhñ,yñ

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

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 53@1991½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@27@1991&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 650.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/91)

of the Cent. Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of WCL and their workman,

received by the Central Government on 03/02/2014.

[No. L-22012/27/1991-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/53/91

Presiding Officer: Shri R.B. PATLE

The Secretary,

R.K.K.M.S. (INTUC),

Post Chhindwara

....Workman/Union

Versus

The Manager,

Nandan Mine No. 2 of WCL,

Post Nandan,

Distt. Chhindwara

....Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 23rd day of January, 2014)

1. As per letter dated 3-4-91 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/

27/91-IR (Coal-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the Manager, Nandan Coal

Mine No. 2 of Western Coalfields Ltd., Kanhan Area,

P.O. Nandan, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) is justified in

dismissing from the services of Shri Puran S/o

Chokhe, tub loader, Token No. 328 and other thirteen

(13) workmen of Nandan Coal Mine No. 2, WCL,

Kanhan Area, P.O. Nandan, Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1763

as per the dates shown against the name of each

workman in the attached list as Annexure-I? If not, to

what relief the concerned workers are entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Statement of claim is submitted by Secretary,

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) on

behalf of 14 employees. Case of list party Union is that it is

registered under Trade Union Act for welfare of labours

employed throughout WCL. Union is challenging dismissal

of Shri Puran and 13 others were employed in Nandan Coal

Mines No. 2 discharging their duties. The dates of their

appointments, token number, designation are given in Para-

4 of the statement of claim. That management had not

provided quarter to those employees. Employees were

living in colliery area without their families far away from

their village. 14 employees were charge-sheeted for absence

from duty. Enquiry Officer and Management Representative

were appointed, departmental enquiry was conducted.

Except Shri Puran and Bansilal, all other employees have

participated in the enquiry. Those employees being illiterate

and from backward community, they did not contest

allegation against them seriously. Charges were admitted.

On basis of the formal enquiry, their services have been

dismissed imposing harsh and excessive punishment. The

date of dismissal of respective employees are shown in

chart below Para-8. Employees were mostly dismissed in

August, September, October, November-88, January to

March-89. It is further pleaded that the co-worker was not

given chance to cross-examine management's witnesses.

The employees have not furnished documents about their

absenteeism. The names and list of witnesses were not

supplied. The procedure adopted in Enquiry Proceeding

therefore is illegal. Enquiry Officer had no knowledge how

to conduct Departmental Enquiry, Enquiry Officer was

biased. the dismissal orders are challenged. That the Mine

Manager has no power to dismiss employees from service.

The General Manager is, therefore, Disciplinary Authority

and competent to dismiss them from service. That

employees have to face their domestic problems. Their wife

and their employees themselves were sick. On such ground,

it is submitted that the punishment of dismissal was illegal.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to

6/4. IInd party submits that termination of each of

employee is on the basis of independent facts. There is

nothing common in termination of services of all those

employees. There cannot be combined reference in

respect of termination of individual employees.

Combined reference is not permissible under law. The

dispute under reference should be very specific and

should not be vague. Central Govt. acted mechanically

without application of mind while making the reference.

The reference is bad in law because there was no

termination of service of Shri Puran and 12 others as

alleged. Their employment commences on the day of

employment and totally comes to an end at the end of

the day. The reference is liable to be rejected.

4. IInd party further submits that in case of Puran, he

was in habit of remaining absent without leave or prior

permission, he did not show any interest to continue the

work. Repreated efforts were made to persuade him to do

his job properly. All the warnings not resulted in any action.

On 17-12-87, chargesheet was issued to him as he was

absent without prior permission from 16-10-85 to 16-12-87.

Shri Puran has not participated in the inquiry. Enquiry Officer

examined witnesses of management, found him guilty

submitting his findingss. After receiving findings of Enquiry

Officer, Shri Puran was terminated vide letter dated 24-8-88.

It is also submitted if enquiry is found vitiated, management

be granted permission to prove misconduct adducing

evidence. That the dispute is raised belatedly. There is no

question of giving backwages to the workman. Separate

Written Statement are filed with respect to employees

Shri Sukhlal, Patiram, Shivcharan, Lukhman, Dhandoo,

Laxman, Suresh Kumar, Bisatlal, Bisram, Shankar,

Fakirchand, Somlal, Khushilal, showing different period of

their unauthorized absence and notices issued to them.

5. Management filed separate rejoinder with respect

to all employees reiterating its contentions in Written

Statement. In Para-8, date of dismissal of each employee are

shown separately. The chart is submitted about participation

of employees, admission of charge. As per said chart,

Shri Sukhlal-S/o Dhandu, Chintaman-S/o Fakirchand,

Bisatlal-S/o Dashrath, Bishan-S/o Bhangi, Shanker-S/o

Rambharose and Laxman-S/o Shivlal admitted charge against

them. Charge against Pooran-S/o Chokhe, Suresh S/o

Banshilal, Somlal S/o Sumersingh, Ratilal S/o Ujjain, Khushilal

S/o Phoota, Lukman S/o Baji, Shivcharan S/o Ghudan and

Dhandoo S/o Shanker were proved in the enquiry. IInd party

management submits that action of dismissal from service of

all those employees is legal and justified.

6. The preliminary issue No. 1 is decided as per order

dated 6-6-2013, enquiry conducted against workman is

found fair and proper. Parties were given opportunity to

adduce evidence on other issues. Considering pleadings

and order on preliminary issue, 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 charge of alleged

misconduct against workman

In Affirmative

is proved from evidence in

Enquiry Proceedings?

(ii) Whether the punishment of

dismissal from service

imposed against Shri Puran

In Affirmative

and 12 other employees by

management of IInd party is

proper and legal?

(iii) If so, to what relief the

As per final

workman is entitled to?"

order

1764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REASONS

7. The evidence of management's witness Shri Sunil

Kumar Jain remained unchallenged. The charges were

admitted by some of the employees. In the individual

rejoinder filed by management has discussed about how

other employees participated in the enquiry and the charges

were proved against them. The record of Enquiry

Proceeding is produced. Though the Union has filed the

Statement of Claim in the matter under reference, no witness

is examined by the Union of the individual employee. The

zerox copies of the Enquiry Proceedings with respect to all

employee is produced.

8. As stated above enquiry conducted against

workman is found legal as per order dated 6-6-2013. Record

shows that statement of Management Representative was

recorded on the point that those were unauthorisely absent.

Copies of register of leave account are produced. The

workman absolutely not participated in the reference, some

of them have admitted the charges against them and charges

against some of them have been proved in the Enquiry

Proceedings. The careful perusal of record shows

unauthorized absence of the employees extends from

3 months of 13 months. Absolutely no evidence is adduced

by the 1st party employee what were the reasons for their

absence, whether absence from duty was deliberate or

motiviated. In absence of such evidence, it would not be

appropriate on my part to interfere in the order of dismissal.

For above reasons I record my findings in Point No. 1 & 2

in Affirmative.

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

(1) The action of the Manager, Nandan Coal Mine

No. 2 of Western Coalfields Ltd., Kanhan Area,

P.O. Nandan, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) is justified

in dismissing from the services of Shri Puran S/o

Chokhe, tub loader, Token No. 328 and other

thirteen (13) workmen is proper.

(2) The employees are not entitled to relief prayed by

them.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 651.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wñlhñ,yñ

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

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

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 20@2006½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@248@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 651.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2006)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of WCL of Kanhan Area and their

workman, received by the Central Government on 03/02/2014.

[No. L-22012/248/2001-IR(C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/20/2006

Presiding Officer: Shri R.B. PATLE

The President,

P.K.K.K. Karamchari Sangh,

Damua, P.O. Damua,

Chhindwara

....Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

WCL, Kanhan Area,

PO Dungaria, Chhindwara

....Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 21st day of January, 2014)

1. As per letter dated 5-6-2006 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/

248/2001-C-II. The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Damua

Colliery for termination of Shri Jhangalal Lal, S/o

Shri Bhagan and 12 others water carrier w.e.f. 11-4-98

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

is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party Union filed Statement of Claim at Page

3/1 to 3/10. The case of Ist party Union is that 13 workmen-

names given in Para-3 of the Statement of Claim were

employed on job of water career, Category-I from 1-1-1980

as per Bipartite Agreement/National Coal Wage Agreement.

That their service conditions are covered as per the Bipartite

Settlement which are statutory contract. That qualification

of workman made as per clause 3(1) of certified standing

orders. All those workmen are entitled to be regularized as

permanent workmen with retrospective effect. That on

inactment of coal mines nationalization Act 1973, rights

and interest of Private collieries were present in Central

Govt. the workmen are employees of the Central Govt. Their

service conditions are covered by certified standing orders.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1765

Clause 3.5 of certified standing orders provides

classification of workman — (a) Apprentice, (b) Badli/

substitute, (c) Casual, (d) Permanent, (e) Probationer, (f)

Temporary. Ist party workman has given definition of all

those categories of employees. Permanent workmen I who

is employed on job of permanent nature for a period of

atleast six months or who has satisfactorily put six months

continuous service in a permanent post as a probationer.

The wages structure, nomenclature, job description and

categorization of coal employees was made in meeting dated

29th, 30th April and 28th August 1986. The water career is

designated at Sl. No. 8, that the wage structure,

nomenclature, job description and categorization alongwith

others conditions of service including fringe benefits of

the employed persons in the Coal Industry are covered

under the recommendation of the Central Wage Board for

Coal Mining Industry. That workman while working in

Damua Colliery on job of water career, they were terminated

from 6-4-98 by General Manager, WCL.

3. That Shri Abdul Haquim was posted as Welfare

Officer-cum-Sr. Personnel Officer in Damua Colliery. His

evidence was adduced in C/153/86 is reproduced. The

evidence of Shri M.M. Chandok, Abdul Hakuim is also

reproduced. The cross-examination by Union

Representative Shri D.N. Tripathi of witness in said

reference including Shri Nokhelal is reproduced in the

statement of claim. Cross-examination of the witnesses by

Advocate for management is reproduced. Ist party Union

prays for award in favour of the water career w.e.f.

1-11-1980 with wages and other benefits.

4. Management filed Written Statement denying claim

of the Union that Shri Jhangalal and 12 others mentioned

in the Statement of Claim have never issued appointment

orders, work orders. There was no question of termination

of their service. Employer employee relationship does not

exist between the parties. That claim of Ist party workman

is false. That no appointment order or agreement was

entered between WCL management and those employee.

In absence of any agreement, question of working in control

or supervision of management does not arise. It is further

contented that there is a practice of some persons being

used to supply drinking water in colliery does not hold

merit as a number of persons are engaged on and off for

supply of various miscellaneous material such as good

grains, milk, water etc. It does not mean there exists a relation

of employer-employee. All other contentions of workman

is denied. So far as evidence of the witnesses and cross-

examination by counsel for management is reproduced, it

is submitted that it relates to other matter and has no

relevancy.

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

management of Damua

In Affirmative

Colliery for termination of

Shri Jhangalal Lal, S/o Shri

Bhagan and 12 ohers water

carrier w.e.f. 11-4-98 is

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workmen are

workman is entitled to?"

not entitled to

relief prayed by

them.

REASONS

6. Though in Statement of Claim submitted by

workman, it is pleaded that all 13 workmen names given in

para-3 of the statement of claim are working as water career

from 1-1-80 and their services are covered by Bipartite

Settlement, NCWA. It is also pleaded about categorization

of workmen, details given in Para-3/1. The definition of

badly/casual, temporary workmen given and on its basis

for status of permanent workmen is claimed. Workman did

not participate in the reference proceeding. No evidence is

adduced by Ist party. The evidence of Ist party has been

closed on 19-6-2012. The documents produced by Ist party

are admitted, Exhibit W-1 is copy of letter about forwarding

reference order, W-2 is copy of reference order. W-3 is copy

of letter of Chief General Manager about deployment to

bullock cart for carrying water. Exhibit W-4 is copy of

affidavit of evidence of A.B. Hakim and his cross-

examination in Case No. 153/86. Copy of affidavit of

M.M. Chandok with cross-examintion in same case

produced at Exhibit W-5. Copy of evidence of Nokhelal

with cross-examination is produced at Exhibit W-6. W-7 is

receipt of water transport charges. W-8 is payment voucher

of water charges.

7. The evidence recorded in C/153/86 produced on

record relates to the working of water carriers. The said

claim was of 1986. Any document is not produced what

was the subject matter in C/153/86. At the time of argument,

learned counsel for management Shri A.K. Shashi submitted

that said reference related to recovery of wages. In present

cases, all workmen are claiming to be continuously working

as water carrier from November 1980 and as per

nomenclature of workman and Bipartite settlement, they

claimed to be permanent employee. The copy of

nomenclature job description and categorization of

employees is denied by the management. Ist party Union

did not participate to adduce evidence on the point.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness

Shri Milind Ganvir. He had stated that appointment in the

colliery can only be done according to rules laid down by

the company public sector. No back door entry is

permissible. His evidence become unchallenged. As Union

1766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

has failed to adduce evidence, its claim under reference

cannot be accepted. Rather it is not substantiated by

cogent evidence. As such I record my findings in Point No.

1 in Affirmative.

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

(1) Action of the management of Damua Colliery for

termination of Shri Jhangalal Lal, S/o Shri Bhagan and 12

others water carrier w.e.f. 11-4-98 is legal.

(2) Workmen are not entitled to relief claimed by them.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 652.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wñlhñ,yñ

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

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

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 65@2011½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@1@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 652.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 65/2011)

of the Cent. Govt. lndus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of WCL Pench Area Praceya

Distt. Chhindwara and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 03/02/2014.

[No. L-22012/1/2011-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/65/2011

Presiding Officer: SHRI R. B. PATLE

Shri Bharat Singh,

General Secretary,

Samyukta Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),

Eklehra, Chhindwara

…Workman/Union

Versus

Chief Manager,

WCL, Pench Area,

Parasiya, Distt. Chhindwara

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 21st day of January 2014)

1. As per letter dated 24-6-2011 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-22012/1/2011-IR(CM-Il). The dispute under

reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Western Coal Fields in terminating the service

of Shri Ramchander, Tub Loader w.e.f. 16.9.2009 is

legal and justified? To what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued

to the parties. Reference pertains to termination of

service of Shri Ramchander, Tub Loader w.e.f. 16.9.2009

and its legality. After notice, workman submitted

application that he has attained age more than 60 years.

He is not keeping well. He does not intend to prosecute

the claim under reference. Workman also filed affidavit

in support of above application. The management has

given no objection for disposing the reference as per

request of the workman.

3. I am satisfied that the workman is not desiring to

prosecute claim under reference and management has no

objection for it. Therefore the dispute under reference

cannot be adjudicated on merit for want of prosecution.

The reference stands disposed off.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 653.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñbZñlhñ,yñ

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

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

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

105@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

03@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@360@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 653.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 105/2004)

of the Cent. Govt. lndus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of SECL, Gevra Area,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 03/02/2014.

[No. L-22012/360/2003-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1767

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/105/2004

Presiding Officer: SHRI R. B. PATLE

Shri Ram Vilas Shobnath,

General Secretary,

Chhattisgarh Khadan Kharkhana Mazdoor Union,

Village & PO - Bankimongra,

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

..…Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

SECL, Gevra Area,

PO- Gevra Project,

Distt.- Korba (Chhattisgarh)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 23rd day of January 2014)

1. As per letter dated 4-1-2004 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-22012/

360/2003-IR(CM-Il). The dispute under reference relates

to:

"Whether the action of the management of SECL,

Gevra in not paying the wages of Shri Prem Das,

Clerk for the period from 1.8.1998 to 31.12.1998 (5

months) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist Party Union filed Statement of Claim at Page

6/1 to 6/4. The case of Ist party Union is that workman

Premdas was working in Gevra Project as clerk. He was

paid monthly salary Rs. 8683/-. Workman was Vice President

of Union. It is alleged that workman was subjected to

harassment. As per notice dated 13.1.1997, workman had

threatened to commit suicide pressing his demands for

payment for the month August to December 1998. That

salary should be paid as per settlement dated 30.4.1995

and order passed by Hon'ble High Court of post of Clerk

Grade-I. Workman had prayed for promotion in Special

Grade from 1.1.1997. Workman had filed contempt petition

in High court alleging disobedience of the order dated

19.11.1999, 17.12.1999. That the matter of promotion was

pending before CGIT, Nagpur. Workman has also referred

to various settlements. That his pay was with held. He

further alleged that false chargesheet was issued to him for

unauthorized absence. Showcause notice was issued to

him on 6.8.1999. There was no allegation against him for

the period 1.8.1998 to 31.12.1998. The order was passed no

work no pay on false allegation. On such ground, workman

is praying that he is entitled to salary fo the period 1.8.1998

to 31.12.1998.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 9/1 to

9/5, claim of workman is denied. The dispute is raised in

2004 after lapse of several years is not tenable. IInd party

submits that workman was employed as clerk. Workman

was in habit of leaving duty without intimation, persmission

of Controlling Authority, he used to leave office during

duty hours, he refused to obey orders of Controlling

Authority. Sometimes after making attendance, he leave

the work place. Workman refused to do any work during

his working hours. The workman was not paid wages

following principles of no work, no pay, showcause notice

was issued on 6.8.1999. He was also issued showcause

notice dated 17.10.1990. Workman was not paid wages for

the period August 1998 to December, 1998. It is not disputed

that workman was working as clerk in Gevra Project of

SECL. IInd party denies that action of the management is

illegal. All other contentions of the workman are denied.

The management never forced workman to arrive at

settlement at any time. IInd party admits that he was not

paid wages from August to December, 1995 as the workman

was not performing job during the period. IInd party prays

for rejection of the claim.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of SECL, Gevra in

not paying the wages of Shri

Prem Das, Clerk for the period

from 1.8.1998 to 31.12.1998 (5

months) is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to relief

prayed by him.

REASONS

5. Present reference relates to non-payment of salary

for August, 1998 to December, 1998 by management.

Workman submits that he was subjected to harassment by

IInd party. His pay was withheld illegally. Management

denies allegation of workman. It is submitted that workman

was not performing duty during working hours, he was not

obeying directions of the Controlling Authority. Workman

has not participated in the reference proceeding after filing

Statement of Claim by Union. Workman is proceeded

exparte on 9.4.2012. As such there is no evidence to

substantiate claim of workman. Management filed affidavit

of evidence of Shri K.A. Sunder supporting most of the

contentions of the management. The salary of workman

from August 1998 to December, 1998 was not paid following

principles of no work, no pay. The evidence of workman

remained unchallenged. Union/Ist party workman did not

participate in the reference proceeding. I do not find reason

to disbelieve evidence of the management's witness that

1768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

salary of workman was not paid following principles of no

work, no pay cannot be said unjustified. For above reasons,

I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

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

(1)Action of the management of SECL, Gevra is not

paying the wages of Shri Prem Das, Clerk for the period

from 1.8.1998 to 31.12.1998 (5 months) is legal and proper.

(2)Workman is not entitled to relief prayed by him.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 4th February, 2014

S.O. 654.—The Name of the Party-2 mentioned in

case No. CGIT/NGP/64/2005 dated 20.11.2012 Notified vide

No. L-22012/348/2004-IR(C-II) dated 03.12.2012 may be

Read as:

The General Secretary,

Koyala Shramik Sabha (HMS),

C/o C.J. Khandre,

Near Mahakali Mandir,

CHANDRAPUR (M.S.)

Instead of :

Shri Lomesh Maroti Khartad,

President, National Colliery Workers Congress,

Ambedkar Ward, Ballarpur

Tah. & Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

The above correction is made as per order No. 36

dated 11/1/2013 of CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur.

[No. L-22012/348/2004-IR(C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/64/2005

Date-20.11.2012.

Party No. 1

The Sub Area Manager,

Hindusthan Lelpeth Mine No. 1

Western Coalfields Limited,

Chandrapur

Versus

Party No. 2

The General Secretary,

Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS),

C/o C.J. Khandre,

Near Mahakali Mandir,

Chandrapur (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 20th November, 2012)

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 Hindustan Lalpeth Mine No. 1 of WCL and

Smt. Laxmi, the dependent of deceased workman, Pocham

Kondaya Bogaram for adjudication, as per letter No.

L-22012/348/2004 IR (CM-II) dated 03.08.2005, with the

following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of

Chandrapur Area of WCL in treating Sh. Pocham

Kondaya Bogaram, Badli Underground Loader even

after completion of 190 days attendance within

one year of his joining service as a Badli Loader was

legal and justified in terms of clause 3.3 of the

Certified Standing Orders of WCL? If not to what

relief workman was entitled?"

2. "Whether the action of the management in denying

following benefits to the workmen/dependents is legal and

justified? If not, to what further relief the dependent of the

concerned workman is entitled? (i) Employment of the

dependent of Late Sh. Pocham Kondaya Bogaram as per

para 9.3.1 of the NCWA-VI. (ii) Benefits under the CMPF

Scheme 1948. (iii) Benefits under the Life cover Scheme as

per para 9.1.0 of the NCWA-VI. (iv) Leave with wages as

per sec. 25(3) (a) and 52(10) of the Mines Act, 1952."

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the union "Koyla Shramik

Sabha (HMS)" ("the union" in short) filed the statement of

claim on behalf of Smt. Laxmi, the dependent of deceased

workman, Pocham Kondaya Bogaram (The "deceased

workman" in short) and the management of WCL (here-in-

after referred to as the Party No. 1") filed its written

statement.

The case as projected by the union in the statement

of claim is that the deceased workman, was working as a

loader since long at Nandgaon Incline colliery of WCL on

continuous basis, but party No. 1 was showing him as a

worker engaged by contractor, so an industrial dispute

was raised by RKKMS (1NTUC) on behalf of the deceased

workman, before the ALC (C), Chandrapur and there was a

tripartite settlement before the ALC on 25.05.1992 and

basing on such settlement, party No. 1 issued an

appointment letter bearing No. 1523 dated 15.05.1996 in

favour of the workman as a fresh "Badli" piece rated loader

and posted him at Hindusthan Lalpeth Underground Coal

Mine No. l and the deceased workman worked there

on and from 11.05.1996 continuously and during his

employment, he became ill and referred to Tata Cancer

Hospital, Mumbai by party no. 1 for treatment and then to

Government Medical College Hospital, Nagpur vide letter

no. 1065 dated 11.08.1997 of the Chief Medical Officer,

Chandrapur Area Hospital, WCL and during the period of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1769

treatment, he died on 03.10.1997 at Lalpeth and party no. 1

was intimated about the death of the workman, Pocham

and on receipt of the death certificate of the deceased

workman, the Manager, Hindusthan Lalpeth Colliery Mine

No. l, Chandrapur vide office order no. 2302 dated 23/

27.10.1997, removed his name from the rolls of the said

colliery w.e.f. 04.10.1997 and Smt. Laxmi, the widow of

deceased workman represented for her employment, as the

dependent to party No. l, soon after the death of her

husband. It is further pleaded by the union that the

deceased workman had completed 282 days of work from

June, 1996 to July, 1997 and 254 days of work from June,

1996 to May, 1997 and on receipt of the application of Smt.

Laxmi and after due verification, the Personnel Manager,

Hindustan Lalpeth underground sub-area, recommended

her case for employment as dependent of deceased

workman vide his letter dated 04.05.1999 and again vide his

letter dated 6/6.05.1999 to the Deputy Chief Personnel

Manager, Chandrapur Area, WCL and Smt. Laxmi and the

union approached party No. l, a number of times for

payment of the dues of the deceased workman, such as,

leave wages, amount on account of Life Cover Scheme,

CMPF amount, Pension, Gratuity etc. and so also

employment and interim monetary compensation, but party

No. l did not consider the same and Smt. Laxmi submitted a

letter dated 29.01.2004/12.02.2004 to the Chief General

Manager, Chandrapur Area with copies to the Director (P)

and CMD, WCL, Nagpur, reiterating her claim, but nothing

was done in the matter and the matter was also taken by

the union, vide letter no. 2004 dated 14.02.2004 and letter

dated 30.06.2005, but the same were not considered, so the

union took up the case with ALC (C) Chandrapur vide

letter dated 25.02.2007 and the reference was made to the

Tribunal for adjudication.

The union has prayed for payment of Rs. 3000/-

with 18% compound interest from 04.12.1997 till the actual

payment is made, the dues due to the workman and dues

due to the death of the workman and employment to

Smt. Laxmi 3. The party no, 1 in their written statement

have pleaded inter-alia that the deceased workman was

appointed as Badli piece rated loader at Hindustan Lalpeth

underground sub-area vide order dated 04.05.1996 and

the workman joined duties on 11.06.1996 and the said

appointment was for specific period up to 31st July, 1996

and after 31st July, 1996, no further order of appointment

or extension of the appointment was issued in his favour

and the deceased workman died on 03.10.1997 and on the

date of death, the deceased workman was not holding

any appointment order and he was never taken on

probation and his services were also never regularized as

permanent employee and during the life time of the

deceased workman, there was no grievance or request for

regularisation of his services and no document has been

placed on record to show that decease workman was a

member of the union and the subject matter involved in

reference does not constitute an industrial dispute as

contemplated under section 2-K of the Act and the

reference is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal

and the reference is not tenable and bad in law. It is

further pleaded by party No. 1 that the days for which the

deceased workman worked beyond 31.07.1996 were

essentially of temporary nature and wages for the same

were paid to him on daily basis and therefore, the deceased

workman had no claim whatsoever for permanency/

regularisation and the selection of the deceased workman

was not made after following the due procedure and on

that count also, the deceased workman was not entitled

for regularisation and the deceased workman had not put

in 190 days of work in any one year, much less calendar

year and therefore, the deceased workman was not entitled

to claim any benefits of leave etc. as per section 52 (10) of

the Mines Act, 1952 and though the deceased workman

was not a regular employee, they displayed all the good

gesture to treat him medically on humanitarian and social

grounds and since the deceased workman had not

achieved the status of a regular employee, he was not

entitled for any benefits applicable to regular employee

and they have already paid all the legal claims payable to

the deceased workman and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid

to Smt. Laxmi vide Cheque No. 340129 dated 20.12.1997

towards Life Cover Scheme and due amount of Provident

Fund has also already been paid and as the deceased

workman was only a Badli employee at the time of his

death, the claim of his wife for appointment on

compassionate ground could not be considered and the

claim is neither legal nor justified and therefore, the

reference is to be answered in negative.

The further case of party No. l is that the deceased

workman was not entitled for any gratuity, much less as

claimed and the claim of gratuity is also beyond the terms

of reference made by the Government and the claim of

Smt. Laxmi for compassionate appointment was not

considered, since her claim was not in accordance with the

rules and the dispute has been raised by the wife of the

deceased workman and there is no provision in the Act,

which permits raising of an industrial dispute by a union at

the instance of a relative of an employee and on this ground

also, no valid industrial dispute exists and therefore, the

reference is liable to be answered in-favour of the

management and against the union.

4. In the rejoinder, it is pleaded by the union that as

the reference has been made by the competent government

after finding of the existence of an industrial dispute, the

same is maintainable and the Tribunal has the jurisdiction

to decide the same and Badli worker also fails within the

definition of workman and therefore, they are entitled for

the benefits under all industrial law and claim of appointment

on compassionate ground is maintainable under the Act.

5. To prove their respective claims, both the parties

have led oral evidence, besides placing reliance on

documentary evidence. Shri Chandrakanta Khande, the

1770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

General Secretary of the union and Smt. Laxmi, the widow

of the deceased workman has been examined as the two

witnesses on behalf of the union.

One, Shri Bhagwan, Senior Manager (Personnel) of

Hindustan Lalpeth Sub-Area has been examined as a

witness on behalf of Party No. 1.

6. Shri Chandrakanta Khande in his examination-in-

chief, which is on affidavit has reiterated the facts

mentioned in the statement of claim. However, in his cross-

examination, this witness has stated that the deceased

workman was as appointed as a Badli piece rated loader

and such appointment was upto 31.07.1996 and except

Ext. W-XV, no other document has been filed to show that

the service of the deceased workman was extended after

31.07.1996.

Smt. Laxmi in her evidence has also reiterated the

facts mentioned in the statement of claim, but in her cross-

examination, she has stated that she has no knowledge

about National Coal Wages Agreement, Standing Orders

and other Rules and regulation of WCL and her husband

worked for one year.

7. The evidence of the witness for the party No. l is

also the reiteration of the facts mentioned in the written

statement. In his cross-examination, the witness has

admitted that the deceased workman, Pocham died while

he was working as a Badli worker and wages was paid to

him from the date of his appointment till his death and Ext.

M-VI is the attendance particular of the deceased workman

for 1996 and 1997.

8. Before delving into the merit of the matter, it is to

be mentioned that at the time of argument, it was submitted

by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the benefits

other than the benefit of employment have already been

granted to Smt. Laxmi, so there is no need for adjudication

of the same. Such facts have also been admitted by the

parties in the written statement and evidence adduced

before this Tribunal.

So the points remain for consideration are regarding

the legality or otherwise of treating the deceased workman

as a "Badli" worker even after completion of 190 days

attendance within one year and not giving of compassionate

appointment to Smt. Laxmi, the widow of the deceased

workman.

9. The first question raised by the learned advocate

for party No. l is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

decide the reference as because the dispute raised by the

union on behalf of Smt. Laxmi, the widow of decease

workman is not an industrial dispute as defined under

section 2 (K) of the Act and as such, the reference is bad in

law.

On the other hand, it has been submitted by the

learned advocate for the petitioner that once a reference

has been validly made by appropriate Government, the

Tribunal must adjudicate the dispute on merits and the

Tribunal cannot go into the validity of the reference and

the expanding definition of "workman" as contained in

section 2 (S) of the Act would confer a right upon the

dependent to obtain appointment on compassionate

ground and provision for giving employment to the

dependent of an employee who dies in harness is a

condition of service in view of the settlement entered into

by and between the employer and the employees and a

claim for appointment on compassionate ground is an

industrial dispute and as such, the reference is not bad in

law and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the

dispute so referred.

In support of such contentions, the learned advocate

for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions reported

in 1984 (4) SCC-392 (Workmen employed by Hindustan

Liver Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Liver Ltd.), AIR 2000 SC-469

(National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. State of

Rajasthan), 2007 (115) FLR-427 (Mohan Mahto Vs.

M/s. Central Coal Fields Ltd.), 1993 (1) BLJ-52 (Employees

of M/s. BCCL Vs. Their Workmen) and 2000-I-LLJ-196

(Municipal Employees union Vs. Secretary (Labour), Govt.

of NCT of Delhi and another).

10. In the decision reported in 1984(4) SCC-

392(Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

"Labour and Services—Industrial Disputes Act,

1947-Section 10 and 2 (K)— One a reference is validly

made by appropriate Government, Tribunal must

adjudicate the dispute on merits—Practice of raising

preliminary objections in the reference disapproved."

11. In the decision reported in AIR 2000 SC-469

(Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) S. 10—Reference

to Industrial Tribunal-Jurisdiction-cannot go into the

validity of the reference."

12. In the decision reported in 2007 (115) FLR-427

(Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that :—

"Settlement within the meaning of Sub-Section (3) of

Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act is binding

on both the parties and continues to remain in force

unless the same is altered, modified or substituted

by another settlement.

The expanding definition of "workman" as contained

in section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act would

confer a right upon the appellant to obtain

appointment on compassionate ground, subject, of

course, to compliance of the conditions precedent

contained therein."

13. In the decision reported in 1993 (1) BLJ-52 (Supra)

the Hon'ble High Court, Ranchi Bench have held that:—

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1771

"In this case, provision for giving employment to

the dependent of an employee who dies in harness

in a condition of service. Such a condition of service

has been included in the settlement entered into by

and between the employer and employees. Such a

provision per se cannot be said to be unreasonable".

14. In the decision reported in 2001-I-LLJ-196 (Supra)

the Hon'ble Delhi High Court have held that:—

"Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sec, 2(K)— Industrial

Dispute—Definition of—Word "Person" appearing

in section is vide enough to permit any person to

raise an industrial dispute when condition of labour

is involved."

15. Applying the principles enunciated by the

Hon'ble Courts as enunciated in the above decisions to

the present case in hand, it can be held that the dispute

raised by the union on behalf of Smt. Laxmi for

compassionate appointment can be said to be an industrial

dispute and the union is entitled to raise the dispute and

the reference made by the Central Government is not bad

in law and the Tribunal has to decide the reference on

merit.

16. The claim of the union is that the deceased

workman should not have been held to be a "Badli" worker

and he should have been held to be a permanent workman,

as he had completed 240 days of attendance in a continuous

period of one year.

The case of the party no. 1 is that though the

deceased workman was appointed temporarily till

31.07.1996 from 01.06.1996 vide letter no. 1052 dated

01.06.1996, he continued to work as piece rated Badli loader,

beyond the said date inadvertently, without any letter of

his extension and he died on 03.10.1997 and his name was

removed from the colliery roll vide office order dated 23/

27.10.1997 and during his service period, he had not made

any claim for regularisation as a permanent loader and in

1996, his total attendance was 137 days and in 1997, his

attendance was 145 days and as he did not put the required

minimum 190 days of attendance as an underground worker

in any of the calendar year, he cannot be deemed to be a

permanent worker and section 51 of the Mines Act defines

a calendar year as the period of twelve month beginning

with the first day of January in any year.

However, in view of clause 3.3 of the Certified

Standing orders and as the definition given under section

51 of the Mines Act of "Calendar year" is for the purpose

of "Chapter VII- Leave with wages", 1 find no force in the

contention raised by party No. l.

Clause 3.3 of the certified standing orders reads as

follows:— "Badli or Substitute one who is appointed in

the post of permanent workman or probationer who is

temporarily absent, but he would cease to be a "Badli" on

completion of a continuous period of service of one year

(190 attendance in the case of below ground workman and

240 attendance in case of any other workman) in the same

post or other post or posts in the same category, or earlier

if the post is vacated by the permanent workman or

probationer. A "Badli" working in place of a probationer

would be deemed to be permanent after completion of the

probationary period."

It is clear from clause 3.3 of the Certified Standing

Orders that the same does not speak of any calendar year,

but speak of continuous period of service of one year. So,

the contentions raised by the party No. l that the required

attendance is to be counted according to calendar year

cannot be entertained.

It is clear from the documents on record and also the

admitted case that the workman had completed the required

attendance from June, 1996 to May, 1997 and in view of the

deemed provision of clause 3.3 of the Certified Standing

Orders, he had ceased to be a Badli worker and he had

became a permanent employee before his death. So treating

the deceased workman as "Badli" worker by party no. 1 is

not justified.

17. It is not disputed that Smt. Laxmi is the widow

and dependent of deceased workman, Pocham Kondaya.

It is also not disputed that there is provision in the NCWA-

VI of giving employment to one dependent of a workman,

who dies while in service. It is also clear from the materials

on record that the deceased workman died while in service.

The party No. l did not consider the application of

Smt. Laxmi for employment on the ground that deceased

workman was not holding any appointment order on the

date of his death.

At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the party no. 1 that even if it is found

from record that the deceased workman continued to work

beyond 31.07.1996, still then, he was a "Badli" worker and

as the provision of giving employment to one dependent

of a workman, who dies in service do not have application

to the dependent of Badli worker, the party No. l rightly

denied employment to Smt. Laxmi.

The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted

that there is nothing in NCWA-VI to show that the provision

of giving employment to a dependent is applicable only to

permanent workman and not to "Badli" worker and as such,

even if the deceased workman is treated to be a badli worker

on the date of his death, still then, his dependent,

Smt. Laxmi is entitled for employment.

In support of the contention, the learned advocate

for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions reported

in 1993(1) BLJ-52 (Supra) and 2004 I CLR-872 (Panyam

Cement Employees Union Vs. Commissioner of Labour).

18. "In the decision reported in 1993 (l) BLJ-52 (Supra)

the Hon'ble High Court, Ranchi Bench have held that:—

1772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"It was further held that in any event, there is nothing

in National Coal Wage Agreement no. II to show that

clause 10.4.2 thereof is applicable only to a permanent

workman."

19. In the decision reported in 2004-I-CLR-872 (Supra)

the Hon'ble High Court of A. P. have held that:—

"Held, Badli workers are workman as contemplated

u/s. 2 (S) of the I.D. Act."

So, keeping in view of the principles enunciated by

the Hon'ble Courts as mentioned above, now, the present

case in hand is to be considered.

20. It is already held that the deceased workman

should have not been treated as a "Badli" worker and he

should have been deemed as a permanent workman. Now,

it is to be found out if Smt. Laxmi is entitled for employment,

even if the deceased workman is held to be a "Badli" worker

for the sake of argument.

21. It is clear from the pleadings of the parties,

evidence on record and the submissions made by the

learned advocates for the parties that the claim of

Smt. Laxmi to give her employment was rejected by the

party No. l only on the ground that she being the dependent

of a Badli worker is not entitled for employment. So, the

only point for consideration is whether the dependent of a

Badli worker is entitled for employment as per the provisions

of NCWA.

22. The appointment of deceased workman on

01.06.1996 as a Badli worker and that he worked till July,

1997 and he died on 03.10.1997 has not been disputed by

the parties. NCWA-IV was in force when the deceased

workman was appointed. Likewise, NCWA-VI was in

operation at the time of the death of the deceased workman.

It is also not disputed that there was provisions in NCWA-

IV, V & VI for giving employment to the dependents of a

worker who dies while in service. As on the date of the

deceased workman, NCWA-VI was in force, it is necessary

to consider as to whether Smt. Laxmi is entitled for

employment as provided in NCWA-VI.

The relevant portion of clause 9.5 of NCWA VI,

which is in respect of giving employment/Monetary

compensation to female dependent of workmen, who dies

while in service and who are declared medically unfit as per

clause 9.4.0 above would be regulated as under:

(i) In case of death due to mine accident, the female

dependent would have the option to either accept

the monetary compensation of Rs. 3000/- per

month or employment irrespective of her age.

(ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due

to causes other than mine accident and

medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0, if the female

dependent is below the age of 45 years, she will

have the option either to accept the monetary

compensation of Rs. 3000/- per month or

employment.

In case the female dependent is above 45 years of

age, she will be entitled only to monetary compensation

and not to employment.

It is clear from the above clause that a female

dependant of a workman is entitled to employment or

monetary compensation if the workman dies while in service.

The specific word mentioned in the said clause is "workman"

and nothing else. It does not specify the category of

workman. It also does not say that dependants of Badli

workman are not entitled for the benefit of the same. It also

does not provide that dependents of Badli worker, who had

not done 190/240 days of work in any calendar year, are not

entitled to get the benefit of the provision.

Now, it is to be considered as to whether a Badli

worker is a workman or not. NCWA VI does not have any

such definition. It is admitted by the parties that the

provisions of certified standing orders of the WCL were

applicable to deceased workman. The certified standing

orders provide the definition of "Workman". In section 1

of the said standing orders (Commencement and

Application), it is mentioned that it shall apply to all

workman employed in all units of M/s. Western Coalfields

Limited situated in different place in the country which

come within the definition of Industrial Employment

(Standing Orders) Act, 1945 and include all workmen

governed by the National Coal Wage Agreement. Section

3.1 of the said Standing Orders provides the classification

of workman for the purpose of the Standing Orders. The

same reads as follows:

(a) Apprentice

(b) Badli or Substitute

(d) Permanent

(e) Probationer

(f) Temporary

The above classification shows that Badli or

Substitute employee is also a workman.

When there is no bar either in the NCWA or in the

Certified Standing Orders to give the benefit of clause 9.5.0

of the NCWA VI to dependants of Badli workman (whether

he had done 190/240 days of work in any calendar year or

not), the decision of the party No. l that the applicant is not

entitled for employment is not justified. Hence, it is order:—

ORDER

The action of the management of Chandrapur Area

of WCL in treating Sh. Pocham Bogaram, Badli

Underground Loader even after completion of 190 days

attendance within one year of his joining service as a Badli

Loader was illegal and unjustified in terms of clause 3.3 of

the Certified Standing Orders of WCL.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1773

2. The action of the management in denying

employment to the dependents of the deceased workman

is illegal and unjustified. The applicant, Smt. Laxmi, the

widow and dependent of the deceased workman, Pocham

Kondaya Bogaram is entitled for employment as per

NCWA-VI. As it is admitted that other benefits have already

been given, the applicant is not entitled to other benefits

mentioned in the schedule of reference.

The Party No. 1 is directed to implement the award

within one month from the date of publication of award in

the official gazette.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 655.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 62@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@55@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2014

S.O. 655.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 62/2011) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow 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

05/02/2014.

[No. L-12012/55/2010-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. 62/2011

Ref. No. L-12012/55/2010-IR (B-I) dated 08.04.2011

BETWEEN

Sri Ram Vilas Mishra S/o Sri Karan Mishra

R/o Village Garya, Post: Manjhavan

Distt. Balia (UP)

AND

1. General Manager

2. Dy General Manager

Bhartiya State Bank,

Bharitya State Bank,

Local Head Office,

Zonal Office

Moti Mahal, Lucknow

Varnasi (UP)

AWARD

1. By order No. L-12012/55/2010-IR (B-I) dated

08.04.2011 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 the Sri Ram Vilas Mishra S/o Sri

Karan Mishra, R/o Village Garya, Post: Manjhavan, Distt.

Balia (UP) and the General Manager, Bhartiya State Bank,

Local Head Office, Moti Mahal, Lucknow & the Dy. General

Manager, Bharitya State Bank, Zonal Office, Varnasi (UP)

for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow in not

regularizing Shri Ram Bilas Mishra as permanent

employee on the basis of temporary service rendered

by HIM, from the date from which other similar

candidates who put in fewer service than HIM were

regularized, is legal and justified? To what relief the

workman is entitled?

3. The case of the workman, in brief, is that the

workman, Shri Ram Bilas Mishra was initially appointed in

class IV category in 1978 for four days only and thereafter

was again taken on duty w.e.f. 24.04.81 @ Rs. 500/- month

and worked continuously up to 18.7.81, total for a period of

90 days. It is stated that the Bank vide circular dated 01.05.91

circulated that the daily wager and temporary workers who

have worked after 1975 for a period for 30 days and up to 70

days in 36 months will be regularized in service; accordingly,

the workman submitted his application, who in turn was

interviewed and panel was prepared. It has been alleged

by the workman that the management regularized the

services of those workman who have worked for 30 days

only and spared the workman arbitrarily in violation to the

provisions contained in the Section 25G of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. It is also alleged that the management

prepared a panel in 1989 wherein the name of the workman

finds place at serial No. 180. Management regularized the

services of the workmen from the panel of 1991 who were

much junior in working days; but the workman has not

been regularized. It is also alleged that the management

invited names from employment exchange along with those

who had worked in the bank but this time again the name of

the workman was ignored and fresh faces were given

appointment, in violation of the provisions contained in

the Section 25H of the Act. Accordingly, the workman has

prayed that the action of the management in not regularizing

his services be declared illegal and he be regularized as

class IV employee with consequential benefits at par with

the juniors.

3. The management of the State Bank of India has

denied the claim of the workman by filing the written

statement; wherein it is submitted that the workman worked

1774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

with the Bank for the period between 24.04.81 to 18.07.81

for 86 days only and he had been found suitable & his

name has been figured in panel of 1991 at serial No. 180,

out of which only 83 persons out of panel could get

appointment in the bank. It is also submitted that the

vacancies did not arise till 31.12.94, therefore, the panel

lapsed on 31.03.97; hence the workman could not get

appointment. The management also submitted that none

of the persons whose names figures below that of the

workman was appointed by the Bank, thus there is no

violation of Section 25 G & H of the Act. The management

of the Bank has also taken plea that the present dispute is

not an industrial dispute under the provisions of section 2

'K' or 2A of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947; and

accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of

the workman be rejected being devoid of merit.

4. The workman has filed rejoinder; wherein apart

from reiterating the averments already made in the statement

of claim, the workman has not stated any new fact.

4. The parties have filed documentary evidence in

support of their respective claim. The workman examined

himself whereas the management examined Shri D.K.

Sharma, Asstt. General Manager in support of their

pleadings. The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine

the witnesses of each other apart from forwarding oral

argument.

5. Heard authorized representatives of the parties

and perused entire evidence on record.

6. The authorized representative of the workman has

submitted that the management of the bank prepared the

panel of the names of the workmen who have worked in the

Bank in the year 1991; wherein the name of the workman

was serial No. 180; but the workman was not regularized by

the Bank in spite of the fact that he had worked with the

bank for 90 days; however, the bank regularized the services

of the other workman who have worked for less working

days.

7. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the

management has argued that the management prepare the

panel in 1989 and against the said panel only 83 workmen

were regularized and since the workman's name was at serial

no 180, his name could not be considered for regularization.

He also submitted that the panel of year 1989 lapsed on

31.03.97 due to non-availability of the vacancies. He has

also submitted that none of the junior had been absorbed

in the bank's services. Also, he has contended that the

present dispute is not an industrial dispute within the

provisions of the section 2 'K' or 2A of the Industrial disputes

Act, 1947.

8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

respective arguments forwarded by the authorized

representatives of the parties and scanned the entire

evidence available on record in the light of their argument.

9. The management of the Bank in its written

statement has taken objection that the present dispute is

not an industrial dispute within the provisions of section 2

'K' or 2A of the Act. In this regard it is well appreciated that

the present industrial dispute has been referred to this

Tribunal by the appropriate Government i.e. Central

Government, in exercise of powers conferred under Clause

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

10 of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947 and this Tribunal

has to answer the schedule of reference, referred to it. From

the pleading of the management it is not apparent that the

management ever challenged the reference order before

Competent Court. The reference has been referred to this

Tribunal by the Central Government to answer and it has

no power to refuse the same or to sit in appeal against the

order of reference. In Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs.

Hindustan Steel Employees Union & Ors. 1998 (78) FLR

293 it has been observed by Hon'ble Apex Court as under:

"Court has to see substance and not form of order.

Formal defects in citation of reference order would not

oust jurisdiction of Tribunal. If the Government

inadvertently or wrongly or even deliberately commits the

dispute for adjudication under Section 2(K) of the Act, the

Tribunal has still power for adjudication.

Hence, in view of the law cited and discussions made

hereinabove, I find no merit in the aforesaid objection of

the management.

10. The workman has come up with a case that he

worked with the management of the Bank for 90 days and

the bank prepared a panel in the year 1989 and in 1991, on

the basis of working days, for regularization of services;

but he was not regularized by the bank instead the other

workmen with less working days have been regularized.

The management of the bank, refuting the contentions of

the workman has come forward with the pleadings that the

workman had actually worked for 86 days with the bank

and in the panel for year 1989 his name was at the serial No.

180 and from that panel only workmen up to serial No. 83

were regularized as there was only 83 vacancies against

said panel and no junior to the workman had been regularized

for panel of 1989, which expired on 31.03.97. It has also

come in the evidence of the management that the bank

prepared another panel in 1991 for Menial Staff and the

workman was not considered in that as he did not belong

to that category rather he belonged to messenger category.

11. The management witness, Shri D.K. Sharma,

Assistant General Manager stated on oath that the bank

prepared a panel for year 1989 of 218 workmen wherein the

name of the workman, Ram Bilas Mishra was at serial No.

180 and in the said panel the persons were appointed from

serial No. 1 to 83 and said panel expired on 31.03.1997. He

has also stated that in the panel for the year 1991 no

Messenger was appointed. In his cross-examination he

admitted that panel of 1989 was effective up to 1997 and

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1775

another panel was made in 1991. He also stated that the

workman could not be absorbed in the panel of 1989. It was

also stated that the panel of 1989 was for Messenger and

panel of 1991 was for Menial staff and the workman was

qualified for 1991 panel accordingly he was not informed.

He very specifically stated that the workman was worked

as Qoolie Messenger and he was given opportunity in the

panel of 1989 in which 83 persons were appointed and the

workman as at serial No. 180. It was also stated that the

panel of 1991 was for Menial staff and in said panel 36

persons were selected. The workman in his cross-

examination admitted that he was not 'Menial Staff'.

From the above evidence of the parties, it becomes

crystal clear that the case of the management is that it

prepared two panels one in the year 1989 for Messenger

staff, which expired on 31.03.1997; and other in the year

1991 for Menial staff. Also per documentary evidence relied

on by the workman, in the panel for year 1989 names of 218

persons were included; wherein the name of the workman

was reflected at serial No. 180 and out of those 218 persons

only the persons up to serial No. 83 were appointed as per

availability of 83 vacancies. Since the name of the workman

was at serial No. 180 and only 83 vacancies were available;

hence, the workman could not be regularized. Further, the

workman has alleged that the workmen with less working

days were regularized by the Bank; but has not adduced

any evidence to substantiate his pleading that any workman

whose name was at lower position in the panel of 1989 was

absorbed by the bank.

Further, it is evidence from the evidence of the

management that the panel for year 1991 was made for the

workman of Menial staff and the workman was not that

category. The workman himself, in his cross-examination,

has admitted that he never worked as Menial staff,

therefore, as per evidence of the management; the workman

was not included in the panel for 1991. The workman has

disclosed the names of the workmen with less working

who have been appointed by the Bank; but all of them

were of panel 1991, which was for Menial staff; since the

workman had worked as Qoolie Messenger his name could

not be taken into account in the panel for year 1991.

12. On scrutinizing the evidence, it is apparent that

the workman worked as Qoolie Messenger and his name

was there in the panel for year 1989 for Messengers and

he could not get appointment as his name was at serial

No. 180 and since only 83 vacancies were available with

the Bank, the persons up to serial No. 83 were absorbed,

sparing all including workman. The workman could not

show any other worker below at serial No. 83 from the

panel of 1989 has been regularized. The 36 workmen who

were regularized as per allegations of the workman, are

from the panel of 1991, which was prepared for Menial

Staff and the workman himself had admitted that he never

worked as Menial Staff. Hence, the workman being

Messenger was not eligible for inclusion in that panel

and the management rightly did not consider the name of

the workman for the panel of 1991.

13. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I

find no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the

Bank while not considering the name of the workman for

regularization; and I come to the conclusion that the

workman, Ram Bilas Mishra is not entitled for any relief.

14. Award as above.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

Lucknow

23rd January, 2014.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 656.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

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

y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 27@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@98@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2014

S.O. 656.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Northern Railway,

Hazratganj, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 05.02.2014.

[No. L-41011/98/2010-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. 27/2011

Ref. No. L-41011/98/2010-IR(B-I) dated 11.3.2011

BETWEEN

Mandal Sangatan Mantri

Uttar Railways Karamchair Union,

283/63, KH, Gadi Kannora (Premvati Nagar)

PO Manak Nagar

Lucknow-16

AND

1. Sr. Divisional Railway Manager (Per.)

Northern Railway, Hazratganj

Lucknow

1776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

1. By order No. l-41011/98/2011-IR(B-I) dated

11.03.2011 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 Mandal Sangatan Mantri, Uttar

Railways Karmachari Union, 283/63, KH, Gadi Kannora

(Premvati Nagar), PO Manak Nagar, Lucknow-16

(Espousing cause of Sri Jai Raj S/o Sri Gurudeen, and the

Sr. Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), Northern

Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow adjudication.

