dk£ed] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;

(dk£ed vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1105-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

1973 (1974 dk vf/fu;e la- 2) dh /kjk 24 dh mi&/kjk (8)

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

LFkkiuk }kjk laLFkkfir vkjlh 4 (,l)@2010&,llhch@,e;w,e-

(lksgjkcqn~nhu 'ks[k eqBHksM ekeyk)] vkjlh 3 (,l)@2011&

,llhch@,e;w,e (rqylh iztkifr eqBHksM ekeyk) vkj lh 3

(,l)@2011& ,llhch@ Mh ,y vkbZ(lkfnd teky eqBHksM ekeyk)

rFkk vkj lh 5 (,l)@2011&,llhch@,e;w,e-(b'kjr tgka eqBHksM

ekeyk) esa rFkk vihyksa] iqujh{k.kksa vFkok blls lEc¼ ;k blh

laO;ogkj ds vU; ekeyksa esa ubZ fnYyh fLFkr Hkkjr ds ekuuh;

mPpre U;k;ky; ds le{k dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks dh rjiQ ls

mifLFkr gksus ds fy, Jh lqczeU;e izlkn ,oa Jh ekghu iz/ku]

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

¹iQk- la- 225@5@2014&,ohMh&IIº

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

1316 GI/2014

(2861)

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- 14]

ubZ fnYyh, ekpZ 30—vizSy 5] 2014] 'kfuokj@pS=k 9—pS=k 15] 1936

No. 14]

NEW DELHI, MARCH 30—APRIL 5, 2014, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 9—CHAITRA 15 1936

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)

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2014

S.O. 1105.—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 Subramonium Prasad, and Shri

Maheen Pradhan, Advocates as Special Public Prosecutor

for appearing on behalf of Central Bureau of Investigation

in RC 4/(S)/2011-SCB/MUM. (Sohrabuddin Sheikh

Encounter case), RC 3/(S)/2011-SCB/MUM.(Tulsi Prajapti

Encounter Case), RC 3/(S)/2011-SCB/DLI.(Sadiq Jamal

Encounter Case) and RC 4/(S)/2011-SCB/MUM.(Ishrat

Jahan Encounter Case) instituted by the Delhi Special Police

Establishment before the Hon’ble Supreme Count of India

at New Delhi and appeals, revisions or other matter

connected therewith and incidental thereto.

[F. No. 225/5/2014-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

2862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fof/ vkSj U;k; ea=kky;

(fof/ dk;Z foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1106-—jkIVªifr] fnukad 27 ekpZ] 2014 ls Jh ds-

lh dkSf'kd] vf/oDrk dk Hkkjr ds vij egklkfyflVj ds in ls

R;kxi=k Lohdkj djrs gSa A

¹iQk- la- 18(9)@2012&U;kf;dº

vkj- ,l- 'kqDy] la;qDr lfpo ,oa fof/ lykgdkj

MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

(Department of Legal Affairs)

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2014

S.O. 1106.—The President is pleased to accept the

resignation of Shri K. C. Kaushik, Advocate as Additional

Solicitor General of India with effect from 27th March, 2014.

[F. No. 18(9)/2012-Judl. ]

R.S. SHUKLA, Jt. Secy.& Legal Adviser

lapkj vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=kky;

(nwjlapkj foHkkx)

(jktHkk"kk vuqHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1107-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 (;Fkk la'kksf/r] 1987] 2007

rFkk 2011) ds fu;e 10(04) ds vuqlj.k esa eq[; egkizca/d

(vuqj{k.k)] if'peh nwjlapkj {ks=k] eqEcbZ ds varxZr miegkizca/d]

vuqj{k.k] if'peh nwjlapkj {ks=k] tcyiqj dk;kZy;] ftlesa 80

izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr

dj fy;k gS ] dks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gSA

2- ;g vf/lwpuk jkti=k esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls ykxw

gksxh A

¹ la- bZ&11016@01@2009&jktHkk"kkº

lqjs'k pUnz 'kekZ] mi egkfuns'kd (lh- ,.M ,-)

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Department of Telecommunications)

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2014

S.O. 1107.—In pursuance of rule 10(4) of the Offical

Languages (use for official purpose of the Union) Rules,

1976 (as amended 1987, 2007 and 2011), the Central

Government hereby notifies the office of the Deputy General

Manager (Maintenance), West Telecom Circle, Jabalpur

under the administrative contral of Chief General Manager

(Maintenance), West Telecom Circle, Mumbai, where more

than 80% staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

2. This notification shall come into force from the

date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

[ No. E-11016/1/2009-O.L.]

SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA, DDG (C.&A)

miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky;

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

(Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks)

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1108-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwphs esa fn, x, gSa] os LohÑr dj fn, x, gSaA

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal la

LohÑr djus dh

ykblsal/kjh dk

Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkk ek la

la-

frfFk o"kZ@ekg

uke o iÙkk

dk 'kh"kZ

(Hkkx@vuqHkkx) o"kZ

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

4695081

20140203

eSllZ uohu baMLVªhl

fuEetuh; iEilsV

IS 8034% 2002

njoktk la- 135&,] 6ok¡

lMd] ojnjktkyq uxj]

CykWd bZ- ch- dkWyksuh]

x.kifr] dks;EcÙkwj&641006

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2863

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

4695889

20140204

eSllZ vYiQk bathfu;¯jx

fuEetuh; iEilsV

IS 8034% 2002

baMLVªh] la- 2 ,] 6ok¡ Økl]

oh- ds- jksM] rUuhj iUny]

ihyesMq] dks;EcÙkwj&641004

4697893

20140210

eSllZ Jh x.kifr iwQM~l

iSdstcan is; ty

IS 14543% 2004

,l ,iQ la- 73@3,]

(iSdstcan feujy

xaxk uxj ,DLVsU'ku ds

ty ds vykok)

lkeus] esdZyk rksV~Ve]

iYyMe CykWd]

x.kifriky;e iksLV]

dks;EcÙkwj&641605

4697792

20140211

eSllZ 'kfDRk fouk;xk feYl

iSdstcan is; ty

IS 14543% 2004

73] iqnq oylq]

(iSdstcan feujy

yDdkiqje]

ty ds vykok)

bZjksM&638002

4699796

20140213

eSllZ ekgh bathfu;¯jx

LoPN BaMs ikuh ds fy,

IS 8472% 1998

izkbZosV fyfeVsM ;wfuV&1

vidsUnzh; iqu#Riknd iEi

28] vEeu oqQye jksM]

ih- ,u- iky;e]

dks;EcÙkwj&641037

4705664

20140224

eSllZ ,-,l- ok;j VsDuksyksth

iSdstcan is; ty

IS 14543% 2004

155@2] oqQIisiky;e] 'ksUcxk&

(iSdstcanfeujy

xkSUMu iqnqj] vUUkwj

ty ds vykok)

iksLV] vUUkwj CykWd]

dks;EcÙkwj& 641 107

¹ la- lh,eMh@13%11º

,e- lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 14th March, 2014

S.O. 1108.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name and

Title of the Standard

IS No. Part/Sec./Year

No.

Address (Factory)

of the Party

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

4695081

20140203

M/s. Navin Industries

Submersible Pumpsets

IS 8034 : 2002

D.No. 135-A, 6th Street,

Varadharajulu Nagar, Block

E.B. Colony, Ganapathy,

Coimbatore-641006

2864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4695889

20140204

M/s. Alfaa Engineering Industry

Submersible Pumpsets

IS 8034 : 2002

No. 2A, 6th Cross,

Thaneerpandal, V.K. Road,

Peelamedu,

Coimbatore-641004

4697893

20140210

M/s. Sree Ganapathy Foods

Packaged Drinking Water

IS 14543 : 2004

SF. No. 73/3a, Opp. Ganga

(other than Packaged Natural

Nagar Extn,

Mineral Water)

MerkalaThottam, Palladam Block,

Ganapathypalayam (P.O.),

Coimbatore-641605.

4697792

20140211

M/s. Sakthi Vinayagaa Mills

Packaged Drinking Water

IS14543: 2004

73 Pudu Vallasu

(other than Packaged Natural

Lakkapuram,

Mineral Water)

Erode-638002

4699796

20140213

M/s. Mahee Engineering

Centrifugal Regenerative

IS 8472 : 1988

Private Limited, Unit-1

Pumps for clear, cold water

28, Amman Kulam Road

P.N. Palayam,

Coimbatore-641 037

4705664

20140224

M/s. A.S. Water Technology

Packaged Drinking Water

IS 14543 : 2004

155/2, Kuppeapalayam,

(other than Packaged

Shenbhagounden Pudur,

Natural Mineral Water)

Annur Post, Annur Block,

Coimbatore- 641 107

[No. CMD/13:11]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1109-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mi&fu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os LohÑr dj fn, x, gSa %—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal la-

LohÑr djus dh

ykblsal/kjh dk

Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkk ek la (Hkkx@

la-

frfFk o"kZ@ekg

uke o irk

dk 'kh"kZ

vuqHkkx) % o"kZ

4698693

20140212

eSllZ Jh dUnosy TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/krq,a

IS 1417 % 1999

73] bZ'oju dksfoy LVªhV]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

iwdMS dkWuZj]

fr:Iiqj&641604

¹la- lh ,e Mh@13%11º

,e- lankf'koe] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2865

New Delhi, the 14th March, 2014

S.O. 1109.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name and

Title of the Standard

IS No./Part/Sec./Year

No.

Address (Factory)

of the Party

4698693

20140212

M/s. Sri Kandavel Jewellers

Gold and Gold Alloys,

IS 1417 : 1999

73, Easwaran Kovil Street,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Pookadai Corner,

Fineness and Marking

Tiruppur-641604

[No. CMD/13:11]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1110-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;eu 5 ds mifu;e (6) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd fUkEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZbZ xbZ rkjh[k ls jí@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS %

vuqlwph

Ø-

ykbZlsal la

ykbZlsal/kjh dk uke o irk

LFkfxr fd, x,@jí fd, x, ykbZlsal ds varxZr

jí gksus dh

la-

lh ,e@,y-

oLrq@izØe lEc¼ Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

frfFk

4544969

eSllZ vkfnR;k eyj foYMlZ ,.M

iSdstcan is; ty (iSdstcan feujy ty ds vykok)

18&02&2014

izksiVhZ MsoysilZ izk;osV fyfeVsM

IS 14543% 2004

999@4] vEcsMdj lMqDde]

vfjoksyh uxj] enqDdjS CykWd]

enqDdjS xkWo] dks;EcRrwj (nf{k.k)

rkyqd] dks;EcRrwj&641015

¹la- lh ,e Mh@13%13º

,e- lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 14th March, 2014

S.O. 1110.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the grant of licence particulars of which are given

below have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date of

No.