2. The refeence under adjudication is:

"WHETHER THE DEMAND OF UNION

REGARDING PLACING SHRI JAI RAJ S/O SHRI

GURUDEEN, ASSISTANT LOCO PILOT, LOCO-

SHED, LUCKNOW IN THE PENAL OF THE YEAR

1983-84 ABOVE HIS JUNIORS, IS LEGAL AND

JUSTIFIED? TO WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN

IS ENTITLED?"

3. The order of reference was endorsed to the Mandal

Sanghatan Mantri Uttar Railway Karmchari Union,

Lucknow with the direction to the party raising the dispute

to file 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 Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957.

4. The order of reference was registered in the

Tribunal on 30.03.2011 and notice was issued for filing

statement of claim by the workman; statement of claim was

filed on 28.04.2011.

5. In brief the case of the workman is that he was

appointed as Loco Cleaner on 19.07.1978 and worked upto

03.09.1981 and on 04.09.1981 he was illegally retrenched.

Against the order I.D. No. 48/83 and 163/83 was filed by the

workman before CGIT, Kanpur whereby vide order dated

19.02.1987 and 25.11.85 both IDs decided in favour of workman

and they were directed to be absorbed from the date of his

retrenchment. Against the award Railway Management filed a

writ before Hon'ble High Court which was too rejected.

Aggrieved by the order Railway management filed an SLP

which was rejected. During pendency of the dispute

management absorbed the workman on 24.04.1984.

6. The management absorbed the workman as Loco

Cleaner vide order dated 31.08.1991 but his juniors were

absorbed on 30.09.1981 in the panel of 1983-84. The workman

union stated that Sri Amarjit Singh and Sri Abdul Aziz was

absorbed in the panel of 1992 but by the order of Hon'ble

CAT, Lucknow the workman absorbed in the panel of 1983-

84. Sri Pratap Bahadur and Ahmad Ali was absorbed in panel

of 1992 but order of CGIT, Lucknow in I.D. No. 28/2004

workman absorbed in the panel of 1983-84. The union

prayed that workman be given benefit in the panel of

1983-84 alongwith all other benefits.

7. The management filed written statement stating

therein that the workman was engaged as daily rated casual

labour alongwith other workers who got the job by

fraudulent means. The management found the engagement

of workman alongwith other persons on the basis of fake

and fictitious papers so that the matter referred to the

Vigilance Branch and services of workers terminated on

04.09.1981. The workers including workman preferred a I.D.

Case before CGIT, Kanpur and got award in their favour.

The management re-engaged the workman as well as other

similarly situated workers and provided them all service

benefits after empanelment and screening which is

necessary as per Railway Rules.

8. The management stated that the demand of the worker

is not legally maintainable because as per Railway Rule 2511

and amended para 2511(a) in which the seniority inter se-

determination is clearly mention and upon the same Railway

Rule Honb'e Supreme Court provided that the seniroity of

worker to be reckoned from the date of their regular

appointment their prior services not to be counted for seniority.

9. The management stated that worker union sought

the relief for posting of cleaner by mentioning the name in

the list of 1983-84(Panel), which is not possible because

the senirority of other employees will be affected and they

are not arrayed as party in the present case. The

management prayed that the present claim statement is

misconceived and liable to be rejected.

10. During the pendency Mandal Secretary of the

worker Union made an endorsement to the effect that he

does not want to pursue its claim as the workman has

retired and nothing is due to him from the management

therefore, the present reference order is decided as if there

is no grievance left to the workman. Resultantly no relief is

required to be given to the workman concerned. The

reference under adjudication is answered as NO CLAIM

AWARD accordingly.

11. Award as above.

Lucknow

18.11.2013

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 657.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj iwoZ jsyos izcaèra=

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

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k y[kuÅ ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 152@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 05@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@50@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1777

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2014

S.O. 657.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 152/

2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Eastern

Railway, Ashok Marg, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 05.02.2014.

[No. L-41012/50/2002-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 152/2002

Ref. No. L-41012/50/2002-IR(B-I) dated 27.08.2002

BETWEEN

Shri Amar Singh S/o Shri Chotte Lal

283/63 KH(B) Ghari Kanora, Premvati Nagar

P.O. Manak Nagar,

Lucknow

AND

The Sr. Divil. Mechanical Engineer (SME)

Eastern Railway, Ashok Marg

Lucknow (U.P.)-226001

13.07.2009

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41012/50/2002-IR(B-I) dated

27.08.2002 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 Amar Singh S/o Shri Chottee

Lal, 283/63, "B" Garhi Kannora (Premvati Nagar), Post

Manak Nagar, Luckn ow (U.P.) and the Sr. Divil. Mechanical

Engineer (S.M.E.), Eastern Railway, Ashok Marg, Lucknow

(U.P.) for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

Kya Prvottar Railway Lucknow Dwara Shri Amar

Singh Putra Swa Chotte Lal, Khalasi Ko dandaadesh

San. M./C.D.O./D.A.R./Lucknow JN/91/13/14 Dinank

04.06.98 ke dwara naukari se nikaala jana nyayochit tatha

nayasangat hai?" Yadi nahi to karmkaar kis anutosh ka

adhikari hai?"

3. The case of workman in brief is that he was

appointed as Khalasi under employers on 22.4.76 and

worked as such. He fell ill severely on 06.10.95 and

consequently was unable to move and undergone

treatment of a private doctor and his wife herself intimated

the office regarding this. It has been stated by the workman

that during his illness the management unauthorizedly

initiated departmental proceedings against him without

serving him any charge sheet for imposing major penalty.

The workman reported for his duty on 25.07.97 with fitness

certificate before Senior Divisional Engineer who referred

the workman to Medical Superintendent, NER for medical

check up. The workman turned up on 05.02.98 after fully fit

for work and appeared before he was removed from services

with immediate effect on 05.06.98 vide impugned order dated

04.06.98 under Rule 6 of DAR, 1968. The workman has

alleged that prior to passing the impugned order dated

04.06.98 neither copy of inquiry report was provided nor

any explanation was called from him in this respect in as

much as the impugned order dated 04.06.98 was not passed

by Competent Authority. It has also been alleged by the

workman that the Inquiry Officer did not extend any

opportunity to the workman to appoint any defence

assistant to defend him and inspect necessary documents

in as much as he was not provided copy of the statemnets

of the witnesses in contravention with the principles of

natural justice. Accordingly the workman prayed to set

aside the impugned order dated 04.06.98 and reinstate him

w.e.f. 05.06.98 with other consequential benefits.

4. The management of the Railways has filed its

written statement wherein it has submitted that the workman

remained absent authorisedly without any notice to the

concerned office w.e.f. 06.10.1995 to 25.09.1997. It has

categorically been stated by the management that the

workman was given charge sheet for alleged misconduct

of remaining unauthorized absence under Rule-9 of D.A.R.

1968 and also a show cause notice was given to him before

passing impugned order dated 04.06.98. The workman was

made known about dates of inquiry after 07.02.98 but the

workman again remained unauthorizedly absent deliberately.

The opposite party has denied the allegation of the

workman that he was not given proper opportunity for his

defence and has submitted that the enquiry proceedings

were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural

justice giving full and proper opportunity to the workman

to defend himself by appointing some defence assistant,

however, it was the workman who did not avail the

opportunity and did not appoint any defence assistant nor

demand for any document from the management. Thus,

the claim of the workman is liable to be rejected.

5. The workman has filed rejoinder whereby he has

only reiterated his averments in the statement of claim and

has introduced nothing new.

6. The management of the Bank submitted photo

copies of the entire enquiry proceedings in support of their

respective case. Following preliminary issue was framed

on 11.07.2005 by the Tribunal:

(i) Whether the departmental enquiry was conducted

in violation of principles of natural justice as

alleged by the workman?

7. The workman examined himself whereas the

management examined Sri Azaz Ahmad in support of their

1778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

stand on preliminary issue. After hearing arguments of the

parties, preliminary issues were decided in favour of the

management vide order dated 23.04.2007, which reads as under:

"On overall evaluations and submissions by parties

I come to the conclusion that the inquiry has been

conducted in accordance with the principles of

natural justice and find it to be fair and proper. The

issue is, decided against the worker."

8. Subsequently, the case was listed on 29.05.2007

for remaining evidence of the parties for disposal of the

case but on the date fixed the workman filed an application

C-34, stating therein that he has already adduced his oral

evidence, therefore, does not intend to adduce any more.

Accordingly the management also stated that it also does

not intend to adduce any further evidence in the case.

9. Heard learned representatives of the parties and

perused entire material on record.

10. The learned representative on behalf of the

workman has restricted his arguments only on the point of

quantum of punishment imposed vide impugned order dated

4.6.98. He has submitted that in view of the alleged

misconduct, the punishment of removal from service is

harsh & disproportionate and prayed for lesser punishment

by modifying the impugned under Section 11-A of the I.D.

Act. In this regard he has placed reliance on:

(i) 2001(90) FLR 1008 between Gouranga Acharjee

vs. IIIrd Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & others.

(ii) 2004(102) FLR 499 between Union of India &

another vs. Ashraf Ali & another.

(iii) 2004(910) FLR 193 between Lal Arya vs.

Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Others.

(iv) AIR 1994 SC 215 between Union of India & other

vs Giriraj Sharma.

(v) 1989 SCC (L&S) 180 between Scooters India

Limited, Lucknow vs. Labour Court, Lucknow &

Others.

(vi) 2002 (94) FLR 1076 between Tje Kishore Srivastava

vs. State of UP & another.

(vii) 2004(4) SLR 310 Cal. High Court between

Jadurouth vs. State of Bengal.

11. Per contra, the learned representative on behalf

of the management has urged that punishment of removal

from service is justified keeping in view the period, the

workman absented himself unauthorisedly.

12. Under Section 11-A The Tribunal is empowered to

consider not only whether the finding of misconduct as

recorded by the management, is correct but also to differ from

such a finding if proper case is made out. If ultimately, the

Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the misconduct is

proved, all the same it could interfere with the punishment, if

punishment is not justified even on the finding of misconduct.

Thus even the misconduct is proved; it may award a lesser

punishment if it is of the opinion that for the proved misconduct

punishment of discharge or dismissal is harsh. By means of

Section 11-A of the I.D. Act. The Tribunal is even a power to

examine the propriety for the punishment imposed. This legal

position also finds support from the case laws cited by the

learned representative on behalf of the workman.

13. In present case the alleged misconduct from which

the workman has been found guilty is regarding unauthorized

absence for period from 06.10.95 to 30.03.97. The workman

was in service since 22.04.76 and he was on the post of

Khalasi. Admittedly, he remianed absent in said period but

the case of the workman is that he was ill during this period.

The Enquiry Officer has also observed in concluding para of

his report. "It appeared from the appearance of the workman

that he might have remained in fact ill". During arguments

the learned representative on behalf of the workman argued

that there is nothing on record which shows that the workman

absconded himself from duty without any initimation or

without submitting any application for grant of leave on any

earlier occasions excepting the period in question as

mentioned herein. Admittedly, no other allegation involving

moral turpitude has been made by the management.

14. The Enquiry Officer after holding the enquiry

found the workman guilty of the charge of unauthorized

absence. Vide order dated 23.04.2007 of the Tribunal it has

been held that there is no irregularity in the matter of

conducting the disciplinary proceedings against with

workman. But the punishment of removal from services

seems to be harsh since it has never been alleged by the

management that the workman was a habitual absentee

and absented himself from duty without intimation

frequently. The reference is pending since year 2002 and

the workman is out of service since 05.06.98. Thus, he

suffered immensely for 11 years. Since hare has been duly

established and there is no illegality or irregularity in

conducting the disciplinary proceedings, the workman

cannot escape punishment. In aforesaid circumstances,

the punishment already inflicted upon the workman

deserves to be modified by lesser punishment instead of

removal from service, as punishment of removal from service

is not only harsh but also disproportionate.

15. To ensure substantial justice in the matter &

shortern the litigation, the ends of justice would subserved,

if, the punishment of removal is quashed and penalty of

withholding of two grade increments with cumulatie effect is

imposed while reinstating the workman without back wages.

16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.06.98

is modified to the extent that instead of removal from service,

the punishment of withholding of two grade increments

with cumulative effect is imposed on the workman.

Resultantly, the workman be reinstated without back wages,

with continuity of service, within four weeks from the date

of publication of the award.

17. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

18. Award as above.

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

13.07.2009

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1779

ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 658.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½] dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj 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

y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 42@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@02@2014 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@67@2007&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2014

S.O. 658.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/2007) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Court, Lucknow as shown in

the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the North

Eastern Railway, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 05/02/2014.

[No. L-41012/67/2007-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. 42/2007

Ref. No. L-41012/67/2007-IR(B-I) dated 06.09.2009

BETWEEN

The Member Executive

Purvottar Railway Shramik Sangh

C/o D.P. Awasthi, 49, Tilak Nagar

Lucknow.

(Espousing cause of Shri Puran Singh)

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager (personnel)

North Eastern Railway

Ashok Marg

Lucknow.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41012/67/2007-IR(B-I) dated 06.09.2007

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 Member Excutive. Purvottar

Railway Shramik Sangh, C/o D.P. Awasthi, 49, Tilak Nagar,

Lucknow and the Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel),

North Eastern Railway, Ashok Marg. Lucknow for

adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of the Management of DRM

(Personnel), North Eastern Rly., Lucknow in not

promoting Shri Puran Singh S/o Shri Suraj Singh, As

Shuntman and Shunt Jamadar is Legal, Fair and

Justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned

is entitled?"

3. The case of the workman's union in brief, is that the

workman, Puran Singh had been appointed as Gateman on

11.11.75 and was promoted to the post of Pointsman vide

order dated 18.11.78 and was further promoted to the post

of Shuntman on 04.10.80 and thereafter promoted to the

post of Shunting Jamadar on 21.03.86. It has been alleged

by the workman that though the management promoted

him to the post of Shunting Jamadar; but did not fix his pay

in the appropriate grade attached to the post and on his

representation the management reverted him to his original

post. It has been submitted by the workman that aggrieved

from the reversion he preferred an application before

Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow which

directed the management to consider the representation of

the workman. The management, in compliance passed the

order dated 30.11.92 and reverted the workman to the post

of Shuntman; and while reverting him did not fix his pay in

scale of Rs. 950-1500 which was allowed to his juniors viz.

Shri Ram Kumar Maurya and Kewala Prasad. It has been

submitted by the workman's union that inspite of reversion

vide order dated 30.11.92, the workman was not actually

reverted and was allowed to work up to August, 2000.

Accordingly, the workman's union has prayed that the

action of the management in reverting the workman be

declared illegal and he be promoted as Shuntman in grade

Rs. 950-1500 from 1983 and further in scale of Rs. 4000-6000

from the date his juniors Shri Ram Kumar Maurya and

Kewala Ram have been promoted and also he may be held

entitled to be promoted as Shunting Jamadar w.e.f. 21.03.86

with consequential benefits of promotion.

4. The management of railways has filed its written

statement where it has denied the claim of the workman's

union and has submitted that Ram Kumar and Shri Kewala

Prasad were promoted as Shuntman in grade of Rs. 3050-

4590, in the year 1983 and 1990 respectively after passing

selection but the workman was pomoted as Shuntman in

grade 950-15000 against re-structuring w.e.f. 16.06.93 hence

the workman is junior to Shri Ram Kumar Maurya and Kewla

Ram. It is further stated that the workman was erroneously

promoted as Shunting Jamadar vide office order dated

21.03.86, which is a selection post and is two grade higher

than the post of Shuntman which he was holding on

21.03.86 and under Rules the workman could not be allowed

to officiate as Shunting Jamadar in grade 1200-1800 which

amount to double ad-hoc promotion. It is further submitted

that on receipt of representation from the workman, the

Competent Authority ordered that the erroneously issued

1780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of the management in not granting promotion to the

workman at par with his juniors. This claim has been denied

by the management; therefore, it was for the workman's

union to lead evidence to show that the alleged injustice

was done to the workman, by the management of the

railways; but the workman's union failed to prove the same

as it has not turned up to corroborate the allegations by

proper evidence.

9. In 2008 (118) FLR 1164 M/s. Uptron Powertronics

Employees' Union, Ghaziabad through it Secretary vs.

Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad & others,

Hon'ble High Court relied upon the law settled by the Apex

Court in 1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC) Sanker Chakravarti vs.

Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd 1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC) V.K. Raj

Industries v. Labour Court and others, 1984 FLR 38. Airtech

Private Limited V. State of U.P. and others and 1996 (74)

FLR 2004 (Alld.) Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and

others; wherein it was observed by the Apex Court:

"that in absence of any evidence led by or on behalf

of the workman the reference is bound to be answered

by the Court against the workman. In sauch a

situation it is not necessary for the employers to

lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead

evidence to establish an allegation made by a party

is on the party making the allegation. The test would

be, who would fail if not evidence is led."

10. In the present case the workman's union has not

turned to substantiate his case by way of any evidence as

the affidavit of the workman could not be taken into account

due to absence of cross-examination of the workman. Mere

pleadings are not substitute for proof. It was obligatory on

the part of workman's union to come forward with the case

that the workman had not been granted promotion at par

which his juniors, in contravention to the rules; but the

workman's union failed to forward any evidence in support

of its claim, as its witness did not turn up for cross-

examination before this Tribunal. There is not reliable

material for recording findings that the alleged injustice

was done to the workman or the action of the management

of railways was illegal and unjustified.

11. Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against

the workman's union; and as such, I come to the conclusion

that the workman, Puran Singh is not entitled to any of the

relief (s) claimed.

12. Award as above.

Lucknow.

DR. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

21st January, 2014.

ubZ fnYyh] 6 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 659.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkUnzk cSd izcaèra=

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

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

promotion order dated 21.03.86, promoting the workman

on ad-hoc basis as Shunting Jamadar be cancelled; and

accordingly the workman as recerted to this substantive

post of Shuntman in grade Rs. 800-1150 vide officer order

dated 30.11.90 with benefits of scale Rs. 1200-1800. It is

also submitted that the post of pointman/Shuntman 950-

1500 is selection post and the selection was conducted in

the year 1987 to 1989 and 1989 to 1990 in which the workman

was not selected and in the year 1990 the workman was not

selected in the year 1990 and the workman has refused to

appear in the selection of pointman/shuntman, as such,

the workman is not entitled to the benefit of promotion as

shuntman in grade of Rs. 950-1500 prior to 16.06.93. It is

specifically submitted by the management that no person

junior to the workman is working as Shunting Jamadar and

Sri Zahid Husain and other shuntman were selected and

promoted as Shunting Jamadar 1200-1800 vide office order

dated 12.10.88. Accordingly, the management has prayed

that the claim of the workman's union be rejected out rightly

being devoid of merit.

4. The workman's union has neither filed any rejoinder

nor has entered into the witness box to corroborate its

pleading in the statement of claim through oral evidence.

5. From the perusal of the file it is evident that the

workman's union was first afforded the opportunity to lead

its evidence on 11.09.2009 and it filed its evidence on

affidavit on 11.12.2009; but the workman did not turn for

cross-examination in spite of several opportunities being

afforded to him. Since then the case is lengering on pretext

or other. The management also did not adduce any evidence.

Likewise the parties did not forward any argument in

support of their respective stand, therefor, the case was

reserved for award, keeping in view long pendency of the

case since year 2007 and reluctance of the parties to contest

their case.

6. I have scanned the entire material available on the

file.

7. It is the case of the workman's union that the workman

had not been given promotion in the year 1983 at with his

juniors; but the management has denied this fact. Hence,

in view of the denial of the management, it was incumbent

upon the workman's union to lead evidence to corroborate

its everment; but the workman's union utterly failed to do

so, as though it filed the affidavit of the workman in

evidence but could not produce the workman for cross-

examination; hence the contents of the evidence could not

be read, there by the pleading of the workman's union are

without support of any evidence.

8. It is settled position of law that a party challenging

the legality of an action, the burden lies upon it to prove

illegality of the action and if no evidence is produced by

the party, invoking jurisdiction of the court, must fail. In

the present case burden was on the workman's union to

set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the action

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1781

tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼90@02½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

06@02@2014 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@50@2002&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2014

S.O. 659.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award Ref. 90/02 of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Court, Jabalpur as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Andhra Bank and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 06/02/2014.

[No. L-12011/50/2002-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/90/02

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

General Secretary,

M.P. Dena Bank Staff Union.

C/o Dena Bank,

Dayanand Sewashram, GE Road,

Tatibandh,

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

... Workman/Union

Versus

Branch Manager,

Andhra Bank,

Fafadih Chowk,

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

......Management

AWARD

Passed on this 24th day of January, 2014

1. As per letter dated 30-5-02 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-12011/

50/2002-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"whether the action of the management of Andhra

Bank in not promoting Shri Nirmal Kumar Nayak,

Peon at Raipur branch of the Bank as "Daftry" against

the notification of vacancy for Daftry Post attracting

special allowance at Raipur Branch in accordance

with Head Officer Circular No., 82/Stf. 21 dated 24-3-

81 circulated vide letter No. 682/03/ZO/1144 dated

11-8-99 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. However Ist party workman failed to file Statement

of Claim. The reference is proceeded exparte against

workman on 14.01.2010.

3. Management filed exparte Written Statement. IInd

party submits that notification of vacancy for post of Daftry

at Raipur branch was issued by the Zonal office, New Delhi

on 11-8-99. According to the same, all the sub-staff who

were interested to opt against the vacancies were given

opportunity to apply. Application was to be submitted in

proforma before 31.10.99. Shri Nirmal Kumar Nayak did not

apply on that date but submitted his candidature by

application on 9.12.99 though last date of submission was

31-8-99 Mr. Sushil Kumar submitted candidature in

prescribed proforma by post on 27-9-99. His candidature

was considered. He was found fit for the post of Daftry.

That the dispute is misconceived. Union is not entitled to

make grievance against promotion of Shri Sushil Kumar.

Nirmal Kumar is not entitled to any relief.

4. Workman did not participate in the reference

proceeding. Statement of claim is not filed. The points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of the

management of whether the action

of the management of Andhra

Bank in not promoting Shri Nirmal

Kumar Nayak, Peon at Raipur

branch of the Bank as "Daftry"

against the notification of vacancy

for Daftry Post attracting special

allowance at Raipur Branch in

accordance with Head Office

Circular No,. 82/Stf. 21 dated

24-3-81 circulated vide letter No.

682/03/ZO/1144 dated 11-8-99 is

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workmasn is

entitled to?"

REASONS

5. Though as per terms of reference, the legality of the

action of management not promoting Shri Nirmal Kumar

Nayak at Raipur Branch as Daftry, the statement of claim is

not submitted by the workman. He is proceeded exparte.

Management filed Written Statement. However

management also failed to submit any exparte evidence.

As such both parties failed to participate in reference

proceeding. There is absulutely no evidence to substantiate

the claim under reference relating to denial of promotion of

Shri Nirmal Kumar Nayak. Therefore I record my finding in

Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

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

(1) Action of the management of the Andhra Bank in

not promoting Shri Nirmal Kumar Nayak, Peon at

In Affirmative

Workman is

not entitled to

any relief.

1782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Raipur branch of the Bank as "Daftry" against the

notification of vacancy for Daftry Post attracting

special allowance at Raipur Branch in accordance

with Head Office Circular No., 82/Stf. 21 dated 24-3-81

is proper.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

7. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment as per rules.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 660.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

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

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

U;k;ky; /kuckn ds iapkV ¼184@1999½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 06-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@62@98&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2014

S.O. 660.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award Ref.184/1999 of the

Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 11,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Bank of India and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

06/02/2014.

[No. L-12011/62/98-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), AT 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. 184 OF1999.

PARTIES :

The Zonal Secretary,

Bank of India employees Union Frezer

Road, Patna

Vs. Regional Manager, Bank of India,

Sakchi, Jamshedpur

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman/Union

Mr.D.Mukhrjee,

Ld-Advocate

On behalf of the Management

Mr. D.K. Verma,

Ld. Advocate

State : JHARKHAND

Industry : Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 17th December, 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-l 2011/62/

98 -IR(B-II) dt. l9.l.1999.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Bank of

India in not regularizing the service of Sub-staff as

given in Annexure a is justified? If not, what relief

the workmen is entitled to?''

2. The case of the workmen S/Shri N.R.Rao and 25 others

(as enclosed In Annexure-A to the Reference) ash

sponsored by the Bank of India Employees Union, Patna,

is that the Bank of India has several branches; Regional

Offices, Zonal officer and Head Offices including the

Regional Office, Jamshedpur in Singhbhum District

(Jharkhand) to carry out its trade and business in a

systematic way throughout the country. In order to carry

out the trade and business, (The Bank used to appoint/

engage persons in different categories as officers, clerks

and subordinates staff as Peons, Sweepers, Baldhi Sepoy

etc. from time to time in different branches permanently

and temporarily. The workmen have been appointed/

engaged in the service of the Bank as sub staff in different

branches in the aforesaid region against permanent

vacancies caused by deaths, promotion, transfer and

expansion of the branches or otherwise to do the usual

and manual works as were/are entrusted to peon category

in the subordinate cadre for any time. Though the workmen

have been working in the service of the Bank for a long

period ten to fifteen years, having completed 240 days in a

block of twelve months or in a calendar year, they were

illegally and arbitrarily terminated from their services when

they demanded from the Bank for their regularization; thus

they have been thereby deprived of the benefits and

facilities at par with other permanent and regular workmen

of the Bank. At last ,the Union, registered under the Trade

Union Act and affiliated to All India Bank Employees'

Association, took up their cause at their approach, as

despite some vacancies in the cadre, the management had

vindictively terminated their services without declaring

them surplus staff in utter violation of the provisions u/s

25 F of the Act, that of different Bipartite settlement binding

upon the Bank and its workmen regarding rate of wages,

grade, benefits and other facilities, and totally against the

Banking Service rule known as the "Shastri Award", so the

action of the managements in not regularizing them as

permanent employees amounting to unfair Labour Practice

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1783

in violation of the Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of

India. Besides Mr. Samir Kumar Ghosh, one of the workmen

has already been regularized and appointed in the

permanent service of the Bank in August, 1998; thus the

action of the management is also discriminatory. Therefore

the workmen are legally entitled to their regularization with

retrospective effect from their respective dates of

termination with full back wages etc.

3. The Sponsoring Union in its rejoinder specifically

denying the allegation of the Opp./Management has stated

to have validity and properly made out the case of the two

workmen that they had worked at different branches of the

Bank for a long time, each completing 240 days in a block

of one year or a calendar year; that the three workmen (1)

Chandra Bhanu Gupta, (2) Dilip Kumar Thakur, (3)S-M

Fahimuddin had filed the writ petition in the Hon'ble High

Court of Patna, at Ranchi Bench, Ranchi which was

disposed of with certain observations to filing the dispute,

that the workmen have been employed by the management

for long time, having completed 240 days in a block of one

year or in calendar year from time to time with a notional

break of 4 days or a few days,as the Management of the

Bank duly and properly authorized the Branch Manager to

appoint them on the post of Peon/Badli Sepoy and

accordingly they have been doing the same and similar

nature of job as other permanent peons of Class IV since

their appointment Further it is alleged against the Selection

Committee to have adopted "Pick & Choose "and

discriminating policy while recruiting the two of the

workmen against the rest ones. SO the workmen are entitled

to the relief of their regularization in the service of the Bank

with all benefits of differential wages etc.

4. Whereas the contra pleaded case with categorical

denials of the Opp./Management is that The present

reference is unmaintainable, as the Hon'ble High Court of

Patna ,Ranchi Bench, while disposing the CWJC Nos. 530/

94(R) 529/94(R)765/94(R) filed by S/Shri Chandra Bhanu

Gupta. Dilip Kumar Thakur and S.N. Fahimuddin, three of

the workmen respectively, was pleased to observe as per

the order dt 3.10.94 in the first Writ petition :—

"....The petitioner does not deserve any legal right

to be appointed and consequently a writ in the nature

of Mandamus can not be issued in his favour in the

matter". The similar views were taken by the Hon'ble

High Court as applicable to both latter Writ application

as per the Orders dt.14.12.1994 and 22.12.1994, so

the reference is liable to be summanly rejected. The

Bank of India has its own recruitment rules in

conformity with the Articles 14 & 16 of the

Constitution of India for the appointment of any

subordinate post or a clerical post only based on

open selection by inviting application from all eligible

candidates possessing requisite qualifications and

experience, but not based on the pick & choose

methods adopted by the Branch Managers of

different Branches. The practice of appointing as

casual or Badli Worker by the Branch Manager and

of allowing such workmen to put 240 days

attendance, and then regularizing them as Class IV

employee of the Bank is total violative of provisions

of the recruitment rules and the constitution of the

India, as it leads to corrupt practice followed in the

matter of employment in the banking services. So

the management in no circumstances can adopt such

procedure of regularization of Badli, casual or

temporary workers on class IV or Class III posts.

5. Further it is alleged on behalf of the Opp./Management

that some of the concerned persons having requisite

qualifications and experience being enrolled in the

Employment Exchange Office and accordingly on

forwarding their names by the Employment Exchanges to

the management success in the requisite test conducted

by the Selection Committee, and they were recruited as

Class IV employees of Bank, and are on the regular roll of

the Management. But the concerned workmen had worked

for temporary periods at different Branches during different

periods according to requirements of the Bank as such Sri

N.R. Rao under SI.No.1 had worked at Jamshedpur Jugsalari

and Adityapur Branches whenever required in the years

1991,1992 and 1993. Likewise the workmen concerned had

worked at the branches of Telco Town, Sundernagar, Somra,

Govindpur, Dalaikela, Dhaktidih, Chakradharpur,

Mandasoli, Barajamada, Bistupur, Raghunat hpur,

Ghosaling, Kuchai and Gua etc. all under Jamshedpur Zone

of the Bank. But none ot them deputed against any

permanent vacant post of Class -IV employee, and none of

them regularly performed any work of permanent nature at

any branch. They were only casual workers engaged by

the Branch Manager for temporary periods. After

completing of the job of casual nature, their service used

to discontinue from the Branch. Thus none of them was

kept on any regular roll in the service of any branch. As

such claim of the workmen or the Union for the regularization

is unsustainable; so they are not entitled to any relief.

6. The O.P./Management in its rejoinder has

categorically denied all the allegations of the Union/

workmen, but it has admitted that the concerned workmen

had worked at different branches at different period as

casual /Badli workers to meet temporary requirements for

performing miscellaneous jobs. They were never engaged

for III or IV jobs against any permanent vacancy.

FINDING WITH REASONING

7. In the instant reference WWI Ratan Roy

Choudhary,WW2 Makhan Kundu,WW3 Narain Kr.

Chaakrvartay,WW4 Satyajit (Stayajit) Ghosh,WW5

Swapan KumarAdak,WW6 Arun Chandra Das all workmen

(out of 26 ones) except WW4 who is the Dy.General

Secretary for the Union concerned, and MWI Ravindra

Bhusan Pd., the Sr. Manager, Bank of India (HR Deptt.),

Zonal Office, Jamshedpur for the O P./Management have

been examined respectively.

1784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

WW1 Ratan Roy Choudhary states to have been

working as Peon since 1988 at Bank of India Telco Branch

Telco, Jamshedpur under us Regional Office at Sakchi, now

at Bistupur Jamshedpur just all other workmen are

accordingly continuously working as Peon pro rata at

different branches of the Bank from 1988 to 2000 ; they got

their wages through voucher; but during the year 2001-

2002 , the management allowed them to work four days in a

week and despite their working for more than 240 days in a

year the management did not regularize them till date .But

the witness (WW1) admits the management never issued

them any appointment letter , the management paid them

their wages on work, that as per recruitment rules, the

management asked them to face the interview in which

they though appeared, yet could not succeed, that the

workman working in the Bank are considered permanent

when they succeed in the interview organized by the

management as per the recruitment rules.

WW2 Makhan Kundu states to have been working as

Sub Staff at Telco Branch of the Bank from April, 1986 till

1994 continuously for four days a week, but from May-

June,1994, continuously the management released bonus

in their favour equal to that of the permanent Sub staff fill

1996, therefore it was stopped .It is stated by him that that

in spite of their rendering continuous service for more than

240 days in a year, the management did not regularize them.

His admission also affirms that they were initially deployed

by the Branch Manager as Sub Staff/Badali in place of

permanent staff on leave/absence. He has got two

certificates dt. 29.8.1992 and 26.2.1994 from the Bank (the

copies thereof Extt. 2 & 2/1 respectively) on his application

(Ext.M.1) for it. Admitedly, their engagement as Sub Staff

by the management to discharge the duties at different

branches was whenever required.

8. Likewise the statement of WW3 Narain

Kr.Chakraborty reveals the engagement of five workmen

including himself, Bhagwan Das Patel, Makhan Kundu,

Ratan Roy Choudhary and R. Srinvas Rao as Badli Sepoy

by the Branch Manager at Telco Town Branch of the Bank

in Oct. 1989 till 1996,and payment of their wages pro-rata,

thereafter at the rate of Rs. 100 per day wage as fixed by the

management which had paid them bonus upto 1996.But he

(WW3) failed to clarify which 14 out of 26 workmen are

working under the management. It also transpires no

issuance of any appointment letter to them by the

management, and no mention of the date of stoppage from

their working even In the written statement.

WW4 Satyajit Ghosh has also states to have been

continuously working as Sub staff at Bistupur Branch of

the Bank from 1992 till now. also to have got Bonus and

other be befits from the management unto 1996 as the

permanent Sub staff had got and he also claimed to have

put his attendance for more than 240 days during the year

1995-96 under the management. But his admission also

confirms no issuance of any appointment to him.

WW5 Swapan Kr. Adak as the Dy.General Secretary of

the Union has also tried to indicate that all the workmen

were appointed as Peon by the Br. Manager having power

to do, as there was no procedure for it at the relevant time,

and they were working for 240 days in block of 12 months

or in a calendar year while raising the industrial dispute in

the year 1997,but not any circular filed or proved by him as

the Union Leader to show the existent power of the Branch

Manager for appointment of the Sub Staff.

Lastly, the statement of WW6 Arun Chandra Das

indicates his working as Badli Sepoy for permanent work

in Bank of India from 1985 until he was stopped from duty

in the year 1999. He has proved his six certificates all dateless

except last one dt.18.9.90 as Ext.2 series about his working

days for 191 from August 1989 to April 1,1990, 23 days in

May 1990, 4 and 15 days in June, 1990, 5 and 4 days in July,

1990. He admits not to have got any appointment or

interview letter and not to have completed 240 days at any

branch of the Bank Apart from it, another set of photocopy

of the documents on formal proof waive have been marked

as Ext.W.1 to 1/115 as per the order No. 24 dt. 12.5.2005 of

the Tribunal, Camp Court at Jamshedpur.

9. Whereas according 10 MWI Ravindra Bhusan Pd.,

Sr. Manager, Bank of India, H. R. Deptt. Jamshedpur as per

the records of the management, none of the workmen was

engaged through on interview as per the recruitment

procedure of the management. These workmen were

casually engaged by the management as Badli Sepoy in

place of its employees on leaves whenever required, but

they were never engaged through written test, interview

and medical as per the recruitment procedure of the

management; moreover neither the service condition nor

the Standing Order applies to any Badli Sepoy, so the

demand of the Union for their regularization is not justified.

The Bank is not nationalized one. It has the procedure for

the recruitment of sub staff. The witness (MWI) in his

cross examination has asserted that since there was no

procedure, so there was no document lo show their

appointment contrary to the procedure.

10 in view of the contention of Mr. D. Mukherjee, Ld.

Advocate for the Union/workmen concerned about their

working for 240 days, he has cited the ruling 2005(105) FLR

1067 (SC) (CB) Manager RBI, Banaglore Vs. S. Mani wherein

in reference to compliance with Sec. 25 F of the Industrial

Dispute Act 1947 held that if the workmen had completed

240 days of service, they in their evidence had to state

specifically to have worked for 240 days of service , as

pleadings are not substitute for proof (Para 18).

Further the Ld, Counsel for the Union/workmen begs to

cite the following rulings:

AIR 1984(SC)1683,, Wirkmen Vs Hindustan Lever

Ltd.(CB) wherein it is held in regard to section 2(k),7A,10

Such, item 7 the Industrial Dispute also includes the

question of their confirmation.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1785

1990SCC (L & S) 174(CB), Bhagwati Pd Vs. Delhi State

Mineral Development Corp., where Their Lordship held

'Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers

and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of

time, it would be have caused harsh to deny them the

confirmation in the respective posts on The ground that

they lack the prescribed educational qualification (Para 6).

The present Reference has no such case of the education

qualification for regularization.

AIR 1986(5C)132 (DB), H.D.Singh Vs.RBI concerning

Sec 2(OO), 25-B "Retrenchment" under I.D.Act.1947

wherein it was held that the name of daily rated worker was

struck off the rolls on ground of passing matriculate

examination, so it was retrenchment in violation of Sec 25 B

as invalid. There is no such case in the reference.

Lastly, (2009)2 SCC (L & S) 513 (DB) Maharashtra SRTC

Vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatan,

wherein reference to Ss 3O(l)(b),32 and Such IV. Item 6 of

the Maharashtra Recognisation of Trade Union and

Prevention of unfair Labour Practice Act, l971 (MRTU Act)

it has been held that the power of industrial & Labour

Court to take affirmative action under the said section is

wide and still infact to accord permanency to employees

affected by unfair practice; this power is not affected by

Uma Devi (3) case for two reasons, first this Act was not at

all considered by the Constitution Bench, panel second

Uma Devi (3) Case limits Scope of powers of Supreme Court

and High Court under Article 32 and 226 to issue direction

for regularize in matters of public employment, so the

direction of two industrial Courts to accord status of

permanency with other benefits was heid justified

Here the moot is whether the workmen were affected by

unfair practice But in view of admission of the aforesaid

workmen witnesses that they were casually engaged as

Badli workers m place of permanent employees on leave,

Its answers comes negative.

11. Whereas in view of their admittedly working as Badli

Sepoy after being engaged by the Branch Manager casually,

but not their selection as per the selection procedure of the

Bank, Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Adv. for the O.P ./Management

contend; that workmen are not entitled to their

regularization, moreover none of them had admittedly

completed their continuous service for 240 days in any

calendar year. Mr.Verma,Learned Counsel for the Opp./

Management has quoted the following rulings:

2006 SCC (L & S 753, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma

Devi wherein it was held that absorption,

regularisation, or permanent continuation of

temporary, casual, daily wage or adhoc employees

appointed/recruited is dehors the Constitutional

Scheme of Public employment on issuance of

direction by Court, as it amounts to creating another

mode of public employment which is not permissible.

2009 SCC (L & S) Vol.I943,Official Liquidator Vs;

Dayanand & Ors.,wherein it has been held that the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi

Case has a binding effect to all Court and Tribunal,

and that in regularization of temporary contractual

casual daily wages and adhoc, employees are not

entitled for it.

Lastly, keeping in view the verdict of the Apex Court

in case of Pinaki Chatterjee & Ors Vs. Union of India

& Others 2(000)(2) SCC (L & S)259 in the light of the

Law laid down in Uma Devi Case Mr. Verma,Ld

Counsel for the Opp./Management submits, as held

therein, that recruitment could not be made contrary

to the statutory requirement rules in violation of

Article 16 & 14 of the Constitution of lndia; as such

the claim for regularization animation on the basis of

engagement as daily; rated casual laborers is

unmaintainable.

12. On perusal and consideration of the materials

available on the case record, I find these facts as under:

(i) It is indisputable fact that the workmen were casually

engaged on pro-rata daily wages by the Management

as Badli Sepoy whenever required for relevant

periods its permanents employees on leave, but since

engagement was casual. So they were never

appointed against the permanent employees of the

Bank as the procedure/rules of the O.P./Management

warrants;

(ii) None of the workmen prima facie has completed 240

days in any year in any period of twelve calendar

months preceding the 9^thApril, 1999,the date with

the reference to which calculation is to be made for

their actual working days under the employer as

required under Sec. 25B of the Industrial Dispute

Act, l947. Payment of Bonus to an temporary/casual

worker like Badli Sepoy for minimum 30 days working

as under the Bonus Act can not be a ground of

regularization. The ground of Bonus payment to any

of the workman for casual working for 30 days as

under Sec 8 of the Payment of Bonus Act.,1965 can

not be a good ground for any such claim for

regularization

(iii) An unengagement of casual Badlee Sepoy by the

Employer/ Bank Management casually as in the

present case is not a termination in the eye of the

Labour Law.

The argument of Mr. D. Mukherjee, the Learned

Advocate for the Union/workmen appears to he implausible

and unpursuasive.

In the result, it is, in the terms of the reference, hereby

ORDERED

The Award be and the same is passed that the action of

the Management of Bank of India in not regularizing the

1786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

service of purely temporary sub-staff as given in Annexure

"A" is quite justified. Hence, none of the workmen is entitled

to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

LIST OF THE WORKMEN IN ANNEXURE

ANNEXURE-A

SI. No.

Name

File No.

Sri N.R. Rao

Sri R. Srinivas Rao

Sri Bhagwan Das

Sri Makhun Kundu

Sri Ratan Ray Choudhary

Sri Narayan Kr. Chakraborty

Sri Tspan Das

Sri Subroto Mukherjee

Sri Shatrghan Gope

10.

Sri Samir Kumar Ghosh

11.

Sri Sayendra Thakur

12.

Sri Md. Faium

13.

Sri G. K. Murty

14.

Sri D.K.Thakur

15.

Sri Mahendra Kr.Chowbey

16.

Sri Chandra Bhanu Gupta

17.

Sri Bharat Lal Tanti

I8.

Sri A.K. Das

19.

Sri Satayjit Ghosh

20.

Sri Ram Murat

21.

Sri Shyam Kr. Gope

22.

Sri Niraj KumarThakur

23.

Sri Bajrangi Thakur

24.

Sri Biswanath Modak

25.

Sri Ajay Karwa

26.

Sri S.C. Bachra

ubZ fnYyh] 6 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 661.—vkS|ksfxd vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½

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

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

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

U;k;ky; pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼81@2007½ izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 06-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y-12012/95/2007- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2014

S.O. 661.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 81/2007 of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Channai as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 03.02.2014.

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

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Friday, the 3th May, 2013

Present : A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 81/2007

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

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

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

the Management of Punjab National Bank and their

Workman)

BETWEEN :

Sri P. Sekaran

1st Party/Petitioner

Vs.

The Functional Manager (HRD) : 2nd Party/Management

Punjab National Bank

160, Greams Road

Chennai-600006

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner :

M/s Balan Haridas,

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/Management :

M/s S. Jayaraman &

H. Balaji, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/95/2007-IR(B-II)

dated 27.11.2007 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether she order of dismissal without notice

imposed on Sri P. Sekaran by the Management of

Punjab National Bank, Chennai is legal and justified?

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

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal

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

sides. Both sides entered appearance through authorized

representative. On challenge of the order dated 18.01.2008

not permitting the petitioner to engage a legal practitioner,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1787

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

High Court of Madras by order dated 12.02.2008 and by

the order dated 30.07.2012 in WP No. 3562 of 2003, the said

order was set aside, the matter was remanded for fresh

disposal in a time-bound manner and the petitioner was

permitted to engage a counsel with similar fight to the

Respondent Management. Accordingly both sides made

representation through their respective counsel. Afterwards

both sides filed their claim, counter and reply statement as

the case may be.

3. As per order dated 25.02.2013 this Court passed ex-

parte award ordering modification of the punishment of

dismissal from service without notice to one of Compulsory

Retirement entitling the petitioner to superannuation

benefits. As per order dated 18.03.2013 on IA 17/2013 at the

instance of the Respondent the ex-parte order was set aside

and the ID was restored to file. When the matter stood

posted for further proceedings no further evidence was

adduced on either side. Even the petitioner examined WW1

in Chief was not chosen to be cross-examined by the

Respondent.

4. The averments in the Claim Statement briefly read as

follows:

Petitioner who had joined service of the Respondent

as a Clerk-cum-Godown Keeper on 23.04.1984,

thereafter on successive transfers while was working

at West Boulevard Branch, Trichy was suspended

on 22.04.2003 pending enquiry. He was issued Show

Cause Notice dt 23.09.2003 regarding renewal of

three Fixed Deposit Receipts and alleged taking away

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

19.11.2003 he denied the allegations. Thereafter he

was issued Charge Memo on 04.11.2004 which he

also denied in the reply. An enquiry was held without

considering his explanation. Five witnesses on the

side of the Bank and two witnesses on the defence

side were examined. By the finding the charges were

held proved to which petitioner offered comments

stating it to be perverse. Disciplinary Authority

concurring with the finding by Show Cause Notice

dated 18.03.2006 proposed the punishment of

dismissal without notice. He was dismissed from

service without notice on 31.03.2006. Appellate

Authority by a cryptic order dated 30.06.2006

dismissed the appeal in a mechanical manner without

applying mind. The allegations are untrue. One

C. Thangaraj took a Fixed Deposit on 14.11.1997 for

Rs. 80,000 for 13 months which got matured on

14.12.1998 Another Fixed Deposit for Rs 85,000 dated

14.11.1997 for 13 months and Fixed Deposit for

Rs. 85,000 dated 14.11.1997 for 13 months were also

matured as early as 14.12.1998, but not renewed.

Hence the three Fixed Deposits were carried forward

to the overdue Fixed Deposit Ledger as per practice

and rule. The petitioner prepared vouchers signed

by the Officer, the enclosures to which were stapled.

He also prepared ledger sheet. The Fixed Deposit

Receipts were thereafter generated by the concerned

and same signed by the Manager and Officer.

Delivery of the receipts to the party was not done by

the petitioner. The Fixed Deposits of Sri C. Thangaraj

was renewed (or Rs. 88,102, that of S. Annalakshmi

was renewed for Rs. 93,609 and third was renewed

for Rs. 93,609. The three Fixed Deposits were again

renewed and entries and vouchers were made by

Vasudevan and Cashier Mr. Nair. Pay Orders also

have been issued by the Officer and Manager

concerned. Petitioner was not involved in the process

of renewal. There is no mention of token under which

the payments were made. Except the voucher for the

first renewal petitioner had no part in the subsequent

renewal or towards the issuance of the Pay Order or

encashment thereof. No complaint has been made

for non-receipt of the FD proceeds by Annalakshmi

and Vasudevi. Petitioner, a Clerk had only renewed

the Fixed Deposits as per Bank Manager's

instructions. Once the voucher is authorized by the

Manager it only confirms the transaction as perfect

in all respects and the writing of the voucher is no

longer questionable. Manager Vishwanathan has

admitted his having signed the voucher and the Fixed

Deposit Receipts. The enclosures to the voucher

dated 07.03.2001 were missing. According to

Arockiadass when enclosures are not available it

will be reported to the Branch Manager. There is no

legal evidence to show that petitioner was following

up the matter and that the payment out of the Fixed

Deposit was received by the petitioner. T. Narayanan,

Son of Sri Thangaraj as claimed has not mentioned

in Ex.-PD24 letter that he had met the petitioner and

informed his father's death. T. Narayanan never met

the petitioner. While others were punished with

Increment cut petitioner is dismissed without notice

There is no evidence to show that petitioner had

removed the cash order on 26.02.2003 The Cash Order

being time-barred no question of the stale Cash Order

being made use of to open Fixed Deposit on the

same at WB Road Branch does arise. Based on the

voucher Fixed Deposit was made in the name of Sri

Velusamy without obtaining Account Opening Form.

Since petitioner was canvassing Fixed Deposit he

was merely asked to obtain the AOF form the

customer. How voucher for making Fixed Deposit

was made on the basis of a stale Cash Order. It was

not petitioner who opened the ledger sheet. C.

Velusamy's National Savings Loan Account had been

closed on 03.10.2001. So there was no necessity for

Cash Order dated 19.04.2002 for Rs. 10,700 to be in

Velusamy's name. The letter itself will show that all

was not well in the industrial area branch. Enquiry

Officer held the charge proved with tutored

1788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

deposition of K. Ramanan, Officer and Mr. R.

Thiagarajan. They had candidly adrnitted that the

debit sundries and credit fixed deposit voucher and

fixed deposit ledger were authorized by them. It was

also admitted that Cash Order was received by Clerk,

Valliappan and he prepared the voucher for including

the instrument in the day's clearing. He was not

examined without any reason. Petitioner has been

made a scapegoat for the folly of others. There is no

application of mind by the Enquiry Officer in entering

the finding. He exceeded his brief and split up the

charges on presumption and assumption. Petitioner

has rendered 22 years of unblemished service and

he hails from a very poor family. He is not gainfully

employed. He cannot be punished on an allegation

not proved in the enquiry. Enquiry held is violating

principles of natural justice. As per HO guideline

any payment above Rs. 20,000 has to be made in

Cash Order and the recipient has to prove his identity.

It is alleged by the officials that the petitioner

identified the customer and only on that basis they

have passed the payment. Petitioner has not

identified the beneficiary. ID raised having failed the

reference is occasioned. Petitioner is imposed capital

punishment to save the higher-ups Punishment is

grossly disproportionate to the charges. Tribunal is

to interfere under Section-IIA of the ID Act. Petitioner

is to be reinstated with all benefits.

5. Counter Statement averments bereft of unnecessary

details are as follows:

Petitioner was charge sheeted for preparing on

07.03.2001 vouchers for three Fixed Deposits dated

14.11.1997 favouring Sri C. Thangaraj, Ms.

Annalakshmi and Vasudevi for Rs. 80,000, Rs. 85,000

and Rs. 85,000 respectively for 48 months from

14.12.1998 without any letter of request from the

beneficiary or authority. The FD Accounts were

renewed without receiving the original FDRs despite

the fact that there were unauthenticated alterations

in maturity value and due date. Rate of interest and

due date in the ledger sheets needed authentication.

Fresh FD Receipts were issued at the time of renewal

instead of noting the details in the original FDRs,

not produced. Instead of the old ledger sheets he

carried out all the details of the FDRs to a new ledger

sheet for making the alternations in initials of the

beneficiary of FDR Account Number 34070 of

Thangaraj from C to G and also changing the address

of the party. He had also created record in the new

ledger sheets as if fresh AOF Form-15H and

photographs were obtained and in fact neither AOF

nor Form-15H and photograph were obtained. The

purpose of taking fresh AOF and photograph were

not recorded without ensuring whether the originals

of the same are available or not. He prepared the

vouchers for renewal of FD Account of Sri Thangaraj

knowing well that the party was no more and reported

expired. On 17.12.2002 FDR Account 3470 was

renewed as ordinary FDR No. 464 for a period of 30

days for Rs. 1,33,363 due on 13.01.2003 with maturity

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

13.01.2003 the FDR Account was closed and the

proceeds of the same were paid by Cash Order dated

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

14.01.2003. He also verified the signature of G.

Thangaraj on the back of Cash Order without any

authority knowing fully well that the signature does

not belong to the original beneficiary. Similarly FDRs

favouring Ms. Annalakshmi and Vasudevi were

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

Rs. 1,41,699 and Account No. 466 for Rs. 1,41,699

both due on 13.01.2003 respectively. On 21.01.2003

FD Accounts in the name of Ms. Annalakshmi and

Vasudevi were closed for maturity value of

Rs. 1,42,252 each keeping part of amount of

Rs. 1,00,000, each which were placed in ordinary Fixed

Deposit for 91 days. Balance amount of Rs 42,252 as

interest was issued by Cash Order dated 21.01.2003

each in the names of Ms Annalakshmi and Vasudevi.

The Cash Orders were paid to some fictitious persons

in their names on 26.02.2003. On 26.02.2003 petitioner

visited Branch Office Industrial Area, Trichy though

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

collecting his Income Tax details and verified the

signatures of the beneficiary of the above Cash

Orders without authority knowing that the signatures

do not belong to the original beneficiary. On 17.1.2002

he posted the transactions of renewal of all the above

three FDRs in the ledger through computer. He had

requested the Cashier to make the payments in 500

denominations. He was present on the date of

payment of the proceeds of all the FDRs to some

persons and was instrumental in getting the payment

fraudulently to some fictitious persons. On 26.02.2003

during visit to the Branch he had unauthorizedly

taken Cash Order dated 19.04.2002 for Rs. 10,700

favouring Sri C. Velusamy from the Loans Department

and handed over at BO, WB Road for placing the FD

in the name of Sri Velusamy without AOF or other

documents. For the same FDR was prepared on

28.02.2003. Sri Velusamy informed that he neither

received nor presented the Pay Order to BO, WB

Road. In the departmental enquiry held he was given

all opportunities and principles of natural justice were

observed which is demonstrable from the proceedings

itself. Preparation of renewal vouchers by the CE is

the starting point of the fraud. Even if under the

instructions of the Branch Manager he should have

noted so and marked caution in the ledger vouchers,

etc. It is proved that CE had influenced the payment

by personally bringing the vouchers to the Manager

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1789

telling that he knew the depositor. That his confession

statement was obtained by coercion is not proved.

In fact by letter dated 12.04.2003 in his own

handwriting he admitted the charges, though later

withdrawn. There is no proof of any prejudice having

been caused to the petitioner in the enquiry. There is

no hostile discrimination. The orders of the authorities

are speaking manifesting application of mind. There

is nothing perverse in the orders. There is no proof

of Manager having given instructions for renewal of

the FDRs. The charges have been properly proved

in the enquiry. There is no violation of principles of

natural justice. Finding is not perverse. The

punishment is commensurate with the gravity of the

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

applied. ID is to be dismissed.

6. Rejoinder averments in a nutshell are as follows :

In the absence of legal evidence the finding

rendered is perverse. The supervisory officials for

their misconducts should have been jointly enquired

into with the petitioner.

Points for consideration are:

(I) Whether the dismissal without notice imposed on

Sri P. Sekaran is legal and justified?

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

8. The evidence consists of oral evidence of WW1 in

Chief without cross-examination and Ex.W1 to Ex.W73

marked with no evidence on the side of the Respondent.

Points (i) & (ii)

9. Heard both sides Perused the records and the

evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner by way of

Proof Affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination. The sum and

substance of the arguments on behalf of the petitioner

advanced by his learned counsel are that Invoking Section-

11-A of the ID act a re-appreciation of the evidence is to be

had to decide whether there is perversity with regard to

finding and whether the punishment has gone

disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.

Petitioner rendered unblemished service during the past

19 years. Documents, evidence the acts of the petitioner to

have been authorized by the Officers under their signatures.

Entire payments made as per the fixed deposit receipts also

have been authenticated under the signatures of the

Officers. The payment without token across the counter

do not remain explained. Documents do not show the

charges to have been established based on legal evidence.

The misconduct of the nature of misappropriation of money

requires to be proved to the hilt. In the absence of the

examination of the beneficiaries who received the benefits

and the complainant prejudice is caused to the petitioner.

Petitioner is not a pension optee. Confession is later

retracted and is denied as correct. So confession is of no

value to advance the case of the petitioner despite which

fact the same is relied on for arriving at the finding. The

charge is alleging serious lapses of the petitioner for some

fraud noticed to have occurred misappropriating moneys

covered by Fixed Deposits by someone not clearly brought

home. But the petitioner is sought to be implicated for

misappropriation of money. For the mishap an award staff

alone could not be held responsible without the junction

of others. Discernibly there ought to be lapses on the part

of more employees. Petitioner, a clerical staff has no role

for the payment of money. Merely for reason of being a

junior Officer he has been discriminated in the matter of

meting of the punishment; the other Officers suffered only

an increment cut for their role in the misconduct. Petitioner

acted only upon on the instructions of the Officers.

Petitioner is put to economic death by way of dismissal

without notice.

10. Going by the records especially the enquiry

proceedings and the finding it is brought home that there

is no force in the contentions on behalf of the petitioner

that the enquiry has been conducted violating the

principles of natural justice or that the finding is perverse.

It could well be seen that the petitioner has had full

opportunity to participate in the enquiry, as pleaded and

he did examine witnesses on his side. Allegation that the

finding is perverse could also be found to be totally false.

There is also the confession statement of the petitioner,

later alleged as having been obtained on coercion, but

without being substantiated. While he alleges the enquiry

as being not fair and that the finding is perverse there is no

proof of that or prejudice. There is nothing wrong with the

enquiry. There is no perversity in the finding. Any material

logically probative to a prudent mind and is credible may

form basis of such conclusion. It is not adequacy of

evidence, but some legal evidence which is required to

arrive at the conclusion. From the enquiry proceedings

and records one can come to the conclusion that there is

nothing wrong with the enquiry and that the finding is not

perverse.

11. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner to

the decisions of the Apex Court in :

MAN SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND

OTHER (2008-12-SCC-331) wherein it held "20. We

may reiterate the settled position of law for the benefit

of the administrative authorities that any set of the

repository of power whether legislative or

administrative or quasi-judicial is open to challenge

if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair-minded

authority could ever have made it. The concept of

equality as enshrined in Article-14 of the Constitution

of India embraces the entire realm of State action. It

would extend to an individual as well not only when

he is discriminated against in the matter of exercise

of right, but also in the matter of imposing liability

upon him. Equals have to be treated equally even in

the matter of executive administrative action. As a

1790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

matter of fact, the doctrine of equality is now turned

as a synonym of fairness in the concept of justice

and stands as the most accepted methodology of a

governmental action The administrative action is to

be just on the test of "fair play" and reasonableness.

Roop Singh Negi VS. Punjab National Bank and

Others (2009-2-SCC-570) wherein it held "D. Service

Law - Departmental enquiry- Admission/

Confession—Proof of—Appellant alleged to have

confessed to police that he was involved in stealing

of bank draft book — Held, so called confession

itself was not sufficient—Some evidence ought to

have been brought on record that appellant was

involved in stealing—Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 25".

12. Extracts by way of main requirements of manual

business continuity in Centralized Banking Branches (CBB)

under Chapter-15 pointed out on behalf of the petitioner

are as follows :—

- Morning checking with the vouchers will be done

on daily basis by an Authorized Officers as per

guidelines given in this Book of Instruction. ‘‘Errors

and difference be rectified and recorded under

signatures in the control registers".

- Before making any payment, the authorized

official/CTO shall physically verify signatures from

the specimen signature slip available at the Branch.

- All the deposits, which are repayable after notice or

repayable after a certain period (1) where the amount

of deposit (2) aggregate amount of deposit and (3)

such deposit repayable together with interest i.e.

Rs. 20,000/- or more has to be made by account payee

cheque or account payee bank draft. The repayment

will have to be effected in either of the modes

prescribed under the Income Tax Act.

- As a Cash Order is not transferable, it may only be

paid to the payee, on identification.

13. Arguments on behalf of the Respondent advanced

by its learned counsel are that there is no challenge against

the fairness of the enquiry held. When a Fixed Deposit is

matured its renewal should be on request from the depositor

with the production of the original FD Receipt. It is the

petitioner who started the process of renewal of the Fixed

Deposit Receipts (FDR) without any request or production

of the originals thereof. It is violating the norms and rules.

The conduct is abnormal. Instead of continuing in the old

ledger he carried over the entries into the new ledger. FDR

of S. Thangarasan was one among them who was then no

more. It was also paid on his behalf. The act of the petitioner

is violative of the norms and procedures and without

authority. It was some third party to whom the proceeds

were paid on behalf of the deceased. The petitioner has

not explained the charges. The persons to whom payments

have been made are fictitious persons. There is also virtual

admission by the petitioner regarding the fraudulent

doings. He is simply alleging others to be responsible for

the felony. Intention is discernible in the conduct of the

petitioner in creating the new ledger sheet to cover up the

fraud he was about to practice. The finding is based coupled

with the evidence and the confession statement given by

the petitioner. They are more than any material logically

probative to a prudent mind to arrive at the conclusion that

he is responsible for the fraudulent acts of renewing Fixed

Deposits to wrongfully enrich him to the detriment of the

depositors including dead persons whose deposits

remained not extended even after the maturity dates. The

misconduct charged against the petitioner stands proved

with the adequate evidence not only with any material

logically probative to a prudent mind to arrive at the

conclusion reached, which is usually enough. To reap the

benefit of the money sought to be misappropriated with a

scheming mind the Cash Order was prepared or got prepared

by the petitioner coinciding with his arrival at the Bank

Branch at Trichy. Though no loss has occasioned to the

Bank by means of the fraudulent transactions that cannot

be a valid defence in favour of the petitioner. The Bank

employee is expected to observe absolute integrity and

honesty in his dealings with the Bank as has been

consistently and repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court

of India. An employee misappropriating money deserves

to be visited with the capital punishment of dismissal from

service. There is no evidence to substantiate the contention

on behalf of the petitioner that the Manager of the Bank

instructed the petitioner to prepare the renewal of vouchers

of the FD Receipts Reliance was placed on behalf of the

Respondent reading out the decision of the Apex Court In

2005-1-SCC-113 to substantiate the above.

14. I do not see that the decisions relied on behalf of the

petitioner are squarely applicable lo the facts of the present

case to his advantage.

15. Now coming to the punishment, the question is

whether the same is shockingly disproportionate to the

gravity of the misconduct. While from the proved facts the

petitioner could legitimately be found guilty of the

misconduct and has been so found what remains for

consideration is regarding his punishment. While an

employee like the petitioner with propensity to commit

misconduct as in the present case is not safe or

warranted to be allowed to continue in service, he must

inevitably be sent out. What the Management has done is

only that and nothing short of that. He deserves no

leniency. There is no role for misplaced leniency or

sympathy to such a delinquent as the petitioner. Therefore

the punishment is only to be upheld and the petitioner is

not entitled to any relief. Ordered so.

16. Thus, the reference is answered accordingly.

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

corrected and pronounced by me the open court on this

day the 3rd May, 2013)

A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1791

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner:

WW1, Sri P. Sekaran

For the 2nd Party/Respondent

None

Documents Marked :

On the Petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. W1

07.03.2001

Debit CA QD Transfer Voucher

Ex. W2

07.03.2001

Debit FD MBD 3470 G Thangaraj

transfer voucher

Ex. W3

07.03 2001

Debit FD MBD 3471 S. Annalakshmi

transfer voucher

Ex. W4

07.03.2001

Debit FD MBD 3472 S. Vasudevi

transfer voucher

Ex. W5

07.03 2001

PD 5 - FDMBD receipt A/c No. 3470

Ex. W6

14.11.1997

Copy of FD MBD Ledger Sheet in

the name of G. Thangaraj A/c No. 3470

Ex. W7

14.11.1997

Copy of FD MBD Ledger Sheet in

the name of S. Annalakshmi

A/c No. 34571

Ex. W8

14.11.1997

Copy of FD MBD Ledger Sheet in

the name of S. Vasudevi A/c No. 3472

Ex. W9

07.03.2001

Copy of FD MBD Ledger Sheet in

the name G. Thangaraj A/c No. 3470

Ex. W10

07.03.2001

Copy of FD MBD Ledger Sheet in

the name of S. Annalakshmi

A/c No. 3471

Ex. W11

07.03.2001

Copy of FD MBD Ledger Sheet in

the name of S. Vasudevi A/c No. 3472

Ex. W12

12.04.2003

Letter of the Petitioner

Ex.W13

19.04.2002

Copy of Cash Order favouring C.

Veluchamy

Ex. W14

13.01.2003

Copy of cash Order favouring

Thangaraj

Ex. W15

21.01.2003

Copy of Cash Order favouring S.

Vasudevi

Ex. W16

21.01.2003

Copy of Cash Order favouring S.

Annalakshmi

Ex. W17

28 02 2003

Copy of Clearing Credit Sundries

Voucher

Ex. W18

01.03.2003

Copy of Transfer Debit Sundries

voucher

Ex. W19

01.03.3003

Copy of Transfer voucher for FD

Ordinary

Ex. W20

01.03 2003

Copy of FD Ordinary Receipt in the

name of Veluchamy

Ex. W21

01.03.2003

Copy of Leger Sheet in the name of

Veluchamy

Ex. W22

27.10.1998

Copy of Death Certificate of S.

Thangarasan Munaiyathiriyar

Ex. W23

18.11.1993

Copy of Legal Heir Certificate of PD

20-Thangarasan Munaiyathiriyar

Ex. W24

29.3.2003

Letter of the Petitioner

Ex. W25

14.05.2005

Letter of the PO Furnishing list of

additional 4 documents

Ex. W26

19.11.2004

Letter of the Petitioner

Ex. W27

February

Copy of the Attendance Register

2003

Ex. W28

02.04.2003

Copy of letter of V Veluchamy

Ex. W29

28.02.1997

Copy of demand/term loan sheet of

C. Veluchamy

Ex. W30

01.10.2001

Computer Print Out of Statement of

Account of Veluchamy

Ex. W31

01.10 2001 Computer Print Out of Statement of

Account of Veluchamy

Ex. W32

22.02.2001

Copy of FD due date reminder

Ex. W33

16.06.2005

Letter of the Senior Manager

Ex. W34

14.06.2005

Letter of the PO addressed to the

Senior Manager

Ex. W35

14.11.1997

Copies of three counter foils

Ex. W36

Copies of FB MBD Receipts of A/c

No. 3470

Ex. W37

06.01.2005

Letter of The Petitioner

Ex. W38

14.11.1997

Copy of FD MBD Receipt issued to

Thangaraj Ex.W39

Copy of FD MBD Receipt issued to

S. Annalakshmi

Ex. W40

14.11.1997

Copy of FD MBD receipt issued to

Vasudevi

Ex. W41

07.03 2001

Counter Foil of FD MBD Receipt of

Thangaraj

Ex. W42

14.11.1997

Copy of FD MBD Receipt issued to

Vasudevi with backside of the receipt

Ex. W43

14.11.1997

Counter Foil of FD MBD receipt of

Thangaraj with backside of the receipt

Ex. W44

13.01.2003

Debit Transfer Voucher

Ex. W45

13.01.2003

Copy of the computer print out for

closing of FDO A/c

Ex. W46

07.03.2001

Copy of FD MDD receipt

Ex. W47

13.01.2003

Copy of Cash Order

Ex. W48

21.01.2003 Copy of the Computer Print Out for

closing of FDO A/c

Ex. W49

21.01.2003

Copy of Computer Print Out for

interest certificate

Ex. W50

21.01.2003

Copy of Interest Certificate

Ex. W51

21.01.2003

Copy of Credit for Cash Orders

Ex. W52

21.01.2003

Copy of Cash Orders

Ex. W53

21.01.2003

Copy of Transfer Credit

Ex. W54

07.03.2001

Copy of Long Book

Ex. W55

Ledger Sheet

Ex. W56

Ledger Sheet

Ex. W57

17.12.2002

Ledger Sheet

1792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex. W58

22.04 2003 Suspension Order

Ex. W59

21.09.2003 Charge Memo

Ex. W60

19.11.2003

Reply to Charge Memo

Ex. W61

04.11.2004

Charge Sheet

Ex. W62

19.11.2004

Reply to Charge Sheet

Ex. W63

24.11.2004

Enquiry Notice

Ex. W64

20.12.2004

Enquiry Notice

Ex. W65

06.01 2005

Enquiry Proceeding

Ex. W66

Presenting Officer's report

Ex. W67

10.12.2005

Reply to Presenting Officer's report

Ex. W68

13.01.2006

Enquiry Report

Ex. W69

07.02.2006

Reply to Enquiry Report

Ex. W70

18.03.2006

Second Show Cause Notice

Ex. W71

30.06.2006

Order of the Appellate Authority

Ex. W72

31.03.2006

Dismissal Order

Ex. W73

09 05.2006

Letter to Appellate Order

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 6 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 662.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

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

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

U;k;ky; p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 590@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@142@2001&vkbZ vkj¼ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2014

S.O. 662.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 590/2005) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. II Chandigarh

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial Dispute between

the management of Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Govenrment on 06/02/2014.

[No. L-12011/142/2001-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

PRESENT: SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer.

Case I.D. No. 590/2005

Registered on 22.8.2005

The General Secretary,

Bank of India Empls. Association,

C/o Bank of India, Sector 17B,

Main Branch, Chandigarh-160017.

...Petitioner

Versus

The Chief Regional Manager,

Bank of India, 579, Model Town,

Ludhiana.

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. R.P. Rana Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Ranjan Lohan Adv.

AWARD

(Passed on 9.12.2013)

Central Government vide Notification No. L. 12011/142/

2001-IR (B-II) Dated 30.10.2001, by exercising its powers

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

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

(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of

India in awarding the punishment of withdrawal of

Special Allowance of Head Cashier 'E' to Sh. K.K.

Garg is legal and just? If not, what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared and

submitted statement of claim pleading that he was opposing

the undue accommodation extended to certain officials by

Sh. D.L. Singal, Branch Manager, of Faridkot Branch who

connived with the disciplinary authoirty and got issued a

show cause notice. He also wanted to deprive the workman

of the special allowance of 'Head Cashier Category E' with

a view to accommodate one of his favourite employees.

That the charge-sheet dated 22.3.2000 was issued to him

and within the framework of the charge-sheet, the inquiry

Officer was appointed. This shows that the disciplinary

authority was acting with a closed mind. The Inquiry Officer

conducted the inquiry and submitted a report and on its

basis a penalty of withdrawal of special allowance of 'Head

Cashier Category E' was imposed upon him. That the said

punishment is illegal as the inquiry was conducted against

the principles of natural justice as he was not provided

proper opportunity to lead defence evidence and to

produce the documents which would have shown mala

fide intention of the Branch Manager. That the findings

recorded by the Inquiry Officer on various charges are

without any basis and are illegal. That the disciplinary

authority did not consider the reply to the show cause

notice issued to him for awarding the punishment. He filed

a detailed appeal before the Appellate Authority who

without considering the points taken therein, dismissed

the appeal.

Thus the punishment awarded is illegal, and the

punishment order as well as the order passed by the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1793

Appellate Authority be set aside with all the consequential

benefits to the workman.

The management filed written reply pleading that the

workman committed misconduct and he was charge-sheeted.

The Inquiry Officer was appointed who conducted the

inquiry as per procedure and the workman was given due

opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to lead its

evidence. Thereafter the inquiry officer submitted its report

and on its basis, a show cause notice was issued to the

workman. After considering his reply, the disciplinary authoirty

passed the impugned order which is legal and valid.

In support of its case, workman appeared in the witness

box and filed his affidavit reiterating the averments as

contained in the statement of claim.

On the other hand the management has examined P.J.S.

Walia, Chief Manager, who supported the case of the

management as set out in the written statement.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Rana, counsel for the workman

and Sh. Ranjan Lohan, counsel for the management and

perused the file carefully.

It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel

for workman that inquiry was conducted against the

principle of natural justice and the workman was not allowed

to prove and produce documents which would have shown

the mala fide intention of the Branch Manager and the

workman was not allowed to lead his defence properly

which has caused prejudice to the workman. He has further

contended that the intention of the Branch Manager is

clear from the notices issued on 7.2.2000 and submitted

that two separate notices were issued by the Branch

Manager to the workman on the same day, and the workman

did not commit any act amounting to misconduct and the

inquiry initiated against it was totally illegal.

I have considered the contention of the learned counsel

for the workman.

I have perused the copy of the notice dated 7.2.2000

Exhibit W2 and Exhibit W3 respectively and its perusal

shows that the first one issued to the workman for delaying

the normal routine work deliberately and the second notice

was non-performance/completion of allotted work. If the

workman committed the said two acts, the Branch Manager

was within his rights to call for his explanation and it

cannot be said from the mere assertion that the Branch

Manager was acting mala fide. The workman has levelled

allegations against the Branch Manager that Branch

Manager was accommodating certain officers and was

marking them on duty when they were absent and even

has gone to the extent that the Branch Manager wanted to

help a lady employee to get 'Head Cashier Category E

Special Allowance' but there is no evidence on the file

except the mere assertion of the workman in his affidavit to

support these allegations. Thus it cannot be said that

Branch Manager acted at any time even with mala fide

intention.

The following charge-sheet was issued to the

workman:—

"That on 7.2.2000, you were instructed by Sh. Anil

Bhagat, Assistant Manager to take cash receipt but

you did not obey his instructions of receiving the

cash from customers. In this way customer service

was badly effected for two hours. On giving you

written instructions, you accepted the cash after two

hours but you did not release the cash/payment

vouchers timely. Branch had advised other staff

member to write the cash receipt vouchers in receipt

book at about 1.00 P.M. for avoiding the further delay

in preparing and issuing the DDs & TDRs to the

customers. Further, you released the payments

vouchers after 4.30 P.M. and had created problems

for other staff members for completing the bank's

work well in time. Moreso, you deliberately delayed

closure of cash at 6.30 P.M. on 7.2.2000.

That you had not written the Head Office & TDR

Supplementaries of 4.2.2000 and 5.2.2000 resulting

delay of written Cash Book, General Ledger & GLB.

This allotted work was not completed by you on

7.2.2000 even after the specific instructions of the

Manager and this job was completed by other Clerk

avoiding further delay in Bank's work."

The Inquiry officer after examining the evidence led

before him, submitted a detailed report concluding that

both the charges were proved against it. It clearly find

mention in the report that all the relevant documents were

allowed to be produced and even the workman was given

several opportunities to lead his defence evidence and it

was made clear to him on four different dates that no further

adjournment would be given. The workman examined seven

witnesses in his defence and if no further adjournment was

given after 1.7.2000, it cannot be said that he was denied a

fair and proper opportunity to lead defence evidence. Again

there is nothing on the file to conclude that the declining

of further opportunity has coused any prejudice to him in

any way except the bare assertion that the production of

the documents and the examination of the withness have

pointed finger towards the Branch Manager which is totally

irrelevant as the workman himself did not perform his duties

properly on 7.2.2000.

Thus the workman was properly charge-sheeted and

during the inquiry he was defended by an official of the

Employees' Association and the witnesses examined by

the management were duly cross-examined and the

workman also led its evidence, and thus, there is no defect

in the conduct of the inquiry nor it has been shown that

the same was conducted in violation of any Rules. In the

circumstances it is held that the inquiry is fair and proper.

On receipt of the inquiry report the punishing authoirty

issued show casue notice to which the workman filed reply.

After considering the reply and giving personal hearing to

1794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the workman, the impugned penalty was imposed which

cannot be termed, considering the misconduct on the part

of the workman, to be improper or excessive and do not call

for any interference.

In result, it is held that the awarding of the punishment

in question is legal and just and workman is not entitled to

any relief and reference is answered accordingly. Let hard

and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 663.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ d /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkQ bafM;k ds

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

fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k

Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 299@97½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@236@97&vkbZ vkj ¼ch &II)]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2014

S.O. 663.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 299/97) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as

shown in the Annexure, in the industiral dispute between

the management of Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 06/02/2014

[No. L-12012/236/97-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEUXRE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/299/97

Presiding Officer: SHRI R. B. PATLE

Shri Ashok Kumar,

D/67 Vinay Nagar,

Sector-4, Gwalior

...Workman

Versus

Regional Manager,

Bank of India,

Regional Office, Khandwa Region,

BT College, Anand Nagar,

Khandwa ...

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 21st day of January 2014

1. As per letter dated 21-10-97 by the Goernment 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-12012/236/97-IR

(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of

India in terminating the services of Shri Ashok Kumar

w.e.f. 23.12.95 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the said workman is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, Ist Party workman filed his

statement of claim at Page 6 to 10. The case of workman is

that he was working as Assistant Cashier cum clerk from

7.11.1986 in the Bank. He belong to Schedule Caste, his

service record was excellent. His services were terminated

from 23.12.95 on the basis of the report of the Enquiry

officer. Workman has pleaded that enquiry conducted

against him is legal. Principles of natural justice were not

followed. The enquiry held against workman is found legal

by my learned predecessor as per order dated 10.1.2011.

Said order is not set-aside or modified by the Superior

Court therefore the contentions of workman about illegality

of enquiry are not discussed in details. He was not knowing

English. Documents were not supplied. Co-worker was not

allowed to participate. Hurdles were created in the Enquiry

proceedings. Enquiry was not conducted as per Bipartite

Settlement of 1996. The punishment of dismissal is illegal.

On such contentions, workman prays for his reinstatement

with consequential benefits.

3. IInd Party management filed Written Statement at Page

27 to 31. Relief prayed by workman have been denied. It is

not disputed that 1st Party was working as cashier cum

clerk from 7.11.1986. His services were terminated from

23.12.95 conducting enquiry as per bipartite settlement.

The enquiry was conducted following the rules and

principles of natural justice. The dismissal of workman is

legal. That chargesheet was issued to workman on 6.4.94.

The allegation against him were that the workman had

received amount of Rs. 6000/- on 22.7.93 from Mr. Bilore.

That workman had admitted that said amount was received

by him as credit. He has deposited said amount in account

of loan. That workman was given opportunity for his

defence. Complainant had denied contents of his complaint.

The relavant documents was examined by Handwriting

expert. From report of Enquiry Officer, misconduct alleged

against workman was proved. The misconduct was of

serious nature. The dismissal is proper and legal. Workman

filed rejoinder at Page 42 to 49 reiterating his contentions

pleaded in his statement of claim. IInd Party filed rejoinder

at Page 65 to 74 reiterating its contentions in the Written

Statement.

4. As stated above, enquiry conducted against workman

is found legal and proper. Said order has received finality

and not set-aside by Superior Court, parties were given

opportunity to adduce evidence on other issues but no

evidence is adduced on other issues by either parties.

5. Considering pleadings and order on preliminary

enquiry, points which arise for my consideration and

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1795

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 of

In Affairmative

dismissal from service

imposed on workman is

proper and legal?

(iii) If so, to what relief the

Workman is entitled

workman is entitled

to relief prayed by

to?"

him.

REASONS

6. As stated above, enquiry conducted against workman

is found legal and proper. The record of Enquiry Proceedings

is produced. The careful reading of the documents of

enquiry shows that the management examined 4 witnesses

and documentary evidence, the delinquent employee

examined one witness. The documents examined by

handwriting expert shows that the signature on P-9 tallies

with the disputed signature. The evidence in Enquiry

Proceedings is supporting the charges against workman.

The findings of Enquiry Offier cannot be said without

evidence. The detailed discussion of evidence in Enquiry

Proceedings is not necessary. Ist Party workman has not

adduced any evidence on other issues. Enquiry officer has

supported report that misconduct against workman is

proved. Nothing is brought to my notice how the finding

of Enquiry Officer is perverse or illegal. I record my finding

in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

7. That punishment of dismissal from service is imposed

on workman on the charges of fraud that amount received

from complainant Bilore was not deposited in his account,

counterfoil was given to him. The charge is of serious

nature. The punishment of dismissal from service cannot

be said disproportionate. The punishment of dismissal from

service does not call for interference. For above reasons, I

record my finding on Point No. 2 in Affirmative.

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

(1) Action of the management of Bank of India in

terminating the services of Shri Ashok Kumar w.e.f.

23.12.95 is proper and legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to relief prayed by him.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 664.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

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; Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼6@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@30@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2014

S.O. 664.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 6/2011) of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 06/02/2014.

[No. L-12011/30/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present: Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 06/2011

Date of Passing Award—15th January, 2014

Between:

The Assistant General Manager,

Punjab National Bank, Plot No. 111,

Station Square,

Bhubaneswar-751 001

...1st Party-Management.

AND

Their workman represented through the

General Secretary, Punjab National Bank,

Shramik Union, C/o. Punjab National Bank,

Bapujinagar, Bhubaneswar-09

(Orissa)

...2nd Party-Union.

APPEARANCES:

Miss Sibani Satpathy,

...

For the 1st Party-

Auth. Rep.

Management.

Shri B.K. Sukla,

...

For the 2nd Party-

Advisor.

Union

AWARD

An industrial dispute existing between the employers

in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and

their workman has been referred to this Tribunal by the

Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise

1796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1)

and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 vide its letter No. L-12011/30/2010-IR

(B-II), dated 05.01.2011 in respect of the following matter:—

" Whether the action of the management of Punjab

National Bank, Bhubaneswar by terminating the

services of workman Shri Banamali Nayak, w.e.f.

12.11.2009 is legal and/or justified? What relief the

workman is entitled to?"

2. The 2nd Party-Union espousing the cause of the

workman has filed statement of claim in which it has been

stated that Shri Banamali Nayak was employed as sweeper

under the 1st Party-Management in its Bhubaneswar

Branch for the last several years against regular and

permanent vacancy. He has been performing his duties

most efficiently and diligently and there was no stigma of

any kind reported against him during his service period.

He suddenly became ill and went to the Government

Ayurvedic Hospital at Bhubaneswar for treatment where

he came to know that he has been suffering from acute

jaundice. He was advised by the Doctor to go for prolong

treatment and take rest with some dietary control. He

remained on leave from 8.6.2009 and sent his leave

application through his nephew and went to Kalapathar to

one of his relative's house and stayed there till he was

cured. He sent his leave application indicating his illness

from time to time to the 1st Party-Management through his

nephew. He was never intimated about the refusal of leave

by the Management. After being cured and fit to resume

his duties he reported for duty on 11.11.2009 with medical

certificate, but he was refused to join duty. He then went to

Assistant General Manager on 12.11.2009 and reported for

duty with all medical certificates, but he was told to come

on the next day. When he again reported for duty on

13.11.2009 he was given termination letter stating therein

that the workman has voluntarily abandoned his service

with effect from 12.11.2009. The Management has neither

followed the principles of natural justice nor the provisions

of law envisaged under section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 before terminating his services. He then

put-forth his grievance to the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar through the Union,

but the Management did not cooperate in the conciliation

proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central). So the conciliation ended in failure and the matter

was referred to the Tribunal by the Government for

adjudication. The Management has misconceived and

misinterpreted the terms of settlement. The settlement

provides that the unauthorised absence of an employee

for more than 30 days constitute gross misconduct under

Clause 5 (P) of the settlement for which the concerned

workman shall face disciplinary proceeding. In Clause-7 of

the settlement it has been stipulated that the absence

without leave is a minor misconduct and punishment for

minor misconduct has been specified in Clause-8 of the

said settlement. No where the settlement provides for

termination of service of the workman without giving him

reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the instant case

absence without leave is a minor misconduct and the

workman if proved guilty of such misconduct is liable for

punishment as provided in Clause-8 of the settlement. The

Management in breach of the principles of natural justice

and legal provisions has terminated his service which is

illegal, unjustified and void abnitio and he is entitled to

reinstatement with full back wages.

3. The 1st Party-Management in its written statement

has averred that the service conditions of the workmen/

employees in the Banking industry are governed by the

provisions of Sastri Award, Desai Award and various

Bipartite Settlements. Disciplinary action and procedure in

respect of the workmen/employees is governed by the

Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.2002. Para-33 of the Bipartite

Settlement dated 2.6.2005 which deals with the voluntary

cessation of employment states that when an employee

absents himself from work for a period of 90 or more

consecutive days without prior sanction from the competent

authority or beyond the period of leave sanctioned, the

Management at any time thereafter may give a notice to

the employee at his last known address calling upon him to

report for work within 30 days from the date of notice and

in case of failure to report for work within 30 days of the

notice, a further notice to report for work within 30 days

shall be given failing which the employee will be deemed to

have voluntarily vacated his employment on the expiry of

the said notice. Shri Banamali Nayak while in service of the

Bank was in the habit of remaining unaumorizedly absent

from the duties of the Bank on various occasions. He did

not pay any attention despite advice being given in writing

by the Management. He remained absent for 36 days in

1999, for 80 days in 2001, 86 days in 2003 up-to 6.6.2003. He

again remained absent from 5.6.2009 without any prior

information or permission. In terms of Para-33 of the

Bipartite Settlement dated 2.6.2005 he was served with

notice dated 5.9.2009. The said notice was received back

with a remark of refusal. Thereafter another notice was

issued to him through regd. post on 9.8.2009 but Shri Nayak

neither sent any reply nor joined the duty within the

stipulated time of 30 days. Accordingly he was informed

vide letter dated 12.11.2009 that he is deemed to have

voluntarily vacated his services. His name was struck-off

from the banks rolls. Hence the provisions of Section 25-F

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have no application in

the present case. Therefore the action of the Management

in terminating the services of the workman with effect from

12.11.2009 is legal and justified and he is not entitled to any

relief as prayed for.

4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were

framed.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1797

ISSUES

1. Whether the action of the management of Punjab

National Bank, Bhubaneswar by terminating the services

of workman Shri Banamali Nayak w.e.f. 12.11.2009 is legal

and/or justified?

2. What relief the workman is entitled to?

5. The 2nd Party-Union has filed sworn affidavit of

Shri Banamali Nayak, the aggrieved workman in evidence.

The witness was cross-examined on behalf of the 1st Party-

Management. The 2nd Party-Union has also relied on

several documents which have been marked as Ext.-l to 14.

6. The 1st Party-Management has declined to adduce

any oral evidence, but has filed five documents, which

have neither been proved nor exhibited in evidence.

ISSUE NO. 1

7. The case of the 2nd Party-Union is that the aggrieved

workman Shri Banamali Nayak was terminated from service

by the 1st Party-Management for his long unauthorized

absence from duty allegedly due to illness despite putting

in several years of service without following the principle

of natural justice and the legal mandatory provisions as

envisaged under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes

Act. The undisputed facts are that the aggrieved workman

remained absent from duty from 8.6.2009 to 10.11.2009. He

sent his leave applications from time to time to the 1st

Party-Management through his nephew. He reported to

the 1st Party-Management on 11.11.2009 on being fit to

resume duty, but he was refused to join his duty. Then he

went to the Asst. General Manager on 12.11.2009 to report

for duty with all medical certificates, but he told him to

come on the next day. When he again went to report for

duty on 13.11.2009 he was given the termination letter

stating that the workman has voluntarily abandoned the

service with effect from 12.11.2009. He has alleged that

neither the principles of natural justice were followed nor

mandatory provisions of law were complied with by the 1st

Party-Management before terminating his service.

8. The 1st Party-Management has replied to these

allegations in its written statement stating that in

accordance with the provisions of Para-33 of the Bipartite

Settlement dated 2.6.2005 the workman was terminated from

service for his unauthorized absence from duty

continuously for a period of 90 days without prior sanction

from the competent authority. A notice was given to him on

5.9.2009 with the advice to report for duty within 30 days.

The said notice was received back with remarks of refusal.

Thereafter another notice was issued on 9.10.2009 stating

therein that in case he does not report for duty within

thirty days it would be treated that he had voluntarily

vacated his service. When Shri Nayak neither sent any

reply nor joined duty within the stipulated period of thirty

days he was informed vide letter dated 12.11.2009 that he

has been deemed to have voluntarily vacated his services

with effect from 12.11.2009 and his name was struck-off

from the Bank rolls. The aggrieved workman has stated

that on getting notice from the Management he reported

for duty on 11.11.2009, but he was not allowed to join.

Para-522 of the Shastri Award provides that in case of

termination of any employee other than by way of

disciplinary ground the Management shall give three

months pay and allowances in lieu of three months notice

simultaneously with the termination order. Neither the

Shastri Award nor the settlement or any other law provides

for automatic struck-off of name of the employee from the

roll of the Bank without giving reasonable opportunity of

being heard or without following the mandatory provisions

of law.

9. Para-33 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated

2.6.2005 provides for voluntary cessation of employment

as stated in the above paragraph, but the Bipartite

Settlement dated 10.4.2002 provides for disciplinary action

against the workman staff and procedure thereof, wherein

it has been provided that the workman found guilty of

misconduct whether gross or minor shall not be punished

without giving an opportunity of hearing and holding

proper enquiry unless the punishment proposed to be given

is warning or censure. However it is not clear as to whether

the provisions of Para-33 of the bipartite settlement dated

2.6.2005 will over-ride the provisions of the bipartite

settlement dated 10.4.2002. However leaving aside the terms

of above two settlements it is to be considered what law as

has been propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of D.K. Yadav -versus- J.M.A Industries Limited in

C.A. No. 166 (NL) of 1993 (relied on by the 2nd Party-

workman) and ''Syndicate Bank -Versus- The General

Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association and Another’’

in C.A. No. 4263/1999 relied on by the 1st Party-

Management relating to matters of termination of service

of an employee.

10. In the case of "Syndicate Bank -versus- General

Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association and Another"

relied on by the 1st Party-Management the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held on the facts of the case that the

action taken by the Bank under Clause 16 of the Bipartite

Settlement was justified because the appellant absented

himself from work for a period of 90 or more consecutive

days and he had no intention of joining duties. He did not

join the duties after giving notice as he had no intention

for joining duties. On expiry of notice period the Bank

passed orders that the appellant had voluntarily retired

from service. Undue reliance on the principles of natural

justice by the Tribunal and High Court was pressed and

led miscarriage of justice to the Bank. The conduct of

appellant as an employee of the Bank had been astounding

and therefore termination was justified. However the court

observed that enquiry would have been necessary, if

Dayananda (employee) had submitted his explanation

which was not acceptable to the Bank or contended that

he did report for duty but was not allowed to join by the

Bank. Nothing of the like has happened here.

1798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11. In the other case "D.K. Yadav -versus- J.M.A

Industries Limited" relied on by the 2nd Party-workman

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its full bench decision has

held that ‘‘right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the

Constitution would include right to livelihood. The order

of termination of the service of an employee/workman visits

with civil consequences of jeopardising not only his/her

livelihood but also career and livelihood of dependants.

Therefore before taking any action putting an end to the

tenure of employee/workman fair play requires that a

reasonable opportunity to put forth his case is given and

domestic enquiry conducted complying with the principles

of natural justice.

12. The principles of natural justice must be read into

the Standing Order No. 13(2)(iv) (which provides for

automatic loss of lien). Otherwise it would become arbitrary,

unjust and unfair violating Article 14. When so read the

impugned action is violative of the principles of natural

justice.

13. The Hon'ble Court has further held that ''cardinal

point that has to be borne in mind, in every case, is whether

the person concerned should have a reasonable

opportunity of presenting his case and the authority should

act fairly, justly, reasonably and impartially. It is not so

much to act judicially but is to act fairly, namely, the

procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable in the

particular circumstances of the case. In other words

application of the principles of natural justice that no man

should be condemned unheard intends to prevent the

authority to act arbitrarily effecting the rights of the

concerned person.

14. In the case in hand the aggrieved workman has

clearly stated that due to illness he could not attend his

duties from 8.6.2009 to 10.11.2009. He sent his leave

applications to the 1st Party-Management from time to time

through his nephew. Although he has filed copies of the

medical certificate Ext.-4, representation dated 22.11.2009

Ext.-6 and other papers to plead his case of illness, but

they do not seem to have been considered by the 1st Party-

Management. The aggrieved workman has categorically

stated that he reported for duty on 11.11.2009, but he was

not allowed to join the duty. He then went to the Assistant

General Manager to report for duty on 12.11.2009. He was

asked to come on next day. On 13.11.2009 when he again

reported for duty he was handed over the termination letter

stating voluntarily abandonment of services by him with

effect from 12.11.2009. Thus it is apparent that he was not

given any opportunity for hearing nor his case was duly

considered by the 1st Party-Management. No domestic

enquiry was made in respect of his unauthorized absence

from duty for the period of his continuous absence. Thus

the principles of law laid-down in "D.K. Yadav -versus-

M/s. J.M.A. Industries Limited" by the full court bench of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court are fully applicable in the

present case. The ruling in the case of ''Syndicate Bank -

Versus- General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association

and another" has also given the dictum that "the employer

should follow the principles of natural justice before

termination". Therefore the action of the Management of

Punjab National Bank, Bhubaneswar in terminating the

services of Shri Banamali Nayak with effect from 12.11.2009

cannot be held legal and justified. This issue is decided

against the 1st Party-Management in the negative.

ISSUE NO. 2

15. Since the termination of the workman Shri Banamali

Nayak has been held illegal and unjustified under Issue

No. 1 the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service

with full back wages from 12.11.2009.

16. The reference is answered accordingly.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 665.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

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

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

U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 108@2013½ esa izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@74@97&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2014

S.O. 665.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No. 108/2013) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Punjab National Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

06/02/2014.

[No. L-12012/74/97 - IR(B-Il)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 108/2013

Smt. Sneh Agarwal,

Plot No. 43, Flat No. S-25,

Sector-9, Venus Apartments,

Rohini, Delhi-110085.

… Workman

Versus

The Chairman & Managing Director,

Punjab National Bank,

No.7, Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi-110066.

… Management

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1799

AWARD

An Advanced Level Punching Machine Operator (in

short ALPM Operator), while working at Parliament Street,

New Delhi branch of Punjab National Bank (in short the

bank) was approached by Shri P. S. Bedi, then Manager,

Kallirampur, Meerut branch of the bank for some deposits,

since the later had to meet his targets. She allegedly paid a

sum of Rs. 50,000.00 on 15.11.1990 and another sum of Rs.

10.000.00 on 21.11.1990 to Shri Bedi. An FDR bearing No.

20 of 1991 dated 02.02.1991 for Rs. 60,000.00 was handed

over to the said APLM Operator by Shri Bedi. On 04.02.1991,

she applied for demand loan of Rs. 60,000.00 by pledging

the said FDR with the bank. Loan of Rs. 60,000.00 was

sanctioned in her favour. Later on, it was detected by the

bank that though the FDR purported to have been issued

for a sum of Rs. 60,000 on 02.02.1991, yet only a sum of Rs.

6,000.00 was deposited with the bank on 03.02.1991 and

the amount was inflated on the aforesaid FDR, in conspiracy

with the claimant. On coming to know that the fraud has

been detected, the ALPM Operator refunded the loan

amount by way of deposit of a sum of Rs. 66,500.00 with

the bank on 28.01.1992.

2. A criminal case was lodged with the Central Bureau of

Investigation (in short CBI) in respect of fraud committed

at Kallirampur, Meerut branch, of the bank. CBI took up the

investigation. Bipartite Settlements and Vigilance circulars

of the bank provide that when investigation in a matter is

conducted by the police, the bank is required to keep

disciplinary action in abeyance. Following those guidelines

no disciplinary action was initiated against the ALPM

Operator immediately when fraud came to light. When CBI

advised the bank to proceed with the disciplinary action,

charge sheet dated 07.02.1994 was served on the ALPM

Operator, namely, Smt. Sneh Aggarwal. A domestic enquiry

was constituted, when her reply was found not to be

satisfactory. After giving an opportunity of being heard,

the Enquiry Officer recorded findings against the claimant.

He submitted his report to the bank. The Disciplinary

Authority concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer

and gave an opportunity to the claimant to show cause as

to why punishment of dismissal should not be awarded to

her. After hearing the claimant, the Disciplinary Authority

awarded punishment of dismissal from service, vide his

order dated 08/11.08.1995. Appeal preferred by the claimant

came to be dismissed. She approached the Conciliation

Officer, raising an industrial dispute before him. Since the

bank contested her case, conciliation proceedings ended

into a failure. On consideration of failure report submitted

by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government

referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide

order No.L-12012/74/97/IR(B-ll), New Delhi dated

30.09.1997, with following terms:

"Whether action of management of Punjab National

Bank in dismissing services of Ms. Snehlata

Aggarwal, Clerk/Cashier with effect from 11.08.1995

is just and fair? If not to what relief the workman is

entitled?"

3. The appropriate Government issued corrigendum vide

order No. L-12012/74/97-IR(B-ll), New Delhi dated

23.02.1998 and ordered that the name of the claimant may

be read as 'Sneh Aggarwal' instead of 'Snehlata Aggarwal'.

4. Claim statement was filed by Ms. Sneh Aggarwal

pleading therein that she was appointed as clerk by the

bank on 15.09.1973. She rendered continuous service for a

spell of 13 years, which remained unblemished, untarnished

and without any stigma. While posted at Parliament Street

branch of the bank, she was placed under suspension vide

letter dated 30.01.1992 wherein neither foundation nor

grounds of suspension were mentioned. In order to fill in

the gaps, another suspension order was issued on

31.01.1992 wherein it was mentioned that she has been

suspended in connection with alleged inflation of FDR

No. 20 of 1991, Account No.238 opened at Kallirampur,

Meerut branch, of the bank. Charge sheet was served on

her on 07.02.1994, wherein it was alleged that she misused

her position as a staff member and committed fraud, which

act is prejudicial to the interest of the bank and a misconduct

in terms of para 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated

10.04.1992. Since the charges were denied by her, a domestic

enquiry was constituted on 30.06.1994 appointuing

Shri RMC Vaish, Senior Manager as Enquiry Officer. Vide

order dated 27.01.1994, he was replaced by Shri D.D. Sharma

as Enquiry Officer, who was Senior Manager (Personnel),

without assigning any reasons for the change. He was

under direct control of the Disciplinary Authority. He had

not acted impartially but in fact had given in to whims and

fancies of the Disciplinary Authority. She was not allowed

to be defended by a Defence Representative, when her

earlier Defence Representative left midway.

5. The claimant, prior to her posting at Parliament Street,

was working under the overall charge of Shri P.S. Bedi at

Tilak Nagar branch of the bank, who was later on transferred

to Kallirampur branch of the bank, as an Incumbent Incharge.

She was approached by Shri Bedi requesting her for some

deposit so as to enable him to achieve his target. She had

given Rs. 50.000.00 and Rs. 10,000.00 on 15.11.1990 and

21.11.1990 respectively, alongwith on application form, for

issuance of an FDR. The FDR bearing No. 20/91 dated

02.02.1991 was handed over to her. Since she was in need

of money, she applied for Demand Loan at Parliament Street

branch of the bank .Later on, it transpired that the FDR was

issued for Rs. 6000.00 instead of Rs. 60,000.00, hence she

immediately adjusted the demand loan on 28.01.1992. On

29.01.1992, she was called by the Chief Manager, Parliament

Street branch of the bank in his chamber. Where other

Officers were also sitting. He burst out saying that she had

committed a fraud by inflating FDR of Rs. 6000.00 on to

Rs. 60000.00 and threatened her with dire consequences of

her dismissal from service and arrest by police. A

confessional statement was obtained under duress. As per

1800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

regular practice, the FDR was prepared by Shri P.S. Bedi

and signed by Shri Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal. If the FDR,

in original, is produced, it would prove that the FDR was

prepared for Rs. 60,000.00, with no erasing, overwriting or

cutting or any sort. Further, the FDR is dated 02.02.1991

and no entries occur in the books of the bank to the effect

that this amount was deposited. A sum of Rs. 6000 was

deposited only on 04.02.1991. How was it possible that

two officials have signed the FDR without formalities being

completed. Materially important documents were not made

available to her during the enquiry and only two out of

three witnesses were examined by the bank. Shri P.S. Bedi,

the witness examined by the claimant in defence, admitted

his guilt of having embezzled the amount. The findings of

the Enquiry Officer are malafide, arbitrary, vindictive, based

on conjunctures, surmises, hearsay evidence and against

the principles of natural justice. None of the documents

relied by the bank proves any conspiracy on her part.

Rather, it was Shri P.S. Bedi who took cash of Rs. 60,000.00

and accounted for Rs. 6000.00 in books of the bank.

6. In her submissions on the findings of the enquiry,

she protested against the attitude of the Enquiry Officer,

who during course of enquiry never allowed her to speak,

stating that the charges are not being proved against her.

It was told time and again that she had on hand at all in the

fraud. How could she, who was not working at Kallirampur

branch of the bank, have a hand in the fraud. It was

Shri Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal and Shri P.S. Bedi who were

masterminds. 29 FDRs were prepared in the names of

Shri P.S Bedi's sons and a few others. She was trapped and

defrauded by Shri Bedi. Show cause notice was served on

her, proposing punishment of dismissal from service. The

order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is unreasoned,

non-speaking, without application of mind, and passed in

mechanical, stereotyped and illegal manner. Appeal

preferred by the claimant also came to be dismissed. She

prays that the Enquiry report and the impugned order of

dismissal from service may be quashed, besides a command

to the bank to reinstate her in service with all consequential

benefits of seniority and promotions.

7. Claim was demurred by the bank pleading that the

claimant was charge sheeted on 07.02.1994 by the

Disciplinary Authority for her alleged acts of entering into

a conspiracy with Shri P.S. Bedi the then Manager at

Kallirampur Branch of the bank for prepared an FDR

No. 20 of 91 for Rs. 6000.00, which was later on inflated to

Rs. 60,000.00 with ulterior motive. Subsequently, against

this inflated FDR, she availed a demand loan on 04.02.1991.

Out of the overdraft of Rs. 60,000.00, she utilized a sum of

Rs. 35,933.10 towards adjustment of another demand loan

account No.73/25 and an amount of Rs. 1000,00 in her

demand loan account No.74/25 on 04.02.1991 itself. As

reply submitted by the claimant was found to be not

satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was constituted. She was

afforded all opportunity to present her case. It was denied

that the claimant was harassed or victimized, since she was

a female staff. Subsistence allowance was paid to her as

per rules. Charge sheet dated 07.02.1994 was send on the

claimant in consonance with para 19.4 of the Bipartite

Settlement as well as vigilance circulars, which contemplate

that till on investigation is concluded by the CBI authorises,

the bank is required to keep disciplinary action in abeyance.