CM/L-

Standard covered by the licence

Cancellation

cancelled/suspension

4544969

M/S. ADITHYA MALAR BUILDERS &

Packaged Drinking Water (Other than

18-02-2014

PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

Packaged natural mineral water)

999/4, AMBEDKAR SADUKKAM,

IS 14543 : 2004

ARIVOLINAGAR, MADUKARAI BLOCK,

MADUKKARAI VILLAGE,

COIMBATORE (SOUTH) TALUK,

COIMBATORE-641015

[No. CMD/13:13]

M. SADASIVAM, Sceentist 'F' & Head

2866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1111-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSa A

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa)

LFkkfir frfFk

Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa) tks fd

jn~n gksus dh

la-

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

jn~n gksus okys gS] vxj gS]

frfFk

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

vkbZ ,l 10 (Hkkx 2) % 2013

15 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 10 (Hkkx 2) %

15 ekpZ]

i~ykbZoqM dh pk;&isfV;ka&

1996 i~ykbZoqM dh pk;&

2014

fof'kf"V Hkkx 2 i~ykbZoqM

isfV;ka fof'k"V Hkkx 2

(NBk iqujh{k.k)

i~ykbZoqM (ikapok iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ ,l 7836 % 2013

15 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 7836 % 2013

15 ekpZ]

[kkus ;ksX; de&olk

fof'k"V [kkus ;ksX;

2014

lks;k vkVk & fof'k"V

de & olk lks;k vkVk

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks@Vh vkj

15 ekpZ] 2014

—

11360 % 2010 uSuksa

izkSn~;ksfxdh & uSuksa

lkefxz;ksa dk oxhZdj.k

,o Js.khdj.k dk jhfrfoKku

vkbZ ,l 13252 (Hkkx 22) %

15 ekpZ] 2014

—

2013 lwpuk izkSn~;ksfxdh

miLdj & lqj{kk Hkkx 22

cfgjax miLdj LFkkfir djuk

vkbZ ,l 13252 (Hkkx 23) %

15 ekpZ] 2014

—

2013 lwpuk izkSn~;ksfxdh

miLdj & lqj{kk Hkkx 23

cM+s Lrj ij vkadM+k lapk;d

miLdj

vkbZ ,l 14202 (Hkkx 1) %

15 ekpZ] 2014

—

2013 igpku dkMZ~l & ,dhÑr

ifjiFk dkMZ~l Hkkx 1 lEidZ

lfgr dkM~Zl & HkkSfrd y{;

nwljk (iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ ,l 14202 (Hkkx 2) %

15 ekpZ] 2014

—

2013 igpku dkMZ~l &

,dhÑr ifjiFk dkMZ~l Hkkx 2

lEidZ lfgr dkMZ~l & lEidks±

dk foLrkj vkSj vofLFkr

(nwljk iqujh{k.k)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2867

vkbZ ,l 15109 (Hkkx 2) %

15 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 15109 (Hkkx 2) %

2014 e`nk dh xq.krk&

2000@vkbZ ,l vks 11269&2 %

e`nk ouLifrtkr

1995 e`nk dh xq.krk &

ij iznw"kdksa dk izHkko Kkr

e`nk ouLifrtkr ij

djuk Hkkx 2 mPprj

iznw"kdksa dk izHkko Kkr djuk

ikndksa ds vadqj.k ,oa

Hkkx 2 mPprj ikndksa ds vadqj.k

vkjfEHkd o`f¼ ij

,oa vkjfEHkd o`f¼ ij lanwf"kr

lanwf"kr e`nk dk izHkko

e`nk dk izHkko

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ ,l 16132 % 2013

15 ekpZ] 2014

—

rackdw ,oa rackdw mRikn &

,Ydkyk;M dh ek=kk Kkr

djuk & LisDVªksehVjh i¼fr

10-

vkbZ ,l 16138 % 2013

15 ekpZ] 2014

—

[kqys iz.kky esa nzo izokg dk

ekiu & bysDVªkseSxusVhd

djsaV ehVjksa ds fMtkbu]

p;u ,oa mi;ksx

11-

vkbZ ,l 16140 % 2013 pV~Vku

15 ekpZ] 2014

—

cs/u midj.k & idZ~;wflo

fMª¯yx ds fy, Vsij

dusD'ku lfgr fMªy jkWM

12-

vkbZ ,l 16141 % 2013

15 ekpZ] 2014

—

ik;jhizksDlhiQsu] rduhdh &

fof'k"V

13-

vkbZ ,l 16145 % 2013

15 ekpZ] 2014

—

fiQizksfuy fuLiafnr lkaæ

(,l lh) & fof'kf"V

14-

vkbZ ,l 16147 % 2013

31 ekpZ] 2014

—

dSjkthuu] [kkn~; xzsM &

fof'kf"V

15-

vkbZ ,l 16150 (Hkkx 1) %

15 ekpZ] 2014

—

2014 eRL; vkgkj & fof'kf"V

Hkkx 1 dkiZ vkgkj

16-

vkbZ ,l 16150 (Hkkx 2) %

15 ekpZ] 2014

—

2014 eRL; vkgkj &

fof'kf"V Hkkx 2 dSVfiQ'k

vkgkj

17-

vkbZ ,l 16150 (Hkkx 3) %

15 ekpZ] 2014

2014 eRL; vkgkj &fof'kf"V

Hkkx 3 leqæh fJEi vkgkj

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

2868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

18-

vkbZ ,l 16150 (Hkkx 4) %

15 ekpZ] 2014

—

eRL; vkgkj&fof'kf"V

Hkkx 4 ehBs ikuh ds >haxs

(eSØksczsfd;e jkslsucxhZ)

dk vkgkj

19-

vkbZ ,l 16171 % 2014

15 ekpZ] 2014

—

fofu;j ijrnkj yEcj&

fof'kf"V

20-

vkbZ ,l 16186 % 2014

15 ekpZ] 2014

—

OkL=kkfn & 50 fdxzk- [kkn~;k=k

iSd djus ds fy;s gYds Hkkj

okys iVlu ds cksjs & fof'kf"V

21-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks

15 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 1890 (Hkkx 0) %

80000&1 % 2009

1995 ek=kk,a vkSj bdkb;ka

ek=kk ,oa bdkb;ka Hkkx 1

Hkkx 0 lkekU; fl¼kUr

lkekU;

(igyk iqujh{k.k) vkbZ

,l vkbZ bdkb;ka vkSj

muds xq.kkadksa rFkk dqN

vU; bdkb;ksa ds iz;ksx

dh fliQkfj'ksa (nwljk

iqujh{k.k)

22-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks

15 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 1890 (Hkkx 11) % 1995

80000&2 % 2009

ek=kk,a vkSj bdkb;ka Hkkx 11 HkkSfrd

ek=kk ,oa bdkb;ka Hkkx 2

foKkuksa vkSj izkSn~;ksfxdh esa iz;qDr

izkÑfrd foKku rFkk

xf.krh; fpUg vkSj izrhd (nwljk

izkSn~;ksfxdh esa iz;qDr gksus

iqujh{k.k)

okys xf.krh; fpUg rFkk

izrhd

23-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks

15 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 1890 (Hkkx 1) % 1995

80000&3 % 2006

1995 ek=kk,a vkSj bdkb;ka Hkkx 1

ek=kk ,oa bdkb;ka Hkkx 3

vUrjky vkSj le; (rhljk iqujh{k.k)

vUrjky rFkk le;

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

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

gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in

}kjk baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gS A

¹lanHkZ ih;wch@th,u-1º

dyk ,e- ofj;j] funs'kd (fons'kh Hkk"kk,a ,oa izdk'ku)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2869

New Delhi, the 18th March, 2014

S.O. 1111.—In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the

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

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. & Year of the

Date of

No. & Year of the

Date of

Indian Standards

Establishment

Indian Standards

cancellation

Established

to be cancelled, if

any

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

IS 10 (Part 2): 2013

15 March, 2014

IS 10 (Part 2): 1996

15 March, 2014

Specification for

plywood tea-chest: Part

2 Plywood (Sixth Revision)

2 Plywood (Fifth Revision)

IS 7836 : 2013 Edible

15 March, 2014

IS 7836 : 1975

15 March, 2014

low-fat soya flour-

Specification edible

Specification (first

low-fat soya flour

revision)

IS/ISO/TR 11360 :

15 March, 2014

2010 Nanotechnologies-

Methodology for the

classification and

Categorization of

Nanomaterials

IS 13252(Part 22) :

15 March, 2014

2014 Information

technology-safety-Part

22: Equipment to be

installed outdoors

IS 13252 (Part 23) :

15 March, 2014

2014 Information

technology-safety-

Part 23: Large data

storage equipments

IS 14202(Part 1) : 2014

15 March, 2014

Identification cards-

Integrated circuit

cards-Part 1 : Cards

with contacts-Physical

characteristics (Second)

Revision)

IS 14202(Part 2): 2014

15 March, 2014

Identification cards-

Integrated circuit

cards-Part 2 : Cards

with contacts-

Dimension and location

of the contacts (Second

Revision)

2870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

IS 15109 (Part 2) : 2014/

15 March, 2014

IS 15109 (Part 2) :

15 March, 2014

ISO 11269-2 : 2012

2002/ISO 11269-2 :

Soil Quality-

1995 Soil Quality-

Determination of the

effects of pollutants on

soil flora-Part 2: Effects

soil flora-Part 2:

of Chemicals on the

Effects of Chemicals

emergence and growth

on the emergence and

of higher plants (First

growth of higher plants

Revision)

IS 16132 : 2014/ISO

15 March, 2014

2881 : 1992 Tobacco

and Tobacco products-

Determination of

Alkaloid Content-

Spectrometric Method

10.

IS 16138 : 2013 ISO/TS

15 March, 2014

15768 : 2000

Measurement of Liquid

Velocity in open

channels-Design,

Selection and use of

electromagnetic current

meters

11.

IS 16140 : 2014/ISO

15 March, 2014

1718 : 1991

Rock drilling

equipment—Drill rods

with tapered connection

for percussive drilling

12.

IS 16141 : 2013

15 March, 2014

Pyriproxyfen, Technical-

Specification

13.

IS 16145 : 2013

15 March, 2014

Fipronil suspension

concentrate (SC)

Specification

14.

IS 16147 : 2014

31 March, 2014

Carrageenan, Food

grade - Specification

15.

IS 16150 (Part 1) : 2014

15 March, 2014

Fish Feed -

Specification Part 1

Carp Feed

16.

IS 16150 (Part 2) : 2014

15 March, 2014

Fish Feed -

Specification Part 2

Catfish Feed

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2871

17.

IS 16150 (Part 3) : 2014

15 March, 2014

Fish Feed -

Specification Part 3

Marine Shrimp Feed

18.

IS 16150 (Part 4) : 2014

15 March, 2014

Fish Feed -

Specification Part 4

Freshwater Prawn

(Macrobrachium

rosenbergii) Feed

19.

IS 16171 : 2014 Veneer

15 March, 2014

Laminated Lumber -

Specification

20.

IS 16186 : 2014

15 March, 2014

Textiles - Light weight

jute sacking bags for

packing 50 kg.

foodgrains

21.