All necessary and relevant documents were suppllied to

the claimant during the course of enquiry. She was allowed

inspection of the relevant documents Further counterfoil,

vouchers, cash long book. FD long book etc. were all shown

is the claimant Assistance of Defence Assistant was allowed

to the claimant Shri K. R. Nagpal, the defence

representative, withdrew himself from the enquiry

proceedings on 14.02.1995 without assigning any reasons.

At no point of time, the bank prevented her from being

assisted by a Defence Representative, after earlier Defence

Representative withdrew from the enquiry. The claimant

made a statement on the said date that she does not want

to lead to any further evidence but would like to make a

statement for which she requested time. Her request was

acceded to. The enquiry was conducted in Hindi on the

next date and the claimant made a detailed statement.

8. Adverse conclusion cannot be drawn merely because

one of the witnesses was not produced before the Enquiry

Officer. It is the prerogative of the Presenting Officer to

decide on the isssue of production of witnesses. The

Enquiry Officer submitted his report after taking into

account entire material on record, including contentions,

pleas and submissions made by the claimant. The Enquiry

Officer acted impartially and conducted the proceedings in

accordance with provisions of the Bipartite Settlements.

The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the entire

material on record as well as submissions made by the

claimant, proposed punishment of dismissal vide show

cause dated 01.07.1095, and granted her a personal hearing.

The said punishment was confirmed vide order dated

08/11.03.1995. Thereafter, the appeal preferred by her also

came to be dismissed. It is denied that the orders passed

by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority

are unreasoned, non-speaking, without application of mind,

mechanical and illegal. It has been claimed that the claim

statement may be dismissed.

9. On perusal of pleadings, following issues were settled

by my learned predecessor:

(i) Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against

the workman is fair and proper?

(ii) As in terms of reference.

10. To discharge onus resting on the bank, Shri P.C.

Jain, Senior Manager was examined. Claimant entered the

witness box to testify fact in support of her claim. No other

witness was examined by either of the parties.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1801

11. Vide order No. Z-22019/6/2007-IR(C-ll), New Delhi

dated 11.02.2008, the case was transferred to Central

Government Industrial Tribunal No 2, New Delhi, for

adjudication by the appropriate Government.

12. On hearing the parties, an award was passed by the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, New Delhi,

on 10.08.2011, wherein it was concluded that the enquiry

conducted by the bank was not just, fair and proper. The

Tribunal announced that action of the bank in dismissing

the claimant was neither just nor fair. The Tribunal ordered

reinstatement of the claimant in service with continuity

and all consequential benefits.

13. The bank assailed the award before the High Court

of Delhi by way of writ petition No.9083 of 2011. The writ

petition was granted by the High Court vide its order dated

17.04.2013 on the strength of which the impugned award

was set aside. The case was remitted back to the Tribunal

to grant opportunity to the bank to lead its evidence with a

right to the claimant to rebut it, besides to make their

submissions on the aspect of establishment of the charge

against the claimant The Tribunal was commended to pass

a fresh award on the basis of further evidence that it would

record, without being influenced by observations made in

the impugned award.

14. Vide notification No. A-11016/3/2009-CLS-ll, New

Delhi dated 03.04.2013. additional charge of the post of the

Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal

No. II, New Delhi, was assigned to the undersigned by the

appropriate Government and thus the case reached this

Tribunal for adjudication.

15. Pursuant to order dated 17.04.2013 passed by the

High Court of Delhi, the bank was called upon to adduce

its evidence to prove misconduct of the claimant. Ms. Rimi

Ray, Manager (HR) and Shri Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal were

examined by the bank to prove misconduct of the claimant.

Their cross examination was also recorded, which remained

incomplete. For their further cross examination, matter was

adjourned to 15.07.2013. In between, the Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, New Delhi,

had taken over charge. The case was sent to his board for

adjudication.

16. Vide order No. L-12012/74/1997-IR(B-ll), New Delhi

dated 26.07.2013, case was transferred to this Tribunal for

adjudication by the appropriate Government.

17. Ms. Rimi Ray and Shri Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal

entered the witness box again to face rigours of cross

examination. On conclusion of their depositions, the bank

opted not to examine any other witness. Claimant again

entered the witness box to rebut depositions of Ms. Rimi

Ray and Shri Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal. She also opted not

to examine any other witness in rebuttal.

18. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Bharat Gupta,

authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the claimant. Shri Rajat Arora, authorized representative,

assisted by Ms. Rimi Ray, Manager (HR) made submissions

on behalf of the bank. I have given my careful

considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and

cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues

involved in the controversy are as follows.

Issue No. 1.

19. Four standards were delineated by the Labour

Appellate Tribunal in Buckingham & Carnatic Company

Limited (1952 LAC. 490) to render managerial right of taking

disciplinary action vulnerable , namely, (i) where there is a

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

unfair labour practice or violation of the principles of natural

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

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

This articulation was adopted by the Apex Court with slight

modification in Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited

[1958(1) LLJ 260]. without any acknowledgement to the

precedent in Buckingham & Carnatic case (supra), wherein

it was ruled that the power of the management to direct its

own internal administration and discipline was not unlimited

and liable to be interfered with by industrial adjudication

when a dispute arises to see whether termination of services

of a workman is justified and to give appropriate relief.

However, it was announced that the jurisdiction of an

Industrial Tribunal to interfere with the managerial

prerogative of taking disciplinary action is not of appellate

nature as the legislature has not chosen to confer such

jurisdiction upon it. Hence Tribunal could not substitute

its own judgement for that of the management. The Court

laid down that in the following circumstances an industrial

adjudicator can interfere with the disciplinary action taken

by the employer: (1) when there is want of good faith, (2)

when there was victimization or unfair labour practice, (3)

when the management had been guilty of a basic error or

violation of the principles of natural justice, or (4) when an

the materials, the finding was completely baseless or

perverse.

20. Enunclation (1) and (2), referred above, are addressed

to the bona fides of the employer in initiating the action

and inflicting the punishment, while postulates (3) and (4)

are addressed to domestic enquiry. Therefore, an employer

is required to act bona-fide in initiating disciplinary action

as well as in inflicting the punishment. In initiating the

action, the alleged act of misconduct should not be a ruse

tor something else, such as the trade union activities of the

workman or employers dislike of him for some personal

reasons. The action should not be motivated by vindictive-

ness or ulterior purpose, so as to smack for victimization or

unfair labour practice. Likewise in the matter of inflicting

punishment, the employer should act fairly. In case

punishment awarded is so shockingly disproportionate to

the act of the misconduct, as no reasonable man would

ever impose that itself may lead to an inference of malafides,

victimization or unfair labour practice. In holding enquiry,

the Enquiry Officer must comply with the rules of natural

justice. He must not be a biased person and give reasonable

opportunity to both sides for being heard. His findings

should not be baseless or perverse.

1802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

21. In Ramswarth Sinha (1954 L.A.C. 697) the Labour

Appellate Tribunal recognized the right of the management

to ask for permission to adduce evidence before the Tribunal

to justify its action in a "no enquiry" case. Following that

proposition the Apex Court equated the cases of "defective

enquiry" with "no enquiry" cases and ruled that in either

cases, the Tribunal have jurisdiction to go into the merits

of the case on the basis of evidence adduced before it by

the parties. Reference can be made to the precedent in

Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. [1965(2) LLJ 162] where

the employer had held no enquiry at all before the dismissal

and therefore, adduced evidence to justify its action before

the Tribunal, which decision was upheld. The Apex Court

discarded the plea on behalf of the workman that since no

enquiry at all had been held by the employer, it had no right

to adduce evidence to justify its stand before the Tribunal.

In Ritz Theatre [1962 (II) LLJ 498] it was ruled by the Supreme

Court that the Tribunal would be justified to go to the

merits of the case and decide for itself on the basis of the

evidence adduced whether the charges have indeed been

made out. It announced that it would neither be fair to the

management nor fair to the workman himself in such a case

that the Tribunal should refuse to take the evidence and

thereby drive the management to pass through the whole

process of holding the enquiry all over again. Reference

can also be made to the precedent in Bharat Sugar Mills

Ltd. [1961 (11) LLJ 644)]

22. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company [1972 (1)

LLJ 180], Apex Court considered the catena of decisions

over the subject and laid down the following principles:

"(1) If no domestic enquiry had been held by the

management, or if the management makes it clear

that it does not rely upon any domestic enquiry that

may have been held by it, it is entitled to straightaway

adduce evidence before the Tribunal justifying its

action. The Tribunal is bound to consider that

evidence so adduced before it, on merits, and give a

decision thereon. In such a case, it is not necessary

for the Tribunal to consider the validity of the

domestic enquiry as the employer himself does not

rely on it.

(2) If a domestic enquiry had been held, it is open to

the management to rely upon the domestic enquiry

held by it, in the first instance, and alternatively and

without prejudice to its plea that the enquiry is proper

and binding, simultaneously adduce additional

evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action. In

such a case no inference can be drawn, without

anything more, that the management has given up

the enquiry conducted by it.

(3) When the management relies on the enquiry

conducted by it, and also simultaneously adduces

evidence before the Tribunal, without prejudice to

its plea that the enquiry proceedings are proper, it is

the duty of the Tribunal, in the first instance, to

consider whether the enquiry proceedings

conducted by the management, are valid and proper.

If the Tribunal is satisfied that the enquiry

proceedings have been held properly and are valid,

the question of considering the evidence adduced

before it on merits, no longer survives. It is only

when the holds that the enquiry proceedings have

not been properly held, that it derives jurisdiction to

deal with the merits of the dispute and in such a case

it has to consider the evidence adduced before it by

the management and decide the matter on the basis

of such evidence.

(4) When the domestic enquiry has been held by the

management and the management relies on the same,

it is open to the latter to request the Tribunal to try

the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary

issue and also ask for an opportunity to adduce

evidence before the Tribunal, if the finding on the

preliminary issue is against The management.

However, elaborate and cumbersome the procedure

may be, under such circumstances, it is open to the

Tribunal to deal, in the first instance, as a preliminary

issue the validity of the domestic enquiry. If its

finding on the preliminary issue is in favour of the

management, then no additional evidence need be

cited by the management. But, if the finding on the

preliminary issue is against the management, the

Tribunal will have to give the employer an

opportunity to cite additional evidence and also give

a similar opportunity to the ernployee to lead

evidence contra, as the request to adduce evidence

had been made by the management to the Tribunal

during the course of the proceedings and before the

trial has come to an end. When the preliminary issue

is decided against the management and the latter

leads evidence before the Tribunal, the position,

under such circumstances, will be, that the

management is deprived of the benefit of having the

finding of the domestic tribunal being accepted as

prima facie proof of the alleged misconduct. On the

other hand, the management will have to prove, by

adducing proper evidence, that the workman is guilty

of misconduct and that the action taken by it is proper.

It will not be just and fair either to the management or

to the workman that the Tribunal should refuse to

take evidence and thereby ask the management to

take a further application, after holding a proper

enquiry, and deprive the workman of the benefit of

the Tribunal itself being satisfied, on evidence

adduced before it, that he was or was not guilty of

the alleged misconduct.

(5) The management has got a right to attempt to

sustain its order by adducing independent evidence

before the Tribunal. But the management should avail

itself of the said opportunity by making a suitable

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1803

request to the Tribunal before the proceedings are

closed. If no such opportunity has been available of,

or asked for by the management, before the

proceedings are closed, the employer can make no

grievance that the Tribunal did not provide such an

opportunity. The Tribunal will have before it only

the enquiry proceedings and it has to decide whether

the proceedings have been held properly and the

findings recorded therein are also proper.

(6) If the employer relies only on the domestic enquiry

and does not simultaneously lead additional

evidence or ask for an opportunity during the

pendancy of the proceedings to adduce such

evidence, the duty of the Tribunal is only to consider

the validity of the domestic enquiry as well as the

finding recorded therein and decide the matter. If the

Tribunal decides that the domestic enquiry has not

been held properly, it is not its function to invite suo

moto the employer to adduce evidence before it to

justify the action taken by it.

(7) The above principles apply to the proceedings

before the Tribunal, which have come before it either

on a reference under Section 10 or by way of an

application under Sector 33 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

23. Keeping in view the proposition laid by the Apex

Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company (supra),

the Parliament inserted section 11-A in the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act), which came into

force w.e.f. 15th of December 1971, In the statement of

objects and reasons for inserting section 11-A, it was stated:

"In Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited and

Another Vs. Their Workmen (AIR 1958 S.C. 130 at

p.138), the Supreme Court, while considering the

Tribunal's power to interfere with the management's

decision to dismiss, discharge or terminate the

services of a workman, has observed that in case of

dismissal on misconduct, the Tribunal does not act

as a court of appeal and substitute its own judgment

for that of the management and that the Tribunal will

interfere only when there is want of good faith,

victimization, unfair labour practice, etc., on the part

of the management.

2. The International Labour Organisation, in its

recommendation (No. 119) concerning 'Termination

of employment at the initiative of the employer'

adopted in June 1963, has recommended that a worker

aggrieved by the termination of his employment

should be entitled to appeal against the termination

among others, to a neutral body such as an arbitrator,

a court, an arbitration committee or a similar body

and that the neutral body concerned should be

empowered to examine the reasons given in the

termination of employment and the other

circumstances relating to the case and to render a

decision on the justification of the termination. The

International Labour Organisation has further

recommended that the neutral body should be

empowered (if it finds that the termination of

employment was unjustified) to order that the worker

concerned, unless reinstated with unpaid wages,

should be paid adequate compensation or afforded

some other relief.

3. In accordance with these recommendations, it is

considered that the Tribunal's power in an

adjudication proceeding relating to discharge or

dismissal of a workman should not be limited and

that the Tribunal should have the power, in cases

wherever necessary to set aside the order of

discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of

the workman on such terms and conditions, if any,

as it thinks fit or give such other reliefs to the

workman including the award of any lesser

punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the

circumstances of the case may require. For this

purpose, a new Section 11-A is proposed to be

inserted in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947….".

24. After insertion of section 11-A, the Apex Court

summed up the law in the case of Firestone Tyre and Rubber

Company [1973 (1) LLJ 278] in the following propositions:

"(1) The right to take disciplinary action and to decide

upon the quantum of punishment are mainly

managerial functions, but if a dispute is referred to a

Tribunal, the latter has power to see if action of the

employer is justified.

(2) Before imposing the punishment, as employer is

expected to conduct a proper enquiry in accordance

with the provisions of the Standing Orders, if

applicable, and principles of natural justice. The

enquiry should not be an empty formality.

(3) When a proper enquiry has been held by an

employer, and the finding of misconduct is a plausible

conclusion flowing from the evidence, adduced at

the said enquiry, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

sit in judgement over the decision of the employer as

an appellate body. The interference with the decision

of the employer will be justified only when the

findings arrived at in the enquiry are perverse or the

management is guilty of victimization, unfair labour

practice or malafide.

(4) Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer

or if the enquiry held by him is found to be defective,

the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality

and validity of the order, had to give an opportunity

to the employer and employee to adduce evidence

before it. It is open to the employer to adduce

evidence for the first time justifying his action, and it

is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra.

1804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(5) The effect of an employer not holding an enquiry is

that the Tribunal would not have to consider only whether

there was a prima facie case. On the other hand, the issue

about the merits of the impugned order of dismissal or

discharge is at large before the Tribunal and the latter, on

the evidence adduced before it, has to decide for itself

whether the misconduct alleged is proved. In such cases,

the point about the exercise of managerial functions does

not arise at all. A case of defective enquiry stands on the

same footing as no enquiry.

(6) The Tribunal gets jurisdiction to consider the

evidence placed before it for the first time; in justification

of the action taken only, if no enquiry has been held or

after the enquiry conducted by an employer is found to be

defective.

(7) It has never been recognized that the Tribunal should

straightaway, without anything more, direct reinstatement

of a dismissed or discharged employee, once it is found

that no domestic enquiry has been held or the said enquiry

is found to be defective.

(8) An employer, who wants to avail himself of the

opportunity of adducing evidence for the first time before

the Tribunal to justify his action, should ask for it at the

appropriate stage. If such an opportunity is asked for, the

Tribunal has no power to refuse. The giving of an

opportunity to an employer to adduce evidence for the

first time before the Tribunal is in the interest of both the

management and the employee and to enable the Tribunal

itself to be satisfied about the alleged misconduct.

(9) Once the misconduct is proved either in the enquiry

conducted by an employer or by the evidence placed before

a Tribunal for the first time, punishment imposed cannot,

be interfered with by the Tribunal except in cases where

the punishment is so harsh as to suggest victimization.

(10) In a particular case, after setting aside the order of

dismissal, whether a workman should be reinstated or paid

compensation is, as held by this Court in The Management

of Panitole Tea Estate Vs. The workmen, within the judicial

decision of a Labour Court or Tribunal.."

25. In Mahatta [2012(133) FLR 413], the High Court of

Delhi dealt with a series of decision on the topic and ruled

that an industrial adjudicator, upon completion of pleadings,

is required to proceed with the adjudication in the following

manner:

(a) To examine whether the domestic enquiry preceding

the punishment is pleaded to have been held and

documents in support thereof filed.

(b) If the domestic enquiry it pleaded and the documents

in support thereof filed, and the workman has

challenged the validity of the said domestic enquiry,

to determine whether such challenge is on any factual

or purely legal grounds and frame issues on the same.

pleaded but no documents in support thereof filed,

the question of framing any issue as to domestic

inquiry does not arise.

(d) If an issue as aforesaid to the domestic inquiry has

been framed and the employee has also sought

opportunity to in the alternative establish misconduct

before the Industrial Adjudicator, to frame issue

thereon also, simultaneously with framing issues on

validity of inquiry.

(e) To, after hearing the parties consider whether in the

facts of the present case any prejudice (other than

as above) is likely to be caused to either of the parties

if evidence on both sets of issues is led together.

Only on finding, by a reasoned order, a case of such

prejudice or any other reason, is the trial to be

bifurcated into two states. Else, the parties to be

directed to lead evidence on both sets of issues

together.

(f) To, if the evidence on both sets of issues has been

recorded together, to first consider the evidence only

on the aspect of validity of the inquiry and without

being influenced in any manner whatsoever by the

depositions of the witnesses on the merits of the

dispute, i.e. misconduct with which the workman was

charged with, if the enquiry is found to be vitiated

and a finding in that regard is returned, the Industrial

Adjudicator may then proceed to adjudicate on the

basis of evidence in that respect, whether misconduct

has been established or not.

(g) The Industrial Adjudicator to, on case to case basis,

decide whether the arguments on both aspects are

to be heard together or at different stags. However,

as aforesaid an endeavour is to be made to record

the evidence of the witness on both issues in one go

only.

26. In view of the law laid above, it is evident that at the

stage of adjudication for virus of the enquiry, the Tribunal

is not supposed to look into the evidence adduced by the

bank on merits of the case. In case domestic enquiry would

be held to be not in consonance with principles of natural

justice, evidence adduced on merits of the case would be

looked into in order to adjudicate as to whether the

misconduct has been established or not. Therefore, now I

would proceed to examine the evidence adduced by the

parties on virus of the enquiry.

27. In a domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer is under

an obligation to conduct the proceedings in accordance

with requirements of statutory provisions or rules. In private

sector, the procedure for holding of an enquiry is laid down

by standing order framed under the Industrial Employment

(Standing Orders) Act, 1946. which standing orders have

force of law. Even where no procedure for enquiry has

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1805

been laid down, the employer is to follow a reasonable

procedure for according an opportunity to the employee

to defend himself in the matter. Since the object of

departmental enquiry is to find out whether punishment

should not be imposed against an employee, the principles

of natural justice are applicable to departmental enquiries,

even though there may be no rule or statutory provisions

government the procedure of departmental enquiry before

such authority. The principles of natural justice are those

rules which have been laid down by the courts as being

the minimum protection of the rights of the individual

against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a

judicial or quasi judicial authority, while making an order

affecting those rights. These principles are well settled

and described thus:

i. That every person whose civil rights are affected

must have a reasonable notice of the case he has to

meet.

ii. That he must have reasonable opportunity of being

heard in his defence.

iii. That the hearing must be by an impartial tribunal,

that is, a person who is neither directly nor indirectly

a party to the case.

iv. That the authority must act in good faith, and not

arbitrary but reasonably.

28. To show that the domestic enquiry stood vitiated

the workman may highlight the following propositions.

(i) The enquiry is defective on account of violations of

principles of natural justice.

(a) The employee was not informed of the charge

against him.

(b) No evidence was taken in support of the charges.

not been examined in the presence of the

employee.

(d) The employee was not given a fair opportunity

to cross examine the witnesses examined by the

management.

(e) The employee was not given a fair opportunity

to examine witnesses including himself in his

defence, if he so wishes, on any relevant matter,

(f) The enquiry officer has not written a report,

giving his findings with reasons.

(g) The dismissal is founded on a ground which

was not included in the charge sheet served

upon him in respect of which the enquiry was

held.

(h) The dismissal is founded on the interrogation

of the workmen, without examining any

witnesses in support of the charges.

(ii) The enquiry was not held in accordance with the

relevant standing order of the establishment.

29. Whether the bank has been able to follow settled

principles to conduct enquiry against the claimant? For an

answer to this proposition, facts testified by Shri P.C. Jain,

Manager and the claimant, besides material placed over

the record, are to be scanned. Shri Jain unfolds in his

affidavit Ex. MW1/1 that on the first date of enquiry, charge

was read over to the employee, who denied all those

allegations. List of documents and witnesses, relied by the

bank to substantiate the charges, were supplied. Original

documents were allowed to be inspected at Kallirampur

branch. Original of FDR No. 20/91 (A/c No. 238) for an

amount of Rs. 60,000.00 and copy of AOF dated 04.02.1991

alongwith promissory note submitted by the claimant for

demand loan were not produced since the same were seized

by the CBI. Seizure memo and certified copies were produced

for inspection. Claimant, in conspiracy with Shri P.S. Bedi,

got prepared FDR No. 20 of 91 for a sum of Rs. 6000.00 from

Kallirampur branch and inflated the amount to Rs. 60,000.00

with ulterior motive. Thereafter she raised a demand loan

of Rs. 60,000.00 at Parliament Street branch of the bank on

the inflated FDR, During the course of cross examination,

he denied the fact that the defence assistant was not

available to the claimant throughout the enquiry. He also

denied the suggestion that opportunity for adducing

evidence was not given to her. He further denied that the

enquiry was not fair and proper, since full opportunity was

not given to her to defend herself.

30. Claimant details in her affidavit Ex.WW1/1, tendered

as evidence, that she had no role to play in functioning of

Kallirampur branch of the bank where FDR was prepared.

She details that enquiry was conducted in illegal manner.

Enquiry Office, Shir RMC Vaish, appointed on 30.06.1994,

was illegally changed on 27.10.1994. The Enquiry Report is

perverse since it is not based on any evidence. The Enquiry

Officer had not taken into consideration the confessional

statement made by Shri P.S. Bedi Original FDR, alleged to

have been inflated, was not produced before the Enquiry

Officer She was left in lurch when her defence assistant

withdrew himself under influence of the bank. Additional

documents demanded were not supplied to her. Smt.

Sudesh Malhotra, custodian of FDR at Parliament Street

branch of the bank, was not examined. The Enquiry Officer

acted partially. He recorded findings "the lady staff member

had intimacy with Shri Bedi", which was beyond the scope

of enquiry. She claims that dismissal order was malafide.

Shri P.S. Bedi and Shri P.K. Aggarwal were not proceeded

against departmentally, for reasons best known to the bank.

Her alleged confessional statement, obtained under duress

on 29.01.2002. was used. She projects that it was Shri Bedi

and Shri Aggarwal who played the entire drama. There was

no inflation in the amount of FDR. Otherwise, the bank

would not have granted her demand loan. CBI had not filed

any report against her.

1806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

31. Besides the above facts, enquiry proceedings were

filed before the Tribunal. During the course of arguments,

the claimant does not dispute that enquiry proceedings

were recorded by the Enquiry Officer. She does not dispute

authenticity of the enquiry proceedings,filed on record of

the Tribunal. Therefore, enquiry proceedings would be

looked into in order to ascertain as to whether the enquiry

conducted was not in consonance with principles of natural

justice.

32. Charge sheet dated 07.01.1994 has been placed on

record, contents of which are not disputed at all. When

charge sheet is scanned, it came to light that charges

levelled therein are couched in intelligible words, which

make the claimant well known about the charges which are

to be defended by her. There is no ambiguity in the charge

sheet, which may come in her way for preparation of

defence. She was informed through the charge sheet as to

what are the charges which would be proved during the

course of enquiry. It emerged over the record that the charge

sheet, served on the claimant, was well worded without

any ambiguity therein.

33. Proceedings dated 28.11.1994 make it apparent that

the claimant appeared before the Enquiry Officer, who

explained charges to her. She understood the charges and

denied all the allegations. Procedure of the enquiry was

explained to her. She was told that she was free to take

assistance from a defence assistant, in terms of provisions

of Bipartite Settlements. List of witnesses and documents

were supplied to the claimant. The Presenting Officer placed

19 documents before the Enquiry Officer, which were taken

over the record by him. Enquiry was adjourned for

02.12.1994, on which date, claimant appeared before the

Enquiry Officer alongwith Shri K.R. Nagpal, here defence

assistant. Shri Nagpal made a request to inspect original of

the documents, relied by the Presenting Officer in the matter.

He explains that since two documents were at Kallirampur

branch of the bank, the same would be inspected there in

the branch. The Presenting Officer made it clear that copy

of FDR No.20 of 1991 and account opening form dated

04.02.1991 alongwith promissory note of the claimant were

seized by the CBI. He placed seizure memo for inspection.

Original of other documents, than referred above, were

inspected by Shri Nagpal on that date. Enquiry proceedings

were adjourned to be held on 23.12.1994 at Kallirampur

branch of the bank.

34. On 23.12.1994, documents, viz, copy of credit cash

voucher of MBFD (Account No.238) FD 20 of 91 for a sum

of Rs. 6000.00 and copy of ledger sheet in respect of FD

Account No. 238 dated 02.02.1991 for a sum of Rs. 6000.00

favouring the claimant were inspected by Shri Nagpal there

at Kallirampur branch of the bank.

35. On 16.01.1995, the defence representative made it

clear that except the documents seized by the CBI, rest of

the documents are not disputed. Shri Pradeep Kumar

Aggarwal was examined by the bank before the Enquiry

Officer on that date. He was cross examined by the defence

assistant, but in part. His further cross examination was

conducted on 24.01.1995. Enquiry was adjourned for

01.02.1995.

36. On 01.02.1995, the defence assistant made a request

to the Enquiry Officer to record statement of Shri Pritam

Singh Bedi, in defence of the claimant. The Enquiry Officer

made it clear that the defence witness would be examined

at the appropriate stage. However, at the request of the

defence assistant, who claimed that Shri Bedi would not be

available thereafter, Shri P.S. Bedi was examined as defence

witness on that date. The Enquiry Officer made it clear that

as a special case, he had recorded statement of Shri Bedi in

between, without concluding evidence of the bank. After

examination of Shri Bedi, Shri B.L. Gupta was examined by

the Presenting Officer. Cross examination of Shri Gupta

was also concluded. The Presenting Officer closed his

evidence in the enquiry and proceedings were adjourned

for 14.02.1995.

37. On 14.02.1995 Shri Nagpal made a statement that he

does not want to remain defence assistant any further

Claimant made it clear that except her own statements, she

would not adduce any other defence evidence. At her

request, enquiry proceedings were adjourned for

21.02.1995. On 21.02.1995, claimant testified in her defence.

Evidence before the Enquiry Officer was closed by her.

38. Claimant asked for cash book dated 02.02.1991

relating to FDR No.20/91 prepared at Kallirampur branch,

cashier's long book dated 02.02.1991, photocopy of FDR

FDR No. 20 of 91, which documents were not supplied to

her. She claims that by non-supply of the above documents,

she was not given an opportunity to defend herself. When

her contention is appreciated in the light of facts brought

over the record, it emerged that issuance of FDR No. 20 of

91 by Kallirampur branch is not a disputes fact. Copy of

cashier's long book, counterfoil of the FDR, copy of FDR

issue register and AOF were demanded by the claimant in

order to show that the FDR in question was issued for a

sum of Rs.60,000.00 and not for a sum of Rs. 6,000.00. These

documents were inspected by her at Kallirampur branch

on 23.12.1994. Furthermore, by the time she asked for these

documents, Shri P.S. Bedi was examined by her in defence.

Facts stated by Shri Bedi in EX.WW1/M3 were relied by

the claimant wholeheartedly In Ex.WW1/M3, Shri Bedi

projected that the claimant was only a name lender for the

amount, which he was to deposit in FD account. He admits

issuance of FDR for Rs.6000.00 and inflation of that amount

to Rs.60,000.00, in Ex.WW1/M3. In the light of these facts,

her claim for supply of documents was not justified.

39. As detailed above, all documents, needed to prepare

her defence were supplied to the claimant. She was allowed

to be defended by a representative of her choice. When

Shri Nagpal withdraw himself, she opted to defene herself

in person. Witnesses were examined by the bank in her

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1807

presence. She was given opportunity and right to cross-

examine witnesses examined by the bank. She was allowed

to examine witnesses in her defence, including herself. She

was heard over the matter. All these aspects make it clear

that due and reasonable opportunities were given to the

claimant to defend herself.

40. Enquiry report was perused to ascertain as to

whether it was based on evidence Produced before the

Enquiry Officer or perverse. For this purpose the Tribunal

has to assess the report to know whether findings recorded

is based on material available on record. What are the

standards on which the Tribunal may record its

"satisfaction" to the effect that findings of misconduct,

recorded by the Enquiry Officer, is correct? One of the

tests, which the Tribunal is entitled to apply, is whether the

conclusion of the Enquiry Officer was perverse or whether

there was basic error in approach adopted by him. There

should be a report recorded by the Enquiry Officer and

there should be correlation between the evidence and

findings recorded, showing application of mind. Findings

of the Enquiry Officer must be supported by legal evidence.

Report of the Enquiry Officer will be vitiated where he acts

malafide, that is, ignored or excluded from consideration a

vital and material piece of evidence or took into

consideration any irrelevant or extraneous material or where

he transgressed rules of natural justice by being biased

against the workman or denied to the delinquent employee

a reasonable opportunity to defend or where his report is

perverse, id est the findings are not supported by any

evidence or entirely opposed to the evidence on record.

Reference can be made to precedent in Ved Prakash

Aggarwal (1996 Lab. I.C. 120) and S.C.Prasad [1969 (II)

LLJ 799], However, it must be borne in mind that the person

appointed to hold such enquires are not lawyers. A wrong

finding is not necessarily a perverse finding and a finding

cannot be described to be perverse merely because it is

possible to take a different view on the evidence. See

precedents in Parry & Co. [1966 (1) LLJ 535] and New Victoria

Mills Ltd. (1970 Lab. I.C. 428). Law laid in Ved Prakash

Aggarwal (supra) and Elgin Mils Cc. [1931 Lab. I.C. (NOG)

172] also supports that view.

41. In deciding the question as to whether a particular

conclusion of fact was perverse or not, the Tribunal would

not be justified in weighing the evidence for itself and

determining the question of perversity of the view arrived

at by the Enquiry Officer in the light of his own findings on

the question of fact. See Hamdard Dawakhana Wakf [1962

(II) LLJ 772]. In a domestic enquiry, once a conclusion is

decided from evidence, it is not permissible to assail that

conclusion even through it is possible for some other

authority to arrive at a different conclusion on the some

evidence. Reference can be made to Banaras Electricity

Light and Power Co. Ltd. [1972(11) LLJ 328]. Legal position,

detailed in above precedents, changed on introduction of

section 11A of the Act.

42. In Powari Tea Estate [1965 (II) LLJ 102] and Khardah

and Co. Ltd. [1963(11) LLJ 452] the Apex Court ruled that

the enquiry report is a document which will have to be

closely examined by the Industrial Tribunal when a dispute

pertaining to disciplinary action against the employee is

brought before it for its adjudication. The Calcutta High

Court declares in Howrah Trading Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. [1996 (II)

LLJ 282] that a cryptic report, for instance, without stating

any reasons will be of little value. Failure of the Enquiry

Officer to record his findings and conclusions at the end of

the enquiry would render the enquiry invalid. Non-

production of the enquiry report before the Industrial

Tribunal led to a declaration that the enquiry was invalid,

when there was no evidence that a report was at all recorded

by the Enquiry Officer. See Samnuggur Jute Factory Co.

Ltd. [1994(I) LLJ 634]. In Prakash Chand Jain [1969 (II) LLJ

377] the Apex Court announced that the report of the

Enquiry Officer must be supported by legal evidence. In

Rajinder Kumar Kindra [1984 (II) LLJ 5245] it was further

stated by the Supreme Court that where findings are based

on no legal evidence and are either ipse dixit or based on

conjectures and surmises unrelated to evidence and they

disclose non-application of mind, such findings and

conclusions are perverse.

43. Findings recorded in a domestic enquiry can be

characterised as perverse only if (a) there was no evidence

whatsoever to support the findings, or (b) conclusion

recorded were diametrically contrary to the evidence on

record, or (c) conclusions were such that no reasonable

person would have arrived at on above standards. When

report of Enquiry Officer was scanned, there were no

occasion for me be conclude that the report was not

supported by evidence. Only contention advanced by the

claimant was that ME 19 was obtained under duress, hence

it has no evidential value. She asserts that ME 19 has been

relied by the Enquiry Officer, which fact vitiates his findings.

Facts projected by Shri Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal and

Shri Babu Lal Gupla bring home guilt to the claimant.

Statement made by Shri Bedi belies her story that she paid

a sum of Rs. 60,000.00 to him for issuance of an FDR.

Whatever she has testified before the Enquiry Officer is in

contrast to the evidence unfolded by Shri Bedi. It emerges

over the record that these facts were taken into

consideration by the Enquiry Officer and he reached the

conclusion, which is based on cogent evidence. The

Enquiry Officer had not ignored any material while recording

his conclusion. It cannot be said that he ignored version

projected by the claimant and Shri Bedi. It became evident

that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are based

on evidence and his report is not vitiated at all.

44. In view of reasons detailed above, it is evident that

the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was in

consonance with principles of natural justice. He gave full

opportunity to the claimant to prepare her defence. She

was permitted to cross-examine the witness examined by

1808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the bank in order to demolish their version. She was allowed

to erect her edifice of defence by producing her own

evidence. She was permitted to be defended by a

representative of her choice. When Shri Nagpal withdrew

himself, she claimed that she would defend herself. These

facts make it apparent that the enquiry was just, fair and

proper. No illegality emerged out of the enquiry proceedings

and the report of the Enquiry Officer. Issue relating to virus

of the enquiry cannot be answered in favour of the claimant.

Resultantly, it is concluded that the enquiry conducted by

the bank was just fair and proper. Issue No. 1 is answered

in favour of the bank and against the claimant.

Issue No. 2

45. When enquiry is found to be fair and proper, the

Tribunal cannot proceed to appreciate evidence adduced

before it by the bank as well as claimant. However, in view

of the directions issued by the High Court in its order

dated 17.04.2013, I proceed further to appreciate evidence

brought over the record and to record findings on the count

as to whether charges stood proved against the claimant

or not. In subsequent sections evidence adduced by the

bank to prove misconduct and evidence brought over the

record in rebuttal by the claimant would be scanned, in

order to see whether misconduct stood established.

46. Ms. Rimi Ray, Manager (HR), unfolds in her affidavit

Ex.MW2/A, tendered as evidence, that charge sheet was

issued to the claimant on 07.02.1994. Corrigendum to the

charge sheet was issued on 30.06.1994, It was alleged that

the claimant, while working as ALPM Operator(standby)

in Parliament Street branch, entered into criminal conspiracy

with Shri P.S Bedi, then Manager, BO; Kallirampur and with

an intention to defraud the bank, she got prepared FDR

No.20/91 from Kallirampur branch. The said FDR was issued

for Rs. 6,000.00 and inflated to Rs.60,000.00 with ulterior

motive. It was further alleged against her that on 04.02.1991,

she raised a demand loan No.110 of 95 for Rs. 60,000.00 on

above inflated FDR and got credited that amount in her

current account (OD No.10671), On that date, she got

debited CA(OD No.10671) and deposited Rs. 35938.10 for

adjustment of her Demand Loan account No.73/25. She

also credited a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 in her demand Loan

account No.74/25 through overdraft account No. 10671 on

04.02.1991 itself. She had intentionally used the above

amount of demand loan against FDR No. 20 of 91. On

28.02.1994, she deposited a sum of Rs.66500.00 though the

FDR was to mature after 5 days. These facts made the bank

to believe that she wanted to take possession of the inflated

FDR before maturity date, so that it may not be sent back

to the issuing branch and that documentary evidence may

not be available to the bank.

47. Ms. Rimi Ray brings copy of charge sheet Ex.MW1/

1 and corrigendum Ex.MW1/2, cash voucher of Multi

Benefit Fixed Deposit Account No.238 for FD No.20/91 for

a sum of Rs.6,000.00 Ex. MWI/3, ledger sheet of fixed

deposit account No.238 dated 02.02.1991 Ex. MW1/4, copy

of FDR No.20/91 dated 02,02.1991 as Ex.MW2/5, copy of

request dated 04.02.1991 alongwith with the promissory

note issued by the claimant and request for demand loan

Ex.MW1/6, copy of debit transfer voucher of Demand Loan

Account No.110/25, copy of credit transfer voucher of

Overdraft account No.10671, copy of ledger sheet of

demand loan account No.110/25 dated 04.02.1991, copy of

debit transfer voucher of Overdraft account No.l067 Ex.

MWl/7, copy of credit transfer of OD account No.10671 Ex.

MW1/8, copy of ledger sheet of DL Account No.11025

dated 04.02.1991 Ex. MW1/9. Copy of debit transfer voucher

of OD No. 10671 for Rs. 35938.10 Ex. MW1/10 over the

record. Copy of transfer voucher of DL Account No. 73/25

for a sum of Rs.35398.10 dated 04.02.91. which is Ex. MW1/

11, copy of ledger sheet of DL account No.73/25 Ex. MW1/

12, copy of debit transfer for a sum of Rs.1000,00 dated

06.02.91 Ex. MW1/13P transfer voucher for demand loan

account No.74/25 for a sum of Rs.1000.00 Ex. MW1/14 are

also placed on record. She had also proved copy of ledger

sheets for demand loan 74/25 and overdraft account No.671

as Ex.MW1/15 and Ex.MW1/16 respectively. Letter dated

29.01.1992, addressed by the claimant to the Branch

Manager, BO Parliament Street, has also been brought over

the record as Ex. MW1/17.

48. Shri P.K. Aggarwal swears in his affidavit Ex.MW3/

A, tendered as evidence, that he was working at BO:

Kallirampur branch from October, 1989 to 1991. Hence, he

is well conversant with the facts relating to fraud committed

in preparation of FDR in the name of the claimant. Credit

cash voucher dated 04.02.1991 and FDR 20/91 were prepared

in the name of the claimant. Credit cash voucher was for a

sum of Rs.6000.00 and entry in that regard was recorded in

the accounts statement and maturity value is also reflected

in the statement in that regard. He asserts that FDR No.20/

91 was for Rs.6000.00 only.

49. In her affidavit Ex. W1/B, tendered as evidence, the

claimant details that form 15.09.1981 to 09.04.1987, she was

posted at Tilak Nagar branch of the bank as clerk/cashier.

She worked under overall charge of Shri PS Bedi, then

Assistant Branch Manager. Shri Bedi was later on

transferred to BO: Kallirampur branch as Branch Manager.

She qualified the test for ALPM Operator and as such was

posted at, Barakhamba Road branch of the bank on

27.12.1989. In April 1990, she was posted at Parliament Street

branch of the bank.

50. She unfolds that in November 1991, Shri Bedi

approached and requested her to give some deposit to

enable him to fulfil target of deposits in his branch. He

initially asked for Rs. 50,000.00, which amount she gave to

him. Thereafter, he further asked for an amount of Rs.10,000.

She gave that amount too. She gave a total sum of

Rs. 60,000.00 in cash by withdrawing sum of Rs. 50,000.00

from her overdraft account No.10671 through cheque

No.910702 on 15.11.1990 and Rs.10,000.00 vide cheque No.

910705 on 21.11.1990. She filled in details and signed the AOF.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1809

Ledger sheet of her account reflects above two entries,

copy of which ledger sheet is Ex. MW2/16. Copy of AOF,

which was seized by the CBI, is Ex.WW1/7. She kept on

requesting Shri Bedi for FDR and only on 03.02.1991 FDR

for a sum of Rs. 60,000.00 was handed over to her by Shri

Bedi. Copy of FDR is Ex. MW2/5. On 04.02.1991, she made

a written request to Parliament Street branch of the bank

for a loan of Rs. 60,000.00 on the said FDR. At her request,

Loan of Rs. 60,000.00 was sanctioned. At that time, the

bank had checked veracity of the FDR. FDR was genuine

and not inflated. If it would have been inflated the bank

would not have granted any loan to her. For marking lien

on FDR, the bank must have written letter to Kallirampur

branch. The bank had not disclosed copy of that letter to

her. However, she produced copy of letter written by

Kallirampur branch to Parliament Street branch of the bank,

confirming that lien was marked on the said FDR, which

shows face value of Rs. 60,000.00. The FDR was signed by

Shri Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal as well as Shri P.S. Bedi.

Letter Ex. MW3/W1, which projects that lien was marked

on the FDR, makes it apparent that FDR was for a sum of

Rs. 60,000.00.

51. After receipt of loan on 04.02.1991, she got debited

her Current Account (overdraft 10671) to the tune of

Rs. 35379.10 for adjustment of Demand Loan account 73/25.

On 06.02.1991, she also got credited a sum of Rs.1000.00 in

her demand loan account No.74/25 through the aforesaid

overdraft account. Entries in that regard are reflected in

ledger sheet, copy of which is Ex. MW2/16. On 18 01.1992,

the bank claimed that only a sum of Rs. 6000.00 was

deposited in Kallirampur branch against FDR in question.

To show her bonafide, when was called upon to pay loan

amount obtained against the said FDR, she paid the loan

amount with interest, amounting to Rs. 66,500.00. However,

FDR and remaining balance of Rs. 289.20 was not returned

back to her. The bank grabbed the FDR and did not release

it in her favour. On 19.04.1992, it was seized by the CBI. The

bank had tried to hide the original FDR so that this Tribunal

may not look at it to note facts personally.

52. On 29.01.1992 she was called by the Chief Manager

in his cabin, details the claimant. Shri B.L. Gupta was also

present there. She was threatened to face dire consequence

and made to write confessional statement on dotted lines.

Shri B.L. Gupta admitted that fact during the course of

enquiry. Copy of confessional statement, obtained under

duress is Ex. MW2/12. On 30.01.1992, she was placed

under suspension without assigning any reasons. On

31.01.1992, another suspension order was issued to full up

the gaps. Charge sheet was not issued to her within a

period of 90 days, as contemplated by the rules. On

03.03.1992, she wrote to the Assistant General Manager

that confessional statement dated 29.01.1992 was obtained

under duress and coercion. Copy of that letter is Ex. MW2/

W8. After a delay of more than 2 years, charge sheet was

served upon her, wherein it was claimed that she committed

fraud by misusing her official position as a staff member

and committed acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank.

She had been blamed for acts, committed by Shri P.S. Bedi,

Branch Manager, Kallirampur branch of the bank. Shri Bedi

admitted before the Enquiry Officer that he committed all

the wrongs. Shri Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal has also placed

the blame on Shri Bedi. It was Shri Bedi who had cheated

the bank and defrauded it in respect of about 29 FDRs.

53. FDR is usually signed by an Accountant and a

Manager. Herein the case, FDR was signed by Shri Pradeep

Kumar Aggarwal and Shri P.S. Bedi. Shri Bedi had committed

fraud on the bank. He deposited only a sum of Rs. 6000.00

despite the fact that he had received Rs. 60,000.00 from her.

Shri Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal should have signed the FDR

only after verifying all details of receipt. There was no

entry of Rs. 6000.00 on 02.02.1991. No such entry was

recorded in cashiers' long book on 02.02.1991. These facts

make it apparent that she was made a scapegoat to cover

misdeeds of higher officials. Misdeeds of Shri Bedi were

not within her knowledge. When Shri Pradeep Kumar

Aggarwal could not notice manipulation and bungling

committed by Shri Bedi, how could she know that Shri Bedi

did manipulation in the FDR. Neither Shri Bedi nor Shri

Aggarwal were charge sheeted in respect of manipulations

on the FDR. Under such circumstances, how can she be

accused for that gamut.

54. She details that there was no overwriting or erasing

on the FDR. It was clearly drawn for a sum of Rs. 60,000.00

in figures and words with maturity value of Rs. 66228.00.

Maturity value of Rs. 6000.00 would be Rs. 6623.00 and

maturity value of Rs. 60,000.00 would be Rs. 66228.00. By

manipulation or inflation of Rs. 6000.00 to Rs. 60,000.00,

maturity value cannot be inflated to Rs. 66228.00. The said

FDR was scrutinised while granting loan to her. Kallirampur

branch had marked lien in their books on the said FDR for

a sum of Rs. 60,000.00. This fact further highlights that

FDR was for a sum of Rs. 60,000.00 and genuine. Letter

confirming lien on the FDR for Rs. 60.000.00 is Ex. MW3/

W1. Neither she prepared the FDR nor made any entries in

records of the bank. By no stretch of imagination it can be

said that she misconducted herself and committed any act

prejudicial to the interest of the bank. She was neither

summoned nor called by the CBI or any law enforcing

agency. She has not been challaned or charge sheeted at

all. The bank had not been able to prove misconduct against

her.

55. When facts unfolded by Ms. Rimi Ray, Shri Pradeep

Aggarwal and the claimant scanned, it emerged that

issuance of FDR, which has been proved as Ex. MW2/5,

obtaining of loan of Rs. 60,000.00 on the said FDR form

Parliament Street branch of the bank by the claimant and

issuance of letter of marking lien in books of the bank are

not at all disputed. No dispute is there on the count that

after obtaining demand loan of Rs. 60,000.00 on the said

FDR, claimant got credited that loan to her Current account

(overdraft No. 10671) on 04.02.1991. There is also no dispute

1810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

on the facts that on 04.02.1991 itself, she got debited her

Current Account (Overdraft No.10671) to the tune of

Rs. 35938.10 for adjustment of her demand loan account

No.73/25. It has also not been disputed that she got credited

a sum of Rs.1000.00 in demand loan account No.74/25

through overdraft account No.10671 on 04.02.1994. It is

also not a disputed fact that on 28.02.1999. she deposited

Rs. 66,500.00 towards loan amount, while FDR was to mature

just after five days. Request letter dated 04.02.1991, besides

promissory note for demand loan, debit transfer voucher,

credit transfer voucher, demand loan Account No.110/25,

debit transfer voucher of overdraft account No.10671 for

Rs.35938.10, copy of credit transfer voucher for

Rs.35,398.10, copy of ledger sheet of demand loan account

No.73/25, copy of debit transfer voucher of overdraft

account No.10671 for Rs.1000.00, copy of transfer voucher

of demand loan account No.74/25 for a sum of Rs.1000.00,

copy of ledger sheet of demand loan account No. 74/25,

copy of ledger sheet of overdraft account No.10671 and

copy of letter dated 19.01.1992, addressed by the claimant

to Manager, Parliament Street branch, are also not disputed.

56. Question for consideration is as to whether FDR,

copy of which has been placed over the record as Ex. MW2/

5, was issued for a sum of Rs. 6000.00 or for a sum of

Rs. 60,000.00. On this issue, rival facts are testified.

Ms. Rimi Ray and Shri Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal present

one version while Ms. Sneh Aggarwal details the other. It

has been claimed by Ms. Ray and Shri Aggarwal that the

FDR was issued for a sum of Rs. 6000.00, which amount

was later on inflated to Rs. 60,000.00. Ms. Sneh Aggarwal

speaks of payment of Rs. 60,000.00 to Shri P.S. Bedi in

November'90 and claims that the FDR in question was

issued for a sum of Rs. 60,000.00 in February 1991. For

reaching the true facts, the Tribunal had to appreciate their

depositions in the light of the documents proved as well as

statement made by Shri P.S. Bedi before the Enquiry Officer,

copy of which has been proved as Ex. WW1/M3. When

Ex. WW1/M3, is scanned it emerged that this document

unfolds a different story than one presented by the claimant

in her testimony. Facts detailed in Ex. WW1/M3 are

reproduced thus:

"I confirm and certify that

(a) I had approached Smt. Sneh Aggarwal who is working

as ALPM Operator at BO: Parliament Street. She is

well known to me. She has worked under me when I

was A/M at BO: Tilak Nagar, Delhi.

(b) I had told her in February 1991 that to fulfil my target

of deposit, and to enable me to get my transfer back

to Delhi, she may make her name available to me for

issue of deposits and I will deposit the amount for

fixed deposit depending on availability of funds with

me. I took her signatures on the blank AOF form.

No.QSC 009015 dated 02.02.1991 to her in the branch

and told that her that I had deposited Rs. 60,000.00 in

FDR and she may take loan against the FDR and

oblige me, being her senior. I prevailed upon her and

told her that she may have to work under me again.

(d) That before due date, I have deposited back the

whole amount.

(e) That the amount of FDR belongs to me.

(f) That I will be responsible for this or any other liability

of any kind.

Ms. Sneh Aggarwal is not responsible for anything

whatsoever.

I confirm that I have written this conformation

certificate of my own."

57. Ex. WW1/M3 was produced by Shri P.S. Bedi before

the Enquiry Officer when he testified facts in defence of

the claimant. Claimant was confronted with this document,

when she entered the witness box in rebuttal to the facts

adduced by the bank. She does not dispute that statement

Ex. WW1/M3 was produced before the Enquiry Officer.

She admits that in Ex. WW1/M3, Shri Bedi had recorded

that he had deposited Rs. 60,000.00 from his own pocket

and used her name. No other explanation was offered by

the claimant in respect of contents of Ex. WW1/M3. Hence,

it is crystal clear that statement of Shri P.S. Bedi, proved as

Ex. WW1/M3, is an admitted document on which the

claimant based her case when she defended herself before

the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, this document confirms facts

unfolded by Shri P.K. Aggarwal and dispels the story put

forward by the claimant, in respect of amount for which

FDR No. QSC 009015 was issued, copy of which has been

proved as Ex. MW2/5.

58. Shri P.K. Aggarwal highlights that the FDR No.20/91

(copy of which has been proved as Ex. MW2/5) was for a

sum of Rs. 6000.00 only. He presses credit cash voucher

dated 04.02.1991 in service to substantiate his point of

view. He went on to narrate that as per account statement,

credit cash voucher was entered far Rs. 6000.00 only. Copy

of debit cash voucher has also been proved by him as Ex.

MW2/1 (inadvertently this document has been exhibited

as Ex. MW1/3). During the course of his cross examination,

he projects that the debit cash voucher is for a sum of

Rs. 6,000.00 on which the date has been overwritten as

04.02.1991. He clarifies that this document is in the

handwriting of Shri Bedi, who has overwritten the date

over it. He further confirms that ledger sheet Ex. MW2/3

bears his as well as Shri Bedi's signatures. When Ex. MW2/

3 and Ex. MW2/4 are scanned, it came to light that a sum of

Rs. 6000,00 only was deposited in Kallirampur branch of

the bank in respect of FDR No.20/91. This amount was

deposited as per ledger sheet on 02.02.1991 while the date

is overwritten to 04.02.1991 in debit cash voucher. Maturity

value of the FDR has been shown as Rs. 6622.80 in ledger,

proved as Ex. MW2/4. Neither in debit cash voucher nor in

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1811

ledger sheet amount of Rs. 60,000.00, in respect of the FDR

No.20/91, has been projected. These documents make it

apparent that only a sum of Rs. 6000.00 was deposited in

the bank on 02.02.1991, though there is overwriting on

debit cash voucher Ex. MW2/3.

59. Shri P.K. Aggarwal declares that letter Ex. MW3/W1

is in the handwriting of Shri P.S. Bedi. However, he

concedes that it bears his signature at Point A. He declares

that Ex. MW3/W1 was signed by him after going through

the ledger. He announces that Ex. MW3/W1 was signed

by him after it was signed by Shri Bedi. Shri Aggarwal

explains that initially amount of Rs. 6000.00 was mentioned

in Ex. MW3/W1, which amount was later on inflated by

Shri Bedi to Rs. 60,000.00 by adding a 'zero' after the figure

'six' without changing the space of other zeros. However,

he was in haste to say that one zero was added somewhere

to make the amount Rs. 60,000.00, on this document. Facts

projected by Shri Aggarwal happens to be correct, since in

ledger sheet only an amount of Rs. 6000.00 is shown

deposited against FDR No.20/91. One may venture to know

as to what was the stand of Shri Bedi when he appeared

before the Enquiry Officer as a witness in defence for the

claimant. When enquiry proceedings Ex. WW1/M2 are

scanned, it came to light that Shri Bedi testified facts before

the Enquiry Officer on 01.02.1995. In his statement, he

unfolds that on the FDR, he added words to make amount

of the FDR read as '60' instead of '6' thus making it for Rs.

60,000.00 instead of Rs. 6000.00, He further declares that

inflated figure of maturity value has also been written by

him, which should have been Rs. 6622.80 as against Rs.

66,288.00 on ME 7, which document is photocopy of FDR

No.QSE 009015 and proved as Ex. MW2/5. Lien was also

marked by him. He admits that ME 5 (which has been proved

as Ex. MW2/3 before this Tribunal) was also filled in by

him.

60. Out of facts unfolded by Shri Bedi, besides his written

statement proved as EX. WW1/M3 and those narrated by

Shri Aggarwal, it came to light that Shri Bedi approached

the claimant in February 1991 and requested to lend her

name to the former for issuance of deposit receipt, to meet

target of deposits. No money was tendered by the lady

and Shri Bedi was to deposit the amount out of his own

pocket, Shri Bedi deposited a sum of Rs. 6000.00 and issued

FDR No. 20 of 1991. Later on, he inflated the amount of the

FDR, besides its maturity value.

61. Claim made by Ms. Sneh Aggarwal to the effect that

she paid a sum of Rs. 60,000.00 to Shri Bedi for issuance

of FDR in her favour is a blatant lie. At one point of time,

she placed reliance on facts stated by Shri Bedi and

subsequently retracted that stand and tried to project that

a sum of Rs. 60,000.00 was paid by her to Shri Bedi. She

cannot approbate and reprobate facts. Even otherwise, the

claimant allegedly gave a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 on 15.11.

1990 and a sum of Rs.10,000.00 on 21.11.1990. FDR No. 20/

91 was issued on 02.02.1991. No hue and cry was raised by

the claimant that FDR was issued in her favour after about

74 days. As per case projected by the claimant, she paid

aforesaid amount out of her overdraft account to Shri Bedi.

She had to pay interest @11.5% on the amount over drawn

as testified by Shri B.L. Gupta before the Enquiry Officer,

which statement has been proved as Ex. WW1/M1. She

concedes during the course of her cross examination that

Shri Gupta was not questioned by her when he deposed

that interest of 11.5% was charged by the bank on overdraft

account. Thus it is crystal clear that Smt. Aggarwal paid

interest of 11.5% on the amount which she had overdrawn

from her overdraft account. The amount, so over drawn,

was allegedly paid to Shri Bedi for issuance of FDR for Rs.

60,000.00. It is an admitted case of the claimant that interest

@10% is paid by the bank on FDR. She could not project

as to why she suffered loss of interest to the tune of 1.5%

and had not questioned Shri Bedi for issuance of FDR

even after 74 days, for which period she had not earned

any interest. Above facts bring it to the light that Shri Ms.

Sneh Aggarwal wrongly claims to have paid a sum of Rs.

60,000.00 to Shri Bedi for issuance of FDR in her favour. In

fact, she had not paid any money to Shri Bedi, who had

used her name only. As projected above, Shri Bedi deposited

Rs. 6,000.00 only with the bank and issued FDR for that

amount, which amount was later on inflated by him to the

tune of Rs. 60,000.00.

62. It is an admitted case of the parties that on FDR

No.QSC 009015, copy of which has been proved as Ex.MW2/

5, claimant obtained demand loan of Rs.60.000.00 from

Parliament Street branch of the bank. She deposited the

original FDR with Parliament Street branch. The authorities

at Parliament Street branch were under an obligation to send

the original FDR to Kallirampur branch of the bank for

marking of lien. However, no letter was written by Parliament

Street branch to Kallirampur branch for marking of lien on

FDR No.QSC 009015. On the other hand, the claimant obtained

letter Ex. MW3/W1 form Shri Bedi, who declared therein that

lien to the tune of Rs. 60,000.00 has been marked in record of

the bank, in respect of FD No. 20 of 91. This document was

produced by Ms. Aggarwal before Parliament Street branch

of the bank in token of fact that lien has been marked over it

by Kallirampur branch of the bank. When no amount was

paid by Ms. Aggarwal to Shri Bedi and the latter issued an

FDR for a sum of Rs. 6000.00, which amount was later on

inflated by him, then Ms. Aggarwal was well aware of the

fact that the document, which was been handed over to her,

does not represent true facts. Shri Bedi duped the bank and

handed over FDR No.QSC 009015 to Smt. Sneh Aggarwal

after inflating its face value sum of Rs. 6000.00 to Rs. 60,000.00.

Without obtaining letter from Parliament Street branch of

the bank, Shri Bedi gives letter to the effect that lien was

marked by Kallirampur branch in its record for a sum of

Rs. 60,000.00 on FDR No.QSC 009015. All these facts project

that Smt. Sneh Aggarwal was in league with Shri Bedi and

the latter had committed fraud, of which the former was

beneficiary.

1812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

63. Conspiracy is hatched in dark. Direct evidence of a

conspiracy is seldom available. Conspiracy is a matter of

inference deduced from certain criminal acts of the parties

accused, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose

common between them. Generally, conspiracy is a matter

of inference by circumstantial evidence. From acts and

conduct of the parties, agreement could be inferred. For

instance, if it can be proved that the accused pursued by

similar acts the same object often by the same means, one

performing one part of the act and the other another part of

the same act so at to complete it with a view to the attainment

of the object which they were pursuing, it would be perfectly

proper to conclude that they have conspired together to

effect that object.

64. When the claimant tries to project that a sum of

Rs. 60,000,00 was paid by her to Shri Bedi for the FDR in

question, despite the fact that she relies on facts unfolded

by Shri Bedi before the Enquiry Officer. These events make

it apparent that though the claimant was hand in glove

with Shri Bedi, yet she wants to project her face clean.

Admittedly, Shri Bedi was posted in Kallirampur branch,

which was a distance of about 80 kms. away from the branch

where the claimant was posted at the relevant time. She

projects that Shri Bedi approached her to provide him some

amount to meet out his targets of deposits. When Shri

Bedi was working as Assistant Manager at Tilak Nagar

branch of the bank, there were other employees working in

that branch, with whom Shri Bedi also remained associated.

But he approaches only the claimant, in whose favour he

prepares forged negotiable instrument, without obtaining

any consideration. He issues letter showing marking of

lien in books of the bank in order to help her in obtaining

demand loan from Parliament Street branch of the bank. All

these facts make out that there was a conspiracy between

the claimant and Shri Bedi. Whatever was said, done and

written by Shri Bedi in furtherance of the conspiracy referred

above, would be relevant against the claimant. Resultantly,

it is said that debit cash voucher of Rs. 6000.00 and ledger

sheet proved as Ex. MW2/3 and Ex. MW2/4 respectively

would be relevant in adjudication of the present

controversy. These documents were issued for a sum of

Rs. 6000.00 only. Hence, these documents castigate the

claim put forward by Ms. Aggarwal to the effect that she

paid a sum of Rs. 60,000.00 and FDR in question was issued

for that amount. Facts unfolded by Shri Bedi before the

Enquiry Officer in his testimony as well as written statement

proved as Ex. WW1/M2 and EX. WW1/M3 respectively

bring it to the light that the FDR in question was issued for

a sum of Rs. 6000,00 only, which amount and maturity value

were later on inflated by Shri Bedi. Resultantly, it is crystal

clear that Ms. Aggarwal was well aware that the FDR in

question was originally issued for a sum of Rs.6000.00 but

was subsequently inflated for a sum of Rs.60,000.00 by

Shri Bedi with a view to help her to obtain demand loan for

Rs.60,000.00.

65. When claimant presented FDR QSC 009015 to

Parliament Street branch of the bank for obtaining demand

loan of Rs. 60,000.00, at that time she was well aware that

the negotiable instrument was forged one. She presented

that forged document and used it as a genuine one to

obtain demand loan. Resultantly, it is crystal clear that the

acts of the claimant in using a forged document as genuine

one, knowing it will to be forged, is a misconduct of culpable

nature. The bank had been able to prove misconduct against

the claimant beyond doubt, which is of grave nature.

66. What should be the appropriate punishment, which

can be awarded to the claimant, is a proposition which

would be addressed by this Tribunal. Right of an employer

to inflict punishment of discharge or dismissal is not

unfettered. The punishment imposed must commensurate

with gravity of the misconduct, proved against the

delinquent workman. Prior to enactment of section 11-A of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act), it was

not open to the industrial adjudicator to vary the order of

punishment on finding that the order of dismissal was too

severe and was not commensurative with the act of

misconduct. In other words, the industrial adjudicator

could not interfere with the punishment as it was not

required to consider propriety or adequacy of punishment

or whether it was excessive or too severe. Apex Court, in

this connection, had, however, laid down in Bengal Bhatdee

Coal Company [1963(I) LLJ 291] that where order of

punishment was shockingly disproportionate with the act

of the misconduct which no reasonable employer would

impose in like circumstances, that itself would lead to the

inference of victimization or unfair labour practice which

would vitiate order of dismissal or discharge. But by

enacting the provisions of section 11-A of the Act, the

Legislature has transferred the discretion of the employer,

in imposing punishment, to the industrial adjudicator. It is

now the satisfaction of the industrial adjudicator to finally

decide the quantum of punishment for proved acts of

misconduct, in cases of discharge or dismissal. If the

Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal

is not justified in any circumstances on the facts of a case,

it has the power not only to set aside order of punishment

and direct reinstatement with back wages, but it has also

the power to impose certain conditions as it may deem fit

and also to give relief to the workman, including award of

lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal.

67. It is established law that imposing punishment for a

proved act of misconduct is a matter for the punishing

authority to decide and normally it should not be interfered

with by the Industrial Tribunals. The Tribunal is not required

to consider the propriety or adequacy of punishment. But

where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate,

regard being had to the particular conduct and past record,

or is such as no reasonable employer would ever impose in

like circumstance, the Tribunal may treat the imposition of

such punishment as itself showing victimization or unfair

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1813

labour practice. Law to this effect was laid by the Apex

Court in Hind Construction and Engineering Company Ltd.

[1965 (I) LLJ 462]. Likewise in Management of the

Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry

[1971 (II) LLJ 630] the Apex Court ruled that the employer

made a mountain out of a mole hill and had blown a trivial

matter into one involving loss of prestige and reputation

and as such punishment of dismissal was held to be

unwarranted. In Ram Kishan [1996 (I) LLJ 982] the

delinquent employee was dismissed from service for using

abusive language against a superior officer. On the facts

and in the circumstances of the case, the Apex Court held

that the punishment of dismissal was harsh and

disproportionate to the gravity of the charge imputed to

the delinquent. It was ruled therein, "when abusive

language is used by anybody against a superior, it must be

understood in the environment in which that person is

situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that

led to the use of abusive language. No Straight- jacket

formula could be evolved in adjudicating whether the

abusive language in the given circumstances would

warrant dismissal from service. Each case has to be

considered on its own facts".

68. In B.M. Pati1 [1996 (II) LLJ 536], Justice Mohan

Kumar of Karnataka High court observed that in exercise

of discretion, the Disciplinary Authority should not act

like a robot and justice should be moulded with humanism

and understanding. It has to assess each case on its own

merit and each set of fact should be decided with reference

to the evidence recording the allegation, which should be

basis of the decision. The past conduct of the worker may

be a ground for assuming that he might have a propensity

to commit the misconduct and to assess the quantum of

punishment to be imposed. In that case a conductor of the

bus was dismissed from service for causing revenue loss

of 50p to the employer by irregular sale of tickets. It was

held that the punishment was too harsh and

disproportionate to the act of misconduct.

69. After insertion of section 11-A of the Act, the

jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment is there with

the Tribunal, who has to see whether punishment imposed

by the employer commensurate with the gravity of the act

of misconduct. If it comes to the Conclusion that the

misconduct is proved, it may still hold that the punishment

is not justified because misconduct alleged and proved is

such as it does not warrant punishment of discharge or

dismissal and where necessary, set aside the order of

discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement with or

without any terms or conditions as it thinks fit or give any

other relief, including the award of lesser punishment, in

lieu of discharge or dismissal, as me circumstance of the

case may warrant. Reference can be made to a precedent in

Sanatak Singh (1984 Lab.LC.817). The discretion to award

punishment lesser than the punishment of discharge or

dismissal has to be judiciously exercised and the Tribunal

can interfere only when it is satisfied that the punishment

imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to

the decree of the guilt of the workman. Reference can be

made to the precedent in Kachraji Motiji Parmar [1994 (11)

LLJ 332]. Thus it is evident that the Tribunal has now

jurisdiction and power of substituting its own measure of

punishment in place of the managerial wisdom, once it is

satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal is not

justified. On facts and in the circumstances of a case, section

11A of the Act specifically gives two folds powers to the

Industrial Tribunal, first is virtually the power of appeal

against findings of fact made by the Enquiry Officer in his

report with regard to the adequacy of the evidence and the

conclusion on facts and secondly of foremost importance,

is the power of reappraisal of quantum of punishment.

70. In Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. [2005 (2) S.C.C. 481]

the Apex Court was confronted with the proposition as to

whether power available to the Industrial Tribunal under

section 11-A of the Act are unlimited. The Court opined

that "there is no such things as unlimited jurisdiction

vested with any judicial or quasi judicial forum and

unfettered discretion is sworn enemy of the constitutional

guarantee against discrimination. An unlimited jurisdiction

leads to unreasonableness. No authority, be it

administrative or judicial, has any power to exercise the

discretion vested in it unless the same is based on justifiable

grounds supported by acceptable materials and reasons

thereof". The Apex Court relied its judgement in C.M.C.

Hospital Employees Union [1987 (4) S.C.C, 691] wherein it

was held that "section 11-A cannot be considered as

conferring an arbitrary power on the Industrial Tribunal or

the Labour Court. The power under section 11-A of the Act

has to be exercised judiciously and the Industrial Tribunal

or Labour Court is expected to interfere with the decision

of a management under section 11-A of the Act only when

it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the

management is highly disproportionate to the degree of

guilt of the workmen concerned. The Industrial Tribunal or

Labour Court has to give reasons for its decision". In

Hombe Gowda Educational Trust [2006 (1) S.C.C, 430] the

Apex Court announced that the Tribunal would not normally

interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the

employer unless an appropriate case is made out therefore.

71. Power to set aside order of discharge or dismissal

and grant relief of reinstatement or lesser punishment is

not untramaled power. This power has to be exercised only

when Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or

dismissal was not justified. This satisfaction of the Tribunal

is objective satisfaction and not subjective one. It involves

application of the mind by the Tribunal to various

circumstances like nature of delinquency committed by

the workman, his past conduct, impact of delinquency on

employer's business, besides length of service rendered

by him. Furthermore, the Tribunal has to consider whether

1814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the decision taken by the employer is just or not. Only after

taking into consideration these aspects, the Tribunal can

upset the punishment imposed by the employer. The

quantum of punishment cannot be interfered with without

recording specific findings on points referred above. No

indulgence is to be granted to a person, who is guilty of

grave misconduct like cheating, fraud, misappropriation of

employers fund, theft of public property etc. A reference

can be made to the precedent in Bhagirath Mal Rainwa

[1995 (I) LLJ 960].

72. Question for consideration comes as to whether

punishment awarded to the claimant was shockingly

disproportionate to his misconduct, justifying interference

by this Tribunal, In Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company

of India (Pvt.) Ltd. [1973 (1) S.C.C. 813], the Apex Court

ruled that once misconduct is proved, the Tribunal had to

sustain order of punishment unless it was harsh indicating

victimisation. It has been further laid therein that if a proper

enquiry is conducted by an employer and a correct finding

arrived at regarding the misconduct, the Tribunal, even

though now empowered to differ from the conclusion arrived

at by the management will have to give very cogent reasons

for not accepting the view of the employer. Again in

Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. (N.W.K.R T.C) [2005 (3)

S.C.C. 254] it was laid that question of quantum of

punishment would not be weighed on amount of money

misappropriated but it should ,"be based on loss of

confidence, which is a primary factor to be taken into

account. Once a person is found guilty of misappropriating

his employer's fund, there is nothing wrong for the

employer to loose confidence or faith in such a person,

awarding punishment of dismissal.

73. What would be the quantum of punishment that

would commensurate to her misconduct? As detailed

above, claimant entered into a conspiracy with Shri P.S.

Bedi and in furtherance to that conspiracy FDR No.QSC

009015, issued for a sum of Rs.6000.00 only, was inflated to

a sum of Rs.60,000.00 and handed over to the claimant for

obtaining demand loan against it. She obtained a demand

loan on the said FDR and used it as a genuine one, knowing

it fully well to be a forged one. She obtained letter Ex.MW3/

W1 from Shri Bedi, which was also a forged document,

with a view to hide the fact that demand loan was obtained

against a forged negotiable instrument. Not only this, she

repaid full amount of loan a few days prior to maturity of

FDR No. QSC 009015, with a view to restrain the bank

authorities in sending the FDR to Kallirampur branch for

obtaining its maturity value/vacation of lien. Had this

document been sent to Kallirampur branch of the bank, the

claimant would have been exposed. These circumstances

make it apparent that with a view to conceal the melodrama,

she cleared the loan a few days prior to maturity date of the

FDR. Thus, it is obvious that the claimant had been acting

against the interest of the bank. An employee who dupes

his employer cannot be said to be worthy of credence. No

confidence can be maintained in such an employee. The

bank is a financial institution where confidence and faith

are of prime importance. The bank cannot retain such an

employee in its services. Therefore, punishment of dismissal

from service is appropriate punishment for such a

misconduct. I find that punishment awarded to the claimant

commensurate to her misconduct. Resultantly, on factual

matrix too, I do not find a case for intervention.

74. In view of the facts detailed above, claim put forth

by Ms. Aggarwal merits dismissal. Relief of reinstatement

in service with continuity is not available to her. Her claim

is brushed aside, An award is, accordingly, passed in favour

of the bank and against the claimant. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dated :30.12.2013

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 666.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

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

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 306@1999½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@02@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@104@1999&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2014

S.O. 666.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award Ref. 306/1999 of the Cent. Govt.

lndus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in

the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Central Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 06/02/2014.

[No. L-12012/104/1999-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/306/1999

Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B.PATLE

The Asstt. General Secretary,

Akhil Bhartiya Adhinasth Bank

Karmchari Sangh,

Central Office, Hazrat Pul,

Opp. Ashoka Palace, Lashkar,

Gwalior

…Workman/Union

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1815

Versus

Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Nirma Bhavan,

Jhansi Road, Gwalior

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 22nd day of January 2014)

1. As per letter dated 22—29.9.1999 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/

104/1999-IR(B-Il). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Regional

Manager, Central Bank of India in not absorbing

Shri Ganpathrao Chouhan as a full time employee is

justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman filed Statement of Claim at Page

5/1 to 5/2. Case of workman is that he worked as full time

peon on temporary basis from 5.12.1983 to 25.2.1984 for 89

days, 19.4.1986 to 5.7.1986 for 78 days, he worked for 60

days in 1988 during the month of April May and June. He

worked for total 226 days in IInd party Bank. He further

submits that in 1996, the post of part time peon was

advertised. He had also submitted application for said post

on 9.1.1996. He was not called for interview. Other persons

were employed. Workman submitted application in

pursuance of letter dated 2.1.1996. That the Bipartite

Agreement between SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation

dated 27.10.1988, workman claims to be entitled for selection

for post of part time messenger/peon. However he was not

called for interview, he was deprived opportunity of

selection. Workman himself submitted representations but

of no avail. On such grounds workman prays that his non-

absorption by the Bank is illegal. Management be directed

to absorb him in service.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 8/1 to 8/2.

IInd party submits that the reference is liable to be dismissed

as the Ist party workman was not employee of the Bank, he

was never given appointment, he did not undergo process

for selection. He was not sponsored through Employment

Exchange. That the provisions of I.D. Act are not applicable.

It is denied that the workman had worked for 226 days

details submitted by the workman. That the workman was

engaged on temporary basis as per need. He was paid

wages after completion of the required job. His engagement

for specific work stood terminated. IInd party further

submits that no appointment can be made directly by any

Authority of the Bank. Branch Manager has no power to

appoint any person as class IV employee. As and when

vacancy arises, appointment are made by process of

interview, test and norms fixed by the Bank, the candidates

sponsored by Employment Exchange. IInd party denied

that in pursuance to advertisement in 1996, workman was

not called for interview. Workman had not submitted

application as per advertisement. The claim of workman is

denied totally. Workman is not entitled to be selected as

full time or part time messenger. IInd party claims for rejection

of claim.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India in not

absorbing Shri Ganpathrao

Chouhan as a full time employee

is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to relief

claimed by him.

REASONS

5. The Union Akhil Bhartiya Adhinasth Bank Karmchari

Sangh has submitted Statement of claim on behalf of

workman Ganpat Rao, full name of workman is not given in

the statement of claim. Union did not participate in the

reference proceeding. Evidence is not adduced by the

Union. The evidence of Ist party workman was closed on

26.7.2011. Management filed Affidavit of witness Pradeep

Mullick denying workman Ganpat Rao was working in the

Bank at any time. The management's witness was also not

cross-examined. His evidence remained unchallenged. Thus

it is clear that Union has not adduced evidence in support

of his claim in statement of claim. Even workman has not

examined himself in support of his claim. Evidence of

management's witness remained unchallenged denying that

workman Ganpat Rao worked in the Bank. There is

absolutely no evidence to support the claim of Ist party

workman. Copies of Bipartite Settlement are not produced.

Therefore 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 Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India in not absorbing

Shri Ganpathrao Chouhan as a full time employee is

proper.

(2) Workman is not entitled to relief claimed.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 667.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds

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

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

1816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

psUubZ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 56@2011 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@04@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2014

S.O. 667.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award Ref. 56/2011 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 workman,

received by the Central Government on 07/02/2014.

[No. L-12012/04/2011-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 21st January, 2014

Present:

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 56/2011

(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 State Bank of India and their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri K. Ravindran :

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager (HR) : 2nd Party/1st Respondent

State Bank of India, LHO,

16, College Lane

Chennai-600006

2. The Asstt. General :

2nd Party/2nd Respondent

Manager (Admn.)

State Bank of India,

McDonalds Road

Tiruchirapalli-620001

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

M/s. Row & Reddy,

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/1st &

M/s. T.S. Gopalan &

2nd Respondents

Co., Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/04/2011-IR (B-l)

dated 02.06.2011 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, Tiruchirapalli in imposing the penalty of

dismissal from service on Shri K. Ravindran, Ex-

Special Assistant, vide their order dated 22 01.2009

is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is

entitled?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 56/2011 and issued notice to both sides.

Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel

and have filed their claim, counter and rejoinder statement

respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement in brief are

these:

The petitioner was employed as Special Assistant in

the Respondent Bank. He had 32 years of

unblemished service in the Bank. He was issued with

a Charge Sheet dated 01.03.2008 containing three

charges. The explanation given by the petitioner on

these charges was not accepted and an enquiry was

conducted against the petitioner. On the basis of the

report of the enquiry the petitioner was dismissed

from service on 22 01.2009. The appeal preferred by

him against this order was dismissed. The dismissal

of the petitioner from service is illegal. The

punishment imposed on him is grossly

disproportionate and is discriminative The petitioner

is entitled to be reinstated in service together with

back wages, continuity of service and other benefits.

4. The Respondent filed Counter Statement contending

as follows:

Since the Respondents represent the State Bank of

India they are collectively referred to as Respondent.

The Respondent Bank used to advance several types

of loans including Gold Loan. The Clerical staff who

are required to work as Cash Officers or Cashiers

are paid a special allowance. Those Clerical Staff

who are appointed as Special Assistants to act as

Cash Officer are given framing in the matter of

appraisal of gold jewels. Every branch of the Bank is

provided with a touchstone and nitric acid to enable

the Cash Officer to do the appraisal. The Bank staff

will attend to the appraisal of the gold loans. The

gold loans are repayable in a period not exceeding 12

months if sanctioned on agreed terms, or otherwise

in a period of three years. The petitioner was working

in Woraiyur branch of the Bank from October 2002 to

23.09.2005. During August 2005 to July 2005 the Bank

had sanctioned 105 gold loans. 34 loans out of these

were outstanding even after two years. Notices were

sent to all the defaulting borrowers. Six notices were

returned undelivered. Some of the addressees were

not available also. When the concerned jewels were

appraised, they were found to be spurious. Out of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1817

such 10 loan accounts, 3 loans were cleared and were

closed. There was a preliminary investigation

regarding the matter. When the Investigation Officer

tried to contact the 7 defaulters, he could contact

only three of them. On investigation it was revealed

that there was nexus between the petitioner and the

acceptance of spurious jewels. A Show Cause Notice

was issued to be petitioner on the charges that he

had enabled the offer of spurious jewels for sanction

of gold loans, failed to observe Know Your Customer

norms and sanctioned loan to one Murugesan as

benami to one Rajesh. On enquiry the charges were

proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary

Authority had passed order dismissing the petitioner

from service. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief. The petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit by way of

rejoinder after the Counter Statement was filed. In this he

has reiterated his case in the petition.

6. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of

WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ex. W1 to

Ex.W23 and Ex.Ml to Exs. M15.

7. The points for consideration are :

(i) Whether the dismissal of the petitioner from the

service of the Respondent Bank by order dated

22.01.2009 is legal and justified?

(ii) What is the relief the petitioner is entitled to?

The Points

8. The petitioner was admittedly working in the Woraiyur

branch of the Respondent Bank at the time when the

incidents alleged against him in the Charge Sheet by the

Respondent Bank had occurred. The case of the

Respondent is that the petitioner have been processing

the gold loan applications during the period, that he had

knowingly accepted spurious gold without observing

Know Your Customer norms and had sanctioned loan even

to benami. On departmental enquiry conducted by the Bank

the charges were found proved and the punishment of

dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioner. The

appeal filed by him against the order of dismissal was also

dismissed. The ID was raised accordingly.

9. Though there is a vague claim in the petition that the

enquiry was not conducted in a proper manner, this claim

is not seen pursued by the petitioner. On the other hand

during the arguments the Counsel for the petitioner has

been entirely depending on the evidence let in the enquiry

to advance his case.

10.The attempt of the counsel for the petitioner during

the argument has been to establish that the evidence

available in the enquiry proceedings is not sufficient to

establish the charges against the petitioner. In his report

the Enquiry Officer has found that the relevant witnesses

have uniformly deposed that ornaments pledged are not

owned by them but the charge sheeted employee gave his

ornaments and made use of them to avail the loan and that

the money was actually used by the charge sheeted

employee. On analysing the evidence it was found by the

Enquiry Officer that all the three charges against the

petitioner are established.

11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the

employee who was processing the gold loan during the

period in question. In the Counter Statement, 7 gold loans

are referred to in which gold were found to be spurious on

appraisal by the gold appraiser. All these loans were

admittedly processed by the petitioner. It is in this

background the evidence given by the witnesses for the

Management in the enquiry proceedings is to be analyzed.

The Manager of the Branch at the time when the

irregularities were detected was examined as PW1. He has

stated that he had taken steps to close the time-barred

gold loan accounts. He had referred to the 10 gold loans

specifically mentioned in the Counter Statement and has

stated that all these loans were processed by the petitioner.

He has further stated that out of these 10 loan accounts,

three accounts were closed. The jewel involved in all the

10 loans were found to be spurious.

12. PW2 to 6 are either the persons in whose name the

loans were availed or those who have introduced them.

PW2 is one who was having a Saving Account with

Woraiyur branch of the Bank. A jewel loan of Rs 18,000 was

seen taken in his name. When the relevant document

concerning the loan was put to him during his examination

he has stated that it contained his signature. According to

this witness, one Rajesh owed Rs 15,000 to him. When he

repeatedly requested for the amount, Rajesh gave him some

jewels and asked him to get a jewel loan. According to him

Rajesh had told him that on availing the loan he would

return the money due to him and take the balance amount

only. He is said to have told PW2 that the petitioner is his

uncle. According to him, he was taken to the Bank. He had

approached the Manager and had requested for a jewel

loan showing his Pass Book. The Manager had directed

him to the Loan Officer. Rajesh made him sign certain forms

and sent him away. According to him, subsequently Rajesh

gave him Rs 8,000 and one Ayesha who was introduced as

the aunt of the petitioner had given him Rs. 7,000. Thus,

his demand to get back the amount of Rs. 15,000 having

been satisfied, he had no reason to complain about.

13. PW3 was also having a Savings Account at the

Bank. According to him, one day while he was standing

outside the branch Ganesan, a Sub-Staff (PW8) had told

him that he is unable lo avail a jewel loan in his name as he

was a staff and had requested him to take loan in his name.

He had gone to the Bank with Ganesan and had met the

petitioner. He was made to put his signature in 6 or 7 places.

He did not take any cash. He was not given document

pertaining to loan also. Two years after this, the Branch

Manager had enquired him about the loan. He met Ganesan

1818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and tried to gather details from him. He closed the loan and

the amount was reimbursed to him within a month by the

petitioner. The jewels that he had received on closing the

loan were also given back to the petitioner It is stated that

he handed over those jewels to the petitioner only after he

had got back the money from him.

14. According to PW4, another account holder of the

Bank PW8, Ganesan who is an employee of the bank had

told him that the petitioner was calling him and had asked

him to sign the jewel loan document. He has stated that

when he signed the document, Ganesan and the petitioner

were present. According to him, the petitioner had told him

that the jewels belonged to him. He was made to put his

signature in certain documents. The petitioner did not tell

him what is the amount of loan. Nor did he get any amount

also. Later, when the Manager and other Officers

approached him he came to know that the jewels were fake.

He approached the petitioner and the petitioner advised

him to pay the amount and close the loan and did so. He

subsequently got back the amount and returned the jewels

to the petitioner.

15. PW5 has stated that he used to collect his pension

through the Woraiyur Branch. On one occasion, when he

went to the branch to collect his pension, the petitioner

had requested him to pledge some ornaments and get a

loan. He stated that since the petitioner was an Officer he

respected him and availed loan in his name. He was not

given any token or jewel loan card. He had obtained

Rs 43,000/- from the jewel loan counter and he had given it

to the petitioner who had wanted him to take the loan When

the branch officers approached him, he came to know the

details and met the petitioner. The petitioner returned the

entire amount. PW5 closed the jewel loan and returned the

jewels to the petitioner.

16. The case of the PW6 is that Rajesh who is one of the

7 loanees referred to in the Counter Statement approached

him and asked him to introduce him at the branch and

accordingly he has signed as the introducer.

17. The gold involved in all the 7 loans referred to in the

Counter Statement were found spurious on appraisal. All

the witnesses referred to above have spoken about the

involvement of the petitioner in availing the loans. All of

them have stated that actually they have nothing to do

with the loan amount but they were only obliging the

petitioner or PW8, the Sub-Staff at the back and call of the

petitioner.

18. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner

that the material witness in the case was not examined and

therefore the Enquiry Officer was not justified in entering a

finding against the petitioner. According to him, the enquiry

was vitiated in the absence of examination of the material

witness He has referred to the decision Commissioner of

Police, Delhi and Others vs. Jai Bhagwan reported in 2001 6

LLJ 305 (SC) where it was held that non-examination of

the complainant during departmental proceedings amounts

to denial of right of cross-examination to delinquent

personnel. In the present case, according to the counsel

for the petitioner, the appraiser who appraised the gold

involved in the 7 loans should have been examined.

According to him, in the absence of evidence by the

appraiser there is nothing to show that the gold in the 7

loans were spurious. However, as pointed out by the

counsel for the Respondent, no contention has been raised

by the petitioner either in the departmental proceedings

that the gold involved in these loans were not spurious.

On the other hand, he has proceeded as if these were

spurious loans but he is not responsible for the same.

19. An analysis of the evidence of Petitioner Witnesses

3 to 6 in the enquiry proceedings would show that these

do not call for any doubt regarding the incredibility. All

these witnesses have spoken about the involvement of

the petitioner in the pledging of the jewels. Most of them

have stated that it was at the instance of the petitioner that

the papers regarding loans were signed PW2 was cross-

examined by the petitioner himself. During his Chief

Examination PW2 has stated about the failed attempts made

by him to meet the petitioner. He has stated that when he

went to the house of Ayesha who was introduced as the

Aunt of the petitioner in one such attempt he had seen the

petitioner in the front balcony of her house and that on

seeing the petitioner he had suddenly gone inside. He had

further stated that Rajesh who is one of the loanees in the

list submitted by the management also was there and that

seeing him Rajesh had come outside and had shouted at

him. When he was asked how he had approached the bank

for a jewel loan even if he knew that the jewels were not his,

he had stated that Rajesh had told him that his Uncle was

working in the bank and he would be taking care of

everything Rajesh seems to have referred to the petitioner

as his Uncle. PW5 has stated that he has nothing to do

with the jewels that were pledged in his name. He has stated

that when he went to the bank to collect his pension the

petitioner had told him that he could not get a jewel loan in

his name and had requested him to pledge the jewels in his

name. He had obtained Rs. 43.000/- by pledging and had

given the amount to the petitioner. When the incident had

come out the petitioner had paid the amount for closing

the loan. The nature of the evidence given by the other

witnesses also is the same. There is no reason to doubt

about the credibility of these witnesses. It is very much

clear that the petitioner was the one who was stage

managing all the loan transactions referred to by the

Management in which fake jewels were pledged.

20. The admission made by the petitioner dunng his

cross-examination would show that he as the Cash Officer

who had been processing the loans was responsible for

testing the quality of the jewels. It has been argued on

behalf of the petitioner that the employees were not given

any training in the appraisal of jewels. But, there is the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1819

admission made by the petitioner himself that while in

Woraiyur Branch he had processed 300 loans and

subsequently after he was transferred to Sendurai branch

he hard processed about 3000 gold loans. So it is clear that

he had a lot of experience as Cash Officer and was

processing several gold loans. He had admitted during his

cross-examination that as a Special Assistant or as Cash

Officer his responsibility included testing the quality of

the old jewels using touchstone and nitric acid. He has

admitted that in Ex.W12 the columns regarding the relevant

loans were filled by him as a Cash Officer and he had put

his signatures also below them. He has given the difference

between the gross weight and net weight representing

purity of the jewel. He had admitted that before he records

this difference he will be checking the purity of the jewel

also. He has stated that he is to certify the gross weight

and net weight of the jewel, its valuation, rate, advance

value etc. after verification. He has also admitted that in

Ex.W12 he has given such declaration and has signed it.

He had specifically admitted that all the 10 gold loan

accounts in which the gold involved were found spurious

were processed by him. In view of this admission made by

the petitioner there is no scope for the contention that

there was no proper training for the employees in the

appraisal of jewels. The petitioner was an experienced

Officer who was dealing with the jewels loans for a long

time. So he could not have accepted spurious jewels by

mistake, out of ignorance. The duty of the Manager is only

to sanction the loan based on the processing done and

recommendation made by the petitioner. He is not directly

involved in the appraisal or the processing.

21. The First Charge against the petitioner is that he had

not appraised the quality of the ornaments correctly and

had hidden the fact that the ornaments are not gold and

had caused sanction of gold loans against spurious

ornaments and caused loss of more than Rs. 6,67,000/- to

the Bank. This charge against the petitioner is clearly

proved in the enquiry proceedings, as discussed above.

22. The Second Charge against the petitioner is that he

had failed to observe the KYC norms like ensuring proof of

identity, proof of address, etc. of the borrowers and had

been thus instrumental in perpetrating the fraud PW1 in

the enquiry proceedings who was the Manager at the lime

of detection of the incident had deposed that the KYC

norms were not observed. He had stated that out of 7 gold

loan accounts only one was residing at Woraiyur and others

were residing elsewhere. In one account there was no

photograph also. This evidence of the Manager is not even

challenged by the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings.

So this charge also has been established.

23. The last charge against the petitioner is that he has

sanctioned a gold loan of Rs. 80 000/- to Murugesan against

the spurious gold ornaments as benami to Rajesh.

Murugesan examined as PW2 in the enquiry proceedings

has stated under what circumstances he happened to be a

loan account holder. He has stated that Rs. 15,000/- was

due to him from Rajesh. When he pressed for payment,

Rajesh had referred to the petitioner as his Uncle and had

wanted him to get a jewel loan in his name. He has stated

during his examination that Rajesh made him sign some

forms and had directed him to leave the Bank. On the basis

of the documents containing his signature loan of

Rs. 80,000/- seems to have been availed. He had stated that

Rajesh had given him Rs. 8,000/- and Ayesha who was his

acquaintance had given him the balance amount. When

the circumstance are considered there is no reason to

suspect the credibility of the evidence given by this witness

regarding the circumstances under which he had signed

the document. On the basis of the evidence of this witness

and other circumstances, the Enquiry Officer has found

that Charge No. 3 is also established against the petitioner.

I do not find any reason to interfere with this finding also.

24. One argument that has been advanced on behalf the

petitioner is that the enquiry has been conducted in

violation of Bipartite Settlement. Reference was made to

Clause-521(3) of the Bipartite Settlement which states that

if after steps have been taken to prosecute an employee or

to get him prosecuted for an offence, if he is not put on trial

within a year of the commission of the offence, the

Management may deal with him as if he had committed an

act of gross misconduct or of misconduct as defined in

Clause-4. The case of the petitioner is that the enquiry was

commenced within a year of the steps taken to prosecute

him. The FIR in the case is seen lodged on 06.07.2007. The

Charge Sheet in the enquiry is seen issued on 01.03.2008.

However, the actual proceedings of enquiry was started

later. During enquiry also the petitioner has raised the

contention and the enquiry proceedings have been

postponed and was continued only after a year of starting

the prosecution proceedings. So this argument advanced

on behalf of the petitioner also could not been accepted.

There is no reason to interfere with the findings of the

Enquiry Officer.

25 The petitioner has been dismissed from service

consequent to the findings of the enquiring authority when

the nature of the misconduct committed by the petitioner

is taken into account, I do not think the punishment imposed

on him is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence

committed. The petitioner has been a responsible officer of

the Bank and was expected to protect the interests of the

Bank. Rather than doing this, he has been taking advantage

of his position to make gain on himself. No lesser

punishment would have been sufficient for him. I find that

the petitioner is not entitled to any relief claimed by him.

26. Accordingly the reference is answered against the

petitioner.

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

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 21st January, 2014)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

1820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Witnesses Examined

For the 1st Party/Petitioner:

WW1, Sri K. Ravindran

For the 2nd Party/Management: MW21, Ms. K. Gomathi

Nayagam

Documents Marked

On the petitioners side

EX. No.

Date

Description

Ex. W1

19.07.2007

Suspension Order

Ex. W2

26.12.2007

Respondent letter to petitioner

Ex. W3

14.01.2008

Petitioner's letter seeking permission

to inspect documents

Ex. W4

25.01.2008

Petitioner's letter seeking permission

to inspect documents

Ex. W5

06.02.2008

Reply given by the Respondent

Ex. W6

14.02.2008

Reply by the petitioner to the Charge

Memo

Ex. W7

01.03.2008

Charge Sheet

Ex. W8

15.03.2008

Reply of the petitioner to the Charge

Sheet

Ex. W9

08.04.2008

Notice of enquiry to the petitioner

Ex. W10

16.05.2008

Notice of Preliminary Enquiry from

the respondents

Ex. W11

23.05.2008

Letter from the petitioner to the

Respondent

Ex. W12

23.05.2005

Prosecution Exhibits

Ex. W13

23.05.2008

Enquiry proceedings

to 02.09.2009

Ex. W14

22.01.2009

Dismissal order

Ex. W15

07.03.2009

Second Show Cause Notice

Ex. W16

18.03.2009

Reply to the show cause

Ex. W17

23.03.2009

Clarification by the petitioner

Ex. W18

22.05.2009

Second Dismissal order

Ex. W19

01.07.2009

Appeal by petitioner to DGM

Ex. W20

24.10.2009

Reminder by petitioner

Ex.W21

01.02 2010

Notice of personal hearing

Ex. W22

29.05.2010

Order of the Appellate Authority

Ex.W23

Bipartite Settlement

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. M1

11.08.2008

Proceedings of Enquiry

Ex. M2

27.08.2008

Proceedings of Enquiry

Ex. M3

08.09.2008

Presenting Officer's brief (Prosecution

Brief)

Ex. M4

15.09.2008

Letter from Petitioner acknowledging

prosecution brief and requesting time

to submit his brief

Ex. M5

11.10.2008

Defence brief

Ex. M6

05.11.2008

Enquiry Officer's report

Ex. M7

06.11.2008

Letter from respondent to petitioner

Dis/Con/365 dated 06.11.2008 giving

time to submit his reply to the findings

of the Enquiry officer

Ex. M8

20.11.2008

Petitioner's

letter

AGM/

Disciplinary Authority

Ex. M9

28.11.2008

Petitioner's letter to the Asistant

General

Manager/disciplinary

authority to treat his reply dated

20.11.2008 as his comments on the

findings of the Enquiry Officer

Ex. M10

18.03.2009

Proceedings of the personal hearing

and written representation of

petitioner — Ravindran

Ex. M11

22.05.2009

Order of Disciplinary Authority (Dis/

Con/048)

Ex. M12

Reply of respondent to ALC(C),

Chennai in reference to 2(A) petition

filed by petitioner before ALC (C)

Ex. M13

18.09.2008

Letter from petitioner to the AGM

(Disciplinary Authority), State Bank

of India, Z.O. Vellore-1

Ex. M14

04.11.2008

Reply of respondent to the letter of

petitioner dated 18.09.2008

Ex. M15

25.07.2007

Final Investigation report by Mr. K.

Rangaraj, Dy. Manager, Regional-I,

Coimbatore.

ubZ fnYyh] 7 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 668.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k jsyos izcaèra=

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

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] psUubZ ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 25@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 07@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@27@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2014

S.O. 668.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25//2012) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Southern Railway and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 07/02/2014.

[No. L-41012/27/2011-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAL

Thursday, the 23rd January, 2014

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1821

PRESENT :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 25/2012

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

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

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

the Management of Southern Railway and their workmen)

BETWEEN

Sri K. Sivasankaran

: 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Divisional Railway : 2nd Party/Respondent

Personnel Officer,

Salem Division,

Southern Railway,

Salem-636005

APPEARANCE:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner: Petitioner himself

For the 2nd Party/

Management

: Sri P. Srinivasan, Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-41012/27/2011-IR(B-I)

dated 22.03.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the demands mentioned below of Sri K.

Sivasankaran, Staff No. J/C 680, Ex-Head Commercial

Clerk are legal and justified? To what relief the

disputant is entitled?"

Demands of Sri K. Sivasankaran:

(i) Reinstatement in service with full back wages and

other benefits for the period of forced unemployment

upto the date of reinstatement with 18% interest per

annum and minimum 64 hours night duty allowance

per month, (ii) Payment of bonus from the year 2003-

04 till date of reinstatement in service with 18%

interest per annum, (iii) Payment of packing allowance

due from 12.04.1999 with 18% interest, (iv) Payment

of annual interest on standing Provident Fund and

crediting of monthly subscription towards Provident

Fund from the date of its Forfeiture, (v) Restoring of

Leave on Average Pay and Half Average Pay standing

at his credit on the date on which the Industrial

Dispute was raised and addition of such leave on

becoming due. Payment of leave salary for the leave

which exceeds the maximum limit arid lapsed, (vi)

Completion of ACR with Outstanding remarks from

the year 2003-04 till date of reinstatement, (vii)

Payment of amount which would have become

payable to him on the maturity of LIC Policy No.

701126918 by the management, (vii) Payment of First

Class Fare of the longest route from 2 persons (for

himself and his widowed mother) for three privilege

passes per year 2003 till the date of his reinstatement

Payment of 2/3rd of First Class Fare of longest route

for 2 persons (himself and his widowed mother) for

four sets of Privilege Ticket Orders per year 2003 till

date of his reinstatement, (x) Payment of Consolidated

amount per year for two persons (himself and his

widowed mother) in lieu of Railway medical services

from 2003 till the date of his reinstatement,

(xi) Promotion of the post of Assistant Commercial

Manager on the first post of the Exam for which he

was an applicant and was not imparted training in

the year 2003.

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 25/2012 and issued notices to both sides.

The First Party has entered appearance and conducted the

case himself. The Second Party has appeared through

counsel. The First Party has filed Claim Statement and the

Second Party Counter Statement in answer to this.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement in brief are

these :

The First Party had joined the Railways as Commercial

Clerk. He was promoted from time to time and was working

as Permanent Head Commercial Clerk w.e.f. 01.05.1994. The

tenure for Commercial Clerk at one stage was 5 years during

that time. Disregarding this policy and in spite of the fact

that the First Party had been pursuing his law study in the

evening college at Salem with permission, the Second Party

had Transferred the First Party to Mettur Dam so that he

will not be in a position to continue his studies. On

intervention of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT),

The Second Party had modified the order and transferred

the First Party to Salem Junction far a tenure of 8 months

so as to complete his study in law with instruction to

proceed to Mettur Dam after completion of law course.

The First Party had joined Mettur Dam Railway Station on

11.04.1999. By this time the Second Party is said to have

modified the tenure of the Commercial Clerk for periodical

transfer as 4 years. The First Party was not liable to be

transferred on 31.01.2003 the date for registration for

transfer or in February 2003, the month of General Transfer

or on 21.03.2003, the date of transfer. Still the First Party

was ordered to be transferred and the order was kept secret

until 27.04.2003 on which date a relieving order was served

on the First Party. This order was attempted to be served at

the residence of the First Party when he was off duty. The

First Party refused to accept it as he was not served with a

copy of the transfer order and also because a reasonable

time for submission of his grievance on transfer before the

concerned authority was not given. The Station Master

removed the name of the First Party from the Muster Roll

arbitrarily and thus terminated the service of the First Party.

The First Party had raised Industrial Dispute before the

Labour Enforcement Officer, Salem. The Officer sent a false

1822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

report to the Government regarding the dispute. The service

of the First Party could be terminated only by an authority

equivalent to or above him. The Termination was inflicted

by the Station Master who is a subordinate. Before serving

relieving order on the First Party a transfer order should

have been served on him with reasonable time for

redressing his grievance. The First Party is entitled to be

reinstated in service with full back wages and also all other

benefits shown in the schedule of reference.

4. The Second Party has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:—

The First Party was appointed as Trainee Commercial

Clerk in Palghat Division of Southern Railway on

25.09.1985. After completion of the training, he was posted

as Relieving (Commercial) Clerk at Salem. He was promoted

w.e.f. 12.10.1988 and was retained as Relieving Clerk at

Salem. While working here he was awarded the penalty of

withholding of annual increment for misconduct. He was

later promoted as Head Goods Clerk and was posted to

Salem Market Station. While working here he

unauthorizedly absented from duty and he was awarded

penalty of withholding of increment for 24 months. While

working at Salem Market, the First Party had been granted

permission to join Law College at Salem. His 3 years Law

Degree Course should have been completed in the year

1997. In the year 1998, he was posted to Mettur Dam in the

vacancy that has arisen on promotion of the Commercial

Clerk there. However, pursuant to the order of Hon'ble CAT,

he was retained at Salem Market till 01.04.1999 for

completion of his Law Degree Course. Then he was

Transferred to Mettur Dam and had joined there on

11.04.1999. In terms of Railway Board's letter dated

27.09.1989, the Commercial Clerk is liable to be transferred

every 4 years. The First Party was accordingly included in

the periodical transfer order dated 27.03.1998 by which he

was transferred from Salem Market to Mettur Dam. His

periodical transfer was to be in the year 2002. Since he was

retained at Salem Market till 10.04.1999 to enable him to

complete his Law Degree Course, the next periodical

transfer due for him was in the year 2003. It is accordingly

he was transferred from Mettur Dam to Sankari Durg by

the transfer order dated 21.03.2003. On the basis of the

Transfer Order the Station Master of Mettur Dam under

whose control the First Party was working had relieved

him to Sankari Durg on 27.04 2003. The Station Master had

made entry to this effect against the name of the First

Party in the Muster Roll. When the relieving order was

served on the First Party, he had retained one copy and

had returned the other copy with the endorsement "the

relieving order is refused to be accepted for want of copy

of transfer order and a reasonable time to submit

representation about the injustice caused for me. One copy

is retained with me for submission of appeal to the Labour

Enforcement Officer (Central), Salem". The periodical

transfer order was in respect of 121 employees and was

circulated to entire division through the supervisory

officials. The First Party could have obtained the copy of

the order from the Station Master or from the Divisional

Authorities. The First Party did not join for duty at Sankari

Durg. He then made a complaint to the Labour Enforcement

Officer, Salem. He made complaints to the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner also. The complaint before the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner was closed. Since the First Party had not

joined duty at Sankari Durg, he is treated as continuing on

unauthorized absence from 28.04.2003. The services of the

First Party were not terminated so far. He is not entitled to

any wages, other attendant benefits or privileges since he

has not been performing his duly from 28.04.2003. The First

Party is not entitled to any relief.