IS/ISO 80000-1 : 2009

15 March, 2014

IS 1890 (Part 0) : 1992 15 March, 2014

Quantities and units

Quantities and units :

Part 1 : General

Part 0 General

Principles (First

Revision) and IS 10005 :

1994 SI units and

recommendations for

the use of their

multiples and of certain

other units (Second

Revision)

22.

IS/ISO 80000-2 : 2009

15 March, 2014

IS 1890 (Part 11) :

15 March, 2014

Quantities and units

1992 Quantities and

Part 2 : Mathematical

units : Part 11

signs and symbols to

Mathematical signs and

be used in the natural

symbols to be used in

sciences and technology

the natural sciences and

technology (Second

Revision)

23.

IS/ISO 80000-3 : 2009

15 March, 2014

IS 1890 (Part 1) : 1992 15 March, 2014

Quantities and units

Quantities and units :

Part 3 : Space and Time

Part 1 Space and Time

(Third Revision)

Copies of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bahvan, 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/GN-1]

KALA M. VARIAR, Director (Foreign Languages & Publication)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

2872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky;

(LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2013

dk-vk-

1112-—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/fu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 12) dh /kjk 11 dh mi/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsaæ ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa vgZrk

ds uke esa ifjorZu ds dkj.k vkSj la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %—

mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ¶lohrk fo'ofo|ky;] psÂbZ¸ ds lkeus ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹blds ckn dkye (2) ds :i

esa lUn£Hkrº 'kh"kZ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V rFkk mlls lEcfU/r izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s laf{kIr :i* ¹blds ckn dkye (3) ds

:i esa lan£Hkrº 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

(2)

(3)

cSpyj vkWiQ eSfMlu ,aM

,e-ch-ch-,l

cSpyj vkWiQ ltZjh

(;g tuojh] 2013 esa ;k mlds ckn 150 Nk=kksa dks izfr o"kZ izos'k ds lkFk lohrk fpfdRlk

egkfo|ky; ,oa vLirky] dkaphiqje] rfey ukMq esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/

esa lohrk fo'ofo|ky;] psÂbZ }kjk LohÑr fd;s tkus ij ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxh A)

¹la- ;w- 12012@497@2007&,ebZ (ih&II)º

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 30th April, 2013

S.O. 1112.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council

Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following

further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

In the said First Schedule against ‘‘Saveetha University, Chennai” under the heading ‘Recognized medical

Qualification’ [in column (2)] and under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [in column (3)], the following shall be

inserted, namely :—

(2)

(3)

Bachelor of Medicine and

M.B.B.S.

Bachelor of Surgery

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Saveetha

University, Chennai in respect of students being trained at Saveetha Medical

College & Hospital, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu on or after January, 2013 with

annual intake of 150 students per year.

[No. U. 12012/497/2007-ME(P-II)]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1113-—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/fu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 11 dh mi/kjk (2) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, dsaæ ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa vgZrk ds

uke esa ifjorZu ds dkj.k vkSj la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %—

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2873

mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ¶eg£"k ekdZ.Ms'oj fo'ofo|ky;] ekSykuk (vackyk) ds lkeus** ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹blds

ckn dkye (2) ds :i esa lUn£Hkrº 'kh"kZ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V rFkk mlls lEcfU/r izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s laf{kIr :i*

¹blds ckn dkye (3) ds :i esa lan£Hkrº 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

(2)

(3)

cSpyj vkWiQ eSfMlu ,aM

,e-ch-ch-,l

cSpyj vkWiQ ltZjh

(;g 'kS{kf.kd o"kZ 2007 ls izfr o"kZ 150 Nk=kksa dks izos'k ds lkFk ,e-,e- fpfdRlk foKku

,oa vuqla/ku] ekSykuk (vackyk) esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa eg£"k

ekdZ.Ms'oj fo'ofo|ky;] ekSykuk (vackyk) }kjk LohÑr fd;s tkus ij ekU;rk izkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh A)

¹la- ;w- 12012@101@2002&,ebZ (ih&II)ikVZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2013

S.O.

1113.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the

following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

In the said First Schedule against “Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Maullana (Ambala)” under the heading

‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [in column (2)] and under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [in column (3)],

the following shall be inserted, namely :—

(2)

(3)

Bachelor of Medicine and

M.B.B.S.

Bachelor of Surgery

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Maharishi

Markandeshwar University, Maullana (Ambala) in respect of students being

trained at M.M. Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Muallana (Ambala) in

respect of 150 students per year admitted from the academic year 2007 onwards.

[No. U. 12012/101/2002-ME(P-II)Pt.]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 4 twu] 2013

dk-vk-

1114-—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/fu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 11 dh mi/kjk (2) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, dsaæ ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esas fuEufyf[kr

vkSj la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %—

^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* 'kh"kZd ¹blds ckn dkye (2) esa ;Fkk lUn£Hkrº ds varxZr vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy;s laf{kIr :i*

¹blds ckn dkye (3) esa ;Fkk lan£Hkrº 'kh"kZd ds rgr mDr vuqlwph esa ¶jktLFkku vk;q£oKku fo'ofo|ky;] t;iqj¸ ds le{k

fuEufyf[kr dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

(2)

(3)

cSpyj vkWiQ esfMlu ,aM

,e-ch-ch-,l

cSpyj vkWiQ ltZjh

(;g izfro"kZ 100 esa ,e-ch-ch-,l Nk=kksa ds ok£"kd izos'k lfgr iQjojh] 2013 esa ;k mlds

ckn >ykoj] esfMdy dkWyst] >ykoj] t;iqj esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa

^jktLFkku vk;q£oKku fo'ofo|ky;] t;iqj }kjk LohÑr fd;s tkus ij ekU;rk izkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh) A

¹la- ;w- 12012@523@2007&,ebZ(ih&II)º

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

2874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2013

S.O.

1114.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the

following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

In the said First Schedule against “Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur” under the heading ‘Recognized

Medical Qualification’ [in column (2)] and under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration” [in column (3)], the following

shall be inserted, namely :—

(2)

(3)

Bachelor of Medicine and

M.B.B.S.

Bachelor of Surgery

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Rajasthan

University of Health Sciences, Jaipur in respect of students being trained at

Jhalawar Medical College, Jhalawar, Rajasthan on or after February, 2013 with

annual intake of 100 students per year.

[No. U. 12012/523/2007-ME(P-II)]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 16 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 1115-—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/fu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 11 dh mi/kjk (2) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, dsaæ ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa vgZrk ds

uke esa ifjorZu ds dkj.k vkSj la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %—

(d) mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ¶pkS/jh pj.k ¯lg fo'ofo|ky;] esjB¸ ds lkeus ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹blds ckn

dkye (2) ds :i esa lUn£Hkrº 'kh"kZ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V rFkk mlls lEcfU/r izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s laf{kIr :i* ¹blds

ckn dkye (3) ds :i esa lan£Hkrº 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

(2)

(3)

cSpyj vkWiQ esfMlu ,aM

,e-ch-ch-,l

cSpyksj vkWiQ ltZjh

(;g ekpZ 2013 esa ;k mlds ckn izfr o"kZ 100 ,echch,l Nk=kksa ds ok£"kd izos'k ds lkFk

ljLorh fpfdRlk foKku laLFkku] gkiqj] xkft;kckn esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/

esa pkS/kjh pj.k ¯lg fo'ofo|ky;] esjB }kjk LohÑr fd;s tkus ij ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh) A

¹la- ;w- 12012@506@2006&,ebZ(ih&II)º

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th September, 2013

S.O.

1115.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the

following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

In the said First Schedule against “Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut, (Uttar Pradesh)” under the heading

‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [in column (2)] and under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [in column (3)],

the following shall be inserted, namely :—

(1)

(2)

Bachelor of Medicine and

M.B.B.S.

Bachelor of Surgery

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Ch. Charan

Singh University, Meerut, (Uttar Pradesh) in respect of students being trained at

Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences, Hapur, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh on or

after March, 2013 with annual intake of 100 MBBS students per year on or after

March, 2013.

[No. U. 12012/506/2006-ME(P-II)]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2875

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2013

dk-vk- 1116-—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/fu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 11 d mi/kjk (2) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, dsanz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa vgZrk ds

uke esa ifjorZu ds dkj.k vkSj la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

(d)

mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ^^csaxqyq# fo'ofo|ky;] csaxqyq#** ds lkeus ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹blds ckn dkye

(2) ds :i esa lUn£Hkrº 'kh"kZ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V rFkk mlls lEcfU/r izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s laf{kIr :i* ¹blds ckn

dkye (3) ds :i esa lan£Hkrº 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %&

MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu (iQkesZdksykWth)

,e-Mh- (iQkesZdksykWth)

(;g 1996&2000 rd ckn ch-vkj- vEcsMdj esfMdy dkWyst] csaxqyq# esa

izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa csaxqyq# fo'ofo|ky;] csaxqyq# }kjk

LohÑr fd;s tkus ij ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh) A

MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu (tujy esfMflu)

,e-Mh- (esfMflu)

(;g 1996&2001 rd ckn ch-vkj- vEcsMdj esfMdy dkWyst] csaxqyq# esa

izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa csaxqyq# fo'ofo|ky;] csaxqyq# }kjk

LohÑr fd;s tkus ij ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh) A

ekLVj vkWiQ ltZjh (vfLFkjksx foKku)

,e-,l- (vfLFkjksx foKku))

(;g 1995&2001 rd ckn ch-vkj- vEcsMdj esfMdy dkWyst] csaxqyq# esa

izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa csaxqyq# fo'ofo|ky;] csaxqyq# }kjk

LohÑr fd;s tkus ij ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh) A

([k) mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ^^jktho xk¡/h LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] csaxqyq# dukZVd** ds lkeus ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk* ¹blds ckn dkye (2) ds :i esa lUn£Hkrº 'kh"kZ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V rFkk mlls lEcfU/r izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s

laf{kIr :i* ¹blds ckn dkye (3) ds :i esa lan£Hkrº 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %&

MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu (iQkesZdksykWth)

,e-Mh- (iQkesZdksykWth)

(;g 2000 esa ;k mlds ckn ch-vkj- vEcsMdj esfMdy dkWyst] csaxqyq# esa

izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa jktho xk¡/h LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]

csaxqyq#] dukZVd }kjk LohÑr fd;s tkus ij ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxh) A

MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu (tujy esfMflu)

,e-Mh- (tujy esfMflu)

(;g 2001 esa ;k mlds ckn ch-vkj-vEcsMdj esfMdy dkWyst] csaxqyq# esa

izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa jktho xk¡/h LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]

csaxqyq#] dukZVd }kjk LohÑr fd;s tkus ij ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxh) A

ekLVj vkWiQ ltZjh (vfLFkjksx foKku)

,e-,l- (vfLFkjksx foKku)

(;g 2001 esa ;k mlds ckn ch-vkj-vEcsMdj esfMdy dkWyst] csaxqyq# esa

izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa jktho xk¡/h LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]

csaxqyq#] dukZVd }kjk LohÑr fd;s tkus ij ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxh) A

2876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

lHkh ds fy;s uksV % 1- fdlh LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe dks bl izdkj iznÙk ekU;rk vf/dre 05 o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, gksxh vkSj mlds ckn

mldk uohdj.k djuk gksxk A

2- mi&[k.M&4 esa ;Fkkisf{kr le; ij ekU;rk dk uohdj.k u gksus ij lacaf/r LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe esa nkf[kyk #d

tk,xk A

¹la- ;w-&12012@37@2011&,ebZ (ih&II)º

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th October, 2013

S.O. 1116.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council

Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following

further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, due to change of nomenclature of the qualification namely :—

In the said Schedule—

(a) against “Bangalore University, Bangalore” under the heading ‘Recognised Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter

referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’

[hereinafter referred to as column (3), the following shall be inserted, namely :—

“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)”

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Bangalore University, Bangalore in respect of students being trained

at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College, Bangalore between 1996 to

2000.

“Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)”

MD (General Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Bangalore University, Bangalore in respect of students being trained

at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College, Bangalore between 1996 to

2001.

“Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)”

MD (Orthopaedics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Bangalore University, Bangalore in respect of students being trained

at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College, Bangalore between 1995 to

2001.

(b) against “Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore” under the heading ‘Recognised Medical

Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3), the following shall be inserted, namely :—

“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)”

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore in respect of

students being trained at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College,

Bangalore on or after 2000.

“Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)”

MD (General Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore in respect of

students being trained at Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Medical College,

Bangalore between on or after 2001.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2877

“Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)”

MS (Orthopaedics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore in respect of

students being trained at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College,

Bangalore between on or after 2001.

Note to all :

1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause-4 sall invariably result in stoppage

of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.

[No. U. -12012/37/2011-ME (P-II)]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1117-—tcfd Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~_ la'kks/u vè;kns'k] 2013 dh /kjk 3d dh mi/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, fnukad 06 uoacj] 2013 dks Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ dk iquxZBu fd;k x;k %

vkSj tcfd dsUnz ljdkj us Hkkjrh; vk;q£oKku ifj"kn~ vf/fu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 3 dh mi/kjk (1) ds [kaM

([k) ds vuqlj.k esa vkSj lacaf/r fo'ofo|ky;ksa@LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;ksa }kjk ;Fkk lwfpr] fuEufyf[kr O;fDr dks bl vf/lwpuk ds

tkjh gksus dh frfFk ls pkj o"kks± ds fy, Hkkjrh; vk;q£oKku ifj"kn~ ds lnL; ds :i esa fuokZfpr fd;k x;k gS A

vr% vc mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 3 dh mi/kjk (1) ds mica/ ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnz ljdkj }kjk Hkkjr ljdkj ds rRdkyhu

LokLF; ea=kky; dh fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 dh vf/lwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 138 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u fd, tkrs gSa_ vFkkZr~ %&

Hkkjr ljdkj] LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky; dh fnukad 06 uoacj] 2013 dh vf/lwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 3325 (v) vkSj

mlds la'kks/u esa vafre izfof"V rFkk rRlaca/h izfof"V esa fuEufyf[kr dks tksM+k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %

Øe

fo'ofo|ky; dk uke

fuokZfpr lnL; dk fooj.k

pquko dk rjhdk

la-

36-

rhFk±dj egkohj fo'ofo|ky;]

MkW- oh-ih- feJ] izksiQslj ,esfjVl] iQSdYVh vkWiQ

flusV }kjk fu£ojks/

eksjknkckn (mÙkj izns'k)

esfMflu] rhFk±dj egkohj fo'ofo|ky;] eqjknkckn

fuokZfpr

(mÙkj izns'k)

¹la- oh-&11013@7@2013&,e bZ ih&1º

vfer fc'okl] voj lfpo

ikn fVIi.kh % fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 ds lk-dk- 138 ds rgr Hkkjr ds jkti=k esa eq[; vf/lwpuk izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh vkSj Hkkjrh;

vk;q£oKku ifj"kn~ (la'kks/u)] f}rh; vè;kns'k] 2013 (2013 dk 11) ds rgr vafre ckj la'kksf/r fd;k x;k Fkk A

New Delhi, the 27th March, 2014

S.O. 1117.—Whereas on 06th November, 2013, the Medical Council of India was re-constituted in exercise of the

powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;

2878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And Whereas the Central Government, in pursuance of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Indian

Medical Council, Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) and as informaed by the respective universities/health science universities, the

following have been elected to be a member of the Medical Council of India for four years with effect from the date of issue

of this notification.

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government

hereby makes the following amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Health number

S. O. 138 dated the 9th January, 1960, namely :

In the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare number

S. O. 3325 (E) dated the 06th November, 2013 and amendments thereto, after the last entry and entry relating thereto, the

following shall be inserted, namely :—

S. No.

Name of the University

Details of the Elected Member

Mode of Election

36.

Teerthanker Mahaveer

Dr. V. P. Mishra, Professor Emeritus,

Elected unanimously

University, Moradabad

Faculty of Medicine, Teerthanker

by Senate

(UP)

Mahaveer University, Moradabad

Uttar Pradesh

[No. V. -11013/7/2013-MEP-I]

AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.

Foot Note : The principal notification was publish in the Gazette of India vide number S. O. 138 dated the 9th January, 1960

and was last amended vide Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013 (11 of 2013).

dks;yk ea=kky;

vkns'k

ubZ fnYyh] 27 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1118-—dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl)

vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr

vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 9 dh mi/kjk (1) ds v/hu

tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk

la[;kad dk-vk- 746 rkjh[k 25 ekpZ] 2013] tks Hkkjr ds jkti=k]

Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi[kaM (ii)] rkjh[k 30 ekpZ] 2013 esa izdkf'kr

gksus ij] mDr vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa o£.kr mDr Hkwfe

eki okyh ds 161-549 gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 399-18 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds Hkw&lrg vf/dkj (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~

mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS) mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10 dh mi/kjk

(1) ds v/hu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;kafrd :i ls

dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, Fks_

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd lkmFk

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

ftyk&fcykliqj&495006 (NÙkhlx<+) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~

mDr ljdkjh dEiuh dgk x;k gS)] ,sls fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± dk tks

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

djus ds fy;s jtkean gS A

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 11 dh

mi/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh

gS fd bl izdkj fufgr mDr 161-549 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 399-18

,dM+ (yxHkx) Hkwfe vkSj ml ij ds Hkw&lrg vf/dkj] rkjh[k

30 ekpZ] 2013 ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus dh

ctk;] fuEufyf[kr fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± ds v/hu jgrs gq,] mDr

ljdkjh dEiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~ %&

(1) ljdkjh dEiuh] mDr vf/fu;e ds mica/ksa ds v/hu

;Fkk vo/kfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlku vkSj oSlh gh enksa

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

izfriw£r djsxh_

(2) ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk 'krZ (1) ds v/hu] dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks lans; jdeksa dk vo/kj.k djus ds iz;kstu ds fy;s

,d vf/dj.k dk xBu fd;k tk,xk rFkk ,sls fdlh

vf/dj.k vkSj ,sls vf/dj.k dh lgk;rk djus ds fy;s

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

dEiuh }kjk ogu fd;s tk;saxs vkSj blh izdkj fufgr mDr

Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/dkj ds fy;s ;k mlds laca/ esa

tSls vihy vkfn lHkh fof/d dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr

mixr] lHkh O;; Hkh] blh izdkj mDr ljdkjh dEiuh

}kjk ogu fd;s tk,axs_

(3) ljdkjh dEiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kfj;ksa dh]

,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/ esa] {kfriw£r djsxh tks bl

izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/dkjksa ds ckjs

esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds

fo#¼ fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa ds laca/ esa vko';d gks_

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2879

(4) ljdkjh dEiuh dks] dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds

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

djus dh 'kfDr ugha gksxh_ vkSj

(5) ljdkjh dEiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krks± dk] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds

fof'k"V {ks=kksa ds fy;s fn, tk,a ;k vf/jksfir dh tk,]

ikyu djsxh A

¹iQk- la-& 43015@04@2010&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&1º

nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

ORDER

New Delhi, the 27th March, 2014

S.O. 1118.—Whereas on the publication of the

notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Coal number S.O. 746 dated 25th March, 2013 published in

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

the 30th March, 2013 issued under sub-section (1) of

Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and

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

to as the said Act), the land measuring 161.549 hectares

(approximately) or 399.18 acres (approximately) as Surface

Rights in or over the said land described in the schedule

appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to

as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central

Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section

(1) of Section 10 of the said Act.

And whereas the Central Government is satisfied

that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road,

Post Box No. 60, District-Bilaspur-495006 (hereinafter

referred to as the Government company) is willing to comply

with such terms and conditions as the Central Government

thinks fit to impose in this behalf.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by

sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby direct that the Surface Rights of 161.549

hectares (approximately) or 399.18 acres (approximately) in

or over the said lands so vested shall with effect from 30th

March, 2013 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central

Government shall vest in the Government company subject

to the following terms and conditions namely :—

(1)

The Government company shall reimburse to the

Central Government all payments made in respect

of compensation, interest, damages and the like

as determined under the provisions of the said

Act;

(2)

A Tribunal shall be constituted for the purpose of

determining the amounts payable to the Central

Government by the Government company under

conditions (1) and all expenditure incurred in

connection with any such tribunal and persons

appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by

the Government compny and similarly, all

expenditure incurred in respect of all legal

proceedings like appeals etc. for or in connection

with the rights in or over the said lands so vesting

shall also be borne by the Government company;

(3)

The Government company shall indemnify the

Central Government or its officials against any

other expenditure that may be necessary in

connection with any proceedings by or against

the Central Government or its officials regarding

the rights in or over the said lands so vesting;

(4)

The Government company shall have no power

to transfer the said lands to any other persons

without the prior approal of the Central

Government; and

(5)

The Government company shall abide by such

direction and conditions as may be given or

imposed by the Central Government for particular

areas of the said lands as and when necessary.