5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of

WW1, MW1 and Exts.Wl to Ex.W22 and Exts. M1 to Ext.

M4.

6. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the First Party was terminated from the

services of the Second Party?

(ii) Whether the First Party is entitled to the relief of

reinstatement in service and other reliefs detailed in

the schedule of reference?

The Points

7. There is no dispute regarding the facts of the case

except for the contention of the First Party that his relieving

on transfer from Mettur Dam amounts to illegal termination

from service, while according to the Second Party, he was

not terminated from service, but was only relieved from his

post at Mettur Dam to enable him to join Sankari Durg

where he was transferred.

8. The First Party had joined in Palghat Division of

Southern Railway as Commercial Clerk Subsequently he

was promoted and he was working at Salem Market. From

there he was Transferred to Mettur Dam. However, he had

obtained an order from CAT, Ernakulam against this and

on the basis of the order of the Tribunal the Respondent

retained him at Salem itself for a period of 8 months so as to

complete his Law Degree Course. After he completed the

course he was sent to Mettur Dam and had joined there on

11.04.1999. It was from Mettur Dam the First Party was

transferred to Sankari Durg. However, he refused to join at

Sankari Durg, though he was relieved from Mettur Dam.

9. The justification of the First Party at the time to refuse

to join at Sankari Durg was that he was not served with a

copy of the transfer order and he was not given sufficient

time to seek redressal of his grievance on account of the

transfer. The supervising officer at Mettur Dam under

whom the First Party was working had served the relieving

order at his residence and had struck off his name from the

Muster Roll at Mettur Dam after this. The First Party to

whom the relieving order was served had retained a copy

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1823

of the order and had sent back the other copy with an

endorsement that he is refusing to accept the relieving

order since he was not served with a copy of the transfer

order and he had no sufficient time to challenge the order.

The contention of the Second Party is that transfer order is

one by which 121 employees were transferred and no

individual order was served on them but it was served on

them through the supervising officer of the station at which

each of them are working. It is not clear whether the

intention was that the transfer order should be circulated

among the concerned persons or whether a copy should

have been served on each one of them. In any case there is

no case for the Second Party that a transfer order was

directly served on the First Party. At The same time the

First Party does not have a case that even though he was

not served with a copy of the transfer order he had no

knowledge of the order.

10. Though at the time of signing of the Relieving Order

the two grievances of the First Party were that he was not

given copy of the order and had no time for redressal of the

grievances, his present case is that he was prematurely

transferred from Mettur Dam to Sankari Durg. He had joined

Mettur Dam on 11.04.1999. The order transferring him from

Mettur Dam to Sankari Durg is dated 21.03.2003. He was

relieved from Mettur Dam on 27.04.2003. The case of the

Second Party is that certain categories of employees would

be transferred every 4 years and that the First Party who is

working as Commercial Clerk is one coming under such

category. The case of the First Party seems to be that he

has not completed the tenure of 4 years at Mettur Dam by

the time, order was passed transferring him to Sankari Durg.

If the date of joining of the First Party at Mettur Dam is

taken into account this contention will have some force.

By 21.03.2003 on which date the transfer order was made

4 years was not completed. It was by Ex.W2(a) dated

27.12.2002 the employees were directed to submit their

registration for periodical transfer during February 2003

and this was to be done not later than 31.01.2003. If date of

joining and this date of registration is taken into account

there were few more months for completing the period of

4 years at Mettur Dam for the First Party.

11. However, the case of the Second Party is that the

tenure of an employee in a particular station is to be counted

from the date of the order of transfer and not from the date

on which the employee had joined at the particular station.

As already stated the First Party had obtained an extension

of 8 months at Salem to enable his study of law. But for the

order of the Administrative Tribunal, consequent to which

he was retained at Salem, he should have proceeded to

Mettur Dam and joined there on an earlier date. In fact the

order of transfer by which the First Party was transferred

to Mettur Dam is on 27.03.1998. The copy of this order is

marked as Ex.W2(e). Subsequently, by order dated

21.07.1998 the petitioner was retained at the same station

by modification of the previous order with an addenda that

he will have to go to Mettur Dam on 01.04.1999. The case

of the Second Party seems to be that the transfer order

having been made much earlier, but for his retention at

Salem consequent to the order of the Administrative

Tribunal he would have proceeded to Mettur Dam and

joined there in which case he would have completed 4

years long before 21.03 2003, the date on which he was

Transferred to Sankari Durg. MW1 examined on behalf of

the Second Party has stated that the period of service in a

particular station would be counted from the date of the

order. However, he has not stated which is the date to be

treated as the date of completion of the tenure of 4 years,

whether the date of the transfer order or whether the last

date on which the employees are directed to submit their

registration for periodical transfer. Again the order by which

the First Party was sent to Mettur Dam after completion of

his period at Salem is not produced by either side. It is not

clear whether he was relieved on the basis of the order

permitting him to be retained at Salem or by a subsequent

order made at the juncture of his completion of the 8 months

period for which extension was given.

12. In any case the contention that is advanced by the

petitioner that his relieving from his post at Mettur Dam

was by an Officer who was not competent to do so and

that in any case the said relieving has the effect of his

termination from service could not be accepted. Again,

merely for the reason that the First Party was given an

order of transfer before the tenure of 4 years has not

completed (even if this is correct) he need not join the

transferred post also could not be accepted. As pointed

out by MW1, the Respondent has the power to transfer an

employee even before the completion of the prescribed

tenure. The tenure prescribed is only a general direction in

nature and does not mean an employee under any

circumstances could not be transferred before the tenure

is completed. The employee is not at liberty to refuse to

join the station to which he is transferred on such an excuse

also. After the First Party has been relieved from Mettur

Dam his name has been struck off from the Muster Roll at

Mettur Dam. Since he has not joined at Sankari Durg his

name could not be expected to be in the Muster Roll at

Sankari Durg. Still the First Party could not be assumed to

have been terminated from service consequent to the

service of the reliving order on him. So the case of the First

Party that he has been terminated from service and therefore

is to be reinstated in service could not be accepted.

13. The First Party has disobeyed the transfer order and

has refused to join at Sankari Durg. Consequently, he was

not getting any salary or any other benefits flowing from

his work. The First Party has claimed that he is entitled to

back wages and all other benefits detailed in the schedule

of reference. Since the First Party has refused to work on

his own, he is not entitled to the back wages or other

benefits claimed by him.

1824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14. It would have been proper if the First Party had

joined at Sankari Durg and had raised his grievances before

the authorities rather than absenting himself from duty.

His challenge to the transfer under the guise that he was

terminated from service could not be at the cost of the

Respondent which in effect will be at the cost of the public.

15. I have already found that the relieving of the First

Party from Mettur Dam could not be considered as his

termination from service. The First Party has assumed the

status of an employee terminated from service for raising

the dispute under Section-2A of the Industrial Disputes

Act. This section can be invoked only when an employer

discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates

the services of an individual workman. The case of the

First party seems to be that his case comes under

"otherwise terminates". Certainly, relieving from one station

could not be taken as termination from service at all. Since

the case of the First Party does not come under discharge,

dismissal. retrenchment or termination from service

otherwise, he was not entitled to raise the dispute at all

invoking Section-2A of the Act. So the very dispute raised

by him is not maintainable also.

16. In view of my discussion, the First Party is not

entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against the

First Party.

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

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 23rd January, 2014)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/

Petitioner

: WW1, Sri K. Sivasankaran

For the 2nd Party/

Management

: MW1. Sri K.C. Shivadasan

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

ExW1

Order of Promotion to Head Goods

Clerk dated 13.04.1994

Ex.W2

(a) J/C496/Staff/PGT dated

27.12.2002—for registration

(Series)

(b) MTDM/Transfer/2003/2 dated

27.04.2003—relieving order

for registration—5 years

(d) J/C 496/Staff/OL dated

12.02.1993—first transfer order

(e) J/P 676/II/PT/vol. 3 dated

27.03.1998—first transfer order

(f) RBE No. 123/2000—periodical

transfer circular

(g) Page No. 143 & 144 of a book

of Railway Establishment

Rules

(h) Inspection Notes of SCM/

Rates/MAS dated 23.03.2000

(i) Application to Grievance Adalat

dated 23.03.2000

Ex.W3

Reminder for Call Letter for ACM

examination dated 22.06.2004

Ex.W4

(a) Letter to Sr. DCM/PGT dated

17.02.1998—regarding first

transfer

(b) Letter to DRM/PGT dated

17.06.1998—regarding first

Transfer

21.07.1998—order of second

transfer

(d) Instruction to Candidates for

Law Entrance Examination

(e) Call letter from Directorate of

Legal Studies

(f) Law Degree Admission List

(g) First Page of Application List

(h) J/P676/II/PT/CCS dated 29

04.1991—transfer order to KRR

(I) RBE No. 336/1985—Posting of

SC/ST

(g) RBE No 277/1989—Posting of

SC/ST—Harassment

Ex.W5

Reminder for ACM Examination

dated 19.07.2005

Ex.W6

Application for the post of ACM

dated 05.01.2002

Ex.W7

ZTC/532/LDCE/01-03/SC dated

22.03.2003—Promotional Training

Ex.W8

J/P 676/ll/PT/CC/Vol. 4 dated

09.07.2003—Registration for

Request Transfers—Completion

of 4 years

Ex.W9

Copy of Pay slip for the months of

July 2003 to September 2003

Ex.W10

Copy of Pay slip for the month of

April 2008

Ex.W11

J/P676/II/PT/CC/VOL.4 dated

21.03.2003-Transfer order to SGE

Ex.W12

Copy of Muster Roll

Ex.W13

Application

for

Packing

Allowance dated 02.07.1999

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1825

Ex.W14

Application

for

Packing

Allowance dated 27.09.1999

Ex.W15

Application

for

Packing

Allowance dated 07.12.1999

Ex.W16

Application

for

Packing

Allowance dated 02.01.2000

Ex.W17

Application for Grievance Adalat

dated 23.03.2000

Ex.W18

Copy of letters warranting

individual

service

and

Acknowledgement

Ex.W19

Copy of notice to levy damage rent

dated 28.07.2004

Ex.W20

Copy of Provident Fund Ledger

Account slip dated 31.05.2005

Ex.W21

Copy of Charge Sheet for major

penally dated 27.07.2009

Ex.W22

Copy of Notice for eviclion

proceedings dated 12.08 2010

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

Annexure-R-1, RBE 244/1989 daled

27.09.1989

Ex.M2

Annexure-R-2, Office Order No.

J/C 6/2003 dated 21.03.2003

Ex.M3

Annexure-R-3, Copy of muster roll

for the relevant period of April-

May 2003

Ex.M4

Annexure-R-4, Relieving Letter No

MTDM/Transfer/2003/2 dated

27.04.2003

ubZ fnYyh] 7 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 669.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nqxZ jktuUnxkao

xzkeh.k cSad izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ 37@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@71@2008&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2014

S.O. 669.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 37/2008) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/02/

2014.

[No. L-12012/71/2008-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRl J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/37/2008

Date: 06.01.2014.

Party No. l(a)

The Chairman, Durg Rajnandgaon

Gramin Bank, Head Office: Near

Mundra Kunj, G.E. Road,

Rajnandgaon (Chhatishgarh).

(b)

Sr. Manager, Durg Rajnandgaon

Gramin Bank,Branch- Kurud Distt.

Durg (Chhatishgarh).

Versus

Party No. 2

Punit Ram Sahu,

Ex. Workman, Durg Rajnandgaon

Gramin Bank, EWS 189, Kurud

Bhilai Distt. Durg (Chhatishgarh)

AWARD

(Dated: 6th January, 2014)

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 (H of 1947) ("the Act" in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank and their

workman, Shri Punit Ram Sahu, for adjudication, as per

letter No, L-12012/71/2008-IR (B-I) dated 30.09.2008, with

the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of Durg

Rajnandgaon Keshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating

services of Shri Punit Ram Sahu, Ex-daily rated

workman w.e.f. 14.08.2004 is legal and justified? If

not, what relief Sri Punit Ram Sahu is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to fife their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Punit Ram

Sahu, (the workman" in short), filed the statement of claim

and the management of Durg Rajnandgaon Keshetriya

Gramin Bank ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written

statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the statement

of claim is that the party No. 1 is an industry and the

provision of the Act and industrial Employment (Standing

orders) Act, 1947 are applicable to party No. I and party

1826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

No. l is also registered under the Shops and Establishments

Act and he is a workman and he was engaged as daily

rated workman as a messenger-cum-sweeper in Kurud

Branch of Party No. 1 w.e.f. 15.01.1999 and he worked as

such with clean and excellent service record till 14.08.2004,

when he was terminated from services without any notice

or compensation, as per the provisions of the Act and

neither any charge sheet wag issued nor any departmental

inquiry was held against him, before termination of his

services and prior to termination of his services, he had

completed more than 240 days of service in every year and

he was being paid wages at the rate of Rs. 35/- per day from

sundry maintenance and miscellaneous accounts and the

documents in that regard are with the party No. 1 and he

was working full time and besides cleaning the tables and

the floor of the Bank premises, he was also doing clerical

work entrusted to him including maintenance of inward

and out ward register, bringing wage sheets of Bhilai Steel

Plant workers and their demand drafts and preparing of

demand notices and as he worked for more than 240 days

in a year, prior to his termination, he had acquired the status

of a permanent employee as per the Standing Order and he

was entitled to be regularized, but party No. 1 orally

terminated his services on 14.08.2004, without one month's

notice or one month's pay in lieu of the notice or payment

of retrenchment compensation and no seniority1 list was

also displayed by party No. I and some employees juniors

to him were retain in service by party No. 1 and his

termination from services was in violation of the provisions

of Section 25-F of the Act and he is entitled for reinstatement

in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The party No. 1 in the written statement, denying all

the adverse allegations made in the statement of claim, has

pleaded inter alia that there was never any employer

employee relationship between it and the workman and as

such no industrial dispute exists and the reference has

been made mechanically and without consideration of the

relevant materials placed before the authority and the order

of reference is not only illegal, bad in law, but also void ab

initio and the workman was not appointed by the Bank and

therefore, there was no termination as mentioned in the

order of reference. It is further pleaded by the party No, 1

that the engagement of the workman if any was not with

any recruitment Procedure prescribed for getting

employment, hence the workman has no right to claim

employment with the Bank and the workman was not

engaged as a messenger-cum-sweeper w.e.f. 15,01.1999,

but he was engaged for less than two hours for sweeping

of the Bank premises and filling drinking water, in absence

of the regular sub staff and he was being paid daily wages

as and when he was engaged and as there was no

appointment, there was no question of his termination as

alleged, so the question of issuance of notice or payment

of compensation, does not arise and the workman does

not work for 240 days in any calendar year and he never

worked full time or performed clerical work and there was

no need to maintain any seniority list for the persons

engaged on casual basis and juniors were not retained and

there was no violation of the provisions of section 25-F of

the Act or any law and the provisions of sections 25-F and

25-G of the Act are not applicable to the case of the workman

and muster roll, salary sheet and salary register are not

maintained for the persons casually engaged as and when

required basis and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Both the parties have led oral evidence in support of

their respective claim, besides placing reliance on

documentary evidence. The workman has examined himself

as a witness in support of his, whereas, one Arun Kumar

Dubey has been examined as a witness by party No. 1.

5. In his examination in chief, which is on affidavit, the

workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement

of claim. He has also proved the letters written by the

Bank to the Asstt. Manager, Bhilai Steel Plant as Exts. W- I

to W-X.

In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted that

he was appointed as daily wager by the then Branch

Manager of the branch, as the regular messenger was on

leave, due to sustaining of injuries and no written

appointment order was given to him by the bank and he

was being paid wages for the days he was working in a

week and the wages was being paid to him on vouchers

and he has no document to show that for how many days

in a week, he worked with the Bank, during the period of

his engagement and while he was working with the Bank,

except himself, no other daily wager was engaged by the

Bank.

6. The witness for the party No. l in his evidence on

affidavit has reiterated the facts mentioned in the written

statement by party No. 1. In his cross-examination also,

this witness has stated that the workman had worked as a

daily wager at Kurud branch and he was engaged on daily

wages as and when required and wages had been paid to

him for the days he worked with the Bank. This witness

has further stated that no record regarding payment of

wages to the workman is now available with the bank and

all expenditures and transactions including payment of

wages on vouchers by the bank are entered in the concerned

ledgers of the branch of the bank and copy of the ledgers

regarding payment of wages to the workman have not been

filed by the bank in this case.

7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned

advocate for the workman that the workman worked

continuously with party no. 1 from 15.01.1999 to 14.08.2004

and he had completed more than 240 days of work before

his termination and the party no. 1 terminated his services

w.e.f. 14.08.2004, without paying any compensation and

there was no compliance of the provisions of section 25-F

of the Act. It was further submitted by the learned advocate

for the workman that in paragraph 11 of the statement of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1827

claim itself, the workman had demanded for production of

documents by the party no.18 and in reply, the party no. l

stated that the workman was not appointed by following

due procedure and inspite of demand made by the workman,

party no. 1 failed to produce the documents regarding the

appointment of the workman at Kurud branch and from the

evidence of the workman, documents produced by him

and the admission of the witness for the party no. 1 that

the workman was appointed on daily wages, an inference

can be safely drawn that the workman had completed 240

days of work in each year and there is no answer as to why

the workman was terminated from service without following

the procedure.

It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the

workman that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court as reported in 2009 III CLR-262 (Maharashtra State

Road Transport Corporation Vs. Casteribe Rajya

P. Karmachari Sanghatana), the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and

others Vs. Uma Devi and others, 2006 II CLR-26 1 SC has

no application to this case and in view of the series of

decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble

Bombay High Court, the Tribunal cannot travel beyond

the scope of the reference and as the termination of the

workman from services was without compliance of the

mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act, his

termination is illegal and due to illegal termination, he was

forced to economical death, as he had no other source of

income and the workman is not gainfully employed after

his illegal termination and as such, the workman is entitled

for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages.

It was also submitted by the learned advocate for the

workman that juniors to the workman, were employed by

party no. 1 in violation of the provisions of section 25-G

and 25-H of the Act.

In support of the contentions, the learned advocate for

the workman placed reliance in the decisions reported in

2009 III CLR-262 (Supra) and 2011 II CLK-461 (Devinder

Singh Vs Municipal Council. Sanaur).

8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for party no. I that the workman was engaged as a part time

casual worker on daily wages basis, as and when required

by the branch and his engagement was not in accordance

with the recruitment rules of party no, 1 and he was not a

workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate

for the party no. 1 that the workman has failed to prove that

he worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months

of the alleged date of termination and as such, the

provisions of section 25-F are not applicable to his case. It

was also submitted that the workman has also failed to

show that juniors to him were retained by party no. 1.

Alternatively, it was submitted that in case of holding

of the alleged termination of the workman from services to

be illegal by the Tribunal, then also, the workman is not

entitled for reinstatement in service or back wages and at

best, he can be granted some monetary compensation.

In support of such contention, the learned advocate for

the party no. l placed reliance on the decisions reported in

(2013) 5 SCC-136 (Asstt. Engineer, Rajasthan Development

Corporation Vs. Gitam Singh).

9. It is the admitted case of the parties that the workman

was engaged on daily wages basis. According to the

workman, he was engaged as daily rated workman w.e.f.

15.01,1999 and he worked continuously till 14.08.2004 and

he had completed more than 240 days of work in every year

and his services were terminated on 14.08.2004 without

compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of

the Act.

Party no. 1 has denied such claim of the workman.

According to party no 1, the workman was engaged by it

intermittently on daily wages as and when required basis

and he did not work for 240 days in any year and he did not

work continuously from 01.10.1999 to 18.12.2004.

It is well settled that service for 240 days in a period of

12 calendars months is equal not only to service for a year,

but is to be deemed continuous service even if interrupted.

Therefore, though S.25-F speaks of continuous service for

not less than one year under the employer, both conditions

arc fulfilled, if the workman has actually worked for 240

days during a period of 12 calendar months.

It is also well settled that before a workman can complain

of retrenchment being not in consonance with section

25-F of the Act, he has to show that he has been in

continuous service for not less than one year under that

employer who has retrenched him from service.

In the present case, in order to prove that he worked

continuously from 15.01.1999 to 14.08.2004 and completed

more than 240 days in every year, the workman has examined

himself as a witness and has filed his evidence on affidavit.

The workman has also proved the documents, Exes. W-I to

W-X, which are letters written to the Asstt. Manager, Bhilai

Steel Plant by the Manager of Kurud Branch of Durg—

Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank in between 06.01.2003 to

29.04.2004 to hand over the cheques for payment of the

monthly wages to the workman.

It is to be mentioned here that the witness for the party

no 1 in his cross-examination has stated that all

expenditures and transactions including payment of wages

1828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

on vouchers by the bank and entered in the concerned

ledgers of the branch of the bank and copy of the entries of

the ledgers regarding payment of wages to the workman

have not been filed by the bank.

It will not be out of place to mention here that though

party no. 1 has mentioned in the written statement that the

workman was engaged intermitted, it has not mentioned as

to for how many days, the workman was engaged during

the 12 calendar months preceding the alleged date of

termination or the total days of his engagement. No

document has also been filed by party no. 1 in regard to the

engagement of the workman. The workman had filed an

application for filing of original documents in connection

with his engagement in the branch till August 2004. The

party no. 1 did not file the documents, even though direction

was given for production of the documents. An affidavit

sworn by the then Branch Manager of Kurud Branch was

filed stating that due to shifting of the branch to a new

premises, the document could not be made available, it

was not denial by the party no. 1 that there were no such

documents. Hence, adverse inference is drawn against the

party No. l for nonproduction of the relevant documents.

It is found from the evidence on record that the workman

has been able to show that he had worked for 240 days in

the preceding 12 calendar months of the date of the

termination i.e. 14.08.2004. It is also admitted that before

termination of the services of the workman, the mandatory

provision of section 25-F of the Act were not complied

with. So, the termination of the services of the workman

held to be illegal.

11. Now, the question remains for consideration is as to

what relief or reliefs the workman is entitled.

As per the submission of the learned advocate for the

workman, the workman is entitled for reinstatement in

service with continuity and full back wages. In support of

such submission;, the learned advocate for the workman

placed reliance on the decision reported in 2011 II CLR-461

[Supra).

On the other hand, the learned advocate for the party

no. 1 as alternative argument submitted that in this case,

the workman is not entitled for reinstatement and back

wages and at best, he can be granted monetary

compensation and in support of such submission placed

reliance on the decision reported in (2013) 5 SCC-136

(Supra).

It is settled beyond doubt that for grant of back wages,

it is necessary for the workman to plead and prove that he

was not gainfully employed since the date of his

termination. In this case, though the workman in his

examination-in-chief has stated that he was not gainfully

employed since the date of his termination, in his cross-

examination, he has admitted that he is doing business

after his disengagement from bank and he is running a

fancy store. In view of the admission of the workman of his

doing business after his termination, he is not entitled for

any back wages,

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in

(2013) 5 SCC-136 (supra) have been pleased to take into

consideration a large number of decisions delivered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court earlier, including the decisions reported

in 2011 II CLR-461 (Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council,

Sonaur, on which reliance has been placed by the workman),

(2010) 3 SCC-192 (Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State

Warehousing Corporation) and (2010) 9 SCO-126 (Incharge

Officer Vs. Shankar Setty.)

The Hon'ble Apex Court have been pleased to hold

that:—

"In our view, Harjinder Singh and Devinder Singh do

not lay down the proposition that in all cases of wrongful

termination, reinstatement must follow. This court found in

those cases that judicial discretion exercised by the labour

court was disturbed by the High Court on wrong

assumption that the initial employment of the employee

was illegal. As noted above, with regard to the wrongful

termination of a daily wager, who had worked for a short

period, this court in long fine of cases has held that the

award of reinstatement cannot be said to be proper relief

and rather award of compensation in such cases would be

in consonance with the demand of justice. Before exercising

its judicial discretion, the labour court has to keep in view

ail relevant factors, including the mode and manner of

appointment, nature of appointment, length of service, the

ground on which the dispute before grant of relief in an

industrial dispute.

In the light of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble

Apex Court as mentioned above, now, the present case in

hand is to be considered. In this ceisc, it is admitted that

the workman was engaged as a daily wager on 15.01.1999.

It is also found that he continued as such till 14.08.2004,

when he was terminated from services by party no. 1. In a

case such as the present one, it appears that the relief of

reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary

compensation would meet the ends of justice. Taking into

consideration the facts and circumstance of the case, in

my considered opinion, the compensation of Rs, 75.000/-

(Rupees Seventy Five thousand only) in lieu of

reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable.

Hence, it is ordered:—

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1829

ORDER

The action of the management of Drug Rajnandgaon

Keshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating services of

Shri Punit Ram Sahu, Ex-daily rated workman w.e.f.

14.08.2004 is illegal and unjustified. The workman is entitled

for monetary compensation of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy

Five Thousand only) in lieu of reinstatement. He is not

entitled for any other relief. The party no. 1 is directed to

pay the monetary compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the

workman Shri Punit Ram Sahu within 30 days of the

publication of the award in the official gazette failing which,

the amount will carry interest at the rate of 6 percent per

annum.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 670.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk

14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj 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 p.Mhx<+ ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1116@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 07@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@120@2000&vkbZ vkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2014

S.O. 670.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1116/2005) of the

Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 2,

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Northern Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

07/02/2014.

[No. L-41012/120/2000—IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No. 1116/2005

Registered on 22.9.2005

Sh. Mohinder Singh, S/o Sh. Piara Singh, C/o Sh. Jaspal

Singh, Mannipur, Kothi No. 2828, Sector 22C, Chandigarh.

...Petitioner

Versus

The Assistant Personal Officer, Northern Railway,

Jagadhari Workshop, Distt. Yamunanagar, Haryana.

...Respondent

APPEARANCES:

For the workman

Sh. S.S. Meelu Advocate.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on 7.1.2014)

Central Government vide Notification No. L-41012/120/

2000-IR(B.I.) Dated 14.7.2003, by exercising its powers under

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

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

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

Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of Northern

Railway in terminating the services of Sh. Mohinder

Singh Chowkidar w.e.f. 1.2.94 is just and legal? If not,

what relief the workman is entitled to?"

In response to the notice the workman appeared and

submitted statement of claim pleading that he was

appointed as Night Chowkidar on 10.3.1981 on daily wage

basis. He continuously served up to 31.1.1994 at Railway

Workshop Canteen, Jagadhari Workshop, District Yamuna

Nagar, Haryana. His services were terminated on 1.2.1994

in violation of the provisions of the Act as no retrenchment

compensation was paid to him and no charge-sheet was

served on him. That no notice under Section 25F(c) was

served on the workman and even no permission of the

Government was obtained. That he has been denied the

status of temporary employee which is contrary to the

instruction mentioned in the Indian Railway Establishment

Manual. That the Management adopted unfair practice.

That since his termination is illegal, he is entitled to be

reinstated in service with all the consequential benefits.

Respondent management filed written statement

denying the relationship and pleaded that the workman

was never employed and there was no relationship of

master and servant between the parties. That Railway

Workshop Canteen, Jagadhari Workshop, District Yamuna

Nagar, Haryana is an establishment under Section 46 of the

Factories Act and all recruitments and appointment of the

staff are regulated by the statutory rules. That there are

6216 employees and the provisions of the Staff Canteen is

essential to meet out the requirements of the workers which

is provided there. That the employees in the canteen are

appointed as per the Rules and Regulations. That as per

letter dated 1.9.1965 of the management, the employment

of casual labour was prohibited and the workman was never

1830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

employed by it. It is further pleaded that there is a Railway

Protection Force to protect the railway properties and the

question that the workman was employed as Night

Chowkidar do not arise. Since there is no merit in the claim

of the workman, the same be dismessed.

In support of its case the workman appeared in the

witness box and examined Dwarka Das. Workman filed his

affidavit reiterating the case as stated in the claim petition.

Dwarka Das has deposed that he was working at Railway

Workshop, Jagadhari. He has further stated that the

workman was recruited in the Canteen in 1981 on the

recommendations of the Managing Committee of the

Jagadhari Railway Workshop as Chowkidar. He was paid

out of the income of the canteen and some of the workers

employed in the canteen were appointed to regular posts.

On the other hand the management has examined

Sh. P.K. Gupta who filed his affidavit reiterating the case as

set out in the written statement.

It was argued by the learned counsel for the workman

that workman was recruited by the Canteen Manager on

10.3.1981 and worked there till 31.1.1994 when his services

were illegally terminated. In order to support his arguments,

the learned counsel has drawn my attention towards the

statement of the Dwarka Das, who has stated that the

workman was employed in the Canteen and further carried

me through the certificate dated 19.8.1998 Exhibit WW1/1,

another certificate Exhibit WW1/2 and submitted that the

Canteen Manager has issued certificates that workman

worked in the Canteen as Night Chowkidar and thus the

appointment of the workman as Night Chowkidar in the

Canteen Railway Workshop Jagadhari stands proved. He

has further relied on Kerala Electrical & Allied Engg.

Company Ltd., Kochi & Anr. Vs. Leemns D'Cruze & Ors.

reported in 2008 LAB I.C. 4042 and Hindalco Industries

Ltd. vs. Association of Engineering Workers reported in

AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1867 to submit that the

persons working in the Canteen are Government employees.

I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.

In the authorities stated above the workmen were proved

to be employees of the Canteen and in those circumstances,

it was held that even though the Canteen was run through

a contractor but the workmen were the employees of the

management. Now it is to be seen whether the workman in

the present case is proved to be employee in the Canteen

of the Jagadhari Workshop, Jagadhari. No doubt Dwarka

Daas has stated that workman was employed in the Canteen

in March 1981 and that effect is the statement of the

workman. There is no denial of the fact that Canteen at

Jagadhari Workshop, Yamuna Nagar caters to the demand

of the staff and it has to be maintained by the management

under the Factories Act. When the canteen is to be managed

by the management, its employees are to be recruited by

following the statutory Rules and Regulations. There is

nothing on the file that the workman was ever recruited as

Night Chowkidar by following any procedure. It was

submitted that since the workamn worked in the Canteen

as Night Chowkidar, the question of any appointment letter

do not arise. Even if there is no appointment letter issued,

the statutory authorities are required to follow Rules and

Regulations for making appointment, but no such procedure

has been shown to be followed in the present case and in

the absence of this, it cannot be said from the bare

statement of the witnesses that the workman was appointed

as Night Chowkidar inasmuch as there is a specific averment

that the railway property is protected by the Railway

Protection Force and there was no need to appoint a

Chowkidar. Being so, the statement of witness is of no help

to the workman.

So far as certificates Exhibit WW1/1 and WW1/2 issued

by the Canteen Manager are concerned, mentioning therein

that the workman worked in the Workshop from 10.3.1981

to 31.1.1994, are also of no consequence. The workman

has not examined the persons who are the authors of the

said certificates and in the absence of their statements, no

evidentiary value can be attached to the said certificates.

Here, the learned counsel has drawn my attention towards

an application and submitted that he summoned the original

record of the Canteen Manager along with receipts sent by

the workman as well as also the Canteen Managers who

issued the certificates, but the same were not produced by

the management and therefore adverse inference be drawn

against it. Suffice it to say that it was for the workman to

produce the witnesses and the management cannot be

asked to examine the persons on behalf of the workman. So

far as the correspondence Exhibit W2/1 to Exhibit W2/6 is

concerned, the same were addressed to the workman

authorizing him to sell the canteen items but author of the

said documents has not come in the witness box to depose

about their authenticity. The workman has also placed

photocopies of receipts Exhibit W3/1 to Exhibit W3/8 to

prove that he received certain amount for performing the

duties. He received Rs. 150/- for the month of July, 1981 at

the rate of Rs. 5/- per day and sometimes the receipt shows

that he received Rs. 200/-, 250 for performing the night

duty but these receipts do not bear the signature of any

person of the management and are simply an admission in

favour of the workman himself. It cannot be looked into to

prove that workman actually worked as Night Chowkidar

in the Jagadhari Workshop, Jagadhari.

Thus from the evidence placed on the file it cannot be

said that the workman was actually employed as Night

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1831

Chowkidar and he worked as such during the period in

question. Being so, it is held that his services were

terminated.

In result the reference is answered against the workman.

Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 671.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk

14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkQ 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 caxyksj

ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 09@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 07@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012 @172@2004&vkbZ vkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2014

S.O. 671.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09/2005) 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

07/02/2014.

[No. L-12012/172/2004-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

"Shram Sadan", G.G. Palya, Tumkur Road, Yeswanthpur,

Bangalore-560 022.

Dated

3rd January 2014

Present

Shri S N Navalgund

President Officer

CR No. 09/2005

I Party

II Party

Sh. Shivananda,

The General Manager (HRD),

C/o Gangadharaiah,

State Bank of Mysore,

No. 32, 12th Cross,

Head Officer. VII Floor,

Vijayanagar Pipeline,

K G Road,

Vijaynagar,

Bangalore-560 009.

Bangalore-560 023.

APPEARANCES :

I Party

Shri D Leelakrishnan,

Advocate

II Party

Shri R Narayana,

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide order No. L-12012/172/

2004-IR(B-I) dated 29.12.2004 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 management of State Bank of Mysore

is justified in terminating the services of

Sh. Shivananda, Temporary Sub-Staff with effect from

4.10.1998? If not what relief the workman is entitled

to and from which date?"

2. On receipt of the reference registering it in

C R 09/2005 when notices were issued to both the sides the

I party filed his claim statement on 01.08.2005, whereas, the

II Party filed his counter statement on 19.12.2005.

3. The I Party in his claim statement asserts that he

worked as Temporary Sub-staff in the II Party's Basappa

Circle, Tata Silk Farm, Sampangiramnagar, BTM layout

Branches of Bangalore intermittently from march 1993 till

October 1998 and that in between November 1997 to

October 1998 he had continuously worked more than 240

days in Tata Silk Farm, Sampangiramnagar, Kanakapura

Road and BTM Layout branches of the II Party bank and

as per the procedure of the Bank of the Temporary

Employees serving more than 240 days in a 12 months

period were being entitle to be confirmed the II Party bank

had as confirmed the services of many of such employees

he too through the General Secretary of SBM Employees

Union got addressed two letters dated 24.09.1999 and

27.06.2000 to the General Manager (O) of the II Party Bank

requesting for his permanent appointment and in that regard

the Manager of Sampangiramnagar Branch had also written

letter on 02.02.2000 to the AGM, Bangalore to appoint to

appoint him but the same was not considered and in the

meanwhile on 04.09.1998 while he was working at BTM

Layout branch he was informed that he cannot continued

in service as per the instruction and direction of the Head

Office and despite his efforts to persuade the said Branch

Manager to continue him in service the same since went in

vain it amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of

Section 2(oo) of the ID Act and as the management has not

complied with the mandatory provisions 25(f) and 25(b) of

the ID Act its action is Void Abinitio. As such being

aggrieved by such high ended vindictive and arbitrary

action of the II Party he was constrained the raise dispute

1832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

before the ALC(C), Bangalore under Section 2(a) read with

Section 10 of the ID Act and due to adamant and unhelpful

attitude of the management the conciliation since failed it

resulted in this reference. Interlia, the II Party in its counter

statement contended that the I Party who intermittently

worked as a temporary employee in its different branches

had not completed 240 days in any block of 12 months and

that he is put to strict proof having put in continuously 240

days of service in any block. It is further contended that

there is no provision or rule for a regularisation of any

temporary employee putting continuous service of 240 days

in any block of 12 months but they were required to forward

the application for regular employment in the bank and if

after interview they are selected they are selected against

permanent vacancies and service of 240 days in a block of

12 months do not automatically make a temporary employee

a permanent employee in the Bank. Hence, the I party is

not entitle for any of the relief.

4. After completion of the pleadings when the matter

was posted for evidence the learned advocate appearing

for the II party while filling the affidavit of Sh. M S Shashi

Kumar, Deputy Manager, Region-I of II Party Bank got

exhibited by consent four certificates issued by the Branch

Manager, Tata Silk Farm Branch as Ex M-1 series, certificate

issued by Branch manager of Sampangiramnagar branch,

certificate issued by Kanakpura Road Branch and BTM

Layout Branch as Ex M-2 to Ex M-4 respectively and closed

his side. Interalia, the learned advocate appearing for the I

party while filing the affidavit of I Party swearing to the

contents of the claim statement examining him an oath as

WW 1 got exhibited information furnished to him by CPIO

of the II Party on his application under Right to Information

Act; copy of circular dated 85 dated 25.08.2009 containing

of 228 workers who have been absorbed in the year 2009

and certificates issued by the branch managers of Basappa,

Circle, Tata Silk Farm Branch, Hanumanthanagar Branch,

HMT Industrial Estate Branch, Sampangiramnagar Branch,

Kanakapura Road Branch and BTM Layout branch

regarding the details of the Days he worked in those

respective branches as Ex W-2, Ex W-3 and Ex W-4 series

respectively and during the cross-examinaation of MW 1

had got exhibited copies of two representations of the union

to the management and a letter by the Sampangiramnagar

Branch Manager to the Assistant General Manager of II

Party to make the I party permanent in the job as Ex W-4

series.

5. With the above pleadings and evidence brought on

record by both the sides when the matter was posted for

arguments 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

and cited the following citations:

1. AIR 2001 SC 69 = 2001 (1) SCC 424—Management of

M/s. Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., vs. Prahalad Singh

2. AIR 2000 SC 839—Nedugundi Bank Limited vs. K P

Madhavankutty & others

3. AIR 1993 SC 2276 = 1993 II LLJ 676 (SC)—Ratan

Chandra Sammantha vs. Union of India

4. 2002 II LLJ 297 (Kar)—North West Karnataka Road

Transport Corporation, Hubli Vs. Abdul Salam

5. 1999 I LLJ 1028 (SC)—Municipal Committee, Tauru

vs. Harpal Singh and Another

6. AIR 2006 SC 1806 = 2006 SC Cases (Vol. 4),—Secretary,

State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi

7. 1987 I LLJ 545 (SC) Union of India & others vs. N

Hargopal & others

8. 1997 FJR (Vol. 90) 332 (SC) = AIR 1997 SC 1788—State

of Haryana & others vs. Jasmer Singh & others

9. 2002 (3) SCC 25 = JT 2002 (2) SC 238—The Range

Forest Officer vs. S T Hadimani

10. 2004 (vol-107) FJR 264 (SC)—Rajasthan State Mills

vs. State of Rajasthan

11. AIR 2004 SC 4681—Municipal Corporation,

Faridabad vs. Siri Niwas

12. 2004 (8) SCC 246 = 2004 LAB IC 4041 (SC)—MP

Electricity Board vs. Hariram

13. AIR 1997 SC 3657—Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi &

others vs. State of Bihar & others

6. At the Outset since the schedule of reference is as to

whether the management of State Bank of Mysore is

justified in terminating the services of Sh. Shivananda,

Temporary Sub-Staff with effect from 4.10.1998, I may say

that there is no scope to consider the claim of the I Party

for confirmation or permanancy of his job and I am required

to consider only whether II Party is justified in terminating

his temporary sub-staff service w.e.f. 04.10.1998.

7. There being no dispute the I Party having intermittently

worked as Temporary Sub-staff in different branches of

the II Party namely Dasappa Circle, Tata Silk Farm,

Sampangiramnagar, Kanapura Road and BTM Layout

Branches between 1993 to 1998 in respect of which the Branch

manager of those branches have issued certificates produced

at Ex W-1 to Ex W-4 and as temporary sub-staff working

continuously 240 days in a calendar year confers with a

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1833

right under Section 25(f) of the I.D. Act for one months

notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment

or wages in lieu of notice period and compensation

equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed

year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months

as condition precedent before retrenchment, it has to be

seen whether 1 Party proved having served for a period of

240 days in any period of 12 months before he was refused

work. According to the 1 Party and the certificates he rely

upon produced at Ex W-4 series he worked for two days

i.e. 27.03.1993 and 27.04.1993 at Basappa Circle Branch;

between August 1993 to 28.11.1997 for a period of 254

days at Tata Silk Branch; 88 days at Hamumanthnagar

Branch between 03.03.1997 to 10.06.1997; 18 days at HMT

Industrial Estate Branch in the month of August 1997; 88

days at Sampangiramnagar Branch between December 1997

to February 1998; 47 days at Kanakpura Branch between

06.05.1997 to 30.06.1998; 93 days at BTM Layout Branch

between July 1998 to October 1998. Out of this service he

claims that in a block period of 12 months covering

November 1997 to October 1998 having worked more than

240 days and this is supported by the certificates produced

at Ex W-4 series because they indicate he having worked

from 01.11.1997 to 28.11.1997 for 20 days at Tata Silk Farm

Branch; during December 1997 to February 1998 for a

period of 88 days at Sampangiramnagar Branch; from

06.05.1998 to 30.06.1998 for a period of 47 days at

Kanakapura Road Branch; from 09.07.1998 to 27.10.1998

for a period of 93 days at BTML Layout Branch total of

which comes to 248 days. Therefore, he has successfully

demonstrated having served for more than 240 days in a

block period of 12 months covering from November 1997

to October 1998. When he is succeeded in demonstrating

that during a period of 12 months i.e., between November

1997 to October 1998 he has served for more than 240 days

the II Party/employer could not have terminated his service

without giving him either one month's notice or one month's

wages in lieu of such notice and compensation equivalent

to 15 days average pay for every completed year of service

as made mandatory/condition precedent under Section

25(f) of I.D. Act. Admittedly, the II party/employer having

not issued one month's notice or one month's wages in

lieu of one month's notice and compensation equivalent

to 15 days average pay for every completed year of service

it amounts to retrenchment in violation of provisions of

Section 25(f) and is void abinito and he is presumed to be

in service as temporary sub-staff.

8. The learned advocate appearing for the II Party

while replying on the claim of the I Party that he was

refused work on 04.11.1998 and this reference is made in

the year 2005 urged that there being a seven years delay in

raising the dispute it is stale claim and is liable to be rejected

on this count only and in support of this arguments he

cited the decisions reported in.

1. AIR 2001 SC 69 = 2000 (1) SCC 424 - Management

of M/s. Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs. Prahalad

Singh.

2. AIR 2000 SC 839 - Nedugundi Bank Limited vs.

K.P. Madhavankutty & Others.

3. AIR 1993 SC 2276 = 1993 II LLJ 676 (SC) - Ratan

Chandra Sammantha vs. Union of India.

4. 2002 II LLJ 297 (Kar) - North West Karnataka Road

Transport Corporation, Hubli vs. Abdul Salam.

9. I have gone through these decisions carefully but

only because there is some delay it cannot be straight

away decided that it is stale matter. In the present case on

his alleged retrenchment he got made representations

through the Union and when it was not materialized he

approached the ALC(C) for conciliation and on its failure it

ended in making this reference in the year 2005. It is indicated

from the details given in the reference was raised before

the ALC(C), Bangalore in the year 2003 and FOC report

was given on 06.04.2004, therefore, I am not inclined to

accept the argument of the learned advocate appearing for

the II party this dispute being stale one. Moreover, the II

Party in its counter statement having not raised such

contention, as held in the case of Municipal Committee,

Tauru vs. Harpal Singh and Another reported in 1999 I LLJ

1028 SC relied upon by him only wherein it is held evidence

tendered in court should be based on claim statement such

contention/arguments cannot be urged. In other words

there being no plea in the counter statement the dispute

being stale due to delay in raising the dispute the learned

advocate appearing for the II party cannot put forward

such arguments for the first time during the course of

arguments.

10. In the upshot of the above since there being

refusal of work to the I Party who was working as Temporary

Sub-staff since 1993 intermittently and had during the 12

months block period between November 1997 to October

1998 had worked for 240 days it amounts to illegal

retrenchment violation of the provisions of Section 25(f) of

I.D. Act he is deemed to be in service as temporary sub-

staff he is entitle for an order to restore his name in the

panel of temporary sub-staff but having regard to the nature

of his engagement as temporary sub-staff in the place of

leave vacancy or exigencies of work load and some delay

in approaching the ALC(C) for conciliation it is not a fit

case to award or grant in his favour any backwages. In the

result, I pass the following :

ORDER

The reference is allowed holding that the management

of SBM is not justified in terminating the services of

Sh. Shivananda, Temporary Sub-Staff with effect from

04.11.1998 and that he is entitle for restoration of his

name in the panel of the sub-staff.

1834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(Dictated to UDC, transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 3rd January, 2014).

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 672.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksukdu jsyos

dkjiksjs'ku fyñ 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;] caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 27@2000½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@02@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@10@2000&vkbZ vkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2014

S.O. 672.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2000)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Konkan Railway

Corporation Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 07/02/2014.

[No. L-41012/10/2000-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE TH ECENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

Dated

10th January, 2014

PRESENT

Shri S. N. NAVALGUND,

Presiding Officer

C R No. 27/2000

I Party

II Party

Shri Santosh Durga Naik,

The Regional Railway

Near Panchapuruha Temple, Manager,

Keshava Ni Naik Wada,

Konkan Railway Corporation

Kodibag,

Limited, Regional Office,

KARWAR.

Shirwad,

KARWAR - 581 306.

Appearances

I Party

Shri V. S. Naik,

Advocate

II Party

Smt. Shwetha Anand,

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide order No. L-41012/

10/2000-IR (B-I) dated 16.03.2000 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 Konkan

Railway Corporation Ltd. is justified in refusing

reinstatement of Sri Santosh Durga Naik, Ex-Khalasi/

Helper in service with all backwages? If not to what

relief the said workman is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in

CR 27/2000 when notices were issued both side they entered

their appearance through their respective advocates and

the claim statement of the I Party came to be filed on

17.01.2002 and counter statement of II Party on 22.06.2002.

3. The I party in his claim statement claims that he

was engaged by the II Party as Helper from 08.05.1991 and

since then he worked continuously till 01.07.1992 and that

from 01.07.1992 he was refused work without complying

the provisions of Section 25(f) of ID Act. He has further

alleged that along with him several other workmen including

Sh. Rajesh V. Tamse, Sh. Kishor G Naik, Sh. Mahadev Naik,

Sh. Sadanand S. Naik, Sh. Chandrakant Bhovi, Sh Ullas D

Kankarkat, Sh. Lavu R Kankankar and Sh. Telu Naik were

also working and those eight workmen have been extended

the benefit of regularisation, hence, the action of the

management relating to him is totally arbitrary, unjust and

mandatory provisions in violation of Section 25(f) of ID

Act. He has further alleged that after he was refused

employment several times he approached the management

and made several representations and got issued notice

on 15.09.1997 to which the II Party since did not respond,

he filed a petition before the conciliation officer and as he

submitted FOC it resulted in this reference. Thus he has

asserted that though he has worked continuously for more

than 240 days from 08.05.1991 till 01.07.1992 being refused

employment from 01.07.1992 without complying mandatory

requirement of Section 25(f) of ID Act the II party is liable

to reinstate him with continuity of service and all other

consequential benefits. In the Counter statement filed by

the II party, inter alia, it is contended, it being a company

incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 had

undertaken a project of construction of 760 Kms. of Railway

Line on the West Coast connecting the western parts of

India with an intention to shorten the Railway Routes and

in that process it had availed the services of the Staffs of

the Indian Railways either by way of deputation or they

were re-employed subsequently and having regard to the

exigency locally available unskilled labourers were engaged

for few days on daily wage basis depending upon day

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1835

today requirements and accordingly its Junior Engineer

had engaged the I party for few days during the Survey

Works on payment of Rs. 30.00 per day from the

contingency fund of Chief Engineer, Karwar. It is further

alleged that in case of employment of daily rated employees

it follows the procedure for appointment through its Chief

Engineer and on behalf of its Managing Director and after

six months of employing such the employees will be brought

on record as temporary employees and subsequently

based on the satisfactory performance regular pay scale

will be extended subject to the acquisition of the required

qualification and as in the case of I Party he was not

appointed through such procedure his claim that he was

engaged and he served continuously for more than 240

days between 08.05.1991 till 01.07.1992 is false and that he

is not entitled to be considered for reinstatement or regular

appointment. It is further contended that the I Party was

being engaged on Daily Wage of Rs. 30.00 per day for a

temporary requirement of the work exigency for few days

namely 01.06.1991, 02.06.1991, 06.06.1991 and 08.06.1991

only as such he is not entitle for either for reinstatement or

any of the relief he has asked for.

4. After completion of the pleadings when the matter

was posted for Evidence on behalf of the II Party while

filing the affidavit of Personnel Inspector of the II Party

corporation by name Sh. M. S. Patil reitereating the contents

of the counter statement examining him on oath as MW 1

the vouchers given by the I Party acknowledging the

Receipt of Wages dated 16.09.1991, 19.08.1991; Photostat

copy of the Certificate given by its Junior Engineer dated

03.02.1999 I party having worked between 08.05.1991 to

30.06.1992 which they claimed as wrong one; the

Memorandum of charges issued to Junior Engineer

Chandrakant Pednekar for having wrongfully issuing the

certificate dated 03.02.1999 in favour of 1 Party; copy of

explanation given by Sh. Chandrakant Pednekar to the

Memorandum of charges dated 06.06.2001; Order passed

on the said memorandum of charges imposing Penalty of

withholding of one set of privilege pass for the year 2001

dated 07.07.2001; Printed Appendix IX regarding period for

which the Records in Account Offices are to be retained;

Printed Appendix XIII relating to destruction of Office

Records connected with Accounts as Ex M-1 to Ex M-8

respectively. Interalia, the learned advocate appearing for

the I Party while filing the affidavit of the I Party reiterating

the averments made in the claim statement examining him

on oath as WW 1 got exhibited the Original certificate

issued by Junior Engineer, Chandrakant Pednekar dated

03.02.1999 certifying he having worked as Khalasi/Helper

during Survey works @ Rs. 30.00 per day exclusive of

Sunday from 08.05.1991 to 30.06.1992 and copy of a

representation purported to have been given to the II Party

on 17.10.1998 not supported by any evidence having served

the same on the II Party as Ex W-1 and Ex W-2 respectively.

5. With the above pleadings and evidence brought

on record by both the sides, I have heard the arguments

addressed by learned advocates appearing for both sides.