[F. No.- 43015/04/2010-PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] fnukad 18 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1119-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh èkkjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr

èkkjk 88 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, xsy (bafM;k)

fyfeVsM] ubZ fnYyh ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa

dks bl vfèkfu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g NwV] bl

vfèklwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vofèk ds fy,

ykxw jgsxhA

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krksZa ds vèkhu gSa] vFkkZr~ %&

(1) iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs_

(2) bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vfèkfu;e ds vèkhu

,slh izlqfoèkk,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vfèklwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vkèkkj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa_

(3) NwV izkIr vofèk ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,

tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs_

(4) mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vofèk dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vfèkfu;e

(ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vofèk dgk x;k gS) izorZeku

Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr

nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lkèkkj.k) fofu;e] 1950 ds

vèkhu mls mDr vofèk dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr gksrh Fkha_

2880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(5) fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 45

dh mi&èkkjk (1) ds vèkhu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ lekftd

lqj{kk vfèkdkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufer izkfèkd`r dksbZ vU;

inèkkjh_

(i)

èkkjk 44 dh mi&èkkjk (1) ds vèkhu] mDr vofèk

dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'kf"V;ksa dks

lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok

(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkT; chek (lkèkkj.k) fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkkvisf{kr

jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vofèk ds fy, j[ks x;s

Fks ;k ugha_ ;k

(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds

iQyLo:i bl vfèklwpuk ds vèkhu NwV nh tk jgh

gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk

gqvk gS ;k ugha_ ;k

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vofèk

ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds lacaèk esa vfèkfu;e

ds micaèk izo`r Fks] ,sls fdUgha micaèkksa dk vuqikyu

fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds

fy, l'kÙkQ gksxk%&

(d) izèkku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk

fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr

vfèkdkjh ;k vU; inèkkjh bl vfèkfu;e ds

iz;kstukFkZ vko';d le>rk gS_ vFkok

([k) ,sls izèkku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vfèkHkksxkèkhu]

fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU;

ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij izos'k

djuk vkSj mlds izHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk djuk

fd og O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds

lank; ls lacafèkr ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU;

nLrkost] ,sls fujh{kd ;k vU; inèkkjh ds

le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k

,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs gSa_

(x) izèkku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ

;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks

,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr

dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k

(?k) ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU;

nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k m¼j.k

ysuk_

(Ä) ;FkkfuèkkZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

(6) fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jí gks

tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj

dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA

¹la- ,l&38014@28@2013&,l,l&Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 18th March, 2014

S.O. 1119.—In exercise of the power conferred by

Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/

establishments of Gail (India) Limted, New Delhi from the

operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective

from the date of issue of this Notification for a period of

one year.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely:-

(1)

The aforesaid establishments wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a register

showing the name and designations of the

exempted employees’;

(2)

Not withstanding this exemption, the employees

shall continue to receive such benefits under the

said Act to which they might have become entitled

to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to

the date from which exemption granted by this

notification operates;

(3)

The contributions for the exempted period, if

already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4)

The employer of the said factory/establishment

shall submit in respect of the period during which

that factory was subject to the operation of the

said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),

such returns in such forms and containing such

particulars as were due from it in respect of the

said period under the Employees’ State Insurance

(General) Regulations, 1950;

(5)

Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under Sub-section (1) of Section 45

of the said ESI Act or other official of the

Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,

for the purpose of :—

(i)

Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1) of

Section 44 for the said period; or

(ii)

Ascertaining whether registers and records

were maintained as required by the Employees’

State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for

the said period; or

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2881

(iii)

Ascertaining whether the employees continue

to be entitled to benefits provided by the

employer in cash and kind being benefits in

consideration of which exemption is being

granted under this notification; or

(iv)

Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of

the Act had been complied with during the

period when such provisions were in force in

relation to the said factory to be empowered

to:

(a)

require the principal or immediate

employer to him such information as he

may consider necessary for the purpose

of this Act; or

(b)

at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate

employer at any reasonable time and

require any person found in charge

thereof to produce to such inspector or

other official and allow him to examine

accounts, books and other documents

relating to the employment of personal

and payment of wages or to furnish to

him such information as he may consider

necessary; or

(c)

examine the principal or immediate

employer, his agent or servant, or any

person found in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises

or any person whom the said inspector

or other official has reasonable cause

to believe to have been an employee ;

(d)

make copies of or take extracts from any

document maintained in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises,

(e)

exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

(6)

In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically

cancelled and then the new entity will have to

approach the appropriate Government for

exemption.

[No. S-38014/28/2013-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1120-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh èkkjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr

èkkjk 88 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, eSllZ iou gal

gsfydkWIVj fyfeVsM ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa

dks bl vfèkfu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g NwV] bl

vfèklwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vofèk ds fy,

ykxw jgsxhA

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krksZa ds vèkhu gSa] vFkkZr~ %&

(1) iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gS] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs_

(2) bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vfèkfu;e ds vèkhu

,slh izlqfoèkk,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vfèklwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vkèkkj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa_

(3) NwV izkIr vofèk ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,

tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs_

(4) mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vofèk dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vfèkfu;e

(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vofèk dgk x;k gS) izorZeku

Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'k"V;ksa lfgr

nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lkèkkj.k) fofu;e] 1950 ds

vèkhu mls mDr vofèk dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr gksrh Fkha_

(5) fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 45

dh mi&èkkjk (1) ds vèkhu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ lekftd

lqj{kk vfèkdkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufer izkfèkd`r dksbZ vU;

inèkkjh_

(i)

èkkjk 44 dh mi&èkkjk (1) ds vèkhu] mDr vofèk

dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'k"V;ksa dks

lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok

(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkT; chek (lkèkkj.k) fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkkvisf{kr

jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vofèk ds fy, j[ks x;s

Fks ;k ugha_ ;k

(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds

iQyLo:i bl vfèklwpuk ds vèkhu NwV nh tk jgh

gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk

gqvk gS ;k ugha_ ;k

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vofèk

ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds lacaèk esa vfèkfu;e

ds micaèk izo`r Fks] ,sls fdUgha micaèkksa dk vuqikyu

fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds

fy, l'kÙkQ gksxk%&

(d) izèkku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk

fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr

vfèkdkjh ;k vU; inèkkjh bl vfèkfu;e ds

iz;kstukFkZ vko';d le>rk gS_ vFkok

([k) ,sls izèkku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vfèkHkksxkèkhu]

fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU;

2882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij izos'k

djuk vkSj mlds izHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk djuk

fd og O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds

lank; ls lacafèkr ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU;

nLrkost] ,sls fujh{kd ;k vU; inèkkjh ds

le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k

,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs gSa_

(x) izèkku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ

;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks

,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr

dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k

(?k) ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU;

nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k m¼j.k

ysuk_

(Ä) ;FkkfuèkkZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

6- fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jí gks

tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj

dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA

¹la- ,l&38014@13@2013&,l,l&Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th March, 2014

S.O. 1120.—In exercise of the power conferred

by Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees’

State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central

Government hereby exempts the regular employees of

factories/establishments of M/s. Pawan Hans Helicopters

Ltd., from the operation of the said Act. The exemption

shall be effective from the date of issue of this Notification

for a period of one year.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely:—

(1) The aforesaid establishments wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a register

showing the name and designations of the

exempted employees;

(2) Not withstanding this exemption, the employees

shall continue to receive such benefits under the

said Act to which they might have become entitled

to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to

the date from which exemption granted by this

notification operates;

(3) The contributions for the exempted period, if already

paid, shall not be refundable;

(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment

shall submit in respect of the period during which

that factory was subject to the operation of the

said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),

such returns in such forms and containing such

particulars as were due from it in respect of the said

period under the Employees’ State Insurance

(General) Regulations, 1950;

(5) Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under Sub Section (1) of Section 45 of

the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation

authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose

of :-

(i)

Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1) of

section 44 for the said period; or

(ii)

Ascertaining whether registers and records were

maintained as required by the Employees’ State

Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the

said period; or

(iii)

Ascertaining whether the employees continue

to be entitled to benefits provided by the

employer in cash and kind being benefits in

consideration of which exemption is being

granted under this notification; or

(iv)

Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of

the Act had been complied with during the period

when such provisions were in force in relation

to the said factory to be empowered to:

(a) require the principal or immediate employer to

him such information as he may consider

necessary for the purpose of this Act; or

(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate

employer at any reasonable time and require

any person found in charge thereof to produce

to such inspector or other official and allow

him to examine accounts, books and other

documents relating to the employment of

personal and payment of wages or to furnish

to him such information as he may consider

necessary; or

his agent or servant, or any person found in

such factory, establishment, office or other

premises or any person whom the said

inspector or other official has reasonable

cause to believe to have been an employee ;

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any

maintained in such factory, establishment,

office or other premises,

(e) exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

(6)

In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically

cancelled and then the new entity will have to

approach the appropriate Government for

exemption.

[No. S-38014/13/2011-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2883

ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1121-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy esustj

xu dSfjt iSQDVªh] tcyiqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k CGIT/LC/R/131@96) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14011@08@93&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th March, 2014

S.O. 1121.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

LC/R/131/96) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur, now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of General Manager, Gun

Carriage Factory, Jabalpur and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 15/03/2014.

[No. L-14011/08/93-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/131/96

Presiding Officer : SHRI R. B. PATLE

General Secretary,

GCF Labour Union,

Q. No. 3499,

Near Electric Pole No. 52,

Adhartal, Jabalpur

......Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Gun Carriage Factory,

Jabalpur.

......Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 3rd day of February, 2014)

As per letter dated 30-5-96 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-14011/

08/93-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Gun

Carriage Factory, Jabalpur (MP) in refusing to give

the benefit of promotion from Grade “C” to Grade

“C” to Shri R.M.Upadhyay, T.No. 2646/183,

Shri C.H.Pillie, T.No. 2645/16174, Shri S.K.Saxena

T.No. 48170/1590, Shri M.C.Dass, T.No. 26391/1534

and Shri S.K.Dubey T.No. 5260/IE is proper, legal

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

entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party filed Statement of claim at Page 6/1 to

6/7. Case of workman is that he received training as

apprentice in Ordnance Factory, Jabalpur from 1963. He

completed 3 years training on 30-6-86 as per the syllabus.

He was recruited as Trade Apprentice on 15-7-1963. As

per Para-4(b) of the prospects, the test for non-designated

trades are conducted by DGOF. Only those apprentice

who have completed training and had successfully cleared

N.C.T.V.T test are granted proficiency test. That Para-7 of

the syllabus can be subjected to trade test by factories

concerned. Since carpenter trade designated trade in para-

7 of the prospectus, it was not within the powers of the

management to subject the workman to another trade.

Despite Ist party workman completed 3 years training, the

workman was not appointed as skilled workman. Other

batchmates of workman including Shri S.D.Trivedi,

S.K.Dubey, P.S.Rajpur and A.K.Seth were absorbed as

skilled craftsman Grade II i.e. Grade B in the scale Rs. 110-

3-131-4-143. His batchmates were absorbed as skilled

craftsman Grade II vide order dated 18-7-66 that none

passed the N.C.T.V.T test in March 1967.

Workman further submits that he was appointed as

Carpenter Grade-III “C” in the scale 85-2-95-3-110. Despite

of workman passing test on 6-2-67, vacancies were

available, he was not appointed as skilled Draftsman Grade

“B” , workman was appointed in lower grade in semi-

skilled category whereas other batchmates had been

absorbed in the skilled craftsman Grade-II/Grade “B” in

skilled category. Workman was designated in February

1967, persons junior to him such as S.D.Trivedi, Chedilal,

Basorelal Jogi who completed 3 years training on 10-2-67

were appointed as carpenter Grade “B” Scale110-143 in

skilled category. Workman further submits that S.D.Trivedi

who was junior to him was initially appointed in the higher

grade of 110-143. He was promoted as chargeman Grade I

in 1990. Shri S.K.Dubey, P.S.Rajpur, S.K.Seth were working

as watchman Grade-I. workman was languishing in Highly

Skilled Grade B. workman submits that he has discriminated

his juniors are shown favour. That initial appointment in

wrong grade gives recurring cause of action. Bar of

limitation is not attracted. On such ground, workman is

praying pay scale of Rs.110-143 from July 1966.