The learned advocate appearing for the I Party in support

of his case cited the decisions reported in

1. 2010 III LLJ Page No. 41 (SC) - Anoop Sharma vs.

Executive Engineer, Public Health Div., No. 1, Panipat

(Haryana)

2. 2010 II LLJ Page No. 309 - Harijinder Singh vs.

Punjab State Warehousing Corporation

3. 1990 (2) LLJ Page No. 70 - Punjab Land Devpt. &

Reclaimantion Corpn. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Presiding

Officer, Labour Court Chandigarh & others

4. 2011 III LLJ Page No. 1 - Devinder Singh vs.

Municipal Council, Sananur

whereas the learned advocate appearing for the II

Party cited the decisions reported in

1. 2007 AIR SCW 7305 - Uttaranchal Forest

Development Corporation vs. MC Joshi

2. (2010) 6 SC 773 - Sr. Supdt. Telegraph (traffic),

Bhopal vs. Santhosh Kumar Seal and others

3. ARI 2009 SC 3004 - Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State

Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr.

4. AIR 2006 SC 2682 - Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar

Dam & Anr. Vs. Sham Lal

5. (2000) 2 SCC 455 - Nedungadi Bank Ltd vs. K P

Madhavankutty & Ors.

6. (2006) 5 SCC 481 - Asst. Engineer, CAD, Kota vs.

Dhan Kunwar

7. (2005) 5 SCC 91 - Haryana State Boop. Land

Development Bank vs. Neelam

8. (2004) 8 SCC 262 - Executive Engineer, ZP Engg.

Divn. & another vs. Digambara Rao and others

9. Civil Appeal no. 8550/2010 - Chief Engineer & ors.

Vs. Sri Puttaraju

10. W P No. 1235/2007 - Cauvery Neeravari Nigam

vs. Honnagiri Gowda

11. W P No. 7914/2008 - Cauvery Neeravari Nigam

vs. Channakeshava

6. Having regard to the reference schedule and the

pleadings of the Parties, the points that arise for my

consideration are:

Point No. 1: Whether I Party proved having worked

as Helper of the II Party continuously from 08.05.1991

till 01.07.1992 the date on which he was allegedly

refused employment and thereby the II Party violated

the provisions of Section 25 (f) of the ID Act.

1836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Point No. 2: What order/award?

7. On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and

documentary evidence brought on record by both the sides,

in the light of the arguments addressed by the learned

advocates, my finding on Point No. 1 is in the Negative

and Point No. 2 as per final order for the following.

REASONS

8. The I Party in support of his case places heavy

reliance on a certificate issued by Junior Engineer of the II

Party namely Sh. Chandrashekar Pednaker produced at Ex

W-1 dated 03.02.1999. It is evident from the documentary

evidence produced by the II Party at Ex M-4 to Ex M-6 that

in that regard i.e. for having issued such a certificate he

was charge sheeted for misconduct and on his reply he

having been punished with penalty of withholding of one

set of privilege pass for the year 2001 such a certificate not

supported or corroborated by any evidence the I Party

having worked continuously from 08.05.1999 to 01.07.1992

the date on which he was allegedly refused employment

cannot be believed. Moreover, if at all the II Party had

availed his services continuously from 08.05.1991 till

30.06.1992 and abruptly on 01.07.1992 refused him work he

would not have kept quite over a period of 7 years i.e. till

1999 in which year he approached the Assistant Labour

Commissioner, Bangalore for conciliation. This aspect of

delay in raising the dispute suggest that the alleged date

of refusal of work i.e., 01.07.1992 is imaginary and fictitious

and it also probabilizes the defence of the II Party that due

to such delay it could not produce some of the documents

asked for by the I Party. Under the circumstances, I have

arrived at conclusion of answering the Point No. 1 in the

Negative and pass the following :

ORDER

The reference is rejected holding that the action of

the management of Konkan Railway Corporation

Limited is justified in removing reinstatement S D

Naik in service and that he is not entitle for any relief.

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 673.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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] caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@2004½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@248@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2014

S.O. 673.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby published the Award (Ref. No. 12/2004)

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

07/02/2014.

[No. L-12012/248/2003-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE—560022

Dated

8th January, 2014

Present

Shri S. N. Navalgund,

Presiding Officer

C R No. 12/2004

I Party

Sh. Bajappa,

S/o Shri Chikka Hemana,

Goripalya, Behind Taluk

Office,

Devanahalli, B' lore Rural

Dist. Bangalore.

Appearances :

I Party

Shri M Rajashekar

Advocate

II Party

Shri R Narayana

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/

248/2003-IR(B-I) dated 10-03-2004 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 State Bank

of Mysore is justified in dismissing the services of

Shri Bajjappa, Ex-Clerk, Devanahalli Branch with

effect from 05.08.2001? If not, what relief the workman

is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in

CR 12/2004 when notice were issued to both the sides they

entered their appearance through their respective advocates

II Party

The General Manager (P),

IR Dept., State Bank of

Mysore,

Head Office, VII Floor,

K. G. Road,

Bangalore—560009

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1837

and I party filed his claim statement 24.06.2004, whereas,

the counter statement of the II party on 24.09.2004.

3. After completion of the pleadings my learned

predecessor though there was no assertion or allegation in

the claim statement the Domestic Enquiry held against him

being not fair and proper had formulated a Preliminary Issue

as to Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the I

Party by the II Party is fair and proper. In order to

substantiate the said issue on behalf of the II Party while

examining the Enquiry Officer got exhibited Charge Sheet

issued to the I Party dated 02.02.2000; Notice of enquiry

issued by the Enquiry Officer to the I Party dated 15.11.2001;

enquiry proceedings; enquiry report submitted by the

Enquiry Officer dated 19.03.2002 as Ex M-1 to Ex M-4 and

interalia, the I Party by filling his affidavit examined himself

and did not produce any documentary evidence. On the

said evidence while hearing the arguments addressed by

learned advocates for both sides by order dated 24.01.2011

the said issue being answered in affirmative i.e., the

Domestic Enquiry held against the I Party by the II Party

being fair and proper, the only points that now remains for

my consideration are:

Point No. 1: Whether the finding of the Enquiry

Officer is perverse necessitating the interference of

this tribunal?

Point No. 2: If not whether the punishment of

Dismissal of I Party from the service imposed by the

Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate

Authority is disproportionate?

Point No. 3: What Order/Award?

4. The brief facts leading to this reference and award

may be stated as under:

5. The I Party while working as Clerk in Devanahalli

Branch was served with charge sheet dated 02.02.2000 as

under:

" It is reported against you that while working as a

clerk at Devanahalli Branch from 18/10/96, you have

by abuse of your official position the following

dishonest acts alleged to have been committed by

you for making wrongful gains to the extent of

Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only). The

fraudulent/dishonest acts committed by you are

furnished hereunder.

Charge—I

You have on 27.11.1999 in the SB A/s. No. 110 of

Smt. Narayanamma alleged to have committed the acts

detailed hereunder.

(i) You have issued Token No. 13 in respect of the

withdrawal form dated 27.11.1999 for Rs. 20,000/-

pertaining to the SB A/c 110 of Smt. Narayanamma.

(ii) You have posted a SB withdrawal from on

27.11.1999 for Rs. 20,000/- in the SB A/c No. 110 of

Smt. Narayanamma even though a cautious pencil

note had been made in the ledger reading as "No

drawings obtain L.C."

(iii) You have attested the L.T.M. on the withdrawal

form of Rs. 20,000/- DT 27.11.99 pertaining to SB

A/c 110 of Smt. Narayanamma inspite of vast

variation in the LTM appearing on withdrawal form

when compared with LTM appearing on the SB

A/c opening form of Smt. Narayanamma.

(iv) You have passed the withdrawal form of

Rs. 20,000/- pertaining to the SB A/c 110 of Smt.

Narayanamma on 27.11.1999 and have recorded

the debit entry of Rs. 20,000/- in the payment scroll

under serial No. 7.

(v) You have entered the debit entry of Rs. 20,000/-

pertaining to the SB A/c. 110 of Smt. Narayanamma

on 27.11.1999 in the control sheet of the ledger

and you have also checked the concerned ledger

in which the amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been

withdrawn from the SB A/c No. 110 of Smt.

Narayanamma on 27.11. 1999.

Charge—II

On 14.01.2000, you have tendered cash of Rs. 20,000/-

for credit of SB A/c No. 110 of Smt. Narayanamma.

2. The above charges if established amount to gross

misconduct in terms of clause 19.5 (j) of the Bi-partite

Settlement and you are deemed to have lost the confidence

that the bank had reposed on you.

3. You are hereby required to submit your replies if

any, on the alleged charges levelled against you within 15

days of the receipt of this charge sheet failing which it will

be deemed that you have no reply to submit and the matter

will be dealt without reference to you, in case the reply

submitted by you is not satisfactory/acceptable, further

proceedings will be initiated.

Disciplinary Authority

Asst. General Manager, Region III, B.Z"

6. It appears since no reply or explanation was given

by the CSE/I Party to the said charge sheet the Disciplinary

Authority ordered to hold the Domestic Enquiry appointing

Sh. S P Suresh, Deputy Manager as Enquiry and Sh. C.N.

Shankar, Manager as Presenting Officer and then the

Enquiry Officer securing the presence of the CSE and

allowing him to avail the service of a Defence

Representative observing the formalities of preliminary

hearing while recording the evidence of Nagappa the then

Branch Manager of ADB, Mandya, P G Manjunath, Deputy

Manager, Devanahalli Branch and Varadaraju, CGK,

Devanahalli Branch as BWs 1 to 3 respectively an exhibiting

SB Account opening form No. 110 of Narayanamma; SB

1838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Withdrawal dated 27.11.1999 account 110 of Narayanamma;

Ledger Sheet of SB Account No. 110 of Narayanamma;

Progressive cum long book of Pension ledger; Special

Assistant Payment passions scroll dated 27.11.1999; Death

Certificate dated 23.02.1994 of Narayanamma; Branch Letter

No. BR/GEN/010 dated 12.1.2000 to AGM; SB passing slip

dated 14.1.2000 for Rs. 20000/-; letter dated 14.1.2000 No.

ESTT/011 of AGM to the Branch as BEx-1 to BEx-9 after

affording opportunity to file the written brief submitted his

finding dated 19.03.2002 the charges being proved. Then

the Disciplinary Authority enclosing the copy of the

enquiry issued second show cause notice to the CSE/I

Party and after affording opportunity of hearing by his

order dated 05.08.2002 imposed the punishment of dismissal

from service and on the appeal preferred by the I Party

before the Appellate Authority after affording opportunity

of hearing the punishement imposed by the Disciplinary

Authority when came to be confirmed and the conciliation

proceedings initiated by the I Pary failed it resulted in this

reference.

7. The I Party in his claim statement claims that the

management though kept behind the payment cashier Sh.

T V G Ghorpade, Teller Officiating and no evidence was

placed by the management he having actually received

cash of Rs. 20,000/-in question the Enquiry Officer

presuming he had made entries and issued the token

erroneously holding the charges levelled against him as

proved is prerverse and not sustainable asserted that the

Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority erred in

relying on such a enquiry finding to impose on him the

punishment of dismissal from service prayed for quashing

the dismissal order and to direct the II Party to reinstate

him in service with continuity of service and to pay back

wages and all other consequential benefits. Interalia, in the

counter statement filed for the II Party it is contended that

ample evidence being placed on record to prove his/I Party

involvement in withdrawing Rs. 20,000/-from the SB account

of Smt. Narayanamma on 27.11.1999 who was not alive as

on that day and when the same was detected he remitted

the same to her account, the Enquiry Officer rightly held

him guilty of the charges and as his reply/explanation to

the enquiry finding was unacceptable the Disciplinary

Authority imposed the punishment of dismissal and same

has been upheld by the Appellate Authority giving cogent

reasons as such there is no necessity of this tribunal to

make interference either in the enquiry finding or the

punishment imposed. With these assertions prayed for

rejection of the reference.

8. During the course of arguments the learned

advocate appearing for the I Party rest contended by urging

that Sh. T V G Ghorpade, Payment Cashier who was only

competent to depose to whom payment in question was

made being not examined in the Domestic Enquiry the

finding of Enquiry Officer charge being proved is not

sustainable. Interalia, the learned advocate appearing for

the II Party while submitting that the fact as on 27.11.1999

Smt. Narayanamma, SB Account Holder No. 110 was no

more alive and I Party has attested the LTM appearing on

withdrawal form marked as BEx-2 is not disputed, it is

evident that the made the other concerned banks staff to

belive that the said account holder was still alive and

managed the withdrawal form processed for payment as

such the inference drawn that he managed to withdraw the

said amount by falsely attesting an LTM as that of the

deceased account holder by a fictitious person hence only

because the payment cashier was not examined the CSE

cannot contend that the charges levelled against him being

not proved. As rightly urged on behalf of the II Party when

there is no dispute Smt. Narayanamma, SB Account Holder

had expired on 16.01.1994 and the I Party has attested the

LTM appearing on withdrawal form for drawing Rs. 20000/

- dated 27.11.1999 as that of Smt. Narayanamma holder of

SB Account No. 110 as urged by the learned advocate

appearing for the II Party a Legitimate inference can be

drawn that he managed to withdraw a sum of Rs. 20000/-

from the deceased SB Account holder Smt. Narayanamma

and to whom actually the payment was made by the

Payment Cashier is immaterial as such only because the

payment cashier Sh. T.V. Ghorpade is not examined in the

Domestic Enquiry it cannot be said that the Enquiry Officer

erred in holding the charges being proved. Under the

circumstances, I find no reason to say the finding of the

Enquiry Officer charge being proved as perverse.

Accordingly, I arrived at conclusion of answering the Point

No. 1 in the Negative.

9. Point No. 2 and 3: Since the misconduct proved

against the 1 Party of fraudulently managing to withdraw a

sum of Rs. 20000/- from the SB Account a deceased

customer of the Bank falsely attesting the LTM appearing

on the withdrawal form as that of Deceased customer the

Disciplinary Authority could not have imposed any other

punishment lesser than the one imposed by him dismissing

from service. As such I have no reason to term the

punishment of dismissal from service in the present case

as disproportionate to the proved misconduct. In the result,

I pass the following

ORDER

The reference is rejected holding that the action of

the management SBM is justified in dismissing the services

of Shri Bajjappa, Ex- Clerk, Devenahalli Branch w.e.f.

05.08.2001 and that he is not entitle for any relief.

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 674.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

=koudksj izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1839

vf/kdj.k vjukdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 37@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@35@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2014

S.O. 674.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2013)

of the Central Government Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of State Bank of

Travancore and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 07.02.2014

[No. L-12012/35/2013-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present :

Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B,

Presiding Officer

(Tuesday the 28th day of November, 2013/7th

Agrahayana, 1935

ID 37/2013

Workman

Smt. Chinnamma

W/o Shri Mani K.S.

Kottarath House, Mepral PO

Peringara Village, Thiruvall Taluk

Pathanamthitta

Kerala

Manegement :

The Assistant General Manager

State Bank of Travancore

P.B. No. 1115, Polachirakkal Chambers

Kottayam

Kerala-686002

By Adv. P. Ramakrishnan

This case coming up for final hearing on 28.11.2013

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day

passed the following:

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-12012/35/2013-IR(B-

I) dated 24.07.2013 referred this industrial dispute for

adjudication to this tribunal.

2. The dispute is:

'Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of Travancore in terminating the services of Smt.

Chinnamma, Part-time sweeper from the Mepral

Branch w.e.f. 06.07.2011 with following procedures

laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is

correct? What benefits she is entitled to?'

3. After receipt of summons management has only

entered appearance. In spite of several adjournments

workman did not appear and file any cliam statement. Hence

she was set ex-parte.

4. Management filed affidavit stating that the

workman was only a casual employee engaged on need

basis in the bank and later she was through selection

process appointed as par-time sweeper on 1.11.2013. Since

then she has been working as part-time sweeper 01.11.2013.

Since hen she has been working as part-time sweeper on

half scale.

5. As the workman has not entered appearance and

filed any claim statement and there is nothing to show that

she was illegally terminated from service the reference can

be answered only in favour of the management in view of

the averments contained in the affidavit.

6. In the result an award is passed finding that the

action of the management in terminating the services of

Smt. Chinnamma, part-time sweeper from the Mepral Branch

w.e.f. 06.07.2011 without following the procedures laid down

in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is correct and hence

she is not entitled to any benefit.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and

typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 28th

day of November, 2013.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX-NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 7 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 675.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks 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; dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 01@2005½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@02@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2014

S.O. 675.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

1840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

07.02.2014.

[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Misc. Application No. 01 of 2005

U/S. 33A of the I.D. Act, 1947

(Arising out of Reference No. 23 of 2000)

Parties:

The General Secretary,

UCO Bank Employees' Association,

10, B.T.M. Sarani, 3rd Floor,

Kolkata-700001.

...Applicant.

Vs.

The General Manager (Personnel),

UCO Bank, Personnel Department,

Head Office,

12, Old Court House Street,

Kolkata-700001.

The General Manager OP-II

UCO Bank Head Office,

Martin Burn Building,

1, R.N. Mukherjee Road,

Kolkata-700001.

The Regional Manager, UCO Bank,

Regional Office, Ranchi,

Rajendra Jawan Bhawan Cum Sainik Bazar,

Main Road, Ranchi-834001.

The Senior Manager, UCO Bank,

Giridih Branch,

Buxidih Road, Giridih-815301,

Jharkhand

...Opp. Parties.

Present: Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer.

Appearance:

On the behalf of the

Mr. A. Ghosh, General

Applicant

Secretary of the union.

On behalf of the

Mr. N. Joarder, Chief Manager

Opp. Party

of the Bank.

Industry: Banking.

Date: 20th January, 2014.

AWARD

This is an application under Section 33A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by the General Secretary

of the UCO Bank Employees' Association/Complainant

alleging violation of the provision of Section 33 of the said

Act against the opp. Parties/management/Kolkata Port

Trust.

2. In the instant application it has been alleged on

behalf of the Applicant/UCO Bank Employees Association

that during the pendency of an industrial dispute before

this Tribunal the Opp. Party/Bank management issued a

circular on 25.04.2005 and thereby changed the service

condition of the employees working at UCO Bank, Giridih

Branch and as such violated the provisions of the Section

33 of the Act. The concerned union has, accordingly prayed

for compensation, interest for the period for which salary

of the employees was withheld, overtime allowance etc.

3. The Opp. Parties/Bank management has contested

the said application by filing written objection denying all

the allegations made in the application. It is the specific

case of the Bank management that balancing of the books

of accounts and keeping them upto date is part of banking

job. It is the contention of the Opp. Parties that Bank

management cannot afford to keep the balancing work in

arrears and accordingly some serious measures were taken

by issuance of the said notice in order to upto date the

balancing work. It is also the contention of the Opp. Parties

that there was no change of service condition by issuance

of the said circular and as such there was no contravention

of Section 33 of the Act by issuance of the said circular.

Accordingly, dismissal of the application under Section

33A of the Act has been prayed for.

4. Considering the application under Section 33A of

the Act, written objection thereto and also submission of

the parties it appears that in this case only point is to be

considered whether or not the issuance of the said circular

entailed any violation of the condition of service of the

concerned workmen.

5. The schedule of order of reference on the basis of

which the Reference No. 23 of 2000 was registered, is that:

"Whether the action of the management of UCO

Bank, 12, Old Court House Street, Calcutta-700001 in

adopting the principle of 'no work no pay’ in respect

of employees of those branches which could not

fulfill the targets of balancing of books which is

reportedly a part of routine functioning is justified?

If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

During pendency of the said Reference No. 23 of

2000, one circular/instruction was issued on 24.04.2005 by

the Chief Office, UCO Bank, Giridih Branch instructing the

Senior Manager not to disburse the salary for the month of

April, 2005 if the fully tallied IT-4 for the month of March,

2005 was not received.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1841

6. The subject matter of adjudication in the said

reference case and the subject matter of the instruction/

cicular dated 24.04.2005 issued by the Giridih Branch are

almost same and identical; because in reference case it is

to be adjudicated whether or not the management of UCO

Bank was justified in adopting the principle of "no work no

pay".

7. So, when the identical matter is pending for

adjudication, the Giridih Branch of UCO Bank should

restrain itself from issuing such instruction dated

24.04.2005. However, on careful scrutiny of the said

instruction in question, it is clear that by issuing the said

instruction dated 24.04.2005, the bank authority asked its

employees to do their routine duties to complete the

balancing etc. to keep the Bank's registers/documents upto

date. So, by issuance of the said instruction/letter dated

24.04.2005 allegedly containing pressure/threat upon the

employees cannot be said to have changed the condition

of service of the employees because by issuance of the

said instruction the employees of the Bank were not asked

to do any job which they were not supposed to do.

8. Considering the above facts and circumstances

and the discussions made hereinbefore, it appears that the

condition of service of the concerned workmen was not

changed by issuance of the said instruction/circular by

the Bank.

9. Accordingly, the application under Section 33A of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not maintainable and

the same is dismissed.

10. The Miscellaneous Application is thus disposed

of.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 20th January, 2014.

ubZ fnYyh] 7 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 676.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj dksydrk iÙku

U;kl ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼20@2006½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@02@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&32011@12@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2014

S.O. 676.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2006)

of the Central Government Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Kolkata Port Trust

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

07.02.2014.

[No. L-32011/12/2005-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 20 of 2006

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Kolkata Port Trust

AND

Their workmen.

Present :

Justice Dipak Saha Ray,

Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the

Mr. M.K. Das, Industrial Relations

Management

Officer

On behalf of the

Mr. Prafulla Sahu, Secretary of the

Workmen

Union.

State

West Bengal.

Industry

Port & Dock.

Dated: 27th November, 2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-32011/12/2005 IR (B-II) dated

17.05.2006 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of

the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of

Kolkata Port Trust is not declaring the result of

test/interview held on 23.02.2004 & 25.02.2004

for the post of L.D. Clerks under Legal Deptt. of

KOPT, Kolkata held in pursuance of Circular dated

12.08.2003 and inviting fresh applications through

another circular dated 16.04.2004 for the same

posts without cancelling or even giving any

reference of the previous circular and selecting the

candidates only from the list who applied in response

to later circular, ignoring the candidates appeared

in the test/interview in response to former circular

particularly the claimant i.e. (1) Shri Ujjal Kr.

Banerjee & (2) Shri Debmalya Chatterjee, is legal

1842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and justified? if not, to what relief the workmen are

entitled for?"

2. When the case is taken-up today, authorized

representative of the workmen appears and files an

application and submits that the concerned workmen

namely, Shri Debmalya Chatterjee and Shri Ujjal Kumar

Banerjee have been transferred from Haldia Dock Complex

(I&CF Division) and joined Hydraulic Study Department

under the Kolkata Dock System and accordingly at present

have no grievance against the management. From the above

facts and circumstances, it appears that the matter has

been amicably settled between the parties and as such the

concerned union does not want to proceed with the case

further.

3. Since the union which raised the present industrial

dispute, has no grievance and has prayed for disposal of

the reference, this Tribunal has no reason to proceed with

the case any further. Accordingly the present reference is

disposed of.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated: Kolkata,

The 27th November, 2013.

ubZ fnYyh] 7 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 677.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV ¼20@2004½ izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@11@2004&vkbZvkj¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2014

S.O. 677.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2004)

of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No.

Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Central Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

07/02/2014.

[No. L-12011/11/2004-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 20 of 2004

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Central Bank of India

AND

Their workmen.

Present :

Justice Dipak Saha Ray,

Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the :

Mr. G.C. Chakraborty, Advocate.

Management

On behalf of the :

Mr. Panchu Mondal the workman

Workmen

concerned in person.

State

West Bengal,

Industry

Banking.

Dated: 18th November, 2013.

AWARD

By Order No. L-12011/11/2004-IR(B-II) dated

02.06.2004 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of

the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India by not regularizing Sh. Panchu

Mondal in the post of Peon is justified and also

whether the action of the management, of CBI in

not observing the Section 25F of the ID Act is

justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman

is entitled to?"

2. The workman concerned appears in person and

files an application stating that the dispute has been settled

amicably and he has been appointed as sub-staff in the

Bank with effect from 28.03.2013 and accordingly he has

been working there since then. It further appears from the

petition of the workman that the workman is not willing to

proceed with the case further as he has got no grievance

against the Bank. From the documents filed on behalf of

the Bank it further appears that the workman has already

been appointed as sub-staff and he has been working there

since 28.03.2013.

3. Since the workman in whose instance the instant

reference has been initiated, has no grievance and has

prayed for leave to withdraw the case, this Tribunal has no

reason to proceed with the case any further. Accordingly

the present reference is disposed. of.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated Kolkata,

The 18th November, 2013.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1843

ubZ fnYyh] 7 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 678.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkaMyk iksVZ VªLV

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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼13@2011½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&37011@08@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2014

S.O. 678.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2011)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Kandla Port

Trust and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 07/02/2014.

[No. L-37011/08/2010-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present:

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 23rd December, 2013

Reference (CGITA) No. 13/2011

The Chairman,

Kandla Port Trust,

Post Box No. 50, Gandhidham

.....(Management)

First party

And

Their Workman

Through the Union

The General Secretary,

Transport & Dock workers Union,

Room No. 21, Yogesh Building,

Plot No. 586/12-C

Gandhidham-370201

......Second party

For the Ist party

Shri Kishor V. Gadhia, Advocate

For the 2nd party

None

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. L-37011/08/2010-IR(B-II) dated

23.02.2011 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, referred the dispute the

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad for adjudication on

the terms of reference in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the ABG Kandla Container Terminal

Limited working as Container Terminal operator under

agreement with Kandla Port on berth No. 11 & 12 is

covered under stevedoring? If so, whether the action

of the non-booking of dock/Shore workers/winch

man at berth No. 11 and 12 handle by M/s. ABG

Kandla Container Terminal Limited is legal and

justified?

2. The Union (2nd party) failed to appeared and to

file statement of claim even after proper notice ext. 2 and its

acknowledgement (Ext. 4) whereas Ist party (management)

appeared and executed power (Vakalatnama) in favour of

its lawyer (Ext. 5). Even on as many as ten adjournments

the 2nd party/Union failed to submit statement of claim.

The onus is upon the Union to prove the case for which

the dispute was raised. So the 2nd party has got no leg to

stand in this reference. So it is

ORDER

The reference is dismissed having no cause of action

to the Union/2nd party. No order as to any cost.

Let copy of award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication under section 17 of the I.D.

Act.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 679.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkaMyk iksVZ VªLV

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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼12@2011½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&37011@07@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2014

S.O. 679.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2011)

of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the

1844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

industrial dispute between the management of Kandla Port

Trust and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 07/02/2014.

[No. L-37011/07/2010-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present:

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 23rd December, 2013

Reference (CGITA) No. 12/2011

The Chairman,

Kandla Port Trust,

Post Box No. 50, Gandhidham

..........(Management)

First party

And

Their Workman

Through the Union

The General Secretary,

Transport & Dock workers Union,

Room No. 21, Yogesh Building,

Plot No. 586/12-C

Gandhidham-370201

......Second party

For the Ist party

Shri Kishor V. Gadhia, Advocate

For the 2nd party :

None

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. L-37011/07/2010-IR(B-II) dated

23.02.2011 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, referred the dispute the

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad for adjudication on

the terms of reference in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Kandla

Port Trust, Gandhidham in not filling of post of

Personal Assistant which was vacant in Kandla Dock

Labour Board (now merged with Kandla port Trust)

in Cargo Handling Division as per board resolution

No. 853 dated 21.02.2005 is legal and justified? What

relief the workmen are entitled to?"

2. Consequent upon notice the Ist party (K.P.T.)

appeared and executed power (Vakalatnama) in favour of

its lawyer, but the Union 2nd party who raised the dispute

failed to appear to file statement of claim in spite of as

many as ten adjournments.

3. So there is reason to believe that the Union is not

at all interested to support its claim on the dispute as per

schedule so this reference has no merit. Therefore, the

following order is passed.

ORDER

The 2nd party Union has no leg to stand. The

Schedule containing the terms of reference is answered in

favour of the management of Kandla Port Trust justifying

its action in not filling of the post of Personal Assistant.

The reference is dismissed. However, no order of

any cost.

Let copy of award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication u/s. 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 680.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼46@2007½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@131@2006&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2014

S.O. 680.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2007)

of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

10/02/2014.

[No. L-12012/131/2006-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Office

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present:

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 26th December, 2013

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1845

Reference (CGITA) No. 46/2007

Bank of India,

Through Chief Manager (CS & HR)

Ahmedabad-380018

The Branch Manager,

Bank of India,

Raipur Chakla Branch,

Raipur Chakla,

Ahmedabad

....First party

And

Their workman

Shri Dineshbhai Popatbhai Parmar

C/o Navyug Labour Union,

12, 2nd Floor, Karishma Flats,

Maniyasa under bridge,

Maninagar (E),

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

...Second Party

For the Ist party

: Ms. Meenaben Shah, Advocate

For the 2nd party : None

AWARD

As per Order No. L-12012/131/2006 (IR (B-II))

New Delhi dated 07.06.2007, the Central Government/

Ministry of Labour under clause (d) of sub section (1) and

sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 referred to this tribunal for adjudication on the

terms of reference in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of

India through Chief Manager (CS & HR), Ahmedabad

for awarding punishment of compulsory retirement

from the bank's service vide their letter dated

10.01.2005 is valid and justified? If not, what relief

the workman is entitled to, and to what extent?"

2. In spite of notice repeatedly issued against the

2nd party workman. He failed to submit statement of claim.

However, the Union General Secretary K.D. Panchal

appeared and filed pursis (Ext. 4) for adjournment on

22.07.2008, then filed authority letter (Ext.9) of the workman

authorising Navyug Labour Union's General Secretary to

appear in this case. The Union filed pursis (Ext.10) for

adjournment on 06.08.2009. But as yet no statement of claim

filed. Whereas the Ist party (Bank) appeared on 09.02.2008

and filed application Ext.7 and then filed Vakilpatra (Ext.8)

executed in favour of Gandhi Associates Ms. Meenaben

Shah on 19.02.2009, thereafter the Ist party used to attend

the court on dates but workman remained absent and his

Union also did not care to submit statement of claim.

3. The Ist party's lawyer Ms. Meenaben Shah by a

puris (Ext.11) dated 18.03.2011 prayed to close the stage of

filing statement of claim and to lead evidence of the

2nd party and last chance was given. Thereafter the Union

General Secretary K.D. Panchal filed pursis (Ext. 12) on

same date 18.03.2011 to dismiss the reference since

workman Dinesh Popatbhai Parmar is not available.

4. Today, the Ist party's lawyer Ms. Meenaben Shah,

Advocate moved the pursis of Union (Ext.12).

5. The 2nd party failed to submit the statement of

claim and as per pursis (Ext.12) had prayed to dismiss the

reference. As such following order is passed.

ORDER

The reference is dismissed having no merit. The

terms of reference is answered in favour of the Ist party,

justifying punishment of compulsory retirement of the

workman from bank's service.

BINAY KUMAR, SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 681.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼1162@2004½ izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10@02@2014 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y -12012@90@2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2014

S.O. 681.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1162/2004)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Dena Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

10/02/2014.

[No. L-12012/90/2000-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present:

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 16th December, 2013

Reference (CGlTA) No. I162/2004

1846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reference (I.T.C) No. 16/2000(old]

1. General Manager, Dena Bank, Mumbai

2. The Regional Manager,

Dena Bank,

Regional office, Gokul Chambers,

2nd floor, Dhebarbhai Road,

Rajkot (Gujarat) 300001

3. Branch Manager, Dena Bank,

Visavadar Branch,

Dist. Junagadh

.......First Party

And

Their Workman

Navniray Hargovindbhai Taily

Mear Jain Mahajan Wadi,

Junagadh-362130

....Second party

For the First Party

None

For the second party :

Shri P.H. Kanjaria, Advocate,

Junagadh

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi by its order No. L-12012/90/2000 IR(B-II) dated

18.10 2000 in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub

section (1) of section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947

referred the dispute for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal,

Rajkot (Gujarati) on the terms of reference in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Dena Bank, Rajkot/

Visavadar in terminating/discontinuing the services

of Shri Navnitray Hargovindbhai Tally, Budli sepoy

w.e.f. 12.06 1999 is legal and justified? If not, what

relief the workman is entitled to and what directions

are necessary in the matter?"

2. The case of the workman as per statement of claim

(Ext.3] dated 27.03.2001 is that he was working as a peon in

the Visavadar branch of the Dena Bank from 01.06.1999 to

11.06.1999. Before that he had continuously worked in

different branches in Saurastra region under the jurisdiction

of the 1st party No 1 & 2 viz in the year 1984 at Visavadar

branch, December 1984 to 1985 at Sarsai, 1986 to 1990 at

Visavadar, 1991-92 at Bardia Branch ,1993 to November

1994 at Motimonpari, 1998 November Motimonpari and

thereafter from 01.06.1999 to 11.06.1999 at Visavadar branch

under 1st party No.3 but without giving notice, or notice

pay and retrenchment compensation, the 1st party No 3

Branch Manager, Visavadar branch of Dena Bank

contravening the provision of section 25F of the I D. Act,

illegally terminated him w.e.f. 11.06.1999. He repeatedly

submitted representation for his reinstatement on the post

but all went invain. Then he raised dispute before A L.C

(Central) Adipur but conciliation failed and on failure report

the appropriate Government made reference for

adjudication. Further case is that in his place the 1st party

has engaged new person at Visavadar branch and he was

ignored. On these scores prayer is to declare the action of

the 1st party illegal and unjustified in terminating him

(workman) w.e.f. 11.06.1999, to reinstate him with back

wages and with cost of litigation and to any other relief to

which he is found.

3. The 1st party (Dena Bank) also appeared and filed

written statement (Ext 7) on 24.11.2003 contending therein

that the statement of claim of the workman is baseless and

not based on any legal right, and so reference is not

maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. In reply to para

1 & 2 of S/c it is stated that the workman Navnitray was

given the work purely on temporary basis on leave vacancy

only of regular staff. He was not given permanent

appointment letter. There was no relationship of master

and servant. So there is no question of illegal termination

of Navnitray. His engagement was not processed through

Bank's recruitment rules and regulations. The concerned

workman had never gone the process of selection and that

the he was never employed in bank service. On these scores

prayer was made to dismiss the reference as the 2nd party

workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. As per the rival contention of the parties in

respective pleadings, the following issues are taken up for

determination in this case:

ISSUES

(i) Is the reference maintainable?

(ii) Has the workman Navnitray valid cause of action

in this case?

(iii) Whether there exist master and servant

relationship between the parties?

(iv) Whether the 2nd party (workman) completed

240 days in calendar year preceding his

termination on 11.06.1999?

(iv) Whether the action of the 1st party Dena Bank,

Rajkot/Visavadar in terminating/discontinuing the

services of Shri Navnitray, Budli sepoy w.e.f.

11.06.1999 is legal and justified?

(vi) Whether the 2nd party is entitled to get relief in

this case? If so, to what extent?

FINDINGS

5. ISSUE NO. III and IV: The workman Navnitray

deposed on affidavit vide Ext. 8. But in spite of giving

opportunity the 1st party failed to avail opporturrities of

cross examination. Thereafter vide Ext.13 right of cross

examination off the 1st party Bank was closed on 28.11.2008.

Thereafter again right to cross examination of workman

was reopened but the 1st party did not avail the opportunity

and 1st party left doing pairvi in the case. Then from the

Industrial Court, Rajkot notice to Dena Bank, Rajkot was

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1847

issued and the notice was received by 1st party lawyer

Shri M.K. Paul on behalf of Dena Bank. Then vide a pursis

Ext. 19 the 2nd party lawyer Shri P.H. Kanjaria prayed for

disposal of case in view of oral and documentary evidence

and written argument (Ext. 16). In the meantime case record

received in this C.G.I.T. from Industrial Court, Rajkot by

order of MOL, New Delhi. Then fresh notice (Ext. 18) was

issued. Then vide pursis (Ext. 19) dated 26.04.2011 the

1st party (Bank's) lawyer Shri M.K. Paul, Advocate one

adjournment was sought for producing oral evidence of

the 1st party which was granted. Again by a pursis (Ext. 20)

another adjournment was granted to 1st party for adducing

oral evidence. Again by another pursis Ext. 21 filed on

16.11.2011. 1st party sought for another adjournment to

adduce oral evidence upon which 2nd party workman noted

down strong objection. However, last chance was given to

the 1st party. Then on next date 21.12.2011 again

adjournment pursis (Ext. 22) was filed by Shri M.K. Paul,

Advocate (Bank's Lawyer) and adjournment was granted

on payment of cost of Rs. 200 to the S.P. workman. The

workman side filed a pursis on the same date 21.12.2011

(vide Ext. 23) to pass the award in this case and its copy

also received by Shri M.K. Paul, Bank's Lawyer. The record

was put up on next date 01.03.2012 and again pursis (Ext. 24)

was filed for adjournment by the 1st party and then order

below Ext. 24 was passed closing the right of the 1st party

to adduce evidence and the case was fixed for hearing

argument. Thereafter 1st party remained absent on dates

05.04.2012, 10.07.2012, 01.08.2012, 05.11.2012, 11.01.2013,

26.04.2013, 01.07.2013 and 11.09.2013. The argument of Shri

P.F. Kanjaria, Advocate for the workman 2nd party was

heard. No one for argument on behalf of the 1st party and

the matter was kept for passing award.

6. The unchallenged oral evidence of workman (Ext.

8) is in support of his case as per statement of claim. The

2nd party through list (Ext. 5) produced 21 documents on

04.04.2002 and its copy received by Shri M.K. Paul,

Advocate for the 1st party (Dena Bank). Ext 5/1 is letter of

Dena Bank dated 13.02.1990 addressed to postmaster

Visavadar asking to Postmaster to hand over letters Ext.5/2

is another letter dated 23.03.1990 of Dena Bank asking

postmaster, Visavadar to give letter to Navnit Taily

(Workman) Ext.5/3 is letter of Dena Bank branch Moti

Monpari, Dist. Junagarh addressed to Ragional Manager,

Dena Bank, Rajkot dated 31.03.1992 enclosing application

of Navnit Taily (workman) for enrolment of his name as

budli sepoy. Ext. 5/4 is another letter of Moti Monpari branch

of Dena Bank sent to Regional Manager, Rajkot on subject

of enrolment of N.H. Taily (workman) as Budli sepoy in the

panel list since Ashish Jirwani enrolled as budli sepoy has

already been taken up as P.T.C. at our Una Branch and

there is no name in the list also intimating that the works of

N.H. Taily is satisfactory when regular employee proceeds

on leave. Ext 5/5 is letter dated 13.05.1994 addressed to

Regional Manager, Rajkot by Branch Manager, Dena Bank,

Moti Monpari Branch regarding P.T.C. and engagement of

Navnitray Taily as Budli sepoy and has did hard works in

different branches. Ext. 5/7 is forwarding letter dated

10.09.1994 of Branch Manager, Visavadar Branch of Dena

Bank to Regional Manager, Rajkot recommending for P.T.C.

(part time cleaner) in Visavadar branch. Ext 5/8 is another

forwarding letter addressed to Regional Manager, Dena

Bank, Rajkot intimating that workman Navnitray H. Taily is

working as budli sepoy in our four branches, Visavadar,

Sarsai, Moti Monpari and Baradia at different intervals and

that he is an honest and hardworking person and that he

may be engaged at part time sweeper in any of our four

branches. Ex. 5/6 is regarding payment of bonus to budli

sepoy N.H. Taily (workman) and also to a clerk namely J.J.

Trivedi for the period 01.04.1993 to 31.03.1994 by Dena

Bank, Moti Monpari branch, Dist. Junagadh this was

informed to Regional Manager, Rajkot. Ext. 5/9 dated

02.03.1997 and Ext. 5/14 dated 19.11.1997 are appreciation

certificate given to the workman Navnitray H. Taily from

Sarsai branch of Dena Bank. Ext. 5/13 date 14.10.1997 is

appreciation certificates given to Navnitray H. Taily from

Visavadar branch of Dena Bank while working as temporary

peon (Hungami Peon). Ext. 5/11 dated 20.03.1997, Ext. 5/12

dated 10.10.1997 and Ext. 5/15 dated 13.01.1998 are letter of

appreciation of work and entrustment of work to Navnitray

even in Treasury Office, Visavadar by the Branch Manager

of Motimonpari , branch of Dena Bank. Ext. 5/16 is letter of

appreciation dated 06.06.1998 given to Shri N.H. Taily

(workman) and Shri J.J. Trivedi by the Regional Office,

Rajkot of Dena Bank regarding sincere efforts in collection

of Rs. 630000 and raising deposits in bank for ensuring

among customers for better customer services. Ext. 5/17 is

Savings Bank pass book of the workman Navnitray H.Taily

dated 28th July, 1994 showing statement regarding deposits

of salary for his monthly works of budli sepoy that go to

shows his works for more than 240 days in year and also

showing payment of bonus for the year 1994-95 of the

amount of Rs. 858.66. Ext. 5/18 is notice under section 10

(1) of the I.D. Act to the 1st parties (Dena Bank ) and Ext. 5/

19, 5/20 and 5/21 are acknowledgement in token of receipt

of notices by the 1st party No. 1 to 3.

7. As against this the 1st party failed to substantiate

its contention so raised in W.S. Ext. 7 by leading evidence.

The W.S. is a pleading which require support by oral and

documentary evidence. On the other hand the 2nd party

workman has abundantly adduced evidence as discussed

above to establish relationship of master and servant in

between the 1st party (Dena Bank) and Navnitray H. Taily

(the workman). The unchallenged oral evidence of workman

Navnitray (Ext. 8) and the documentary evidences Ext.5/1

to 5/17 go to prove that the 2nd party (Navnitray H. Taily)

has worked continuously as budli sepoy in different

branches of Dena Bank i.e. Visavadar, Sarsai, Moti Monpari,

Baradia and taking into account of his works in different

branches he completed 240 days of works in Calendar year

1848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and also in the calendar year preceding his termination

w.e.f. 11.06.1999 from Visavadar branch of Dena Bank.

8. As per discussion and consideration made in the

foregoing paras, I find and hold that master and servant

relationship was very well existing in between the 1st party

(employer) and the 2nd party (Navnitray H.Taily) till

11.06.1999. I further find and hold that Navnitray H.Taily

(S.P.) has completed 240 days of work in calendar year

preceding termination w.e.f. 11.06.1991. So these, two issues

are answered in favour of the 2nd party.

9. ISSUE NO. V:- In view of the findings to issue

no. iii and iv in the foregoings. I further find and hold that

the employer (lst party, Dena Bank) has clearly violated the

provision of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 is terminating the 2nd party from the service of budli

sepoy w.e.f. 11.06.1999 without complying with the

provisions and the 1st party has failed to give notice to the

2nd party workman, or one month pay in lieu of notice and

retrenchment compensation to the 2nd party. So the terms

of reference in the schedule is answered against the 1st

party (Dena Bank) that the action of the Dena Bank,

Rajkot,Visavadar, in terminating/discontinuing the services

of Shri Navnitray H. Taily, Budli sepoy w.e.f. 11.06.1999 is

not legal and justified.

10. ISSUE NO. I & II :- The reference is maintainable

and the 2nd party has valid cause of action to raise

industrial dispute through this reference case.

11. ISSUE NO. VI :- In view of the findings to Issue

No. I, II, III, IV & V in the foregoings. I further find and hold

that the 2nd party workman Navnitray H. Taily is entitled

to the relief of reinstatement as budli sepoy with continuity

of service and with 50% of back wages.

The reference is accordingly allowed. No order as to

cost.

The 1st party (Dena Bank) are directed to reinstate

the workman Navnitary H. Taily as budli sepoy and to pay

the 50 % of back wages within two months of the receipt of

the copy of award; failing which the 50% back wages shall

carry interest @ 9% P.A.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 682.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼126@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@1@98&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2014

S.O. 682.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 126/2004)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Vijaya Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

10/02/2014.

[No. L-12012/1/98-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

PRESENT:

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officr, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 17th December, 2013

Reference: (CGITA) No. 126/2004

Reference (I.T.C.) No. 107/1999(old)

The Branch Manager,

Vijaya Bank,

Sarasour Branch, Saraspur,

Ahmedabad-380018

....First Party

And

Their workman

Mrs. Dinaben Solanki,

Near New Post Office

Through

The Regional Secretary,

Vijaya Bank Employees Association,

C/o. Vijaya Bank, Saraspur Branch,

Saraspur, Ahmedabad-380018

....Second Party

For the 1st party : None

For the 2nd party : Shri B. K. Sharma, Union

Representative, Jt. Secretary,

Ahmedabad Jilla Mazdoor Sangh.

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi vide its Order No. L-12012/1/98-IR(B-II) dated

04.12.1998, 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, referred the dispute for

adjudication to Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad on the

terms of reference in the Schedule :

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1849

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Vijaya Bank Employees

Association for regularisation of Mrs. Dinaben

Solanki, Temporary sweeper to the post of part time

sweeper according to codified circular No. 30/93 of

the Vijaya Bank w.e.f. 18.04.1996 is legal and justified?

If yes, to what relief the concerned workman is

entitled?"

2. The case of 2nd party Union as per statement of

claim (Ext. 3) is that Mrs. Dinaben Solanki worked in Vijaya

Bank, Relief Road, Ahmedabad branch from 08.10.1973 to

16.08.1994 and in Saraspur branch, Ahmedabad form

17.08.1994 to 18.04.1996 as a sweeper. She was retrenched

from 19.04.1996 without observing provisions of I.D. Act.

She was retrenched even though there was vacancy of the

post of sweeper. She completed 240 working days during

one year. Vijaya Bank management engaged new worker as

part time permanent sweeper from 19.04.1996. As per

codified circular No. 30/93 bank administrations require to

absorb permanent staff from the employees who are serving

as Temporary staff. As per agreement between Vijaya Bank

workers organisation, Ahmedabad Region and AGM, Vijaya

Bank, Ahmedabad, the employees who completed 90 days

should be made permanent and accordingly management

appointed sub staff for permanent vacancies. But Vijaya

Bank failed to give permanent appointment to Mrs. Dinaben

Solanki. Her removal is totally illegal and requires to be set

aside and she should be treated as on duty from 18.04.1996,

and all consequential benefits should be given to her and

also any other relief to which she is found entitled. The

relief has been sought for giving Mrs. Dinaben Solanki,

part time job from 18.04.1996 when she was retrenched and

she be also given monetary benefit from 19.04.1996 to the

date of award.

3. As against this the contention of the 1st party

(Bank) as per written statement filed twice with verbatim

reproduction is vide Ext. 13 filed on 04.05.2000 and again

vide Ext. 16 filed on 22.03.2001 is that the reference is not

maintainable, the 2nd party is put to strict proof that Mrs.

Dinaben Solanki had worked as sweeper from 08.10.1973 to

16.03.1994 and 17.08.1994 to 18.04.1996 at Relief Road and

Sarapur Branches respectively, there is no relation of master

and servant between 1st party and 2nd party workman.

Smt. Dinaben Solanki was never workman of the Ist party

and that she never completed 240 days working days. There

is no question of observing the provisions of the I.D. Act,

codified circular No.30/93 is not applicable to the case of

Mrs. Dinaben Solanki alternative plea has been taken in

this way that even if it is believed that Mrs. Solanki had

been working in the manner as alleged in the statement of

claim, then also ad hoc employee do not get any right and

as per settled law of the land only regular selected candidate

through proper channel are eligible to be taken in the job. It

has been denied about any agreement between the

1st party and 2nd party Union or any other body to absorb

employees completing 90 days. It is denied that any rules

and regulations are violated by the lst party Bank in refusing

to appoint Mrs. Solanki. Further case is that ad hoc

employment/appointment can only be temporary

appointments as they are against the rules and regulation

and till the regular appointees are available they may be

working but sooner regular employees are available

temporary employees however long they have worked have

no right. On these scores prayer is made to dismiss the

reference since 2nd party is not entitled to any relief.

4. In view of rival contention of the parties in

respective pleadings, the following issues are taken up for

determination:

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference mintainable?

(ii) Whether the 2nd party Union has valid cause of

action in this case?

(iii) Whether there exist relationship of Master and

servant in between the 1st party Vijaya Bank and

the workman Mrs. Dinaben Solanki?

(iv)

Whether Mrs. Dinaben Solanki completed 240

working days in callender year during her period

of work as sweeper from 08.10.1973 to 18.04.1996

at the branches of Vijaya Bank at Relief Road,

Ahmedabad and Saraspur, Ahmedabad as

claimed?'

(v) Whether the action of the management of Vijaya

Bank (lst party) is justified in removing

Mrs. Dinaben Soalnki from the temporary job of

sweeper from 18.04.1996?

(vi)

Whether the demand of the Union the 2nd party

for regularisation of Mrs. Dinaben Solanki w.e.f.

18.04.1996 as per schedule of terms of reference is

legal and justified?

(vii) To what relief the concerned workman

Mrs. Dinaben Solanki is entitled?

FINDINGS

5. ISSUE No. Ill and IV:— The 2nd party submitted

8 documents through a list Ext. 14, Ext. 14/1 is Vijaya Bank,

Personal Dept. codified circular 30/93. Ext. 14/2 is abstract

of clarification of workman in chapter IV of service condition

of Bank employee. Ext.14/3 is payment slip of bonus

payment for the year 1992/93, 1991/92, 0l.01.1988 to

31.03.1989, 193/94. Ext. 14/4 fs personal Department circular

No. 57/92 of Vjjaya bank for processing of application of

temporary sweeper who had worked in the Bank during the

period from 01.01.1982 to 31.12.1989. Ext. 14/5 is bonus

calculated sheet for the year April 1993 to March 1994

and April 1992 to March 1993. Ext. 14/6 is confidential

1850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

letter No. ROA/STF/ACT/6457/96 dated 17.12.1996 of Vijaya

Bank Ext. 14/7 is reply of Chief Manager, Relief Road,

Ahmedabad Branch with reference to letter No. ROA/STF/

ACT/6457/96 dated 17.12.1996 informing as to wages paid

on monthly basis for the year 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987 to

Dinaben Solanki at Relief Road branch and regarding

payment of wages on monthly basis for the year 1985 and

1986. It was said that the record is not available. Ext. 14/8

application of Smt. Dinaben Solanki dated 04.03.1991

forwarded by Branch Manager, Relief Road, Ahmedabad.