IInd party management filed Written Statement at

Page 8/1 to 8/3. IInd party denied claim of applicant as the

dispute is raised after lapse of more than 30 years. IInd

party did not dispute that the workman was recruited as

2884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Trade Apprentice from 15-7-63 to 30-6-66. His conduct

was not conducive to discipline during training period.

The workman was warned and censured for his habitual

late attendance, breach of establishment orders, neglect

of duty and taking meals before the scheduled time. His

stipend was reduced, increments were withheld for charges

of late attendance. That as per clause 22(1) of the

Apprentices Act, 1961, it was not obligatory on part of

employer to offer any employment to any apprentice who

has completed the period of training in the establishment.

Workman was trained in the establishment, he was

absorbed from 21-9-66 as carpenter Grade “C” – pay scale

85-2-95-3-110. The dispute is raised after 30 years. All other

contentions of workman are denied. Workman was at

liberty not to accept trade and grade he was offered based

on his performance. As workman accepted the grade in

1966, he cannot challenge it after 35 years. That workman

himself stated that he was not passed NCTVT test . There

was no question of non-fulfillment of promise. The

individuals whom the applicant is mentioning to have

reached the higher grades were at no point of time junior

to him. IInd party submits that they were initially pointed

in higher grades as skilled workman on completion of

training period and passing requisite test. IInd party prays

for rejection of claim.

Rejoinder is filed by workman at Page 11/1 to 11/5

reiterating his contentions in Statement of Claim.

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 Gun Carriage

Factory, Jabalpur (MP) in

refusing to give the benefit

of promotion from Grade “C”

to Grade “C” to Shri R.M.

Upadhyay, T.No. 2646/183,

Shri C.H.Pillie, T.No. 2645/16174,

Shri S.K.Saxena T.No. 48170/1590,

Shri M.C.Dass, T.No. 26391/1534

and Shri S.K.Dubey T.No. 5260/IE

is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman Workman is not

is entitled to?”

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

The terms of reference relates to refusal without

giving benefit of promotion from Grade B to Grade C to

Shri R.M.Upadhyay- Ist party workman appears incorrect.

Grade B post is higher post and therefore there cannot be

promotion from Grade B to C. The perusal of record shows

that application were filed for amendment in terms of

reference. Application was rejected for the reason that

the amendment in terms of reference is within the power of

Central Government. The Tribunal cannot allow

amendment. Thus the terms of reference appears incorrect.

Workman has filed affidavit of his evidence but failed

to appear for his cross-examination. Shri Chumdemo

Ngullie, Management’s witness was not cross-examined.

Advocate Mahesh Namdeo declined to cross-examine the

management’s witness claiming that he had no instructions.

The witness is discharged. The evidence of management’s

witness remained unchallenged. I do not find reason to

disbelieve his evidence. Evidence of workman cannot be

considered for his failure to appear for cross-examination.

Evidence of management’s witness remained

unchallenged. The dispute is referred after lapse of more

than 30 years. The claim of the workman claiming promotion

to skilled category of Carpenter Grade “B” cannot be

entertained after such lapse of time. Therefore I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Action of the management of Gun Carriage Factory,

Jabalpur (MP) in refusing to give the benefit of

promotion from Grade “C” to Grade “C” to

Shri R.M.Upadhyay, T.No. 2646/183, Shri C.H.Pillie,

T.No. 2645/16174, Shri S. K.Saxena T. No. 48170/1590,

Shri M.C.Dass, T.No. 26391/1534 and Shri S.K.Dubey

T.No. 5260/IE is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief prayed by him.

10.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1122-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ tujy

esustj fMikVZesaV vkWiQ VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds

lac¼ fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k CGIT/LC/R/178@99)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@110@98&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2014

S.O. 1122.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

LC/R/178/99) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, now as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of Chief General

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2885

Manager, Deptt. of Telecommunication, Bhopal and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 15/03/2014.

[No. L-40012/110/98-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/178/99

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Dhaniram

S/o Shri Dayaram,

C/o Moh. Vasi Khan,

H.No. 165, Mufti Bagh,

Shahjahanabad, Bhopal

...Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road,

MP Circle,

Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 28^th day of February, 2014)

As per letter dated 23-4-99 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/

110/981IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Chief

General Manager, Telecom in terminating the

services of Shri Dhaniram S/o Shri Dayaram is legal

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

entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. 1st party workman filed statement of claim at

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

was in employment of IInd party from 1980 to 1990 for

1797 days. His services are terminated from March 1990 in

violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. He was not paid

retrenchment compensation. That he had completed 240

days continuous service preceding his termination. That

scheme was circulated for grant of temporary status to the

casual workers. Still his services were terminated. That as

per scheme circulated on 30-3-95, he is entitled for

temporary status. He submits that termination of his service

is illegal. He prays for regularization in service.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/2.

IInd party submits that workman was engaged purely as

casual labour. His services were restricted to the working

days. The services of casual labour are covered by policy

framed by the department as per requirement. IInd party

denies that services of workman are terminated from March

1990. That workman himself remained absent from work.

Workman was not retrenched. There is no question of

payment of retrenchment compensation. Workman had

not completed 240 days continuous service. He is not

entitled to regularization as per the scheme. As the cut out

date is 22-6-88, workman should have continuously

worked for minimum 240 days. IInd party prays for rejection

of the claim.

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 Chief general

Manager, Telecom in terminating

the services of Shri Dhaniram

S/o Shri Dayaram is legal and

justified?

(ii) If not what relief the

workman is not entitled

working is entitled to ?”

to relief

REASONS

Though workman has filed statement of claim, he

failed to participate in reference proceeding. His evidence

is closed on 11-6- 2011. The management filed affidavit of

witness Shri A.K.Balpande, Divisional Engineer.

Management’s witness says that workman was never

engaged as casual labour. He has not completed 240 days

working in a year. That workman was not fulfilling eligibility

for regular appointment. The evidence of management’s

witness remained unchallenged. I find no reason to

disbelieve his evidence. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Action of the management of Chief General Manager,

Telecom in terminating the services of Shri Dhaniram

S/o Shri Dayaram is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief prayed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1123-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy esustj

Oghdy iSQDVªh] tcyiqj ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k CGIT/LC/R/319@97) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@199@96&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

2886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2014

S.O. 1123.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. CGIT/

LC/R/319/97) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, now as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of General Manager,

Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 20/03/2014.

[No. L-42012/199/96-IR(DU)

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/319/97

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

General Secretary,

Vehicle Factory Mazdoor Union,

Q. No. 2200, VFJ Estate,

Jabalpur.

...Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

Vehicle Factory,

Jabalpur (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17^th day of February 2014

As per letter dated 12-12-97 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-42012/

199/96-IR(DU) dated 12-12-97. The dispute under reference

relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Vehicle

Factory, Jabalpur (MP) in not giving three annual

increment to Mr. Pitamber Prasad Patel, Fitter General

Skilled is justified? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. General Secretary of Mazdoor Union filed

Statement of claim on behalf of workman Pitamber Prasad

Patel. The case of Ist party Union is that General Manager

of IInd party decided to hold enquiry against workman as

per order dated 20-3-92 under Rule 16(1)(2) CA & CCS

Rules 1965. That Enquiry Officer Shri S.K. Ghosh was

appointed. Shri B.B. Som, Asstt. Foreman was appointed

as Management’s Representative. That enquiry was

conducted in violation of rules and procedure for enquiry.

Punishment of with-holding 3 increments was imposed

against workman. Appeal preferred by workman was

dismissed without considering the reasons. That Enquiry

Officer had allowed Presenting Officer to ask leading

questions. The previous statements of prosecution

witnesses were not applied. The witnesses were tutored.

That co-accused Shri G.C. Das was not found guilty of the

charges. The findings of Enquiry Officer holding workman

guilty is perverse. On such ground, Union prays to quash

the penalty imposed against workman.

Written Statement is filed by IInd party at page 5/1

to 5/14. IInd party submits that on complaint from Vandana

Ashtaputri General Mazdoor initiated domestic enquiry

against workman, chargesheet was issued to him about

using derogatory language by workman to Smt.Vandana.

enquiry was conducted as per rules by Enquiry Officer

Shri S.K.Ghosh. B.B.Som Asstt. Foreman was the

Presenting Officer. The details of Enquiry Proceedings are

given in Para-7. It is submitted that enquiry is conducted

properly allowing full opportunity of defence to the

workman. Enquiry is fair and legal. On report of Enquiry

Officer, charges are proved against workman. The

punishment of with-holding 3 increments is imposed. The

punishment is proper. The allegation of enquiry conducted

against workman is vitiated is denied. IInd party prays for

rejection of claim.

As per order dated 20-2-2013, enquiry conducted is

found proper and legal.

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 Vehicle Factory,

Jabalpur (MP) in not giving

three annual increment to

Mr. Pitamber Prasad Patel,

Fitter General Skilled is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

Workman is not

is entitled to?”

entitled to relief

prayed by them

REASONS

As stated above, enquiry conducted against

workman is proper and legal as per order dated 26-2-2013.

The question remains to be considered whether the

charges against workman are proved from evidence in

Enquiry Proceedings, whether the punishment

withholding 3 increments of workman is proper and legal.

The evidence in Enquiry Proceedings shows that

statements of Vandana and two other witnesses were

recorded before Enquiry Officer. Vandana was cross-

examined. The said witness said that she had given correct

information from record. She denies that the amount was

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2887

Rs. 1961 when the individuals approached her. She was

doing her work. When Shri P.P.Patel uttered derogative

language prior to that he utter such language in her front.

In reply to Q.No.20, she says because they had come to

her and discussed with her only she believed that the

language was addressed to her. The witness No.2 Anima

Chari also corroborated evidence of Vandana. She has

stated that P.P.Patel and one more gentleman came to

Vandana regarding some bill had discussion. While going

away Shri Patel had passed remark- ¶v"Viq=ks ls dgk dSlh

dSlh lw[kh ejh gR;kvksa dks ;gka cSBk j[kk gS”. The evidence is

not shattered in cross-examination. Management’s

witness Shri V.P.Kori also supported allegations against

workman using derogative language against Vandana. His

evidence is not shattered in cross-examination. The

findings of enquiry are supported by cogent evidence.

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

The only punishment of withholding three

increments is imposed by Competent Authority considering

nature of incident alleged supported by cogent evidence,

the punishment cannot be said exorbitant. No interference

is called for. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.2 in

Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Action of the management of Vehicle Factory,

Jabalpur (MP) withholding three annual increment

to Mr. Pitamber Prasad Patel, Fitter General Skilled is

proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1124-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMfotuy

bathfu;j VsfydkWe izkstsDV] jk;iqj ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdkas

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj/212@98) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@17@98&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2014

S.O. 1124.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. CGIT/LC/

R/212/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Divisional Engineer, Telecom Project,

Raipur, and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 20/03/2014.