From perusal of Ext. 14/3, Ext. 14/4, Ext. 14/5, Ext. 14/6,

Ext. 14/7 and Ext. 14/8 together with Exparte oral evidence

of Smt. Dinaben Solanki vide Ext. 19. Sufficiently go to

prove that Smt. Dinaben Solanki was continuously serving

as sweeper (scavenger) in the branch at relief road and

Saraspur of Vijaya bank continuously and was getting

monthly wages and she was also getting yearly bonus at

8.33% of salary. As per Ext. 15, the 2nd party had demanded

from the 1st party Vijaya Bank for production of four

documents viz. Expenditure Registers for the year 1973 to

August 1994 of Relief Road branch and from August 1994

to April 1996 of Saraspur branch of Vijaya bank, Ahmedabad

payment voucher for payment to Smt. Dinaben Solanki

from 1973 to August 1994 of Relief Road branch and for

period from August 1994 to April 1996 of Saraspur branch

of Vijaya Bank, Ahmedabad. This demand was made by

filing application on 01.09.2000 and its copy was received

by branch manager of Saraspur, Ahmedabad. But the 1st

party did not produce those documents as per Ext.15 nor

replied on Ext.15 and subsequently left pairvi in this case

and did not cross examine Mrs. Dinaben Solanki on her

oral evidence (Ext.19). In such view of the matter adverse

inference has to be drawn against the Ist party that the

1st party purposely withheld production of the documents

as per Ext. 15 for wilful suppressing the real fact that

Mrs. Dinaben Solanki alalong served as temporary sweeper

in the branches of Vijaya Bank at Relief Road, Saraspur

respectively from 08.10.1973 to 18.08.1994 and from

17.08.1994 to 18.04.1996.

6. Thus from the evidence documentary and oral

adduced on behalf of the 2nd party the relationship of

master and servant is proved sufficiently that the

management of the 1st party Vijaya Bank was alalong

treating Mrs. Dinaben Solanki as its workman. Further it is

also sufficiently proved that the 2nd party Mrs. Dinaben

Solanki completed 240 working days as part time sweeper

in two branches of Vijaya Bank in every Calendar year

preceding her termination on 18.04.1996. So the Issues

No. III and IV are answered in favour of the 2nd party.

7. ISSUE No. V:- In view of the findings to

Issue No. III and IV in the foregoing paragraph. I further

find and hold that the action of the management of Vijaya

Bank (lst party) is illegal and unjustified in removing

Mrs. Dinaben Solanki from her job of temporary sweeper

from 18.04.1996 without complying with the provision of

section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was

incumbent upon the 1st party to give one month notice or

notice pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation

to her who had completed 240 days in every calendar year

during her long tenure of service and also particularly in

the calendar year preceding his removal/termination. So

the lst party is held liable for contravention of the

provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act,

1947. This issue is answered against the 1st party (Vijaya

Bank).

8. ISSUE No. I & II :- In view of the findings to issue

Nos. III, IV and V in the foregoings, this tribunal is of

considered view that the reference is maintainable and the

2nd party workman Mrs. Dinaben Solanki has valid cause

of action in this case against the 1st party Vijaya Bank.

9. ISSUE No. VI and VII :- Due to the full bench

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Umadevi

case there cannot be claim for regularisation of Smt. Dinaben

Solanki as per demand of the Vijaya Bank Employers

Association as per terms of reference in the Schedule. But

even then the concerned workman Smt. Dinaben Solanki is

not out of court. Earlier in such case of clear violation of

section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947, reinstatement with full or

any part of back wages was usually ordered in favour of

the workman. But after the decision of the division Bench

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of senior

superintendent of telegraph (traffic) Bhopal Vs.

Sanoshkumar Seal & Others reported in 2010 (iii) CLR 17

reinstatement cannot be claimed as a matter of right by

daily wager/casual worker who completed 240 days in

calendar year rather awarding of reasonable compensation

would sub serve the ends of Justice.

10. Considering the long tenure of service of

Mrs. Dinaben Solanki right from October 1973 to 18th April,

1996 uninterruptedly as temporary sweeper, a sum of

Rs. Two Lakh only is awarded to her by way of compensation

payable by the 1st party Vijaya Bank to her with interest @

Rs. 6% P.A. from 03.04.1999 i.e. from the date of filing

statement of claim by the 2nd party in the court.

11. Thus Issue No. VI is answered in negative but

Issue No. VII is answered accordingly in favour of the

2nd party regarding payment of compensation with interest

indicated at Para 10 of this Award.

This reference is allowed in part with cost of

Rs. 2000/-.

The 1st party is directed to pay the amount of

compensation with interest in one lumsum by issuing

cheque/draft in favour of Smt. Dinaben Solanki within two

months of the receipt of the copy of Award.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1851

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 683.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947] 1947

dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; thou

chek fuxe ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vf/kdj.k] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 34] 35] 36] 37] 38]

39@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@02@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&17012@24]25]26]28]29]32@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2014

S.O. 683.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34, 35,

36, 37, 38 and 39/2004) 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 LIC of India and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 05/02/2014.

[No. L-17012/24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32/2003-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT 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. 34 of 2004 :

The General Secretary,

NLIEA (INTUC), Muzaffarpur (Division), Muzaffarpur for

Shri Harendra Paswan (workman)

[Ministry's Order No. L-17012/25/2003-IR(B-I) dt.

08.03.2004]

WITH

Reference No. 35 of 2004 :

For Raghubans Kumar (workman)

[Ministry's Order No. L-17012/24/2003-IR(B-I) dated

08.03.2004]

WITH

Reference No. 36 of 2004 :

Shri Gopal Kumar (workman)

[Ministry's Order No. L-l70l2/26/2003-IR(B-I) dated

08.03.2004]

Reference No. 37 of 2004 :

Shri S.K. Jha (workman)

[Ministry's Order No. L-17012/28/2003-IR(B-I) dated

08.03.2004]

WITH

Reference No. 38 of 2004 :

Shri B.K. Tewari (workman)

[Ministry's Order No. L-17012/29/2003-IR(B-I) dated

08.03.2004)]

WITH

Reference No. 39 of 2004 :

Shri Navin Kumar (workman)

[Ministry's Order No. L-17012/32/2003-IR(B-I) dated

08.03.2004)]

Vs.

Management of Life Insurance

Corporation, Muzaffpur Division,

Muzaffpur

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the

Mr. B.N.P. Srivastava,

workmen/Union

Rep. of the workmen

On behalf of the

Management's

Management

Representatives

State

Bihar

Industry

Insurance

Dated : Dhanbad, the 15th January, 2014

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 disputes to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order Nos. referred

to above going paras under Reference heads as per the

Schedules:

THE SCHEDULE OF REF. NO. 34 OF 2004

"Whether the action of the Management of LIC of

India, Muzaffarpur in refusing to accept the claim of the

union in regularizing the services of Sri Harender Paswan

working in the establishment Since 1983 continuously is

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

entitled to?"

THE SCHEDULE OF REF. NO. 35 OF 2004

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of

India, Muzaffarpur in refusing to accept the claim of the

union in regularizing the services of Sri Raghubans Kumar

working in the establishment since 1988 continuously is

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

entitled to?"

1852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

THE SCHEDULE OF REF. NO. 36 OF 2004

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of

India, Muzaffarpur in refusing to accept the claim of the

union in regularizing the services of Sri Gopal Kumar working

in the establishment since1992 continuously is legal and

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

THE SCHEDULE OF REF. NO. 37 OF 2004

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of

India, Muzaffarpur in refusing to accept the claim of the

union in regularizing the services of Sri S.K. Jha, working

in the establishment since 1990 continuously is legal and

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

THE SCHEDULE OF REF. NO. 38 OF 2004

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of

India, Muzaffarpur in refusing to accept the claim of the

union in regularizing the services of Sri B.K. Tewari working

in the establishment since 1990 continuously is legal and

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

THE SCHEDULE OF REF. NO. 39 OF 2004

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of

India, Muzaffarpur in refusing to accept the claim of the

union in regularizing the services of Sri Navin Kumar

working in the establishment since 1992 continuously is

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

entitled to?"

2. Since all the Analogous Ref. Cases being between

the same parties for same and similar causes have been

amalgamated with the present Ref. Case as per Order No.

21.5.2011 of the Tribunal, so the Award passed in the

present Ref. shall have banding upon the parties of the

analogous Reference cases.

3. All the six cases as set forth by the Union

Representative in the written statements for six workmen

Harendra Paswan and others concerned have been

continuously working as class IV sub-staff (peon) in

Branch No-1, Muzaffarpur under the jurisdiction of

Muzaffarpur Division of L.l.C. of India since 1983. Each of

the workmen has completed more than 240 days in each

calendar year, discharging their duties full sensibly. But

the Management of the L.I.C. did not absorb them in its

permanent service. Further alleged that the Award passed

by the CGIT, New Delhi, in the I.D. No.27/199l as referred

by the Central Government in respect of the non-absorption

of such Badli, temporary and Part time workmen employed

in the LIC establishment after 20.05.1985 was based on

appreciation/appraisal of all material evidence, oral and

documentary both. The Hon'ble High Court, Delhi

pronounced its judgment on 15.04.2004 in the W.P.S.

No. 4346/2001 against the employer which is under

challenge by way of proper appeal before the higher Bench

of Law at New Delhi. So it has been urged to pass an award

so that these workmen may get the benefits of the aforesaid

award of the above I.D. No. 27/1991.

4. The Union in its rejoinder categorically but in

collectively passes responded to allegations of the O.P./

Management, stating that the Management has wrongly

designated the workmen as collie manifesting an unfair

labour practice, the Management is mainly responsible for

deliberate violation of the LIC rules with intent to negate

the legitimate claims of the workmen for their regularization-

Sec.48(l) of the LIC Act 1956 empowers the Corporation to

make regulations in the matters as enlisted under its

Sec.49(2) but not inconsistent with the Act. The corporation

by virtue of its said authority made the regulations as

notified by the Government on 23.07.1960 related to the

terms and conditions of services of its staff known as LIC

of India (Staff) of the Corporation. The regulation provides

only for two types of employment such as regular staff and

temporary staff, but not for Employment as Badli/Part time/

daily wage etc., as prevalent in the corporation always

against perennial and permanent vacancies for decades.

Many such employees according to cadre class III & IV

prior to May, l985 employed by the Corporation were made

absorbed as per the Order of the NIB. I & II over the

compromise in the SLP No. 4906/1988. The LIC amendment

Act. 1981 only relates to the aspect of payment of Bonus,

but the Act stands repealed. So the Industrial Dispute Act.

1947 is quite applicable and prevails upon the LIC of India.

The Industrial Tribunal has only to adjudicate the reference

in its terms as made by the Government.

5. Whereas specifically denying all the allegation of

the Union for its workmen, the pleaded case of the O.P./

Management is that the workmen concerned including

Harendra Paswan were engaged as coolies on daily wages

as and when required by the Muzaffarpur Branch of LIC.

They were paid their wages on daily basis as per the

approved rate of Government of Bihar in accordance with

the Minimum Wages Act at par with other daily wage

workmen for the work of similar nature. They were never

appointed by the Competent Authority of the Corporation

in accordance with its rules. Whether they completed their

working for 240 days or not in a calendar year can not be a

ground for their absorption. They have not any right to be

so in the service of the corporation against permanent posts,

which are filled up as per statutory rules. Regulations and

Instruction issued by the Competent Authority of the

Corporation in accordance with the provision of Life

Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 having overriding

effect on the provisions of the industrial deputes Act, 1947.

As the terms and conditions of service of an employee of

the Corporation are governed by the Statutory Rules

deemed to be framed by the Central Government are

applicable to its employees. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction

for an adjudication in such reference related to appointment,

termination etc., of an employee of the Corporation, as

Sec.49 (1) of the Life Insurance Corporation India Act, 1956

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1853

confers power upon the Corporation to make Regulations

in all matters for effecting its provisions under its Sub-sec

(2)(a) to (m) related to the method of recruitment of

employees and agents of the Corporation, and the terms

and conditions of the service of the persons on their

becoming the employees of their Corporation. The Chairman

of the Corporation in exercise of the power under 8 of the

Staff Regulation 1960 issued the instructions known as

LIC Recruitment class III & IV Staff Instruction 1993 in

supersession of the provisions of instructions 1979. As

both the Industrial Dispute Act and the Corporation Act

have been framed by the Parliament, but the amendments

have been introduced in the corporation Act in Section 48

w.e.f. 31.1.1981 with a non-obstante clause (an over ridding

effect) as evident from the intention of the Parliament in

Sub-Sec 2(CC) over the provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act (l.D.Act) so far the provisions relate to the

terms and conditions of employment which are in conflict

with those of the I.D. Act 1947, it is settled law that Sec.

2(oo) "retrenchment" even if its Sub-section (bb) under

the I.D Act,1947 is not attracted, there is no question of

section 25 F of the Act on the basis of which the termination

of service of the petitioner concerned can not be held

invalid. The six workmen were not appointed or engaged

as sub-staff (Peon) in accordance with the rules, but were

engaged on the basis of need of the work. They are

temporary employees working on daily wage, so they are

not entitled to regularization or absorption as prayed. It is

alleged that no relationship of employer and employee

existed between the workmen and the Management. The

nature of the job preformed by the workmen concerned

was not permanent and perennial. There can not be the

mode of appointment of the workmen through back door

entry in public service in violative of the statutory rules of

the O.P./Management. As the present reference is not an

industrial dispute, it is without authority of law and wholly

devoid of jurisdiction.

FINDING WITH REASONS

6. In the Reference(s), WWI Harendra Paswan, WW2

Shankar Jha for the Union concerned, and MWI Lakshman

Lal Das, the A.O.(P.S.), MW2 Tauhid Alam, the Asstt. Admn.

Officer for the O.P./Management have been examined

respectively.

On perusal of the pleading of the parties, the

documents relied on by the workmen, evidences of the

witness of both the parties, it appears beyond dispute that

these six workmen are purely temporary daily wagers, and

they were not permanently appointed by the Management,

rather orally appointed in the year 1989 and 1990 (as

contrasted with their pleading working since l983). But

the evidence of WW2 Shankar Kr. Jha, one of the six

workmen, about their performance as peon and clerical staff

at the direction of the Authorities concerned from 1997-98

is beyond their pleadings. So it is inadmissible as baseless.

So far as the photo copies of the documents of the workmen

concerned -Extt W.l series are concerned, out of them, the

Extt.W.l/5-6 and 1/2-4 are the interviews letters dt.16.8 89,

12.10.1993, Jan. 2, Feb. 8, 1993 and Dec. 5, 1995 of two

workmen Harendra Paswan and Shankar Kumar Jha

respectively which are also unacceptable because of their

being unpleaded. Ext. W.1., the LIC of India, Muzaffarpur

Branch Office letter dt. illegible refers to usual casual

temporary engagement of coolies, but no appointments of

temporary/Badli workers by the local Management. But

the photocopy of the Arrears of Daily Wagers including

the six workmen for April, 2011 as Ext. W.1/1 proves the

payment of Arrear difference of their daily wages to them

for their working days 21 to 23 days. The statement of

MWI Laxman Lal Das, the Admn. Officer of the

Management Brach just that of MW2 Tauhid Alam, the

Asstt. A.O. asserts the casual engagement of the workmen

but not against permanent posts, out of the six only two

workmen Shankar Kumar Jha and Harendra Paswan as seen

have been working as daily wagers for the last three years

at Muzafarpur Branch Office; they are paid their wages for

the days they worked excluding Sundays and Holidays,

but none of them completed for 240 days in any calendar

year, rather they worked for about 100 to 125 days in a year.

They are paid through vouchers based on their submitted

bills, and no official Register is maintained for the days of

the temporary workmen.

Having gone through the written arguments of both

the parties, I find that the written argument of the union

Representatives concerned appears to be overbased on

unsubstantiated facts of the workmen's cases, apart from a

lot of citations of Ruling, out of them, the Union

Representatives have over relied upon these two judicial

Authorities:

AIR 1990 SC 371, Bhagwati Prasad Ors Vs. Delhi State

Mineral Dev. Corporation, when it has been held that the

continuous working for 3 years even with intentional break

is sufficient to make the services permanent even if the

workmen are less educationally qualified to the working

post on which they are working, and

AIR 2006(4) SC 1, Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors

Vs. Uma Devi (2) & Ors. wherein held to make the services of

such workmen permanent within six months' period, directing

the Central & State Governments and its instrumental to

implement it with the stipulated time (Para 53).

In view of the nature of the cases as represented by

the Union Representative vicariously for regularization of

the six workmen, none of the aforesaid rulings holds good

with the present factum of the References cases under

adjudication, as all the very fact of the continuous working

of any of the workrmen concerned for 240 days during a

period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with

the Reference to which calculation to be made as stipulated

under Sec.25 (b)(2)(a) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947,

has not been substantiated before the Tribunal. The burden

of proof lies on the workman to establish that he has worked

1854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

for 240 days in the preceding 12 months as held by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv

Kumar (2002) & SCC 400: AIR 2003 SC 38.

In result, the references are in their terms are hereby

responded.

ORDERED

That the Award be and the same is passed that the

action of the Management of L.I.C. of India, Muzaffarpur,

in refusing to accept the claim of the Union in regularizing

the services of S/Shri Harendra Paswan, Raghubansh

Kumar, Gopal Kumar, Shankar Kumar Jha, B.K.Tewari and

Naveen Kumar working in the Establishment since 1983

continuously are legal and justified, as they worked on

need based temporarily purely on daily wages. Hence none

of the six workmen is entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 684.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds

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

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

U;k;ky; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 55 of 2012½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@13@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2014

S.O. 684.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2012)

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 M/s. BCCL, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 10/02/2014.

[No. L-20012/13/2012-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2) AT 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. 55 of 2012

PARTIES :

The Central General Secretary,

Colliery Karmchari Sangh, Hattalla, Patherdih,

Dhanbad

Vs.

General Manager E.J. Area of M/s BCCL,

Bhowra, Dhanbad

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the

None

workman/Union

On behalf of the

Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate

Management

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Coal

Dated : Dhanbad, the 26th Dec., 2013

A W A R D

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec. 10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute of

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

13/2012 IR(CM-I) dt. 21.08.2012.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of COCP,

Sudamdih of M/s BCCL in not regularizing

Smt. Motishwari Devi as Security Guard though she

fulfils all the criteria for regularization as Security

Guard, is fair and justified? To what relief is the work

woman concerned entitled?"

2. Neither union Representative for Colliery Karmchari

Sangh, Hat Talla, Patherdih, Dhanbad nor workwoman

Smt. Motishwari Devi appeared nor written statement filed

on her behalf. Mr. D.K., Verma, the Ld.Advocate for O.P./

Management is present.

On perusal of the case record, I find the case has

been abi nitio pending for filing a written statement along

with the documents since 26.12.2012, for which three Regd,

notices dtt. 13.10.2012, 05.04.2013 and 30.08.13 issued to

the Central General Secretary of the Union on his addresses

noted in the reference itself, yet it went unresponded on

behalf of the Union as well as the workwoman. Not only

the Union but also workwoman by conducts appears to be

disinterested in pursuing the case for a finality in the

Reference whic is related an issue of regularization of the

workman as Security Guard. Under these circumstances

the case is closed as no Industrial Dispute existent;

accordingly an award of 'No dispute' is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 685.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1855

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; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 22@2006½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@24@2006&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx v/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2014

S.O. 685.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2006)

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 M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 10/02/2014.

[No. L-20012/24/2006-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT 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. 22 OF 2006

PARTIES

Daya Shankar Rajbhar,

Ex. M/Loader, Dharmabandh Colliery,

Malkera, Dhanbad

Vs.

Chief General Manager, Barora Area-I

of M/s. BCCL, Nawagarh, Dhanbad

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the

Mr. U. P. Sinha, Ld. Advocate

workman/Union

On behalf of the

None

Management

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 19th Dec., 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/

24/06-IR(CM-I) dt. 01.06.2006.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of BCCL,

Barora Area-I to dismiss Shri Daya Shankar Rajbhar

from service w.e.f. 15.2.03 is just, fair and legal? If

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

2. The case of the workman Daya Shankar Rajbhar

firstly seeking the need for correction of his dismissal date

15.3.03 as 21/22.05.2004 is that he was appointed under

death in harness Scheme of NCWA VI from August, 2000,

getting personnel No. 03019080. He was a permanent

employee as M/Loader in 2/15 Incline of Madhuban Colliery

under Borora Area-I of the BCCL. Due to very hard and

arduous job of Miner/Loader, he fell ill which was informed

by his application dt. 15.3.2003, received in the office on

the same day, with a request to the Project Officer to grant

his sick leave, and to produce the Medical Certificate while

resuming his duty. The workman got himself treated for

Jaundice under Dr. Suresh Pd. Sinha, the Civil Asst.

Surgeon of Government of Jharkhand, Dumra, Baghmare

Road, where his family members residing had taken care of

him. When he reported for his duty on 14.06.2003 with his

Medical certificate of the Doctor to the colliery Authority,

he was not allowed to resume his duty, rather was served

with charge sheet dt. 14/20.6.2003 as evident from the

Management letter dt.8/9.4.2004 on 20.6.2003 directing him

to give his explanation within 48 hours. He submitted his

reply to it on 20.6.2003. As per the Management's letter

dt.8/9.4.2004, the workman was informed that an enquiry

was conducted and the charge brought against him found

to be proved, he might reply within seven days as to why

not hard disciplinary action be taken against him, but he

was not served with the copy of enquiry report along with

the letter. The workman also reported to the above letter

No. 510/04 dt. 8/9.4.2004 containing altogether different

allegations unmentioned in the Original Chargesheet No.

1481dt. 14/20.6.2003. Neither an enquiry was conducted

nor he was given personal hearing. He was highly

prejudiced for non-supply of the enquiry report. Thereafter,

he was dismissed from the service with immediate effect as

per the management's Letter No. 861/2004 dt. 21/22.05.2005

which was issued for his absence for less than three months

from 15.03.2003 to 13.06.2003 on account of his sickness

and treatment for jaundice by the said Government Doctor.

the dismissal order is shocking and disproportionate, as

the workman was already kept idle without work, wages

and compensation from 4.6.2003 to 21/22.04.2004 date of

his dismissal. The action of the management in dismissing

him is unjust, unfair and illegal. The workman is entitled to

re-instatement with full back wages and consequential relief.

3. In the instant case, Mr. B.M. Pd. the Learned

Advocate for the O.P./Management appeared on 08.09.11,

though several Regd. Notices including Show Cause were

issued to the O.P./Management, but non-filing of any

written statement-cum-rejoinder on behalf of the O.P./

1856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management resulted in ex-parte hearing as per the Order

No. 19 dt. 07.06.2012 of the Tribunal.

FINDING WITH REASON

4. In the instant reference, WW1 Daya Shankar

Rajbhar, the workman himself was ex-parte examined. The

affidavited statement of the workman reveals that on falling

sick, he had sent its information to the Management on

15.3.2003; he had also submitted his Medical Certificate

and treatment. (photocopies—Ext.W.2 series), but instead

of letting him join his duty, he was issued a chargesheet dt.

14.6.2003 for absentism from 15.3.2003 to 3.06.2003 with

direction to submit his explanation with 48 hours. It also

points out that despite his absence due to genuine illness,

he was illegally dismissed as per the dismissal letter dt. 21/

22.5.2004 (Ext.W.3), and on his appeal (under receipt by the

Management on 27.12.2004 but the dateless Appeal of the

workman in English-Ext.W.4), it was considered. It is

indisputable that the workman was a M/Loader at 2/15

Nos. Mine of Mahduban Colliery under Barora Area No. 1

of M/s. BCCL. but he was dismissed from the service from

of the Company without any second show cause which is

quite illegal as argued by Mr. U.P. Sinha, Learned Advocate

for the workman.

Besides, the infliction of dismissal punishment to

the workman for his absentism for only three months six

days due to his illness of and suffering from jaundice

appears to be not only shocking but also quite

disproportionate to the nature of his absentism misconduct

for the relevant period 15.03.2003 to 14.06.2003. It is unfair

and illegal; it is liable to be set aside in the eye of the

Labour Law. The workman deserves the relief under Sec.

11A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

In result, it is, in the terms of the reference, hereby

exparte:

ORDERED

That the Award is and the same is passed that the

action of the Management of BCCL. Barora Area I to dismiss

the workman Daya Shankar Rajbhar from the service not

w.e.f. 15.2.2003 but with immediate effect from 21/22.5.2004

is quite unjust, unfair and illegal. Hence he is entitled to his

reinstatement but without back wages in his service within

one month from the receipt of the Notification of it

following its publication in the Gazette of India by the

Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India.

The O.P./Management concerned is directed to

implement it as instructed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 686.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh-lh-,y- ds

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

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

U;k;ky; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 171@2000½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@301@2000&vkbZ vkj (lh,e-I)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2014

S.O. 686.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 171/

2000) 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 M/s. CCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

10.02.2014.

[No. L-20012/301/2000-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT:

SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(l)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

REFERENCE No. 171 OF 2000

PARTIES

Zonal Secretary,

N.O.C.E.O., K.S.P. ( PH-II), Bokaro Thermal, Bokaro

Vs. Project Officer, Karo Special Project of M/s. CCL, Bokaro

Thermal , Distt. Bokaro

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the :

Mr. D. Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate

workman/Union

On behalf of the :

Mr. DK.Verma, Ld. Advocate

Management

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 26th Dec. 2013.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec. 10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to

his Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

301/2000(C-I) dt. 27.11.2000.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1857

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Karo

Special Project of M/s. C.C.L., P.O. Bokaro Tharmal,

Distt. Bokaro, in not regularizing Shri Koleshwar

Kumar and five others (as per list) is justified? If not,

to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled

and from what date?"

2. The case of the workman Koleshwar Kumar and

five others listed as represented by the Zonal Secretary,

N.O.C.E.O., Bokaro is that the workmen have been

performing the repair of tubs and other work related of

permanent nature since putting in more than 240 days

attendance in each calendar year under the direct control

and supervision of the Management. They have been

engaged by the Management to perform the job of

permanent and continuous nature, but it has been projected

one of them Md. Alam as a contractor, though performing

the same job in order to camouflage the real issue with

paper arrangement. The disbursement of their wages below

the rate of NCWA is but a legal camouflage. They are

rendering the services, and producing goods for the benefit

of the Management. Though for all the purposes, they are

the workmen of the Management, but the payment of their

wages below the rate of NCWA to them by the

Management through intermediaries is only to deprive the

poor workmen besides victimizing them for the Trade Union

affiliation. Despite several representations by the workmen

and the Union to the Management for their regularization,

wages and other benefits as per NCWAs, but of no effect,

the Industrial dispute raised by the Union before the

A.LC.(C), Hazaribagh, also failed in conciliation due to

adamant attitude of the management resulted in the

reference for an adjudication. The action of the management

not to regularize the workmen is illegal, unjustified, being

vindictive and anti-labour.

3. No rejoinder to the written statement-cum-

rejoinder of the O.P./Management has been filed on behalf

of the Union concerned.

4. Whereas, categorically denying the allegations

of the Union, the pleaded case of the O.P./Management is

that the present reference is quite unmaintainable on the

ground that no employer-employee relationship exists

between the alleged workmen and the Management. They

never represented either before the management for

regularization as employees of the Management or as those

of the contractor, rather they raised it to have worked as

workmen of contractor Mr. Alam who was awarded the

contactor for repair of tubs from time to time on the basis of

the work orders issued to him after accepting the rates of

repairing quoted by himself. The sponsoring has made the

false claim for their regularization through litigation. The

Management has permanent workmen in its own workshop

for carrying on all smithy job required on regular basis. No

contract is awarded to any party for carrying on smithy job

of permanent nature and regular nature. Sometimes the set

of tubs coupled with in train get damaged on account of

the derailment due to the negligence of the haulage engine

driver or trammers need repair intermittently. A contractor

is engaged for repair the damaged tubs brought on the

surface store as per the scheduled rates duly accepted by

the Management on the basis of quotation submitted by

the Contractor, the damaged portions of the steel plates

are cut and removed New M.S. Plates are issued by the

Store for substitution of the damaged pieces. The

contractor undertakes the job on the contract rate,

accordingly carries on the repair of the tubs with all the

materials supplied by the Management for it. The contractor

engages his own workmen, and pay them their wages as

per the rate agreed. The contractor exercises full control

over his workmen, who are under his supervision, control,

direction for his all affairs. The nature of repairing job is

intermittently, so such contract can not be described as a

camouflage. No one can demand for regulation of the

contract workers by the Management of the Public Sector

Undertaking, which is bound to follow the constitutional

provision in the matter of recruitment of workmen and their

regularization. But the contractor-workers engaged casually

whenever required can not be permanently absorbed in

violation of the constitutional provision. The contractor

workers were never selected or recruited nor paid nor

controlled or supervised by the Management. So the

demand of the Union being devoid of merits is liable to be

summarily rejected.

5. The O.P./Management in us rejoinder has

specifically denied all the allegations of the Union

concerned as baseless, vague and false and stated that the

workers concerned are not at all entitled to any relief.

FINDING WITH REASONS

6. In the instant case, WW1 Md. Kalam, one of the

workmen for sake of all including himself, and WW2

Bhagirath Sharma on behalf of the Union concerned, and

MW1 Shabhu Nath Tiwary for the O.P./Management have

been examined.

Mr. D. Mukherjee the Learned Counsel for the Union

submits that the Management's witness (MWI) did not

corroborate the management's plea that the management

has permanent black smith, there is no need of engaging

contractor workmen for repair of tubs. He has quoted the

pleadings are no substitute for proof as held in the case of

Manager, R.B.I., Bangalore Vs. N. Momi 2005(105) F.L.R.

1067(SC) whereas Shambhu Nath Tiwari (MW1) as his

pleaded statement stands has established that the repair

1858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of coal tubs, which is not of permanent nature, is temporarily

done by a contractor, so the statement of the workmen

about their engagement and taking from them the repairing

work of coal tubs is myth. But the Management has no

such alleged pleading "no need of engaging contractor

workers for repairs of coal tubs." The argument of

M. Mukherjee is wide off the mark.

Further Mr. Mukherjee Learned Counsel for the union

emphatically submits that the Management has miserably

failed to produce any document as a proof that Md. Alam

had been ever engaged as contractor for tub repairing job,

as also failed to prove the payment to the workmen by the

contractor after payment made by the Management to the

contractor. But the plea of Mr. Mukherjee is unacceptable

in face of the fair admission of the Zonal Secretary in his

writing as admitted by the workmen Md. Jawahair, Raja

Ram Sah, Md. Kamal and Md. Naeem Ansari about the

status of the said contractor who used to pay them their

wages for the repair of tubs in the conciliation proceeding

before the A.L.C. The Zonal Secretary of the Union once

admitted the status of Md. Alarm as their contractor before

the ALC can not be allowed to detract from it in the reference

in which Md. Alam is not named as a workman. The statement

of Shambhu Nath Tiwary (MWI) Para 3 clearly points out

the payment is made by the Management to the contractor,

but not directly to the workmen, for repair of coal tubs.

7. Further submission of Mr. D. Mukherjee, the

Learned Counsel for the Union is that the workmen have

proved their engagement by the Management as Tub repair

and manufacturing job as their documents Ext. 1 to 4, but

the statutory documents, Attendance Register and the

Payment Vouchers as called for, have not been filed by the

Management, and that though they had been working since

1989, they were dropped from working since 2000 as stated

by WW1 Kalam, one of the workmen. In support of the

workmen's case, Mr. Mukherjee has relied upon the rulings

as under:

2002LLR 448(SC), Indian Fertilizer Corporation Co.

Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal, wherein held that the

conclusion of the Tribunal that they are employees of the

Appellant based on evidence is correct;

S.C.L.J.(6) Page 3867 Basti Sugar Mills Vs. Ram Ujagar,

as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court therein where at the

challenge of the workmen to their termination of service,

the management pleaded them as the employees of

contractor, the Tribunal awarded them employee of the

Management, directing them for reinstatement with full back

wages which was confirmed;

L.L.J. (2) 1964 PAGE 6333 Md. D.C. Diwan Mohuddin

Saheb Vs. United Biri Workers Union, wherein at the point

of the Management's plea about the workmen as the

employee of contractor, it was held them the employees of

the management;

S.C.LJ. (15) page 12, Hassain Bhai Vs. Alath factory

wherein held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that at the true

test application of principle of doctrine of lifting he veil

where a worker or a group of worker labourer to produce

goods or services, and the goods or services are for the

business of another, that is in fact, the employer, it was

also confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. National Union Water

Front Workers, 2001 LLR page 961;

LLR 1994 page 634 R.K. Panda Vs. Steel Authority of

India where the settled law is that in all such cases labourers

are initially employed and engaged by the contractor, as

such at what point of time a direct link is established

between the contractors and principal employer eliminating

the contactor form the scene is a matter which has to be

established on materials produced before the Court.

It is also submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that even after

discussing the Uma Devi's case (2006)(3) SCC (L&S) 753,

the Hon'ble Apex Court has upheld the finding of the

Tribunal about the workmen as the employee of ONGC and

not contractor employees, the workmen would be entitled

to all benefits available in that capacity as held in the case

of G.M., O.N.G.C. Shilcher Vs. N.G. contractual workers

Association, 2008 AIR SCW 3996, just as upheld by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Biilwars Dugdgh

Utpadak Sahakari St. Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma Qrs,

2011 LLR 1079 that the contractor's employees were factually

the employees of the appellant/employer who were working

under the order of the Officers of the employer. Besides

Mr. Mukherjee referred to the confirmation of an Award dt.

18.8.1997 passed by the C.G.I.T. No. I, Dhanbad in Ref.

Case Nos. 156/94 and 72/95 up to the Hon'ble Apex Court

by its judgment dt. 17.4.2000 in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15253/

1999 in respect of regularization of contractor workmen

with wages.

8. In response to it, Mr. D.K. Verma, the Learned

Counsel for the O.P./Management has contended that as

per the pleading of the workmen in its Para 4 and 7 that

their engagement through Intermediary and they worked

for more than 240 days in each calendar year, none of the

workmen's witnesses (WW1 and 2) has proved their

pleading, rather they have produced their a few gate

passes, so pleading is no substitute for proof. Moreover

Md. Alam, contractor, was awarded a contract for repair of

Coal Tubs, which was not of permanent nature, so none of

the workmen is entitled to regularization.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1859

9. On perusal and consideration of the materials oral

and documentary of the workmen as well as the oral

statement of Management witness, I find the facts as under:

(i) The stand of the Union/workmen as their Learned

Counsel is sometimes as the direct employees of

the O.P./Management or at times as the contractor

workers, but their factual stand is that they were

the workers of contractor Md. Alam as evident

from the list of the workmen dt.17.1.2000 (Ext.W.2)

issued by the C.I.S.F. bearing the name of the

contractor for one day only. Out of the four Gate

Passes (Ext. W.1 series), three photocopies

thereof are dt. 5.5.95 unsigned by an official, dt.

4.6.99 and 10.5.99 issued by the office to Naeem

Ansari, Md. Kamal (workmen Sl. Nos. 4 & 3

respectively), whereas the last fourth Gate Pass

dt. 1.12.98 allegedly issued to workman No. 1,

Kaleshwar Kumar is in original which appears to

be fake, being unsigned by the Office concerned.

The two carbon copies of the Store Slips dt. 21.4.99

and 8.3.2000 (Ext. W.3 series) issued by the

Engineer Sambhu Nath Tiwary were issued to

aforesaid workman Md. Kamal. The photocopy

of alleged Joint Leave Application dt. 13.3.2000 to

Sr. E.E., K.S.P. Phase II (Ext.W.4) is for leave for

14th & 22nd March, 2000. It does not prove if the

alleged application was granted by the Sr. E.E.

But none of the alleged documents is an order of

any Authority of the O.P./Management for the

workmen to work as repairer of Coal Tubs so as to

be held them as the employees of the

Management as required as held in the case

Bhilwara Dugdh Utpdak Sahakari S. Ltd. Vs. Vinod

Kr. Sharma & Ors., 2011 LLR 1079 as cited by

Mr. Mukhejee, Learned Advocate for the workmen'.

(ii) The oral evidence of WWI Md. Kalam about their

working from 1989, and stopping from working

since 2000, being vague and unpleaded is

inadmissible. Accordingly, the workmen have no

proof of their continuous working for minimum

240 days under the alleged principal employer in

a year preceding the date of the Reference as

required under Sec. 25B of the Industrial Dispute

Act, l947, and

(iii) The Reference case has neither pleading nor proof

the point of time when a direct link between the

contract labourers and their principal employer

established, elemiating the contractor from the

scene as the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

aforesaid R.K. Panda's Case, LLR 1994 at page

634.

In view of the findings, I do not find any of the rulings

cited by Mr. Mukherjee, Learned Counsel for the Union

applicable to the present case, as every ruling has its own

ratio decidendi, and accordingly his argument appears to

be not conducive to the success of the case; hence his

argument is unpersuasive.

In result, it is, in the terms of the reference hereby:

ORDERED

That the Award is and the same be passed that the

action of the Management of Karo Special Project of M/s.

CCL, P.O. Bokaro Thermal, Dist. Bokaro is not regularizing

Sri Koleshwar Kumar and five others (as per the list) is

quite legally justified. Hence, the workmen are not entitled

to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

List of the workmen

Name

Father Name

Name of the

Contractor

1. Koleshwar Kumar

Dukhi Kumar

M/s M. Alam

2. Salim Ansari

Razag Ansari

M/s M. Alam

3. Md. Kalam

I. Ansari

M/s M. Alam

4. Naeem Ansari

Qualim Ansari

M/s M. Alam

5. Jawahar Ansari

Thahir Ansari

M/s M. Alam

6. Rajaram Sah

Sonalal Sah

M/s M. Alam

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 687.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

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

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

U;k;ky; uañ 1 /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 21@2008½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@37@2008&vkbZ vkj¼lh,e&I)]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2014

S.O. 687.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2008)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No.

1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industiral

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

10/02/2014.

[No. L-20012/37/2008-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

1860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 1),

DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10 (1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D. ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 21 of 2008

Employers in relation to the management of Burragarh

Colliery, Kustore Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their Workmen

PRESENT : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers :

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman. :

Sri K.N. Singh, Rep.

State:— Jharkhand

Industry

Coal

Dated 10.01.2014

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/37/2008-IR(CM-I), dated

28.4.2008, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Burragarh

Colliey of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Suraj Hari M/

Loader from the services of the company w.e.f.

08.04.2006 is Legal & justified" If not, to what relief is

the concerned workman entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 05.06.2008. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed, the workman files their written statement on

08.03.2010. And the management files their written statement

cum-rejoinder on 02.09.2011. The short point involved in

the reference is that the workman has been dismissed from

his services on the ground of absenteeism.

3. During preliminary hearing it is revealed that this

case is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty. It is

found that, the workman is young. It is also found that, He

has already out of service for 7 years. It is felt to gtive

another chance to the workman to serve.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee.

Therefore the question of back wages does not arise at all,

Communicated.

This is my award

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 688.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

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

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1 /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

63@2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@02@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@81@2009&vkbZ vkj¼lh,e&I)]

,eñdsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2014

S.O. 688.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 63/2009)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Govenrment on

10/02/2014.

[No. L-20012/81/2009-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1),

DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10 (1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D. ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 63 of 2009

Employers in relation to the management Kustore Area,

M/s. BCCL

AND

Their Workmen,

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

Sri N.M. Kumar, Rep.

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Coal

Dated 13.11.2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/81/2009-IR(CM-I), dated

30.11.2009, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1861

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

(i) Whether the action of the management of

Simlabahal Colliey under Kustore Area of

M/s BCCL in dismissing Sri Shekh Kramtulla from

the service of the company w.e.f. 14.05.2008 is

justified and legal" (ii) To what relief is the

workman concerned entitled."

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 16.12.2009. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed, the workman files their written statement on

23.02.2010. And the management files their written

statement- cum-rejoinder on 08.10.2010. The point involved

in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed

from his services.

3. During preliminary hearing it is revealed that the

case is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty. He

has already out of service for 5 years. It is felt to give

another chance to the workman to serve.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee.

Therefore the question of back wages does not arise at all.

This is my award

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 689.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dk /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

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

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

U;k;ky; uañ 1 /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 43@2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-02-2014 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@75@2007&vkbZ vkj¼lh,e&I)]

,eñdsñ flag vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2014

S.O. 689.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2007)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

No. 1. Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industiral

dispute between the management of M/s BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Govenrment on

10/02/2014.

[No. L-20012/75/2007-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10 (1) (D)(2A)

OF I.D. ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 43 of 2007

Employers in relation to the management of Govindpur

Colliery of M/s BCCL

AND

Their Workmen,

Present:SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding

Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

None

For the Workman.

Sri B.B. Pandey, Advocate

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Coal

Dated 15.11.2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/75/2007-IR-(CM-I), dated

09.08.2007, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Govindpur

Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing the service of

Shri Mahendra Rajwar, Miner/Loader w.e.f. 26.02.2005

is justified and legal? If not to what relief is the

concerned workman entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 24.08.2007. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed, they appear and file their claim statement. The

point involved in the reference is that the workman has

been dismissed from his services.

3. During preliminary hearing it is revealed that the

case is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty. He

has already out of service for 8 years. It is felt to give

another chance to the workman to serve.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee.

Therefore the question of back wages does not arise at all.

This is my award

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

1862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 690.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds

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

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

71@2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@02@2014

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y-20012/167/2002-vkbZ vkj¼lh,e&I)]

,eñdsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2014

S.O. 690.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/2003)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No.

1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industiral

Dispute between the management of M/s ECL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

10/02/2014.

[No. L-20012/167/2002-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 1), DHANBAD

Ref. No. 71 of 2003

In the matter of a Reference U/s 10 (1) (D) (2A) of I.D.

Act, 1947

Parties: Employer in relation to the management of

Mugma Area of M/s. E.C. Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen,

PRESENT : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman.

None

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Coal

Dated 09.01.2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/167/2002-IR-(C-I), dated

27.6.2003, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union

of Mugma Area of M/s Eastern Coalfied Ltd. for

regularization of Ram Raj Tatwa and 54 others

workmen as per annexure is legal and justified? If so,

what relief the concerned workman are entitled and

from which date?"

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ANNEUXRE

LIST OF WORKMAN

1. Ram Raj Tatwa

2. Jiban Karmakar

3. Aswani Kumbhakar

4. Matal Ch. Bhandari

5. Umapada Bhandari

6. Dhiren Gorai

7. Fatik Modak

8. Subal Pandit

9. Manik Bhandari

10. Samir Santikari

11. Bhabataran Tewari

12. Somnath Sinha

13. Suresh Prasad

14. Himadri Mukherjee

15. Bhupoti Mondal

16. Nabagopal

17. Sunul Modak

18. Manik Gorai

19. Subhas Gorai

20. Sadhan Kumbhakar

21. Shankar Modak

22. Sri Asit Kr. Tewary

23. Sri Jajkant Upadhayay

24. Shyama Modak

25. Subhas Gorai

26. Ananda Karmakar

27. Arun Kumar Sao

28. Dharu Gorai

29. Susanta Banerjee

30. Bhabataran Gorai

31. Dilip Gorai

32. Madan Kumbharar

33. Subash Rajbar

34. Susanta Pandey

35. Harisadhan Mondal

36. Nepal Ch. Karmakar

37. Manik Chakraborty

38. Sri Anil Kr, Gorai

39. Sri Uttam Gorai

40. Paresh Mahato

41. Dilip Biswakarma

42. Prasadi Mahato

43.Sri Kheden Roy

44. Prahlad Karmakar

45. Ranjan Modak

46. Manik Karmakar

47. Sudhir Das

48. Prabir Kumar Boxi

49. Montu Gorai

50. Pawan Kr. Ram

51. Sir Golak Mokak

52. Sri Joginder Sharma

53. Sri Ram Nath Gope

54. Sri Haradhan Lohar

55. Jagarnath Gope

2. After receipt of the reference, both partries are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates, none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence pass a No disputed Award is passed.

Communicate to the Ministry.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1863

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 691.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fVLdks ds izcaèra=

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

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

uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 46@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS]tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@1@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñdsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2014

S.O. 691.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 46/2004) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of M/s. TISCO and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 10.02.2014.

[No. L-20012/1/2004-IR (CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

Reference No. 46/2004

IN THE MATTER OF REFERENCE U/S 10(1)(D)(2A) OF

I.D. ACT, 1947

Parties: Employer in relation to the management of

TISCO

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT : SRI R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate.

For the workman

None

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Coal

Dated: 7/1/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/1/2004 IR (C-I), dated 08.06.2004

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the claim of colliery Karamchari Sangh that

late Abdul Gaffar received injury in course of and

out of employment and died due to accident is

correct? If so, whether the demand from the

management of TISCO for employment of Sri Alim

Ahmad dependent son of workman concerned is legal

and justified? If so what relief the petitioner is

entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates, none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence, No disputed Award is passed.

Communicate to the Ministry.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 692.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ lh ,y ds

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

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

U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 191@1999½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@299@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2014

S.O. 692.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 191/

1999) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. ECL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

10/02/2014.

[No. L-20012/299/1999-IR (CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

Reference No. 191/1999

IN THE MATTER OF REFERENCE U/S 10(1)(D)(2A) OF

I.D. ACT, 1947.

Parties: Employer in relation to the management of

Mugma Area of M/S. ECL

AND

Their Workmen.

1864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Present : Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers

None

For the Workman

None.

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Coal

Dated: 6/1/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/299/99 IR (C-I) dated 22.11.1999

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Mugma

Area of M/s. ECL, in not regularising Shri M.C.

Choubey, of Gopinath Colliery as clerk although he

has been performing the job of a clerk since 1978 as

per order of Management is justified? If not, what

relief the workman is entitled to and from what date?"

2. After receipt of the reference both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates, none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence, No disputed Award is passed.

Communicate to the Ministry.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 693.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Vh ,l ,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; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 08@2009½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@23@2009&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñdsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2014

S.O. 693.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 08/2009) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Tata Steel Limited

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

10/02/2014.

[No. L-20012/23/2009-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF REFERENCE U/S 10(1)(D)(2A) OF

I.D. ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 8 of 2009

Employer in relation to the management of Sijua Colliery

of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen

Present : Sri Rajan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

Sri R.R. Ram, Advocate

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Coal

Dated: 13/11/2013

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/23/2009 IR (CM-I),

dated 13.02.2009 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

(i) "Whether the action of the management of Sijua

Colliery of M/s. Tata Steel Limited in dismissing Shri

Birendar, Miner from the services of the company

w.e.f. 09.06.2008 is legal and justified? (ii) To what

relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 25.02.2009. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed, the workman files their written statement on

25.03.2009. And the management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 08.01.2010. The point involved

in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed

from his services.

3. During preliminary hearing it is revealed that the

case is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty. He

has already out of service for 5 years. It is felt to give

another chance to the workman to serve.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee.

Therefore the question of back wages does not arise at all.

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 22] 2014@iQkYxqu 3] 1935

1865

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 694.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds

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

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

U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 33@1992½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@70@88@Mh&4,&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñdsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2014

S.O. 694.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/1992)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.

1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

10/02/2014.

[No. L-20012/70/88/D-IV(A)-IR (CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

Reference No. 33/1992

IN THE MATTER OF REFERENCE U/S 10(1)(D)(2A) OF

I.D. ACT, 1947.

Parties: Employer in relation to the management of

Patherdih Colliery M/s BCCL.

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT : Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers

None

For the Workman

None.

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Coal

Dated: 16/12/2013

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/70/88/D-IV(A)/IR (Coal-I) dated

21.04.92 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Patherdih

Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. in not

Correcting the date of birth of Sri Balram Bharati,

Sub-station attendant in the service Records and

the service excerpts is justified? If not, to what relief

is the workman entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates, none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence, pass a No disputed Award is passed.

Communicate to the Ministry.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 695.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

37@1992½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@02@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@167@88@Mh&3@Mh4,&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2014

S.O. 695.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/1992)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.

1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

10/02/2014.

[No. L-20012/167/88/D-3/D-4(A)-IR (CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

Reference No. 37/1992

IN THE MATTER OF REFERENCE U/S 10(1)(D)(2A) OF

I.D. ACT, 1947.

Parties: Employer in relation to the management of

Sudamdih Area M/s BCCL.

AND

Their Workmen.

Present : SRI R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

1866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 22, 2014/PHALGUNA 3, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers

None

For the Workman

None.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 16/12/2013

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/167/88/D-3/D-4(A)/IR

(C-I) dated 22.04.92 the Central Government in the Ministry

of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Colliery

Mazdoor Sangh that Shri Md. Rahman and 45 others

shown in the list (Annexure) who were delisted casual

workers of Sudamdih Colliery be regularized in terms

of circular No. D(P)/PS/86/2649-949(H) dated 8/9.5.

86 issued by M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., is

justified? If so, to what relief are the workmen

concerned entitled?"

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

Name of Delister Casual workmen of Sudamdih Colliery

1. Md. Rahman

9. Sri Ram Sohan Pandey

2. Md. Aslam

10. Sri Deo Ratan Singh

3. Md. Yusuf

11. Sri Md. Ikram

4. Sri Ramjatan Paswan

12. Sri Md. Tazuddin

5. Sri Karu Prasad

13. Sri Rajaram Sharma

6. Sri Jhagru Ram

14.Sri Ganesh Preasad

7. Sri Sahdeo Prasad Singh

15. Sri Krishna Pasawan

8. Sri Gosto Bouri

16. Sri Md. Asgar Ali

17. Sri Sidhnath Pandey

18. Sri Jang Bahadur

19. Sri Sahdeo Mahto

36. Sri Narayan Mahto

20. Sri Kali Mahto

37. Sri Bhutnath

21. Sri Jagdish

38. Sri Ramhari Mistry

22. Sri Sahadeo Prasad

39. Sri Dulal Rai

23. Sri Lokenoth Yadav

40. Sri Jawahar Mistry

24. Sri Jiten Bhatacharjee

41. Sri Sarban Bose

25. Sri Md. Jamal

(Sri Sarban Kr. Bose)

26. Sri Santosh

42. Sri Baijnath Prasad

27. Sri Sukhdeo Mukherjee

(Sri Baijnath Paswan)

28. Sri Arther Hussain

43. Sri Rambilas Ram

29. Sri Satish Prasad Singh

(Sri Ram Bilas)

30. Sri Payara Singh

44. Sri Inderjit Jadav

31.Sri Singhara Singh

(Sri Inderjit)

32. Sri Md. Abbas

45. Sri Chandradeo Pandit

33. Sri Nizmuddin

(Sri Chandreshwar Pandit)

34. Sri Janardan Verma

46. Sri Shyambihari Kumar

35. Sri Dinesh Singh

(Sri Shyam Bihari)

2. After receipt of the reference both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates, none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence, pass a No disputed Award is passed.

Communicate to the Ministry.

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.