[No. L-40012/17/98-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/212/98

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Agnu, S/o Shri Jethu,

Vill. Ghtkachhar, PO Singhora,

Tehsil Saraipali, Distt. Raipur

...Workman

Versus

Divisional Engineer,

Telecom Project,

7, Sahakari Marg-II,

Choubey Colony,

Raipur (MP)

...Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 4th day of October, 2013)

As per letter dated 10-9-1998 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/

17/98/IR (DU). The dispute under reference relates to :

“Whether the action of the management of Divisional

Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur (MP) in terminating

the services of Shri Agnu, son of Shri Jethu, Ex-

Mazdoor is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices are issued to the

parties, Ist party filed statement of claim at Page 3/1 to 3/4.

Case of workman is that he was appointed as permanent

employee in 1986. His services were discontinued from

16-2-.88. He was continuously working for more than 240

days prior to 12 calendar months of his termination. That

termination of his services amounts to retrenchment. He

was not given one months notice or termination of his

services, notice pay was not paid to him, retrenchment

compensation was not paid to him. Termination of his

service is in violation of Section 25-F (a), (b) of I.D.Act.

That action of IInd party is arbitrary. Termination of his

service is by way of victimization violating principles of

natural justice. Ist party further submits that employees

junior to him filed petition No. 1960/90 before CAT, claiming

regularization. That said petition was allowed. The order

of termination of services was set-aside Directions were

2888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

issued to IInd party to accommodate the petitioners

against available vacancies. Workman prays for

reinstatement with consequential benefits.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/2

opposing claim of workman. IInd party denies that workman

Was appointed by management. That there was no vacant

post with the management. That workman was not engaged

by Telecom Divisional Engineer Project rather he was

engaged by DE Coaxial Cable Project, Raipur. That

workman was engaged on muster roll on daily wage basis.

The retention period of muster roll is 5 years. IInd party

submits that it is difficult for it to make comments why

reference is filed very late, other contentions of workman

are denied. It is denied that workman was not appointed

as per directions of Hon’ble CAT, Jabalpur with Original

Application 71/91, 196/90. IInd party prays for rejection of

claim of workman.

Workman filed rejoinder at. Page 7/1 to 7/2 reiterating

its contentions in statement of claim. Workman had denied

adverse contentions in Written Statement filed by IInd

party.

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 Divisional

Engineer, Telecom Project,

Raipur (MP) in terminating

the services of Shri Agnu,

Son of Shri Jethu, Ex-Mazdoor

is legal?

(ii) If not, what relief the work-

Relief prayed is

man is entitled to?”

rejected.

REASONS

Though workman is challenging legality of

termination of his services and filed statement of claim,

affidavit of evidence is filed by workman, he failed to appear

for cross-examination. Consequently it was ordered that

affidavit of workman shall not be read in evidence as per

ordersheet dated 5-12-06 and proceeded exparte against

him.

Management filed affidavit of its witness Shri

R.R.Yadav, The evidence of management’s witness

remained unchallenged. Thus the witnesses for both

parties are not cross-examined by the adversant parties.

As evidence on affidavit of workman is observed shall

not be considered as such there is no evidence to

substantiate claim of workman. Therefore action of IInd

party terminating services of workman cannot be said

illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No.1 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under :

(1)

Action of the management of Divisional Engineer,

Telecom Project, Raipur (MP) in terminating the

services of Shri Agnu, Son of Shri Jethu, Ex-

Mazdoor is legal.

(2)

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1125-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

estj&de&vflLVsaV vkujsjh lsØsVjh Vksjl vkWfiQlj bafLVV~;wV ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;&1 fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 331@2011) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@76@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2014

S.O. 1125.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 331/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 1, Delhi, now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Major-cum-Asstt. Hony. Secretary,

Taurus Officer Institute, New Delhi and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 20/03/2014.

[No. L-42011/76/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 331/2011

The General Secretary,

Rajya Mazdoor Sabha (Regd.),

2094/5D, Prem Nagar,

West Patel Nagar,

Delhi.

.......Workman

Versus

Major-cum-Asstt. Hony. Secretary,

Taurus Officer Institute,

2, the Mall, Delhi Cantt.,

New Delhi.

......Management

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2889

AWARD

To provide recreational facilities to its officers and

their family members, club by the name of Tauras Officers

Institute (hereinafter referred to as the Institute) is being

run at Delhi Cantt., Delhi, by the Indian Army. The Institute

has engaged various persons to work as accounts clerk,

barmen, waiter, cook, mali, tea/maker and sweepers etc.

The employees, so engaged by the Institute, are to be

paid minimum wages, notified by the appropriate

Government from time to time. The employees raised a

demand for grant of minimum wages, annual increment@

25% per annum, bonus, overtime allowance and house

rent allowance, which demand was not conceded to by

the Institute. Aggrieved by that act employees, working

on above posts, approached the Rajya Mazdoor Sabha (in

short the union) for redressal of their grievance. The union

raised the dispute before the conciliation Officer. The

Institute contested the claim put forth by the union and as

such, 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-42011/76/2011-IR(DU) New Delhi dated 14.10.2011

with following terms:

“Whether action of management of Taurus Officers

Institute, Delhi-10, in denying benefits/legal dues/

demand as detailed in Annexure C to Shri Erick

Massey and 13 others (list enclosed) is legal and

justified? To what benefit/relief the workmen

concerned are entitled to and from which date?”

In the list, enclosed with the reference order, names

of employees concerned with the dispute have been

detailed as Erick Massey, Rajan Yadav, Patric Massey, Uday

Kumar, Sanjay Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Deep Chand, Shyam

Lal, Prem Kumar, Shankar Lal, Bachchu Ram, Vikram, Raju

and Pravin Kumar.

In Annexure C, annexed with the reference order,

demands raised by the union are detailed as a right to

receive minimum wages, 10% yearly increment in the

minimum wages for the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-

09, attendance card, appointment letter and identity card,

entitlement for casual leave, earned leave, festival leaves,

provident fund facilities, bonus for the year 2006-07, 2007-

08 and 2008-09 at 20% per annum, payment of wages on 7^th

day of the English calendar month, double rates of wages

for overtime, two pairs of summer and winter uniform, two

pairs of gloves, polish and house rent allowance @25% of

the earned wages, besides washing allowance @ Rs.150.00

per month.

Claim statement was filed on behalf of the claimants

pleading that they were engaged by the Institute on

respective posts from dates detailed as below:

S. No.

Name

Father’s Name

Post

Date of Joining

Salary

Erick Massey

B.L.Massey

Account Clerk

1980

7000.00

Rajan Yadav

R.P. Yadav

Account Clerk

1981

7000.00

Patric Massey

B.L. Massey

Barman

1997

5210.00

Uday Kumar

Roop Ram

Waiter

1990

5490.00

Sanjay Kumar

Duli Chand

Waiter

1990

5490.00

Ramesh Kumar

Nand Ram

Waiter

2000

5070.00

Deep Chand

Puran Chand

Cook

1990

5490.00

Shyam Lal

Rati Pal

Mali

1980

5770.00

Prem Kumar

Sardar

Mali

1981

5770.00

10.

Shankar Lal

Radhey Shyam

Mali

2000

5070.00

11.

Bachu Ram

Jumman Ram

Sweeper

1974

6050.00

12.

Vikram

Bhudayal Singh

Sweeper

1990

5490.00

13.

Raju

Banawari Lal

Sweeper

2000

5070.00

14.

Pravin Kumar

Baby Ram

T. Maker

1997

5210.00

Claimants plead that the Institute had not issued

appointment letters to them. Legal facilities such as

minimum wages, 10% yearly increment in minimum wages

attendance card, appointment letter, identity card, casual

leave, earned leave, festival leaves, provident fund

facilities, bonus for the year 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09

at 20% per annum, payment of earned wages on 7^th day of

the English calendar month, overtime allowance at double

rate than the ordinary rates of wages, two pairs of summer

and winter uniform, two pairs of gloves, shoe polish and

house rent allowance @25% of the earned wages and

washing allowance at the rate of Rs.150.00 per month are

not provided to them. Claimants used to demand above

facilities from the Institute orally many a times. When

2890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

above facilities were not provided to them, they

approached the union. A general body meeting of the union

was held on 03.08.2009, 18.08.2009 and 15.11.2009 and

notice of demand was sent to the Institute on 24.08.2009.

When their demands were not conceded to, the union

raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer, but to no

avail. Claimants project that they had not given any chance

of complaint to the Institute. They claim that an award

may be passed in their favour, directing the Institute to

pay minimum wages, yearly increment @ 10% in the

minimum wages, grant attendance card, appointment letter,

identity card, casual leave, earned leave, festival leaves,

provident fund facilities, bonus for the year 2006-07, 2007-

08 and 2008-09 at 25% per month, earned wages on 7^th day

of the English calendar month, overtime allowance at

double the rate of ordinary wages, two pairs of summer

and winter uniform, two pairs of gloves, shoe polish, house

rent allowance @25% of the earned wage and washing

allowance @ Rs.150.00 per month.

The Institute resisted the claim pleading that

salaries, applicable to the claimants, are more than what

they claim in the claim statement. All legal facilities are

being granted to them. They are paid more than the staff

of defence unit run canteens. Total emoluments are being

paid to them, keeping in view minimum wages notified by

the appropriate Government from time to time. Emoluments

paid to them are as follows:

Name

Trade/Group

Basic

HRA

Interim

Convey-

Wash-

ESI

EPF

Total

No.

Pay

30%

All. 20%

ance

ing

contri-

Pay

Allow-

bution

ance

Institute Institute

(4.75%)

(13.61%)

Erick Massey

Clerk C

5000

1500

1000

400

300

237.50

680.50

9118.00

Rajan Yadav

Clerk C

5000

1500

1000

400

300

237.50

680.50

9118.00

Deep Chand

Waiter D

3850

1155

770

400

183.00

524.00

7282.00

Patric Massey

Barman D

3650

1095

730

400

174.00

497.00

6946.00

Ramesh Kumar Waiter D

3550

1065

710

400

169.00

483.00

6777.00

Bacchu Ram

Safaiwala D

4250

1275

850

400

202.00

579.00

7958.00

Vikram

Safaiwala D

3850

1155

770

400

183.00

524.00

7282.00

Raju

Safaiwala D

3550

1065

710

400

169.00

483.00

6777.00

Shyam Lal

Mali D

4050

1215

810

400

193.00

551.00

7619.00

10.

Prem Kumar

Mali D

4050

1215

810

400

193.00

551.00

7619.00

11.

Shankar Lal

Mali D

3550

1065

710

400

169.00

483.00

6777.00

Claimants are paid more than the minimum wages as well as wages of the staff of defence unit run canteens, which

fact emerge out of the table detailed below:

Name

Trade/ Group

Paid by the

Comparative Salaries

No.

Institute

As per URC rates

As per Minimum

Wages Act

Erick Massey

Clerk C

9118.00

4590

7826

Rajan Yadav

Clerk C

9118.00

4590

7826

DeepChand

Waiter D

7282.00

3200

7098

Patric Massey

Barman D

6946.00

3200

6422

Ramesh Kumar

Waiter D

6777.00

3200

6422

Bacchu Ram

Safaiwala D

7958.00

300

6422

Vikram

Safaiwala D

7282.00

3200

6422

Raju

Safaiwala D

6777.00

3200

6422

Shyam Lal

Mali D

7619.00

3200

6422

10.

Prem Kumar

Mali D

7619.00

3200

6422

11.

Shankar Lal

Mali D

6777.00

3200

6422

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2891

Yearly increments are being granted to the claimants,

in view of income and expenditure state of the Institute,

which is a non-profit welfare organization. Attendance

and identity cards have been issued to them. They are

being given casual leaves, festivals leaves and earned

leaves. In addition to that, they are allowed encashment

of 15 days annual leave. Bonus is being given to them in

consonance with provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act,

1965. They are generally not asked to work overtime.

However, in exceptional circumstances overtime work,

taken from them, is compensated in form of extra leave and

special incentives like gifts etc. They are being provided

with uniform on yearly basis. House rent allowance is

being provided to them @30% of their wages. Washing

allowance @ Rs.400.00 per month is paid to them.

Conveyance allowance @ Rs.400.00 per month is paid to

them, without any demand in that regard. All legal facilities

are being provided to them. Claim put forth by the

claimants has no basis, hence it may be dismissed, pleads

the Institute.

To substantiate their claim, Shri Erick Massey

entered the witness box, who was examined on 10.05.2012

and 06.09.2012. His further cross examination was deferred

at the request of authorized representative of the Institute.

Thereafter, time was sought by the parties to settle the

dispute. However, the Institute opted to abstain away

from the proceedings with effect from 23.07.2013, hence it

was proceeded ex-parte vide order of that date. Under

these circumstances, further opportunity could not be

accorded to the Institute to purify testimony of Shri Erick

Massey by an ordeal of cross examination.

10.

Affidavits of Shri Ramesh Kumar and Shri Rajan

Yadav were also tendered as evidence on behalf of the

claimants. Since the Institute was proceeded ex-parte,

hence their depositions were not tested on the anvil of

cross examination. No witness was brought forward on

behalf of the Institute.

11.

Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Om Prakash

Sharma, authorized representative, advanced arguments

on behalf of the claimants. None came forward on behalf

of the Institute. 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:-

12.

As projected in the claim statement, claimants assert

that the Institute does not pay minimum wages to them, as

notified by the appropriate Government from time to time.

Shri Erick Massey deposed that the Institute does not

increase their salary as and when new scales are approved

by Pay Commission. They raised a demand in that regard

on 03.08.2009, which was not considered. In his affidavit

dated 05.03.2013, Shri Ramesh Kumar details that they are

entitled for minimum wages as notified by the appropriate

Government from time to time. Shri Rajan Yadav details

those very facts in his affidavit dated 04.04.2013. Therefore,

it is emerging over the record that the claimants assert

that minimum wages, as notified by the appropriate

Government from time to time, may be paid to them by the

Institute.

13.

Shri Erick Massey and Shri Rajan Yadav work as

accounts clerk. Therefore, it would be expedient to know

as to what is the minimum wages fixed for clerks by the

appropriate Government. For an answer, notification No.1/

11(3)/2013-LS-II, New Delhi dated 19.09.2012, issued by

the Central Government, is to be examined. As emerge out

of the above notification rates of variable dearness

allowance were revised by the Ministry of Labour and

Employment, Government of India, on increase of

consumer price index. For ‘A’ area cities, minimum wages

of a skilled clerk has been notified at Rs.377.00 per day.

Minimum wages for highly skilled employee was notified

at Rs.410.00 per day. Delhi is one of the ‘A’ area cities as

per annexure annexed to the said notification.

14.

Shri Erick Massey and Shri Rajan Yadav, who work

as accounts clerk with the Institute, are employees of highly

skilled category. Therefore, Shri Massey as well as Yadav

are entitled to be paid a @ Rs.410.00 per day. Thus,

minimum wages for these two claimants comes to

Rs.10,660.00 per month. As projected by the Institute, Shri

Massey and Shri Yadav are paid basic pay, house rent

allowance, interim allowance, conveyance allowance,

washing allowance, share of ESI and EPF contributions

by the Institute.

15.

The Minimum Wages Act, 1948, aims at preventing

exploitation of labour. In an underdeveloped country

because of vast unemployment, they are prepared to even

work for starvation wages and for that purpose, prescribed

minimum wage for employment is incorporated by the

schedule. The aforesaid Act is a beneficial piece of social

legislation which protects day to day living conditions of

workers employed at the lowest level of wages and though

minimum wages are fixed statutory, it does not measure up

either to the fair wage or the living wage. The said Act

defines wages as all remuneration, capable of being

expressed in terms of money, payable to a person employed

in respect of his employment and includes house rent

allowance. For the purpose of convenience, definition of

wages, enacted in the aforesaid act, is extracted thus:

“2(h) wages” means all remuneration, capable of

being expressed in terms of money, which would, if

the terms of the contract of employment, express or

implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person

employed in respect of his employment or of work

done in such employment, and includes house rent

allowance, but does not include—

(i) the value of—

2892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(a) any house- accommodation, supply of light,

water, medical attendance, or

(b) any other amenity or any service excluded by

general or special order of the appropriate

Government;

(ii) any contribution paid by the employer to any

Pension Fund or Provident Fund or under any

scheme of social insurance;

(iii) any travelling allowance or the value of any

travelling concession;

(iv) any sum paid to the person employed to defray

special expenses entailed on him by the nature of

his employment; or

(v) any gratuity payable on discharge”.

16.

Minimum rates of wags fixed by the appropriate

Government, in respect of scheduled employments, may

consist of :

(i)

a basic rate of wages and a special allowance at a

rate to be adjusted, at such intervals and in such

manner as the appropriate Government may direct,

to accord as nearly as practicable with the variation

in the cost of living index number applicable to such

workers, or

(ii)

abasic rate of wages with or without the cost of

living allowance, and the cash value of the

concessions in respect of supplies of essential

commodities at concession rates, where so

authorised; or

(iii)

an all-inclusive rate allowance for the basic rate, the

cost of living allowance and the cash value of the

concessions, if any.

17.

It is well settled that special allowance, as referred

above, is nothing but a dearness allowance. Rise in

consumer index is to be taken into account for the purpose

of fixing special allowance. Dearness allowance is intended

to neutralize a portion in increase in cost of living. Full

neutralization may be permissible only in case of lowest

class of employees. Thus, it is emerging over the record

that minimum wages, fixed or revised by the appropriate

Government, may consist of basic rate of wages and special

allowance at a rate to be adjusted at such intervals and

such manner as the appropriate Government may direct.

18.

Now it would be ascertained as to whether Shri

Massey and Shri Yadav are being paid minimum wages by

the Institute ? As detailed by the Institute basic pay of

Rs.5000, interim allowance at the rate of Rs.1000 and house

rent allowance of Rs.1500 per month are paid to them.

Other allowances, such as conveyance allowance, washing

allowance, shares of ESI and EPF contribution would not

form part of the minimum wages. Admittedly, their basic

pay, interim allowance and house rent allowance comes to

Rs.7500.00 per month, is less than the minimum wages,

notified for their category. There is no two opinion that

the Institute is paying less than the minimum wages to

Shri Massey and Shri Yadav.

19.

Except Shri Massey and Shri Yadav, other claimants

work as waiter, barmen, mali, tea maker and safaiwala. All

of them are employees of unskilled category. For an

employee of unskilled category, minimum wages for ‘A’

area cities has been notified as Rs.310.00 per day. Minimum

wages for an employee of unskilled category comes to

Rs.8060.00 per month. As projected by the Institute, these

claimants, who work as waiter, barman and tea maker, are

paid Rs.3850.00 as basic pay, Rs.770.00 as interim allowance

and Rs.1155 as house rent allowance. Therefore, minimum

wages for their category is higher than the amount paid to

them. Claimants, who work as mali are paid Rs.4050.00 as

basic pay, Rs.810.00 as interim allowance and Rs.1215 as

house rent allowance. Admittedly, they are also paid less

than the minimum wages in that regard. Employees, who

carry out sweeping job, are paid Rs.3850.00 as basic wages,

Rs.770.00 towards interim allowance and Rs.1155 for house

rent allowance. I have no hesitation in concluding that

they are also paid less than the minimum wages notified

by the appropriate Government. Claimants could bring to

light that the Institute paid them less than the minimum

wages notified by the appropriate Government. They could

establish a claim for payment of minimum wages in their

favour. Resultantly, it is commanded that the Institute

shall pay minimum wages to the claimants, which shall be

calculated while taking into consideration basic rate of

wages, special allowance and house rent allowance for

their categories. Other concessions, granted in favour of

the claimant shall not form part of the computations, to

reckon minimum wages for them.

20.

Yearly increments @ 10% on the minimum wages

has been claimed in the form of dearness allowance.

Periodical increment in wages is granted by the appropriate

Government when revision of minimum wages is made

from time to time. Grant of periodical increment in wages

by this Tribunal would be based on assumption that there

exist a scheme of increment in wages or scale of wages.

As noted above, no pay scales are available for the

claimants. They are being paid minimum wages, as notified

by the appropriate Government. Revision, periodical or

otherwise, in respect of minimum wages is to be made by

the appropriate Government in consonance with the

provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Therefore,

such a claim, made by the claimants cannot be entertained

by this Tribunal.

21.

A faint effort was made by the claimants to

substantiate their claim for grant of dearness allowance

on the minimum wages, by relying the precedent in Suraj

Textile Mills (1946 Lab.I.C.1412). I am afraid that the

precedent comes to their rescue. As detailed therein,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2893

settlement was entered into between the authorities of the

Mills and the union representing its employees. In the

said settlement, it was agreed that the employees would

get fixed amount of dearness allowance on the minimum

wages notified by the State of Punjab effective from

01.01.1979. The above fixed dearness allowance was paid

to the employees in lieu of their claim of house rent

allowance and city compensatory allowance.

Subsequently, fixed dearness allowance was not paid with

minimum rates of wages, enhanced by the State through

its notification dated 31.12.1981. Dispute was raised in

that regard. When the dispute reached the board of the

High Court, it was ruled that the fixed dearness allowance,

pursuant to settlement entered into between the parties,

shall be paid to the employees, since terms of that

settlement does not run counter to the statutory

provisions. Thus, it is evident that in the precedent, relied

by the claimants, fixed dearness allowance was claimed

on the basis of settlement entered into between the parties.

Here in the case, no such settlement was ever entered into

between the Institute and the claimants. Evidently, facts

of the present controversy are distinct and different than

the precedent, referred above. The precedent nowhere

comes to the rescue of the claimants.

22.

Even otherwise, additional payment in the form of

interim allowance is paid to the claimants to compensate

them to a certain extent for rise in cost of living. The said

allowance is being paid by the Institute on the pattern of

variable dearness allowance fixed by the appropriate

Government while making revision in minimum wages in

respect of different schedule of employments. As ordered

above, claimants shall be paid minimum wages as notified

by the appropriate Government from time to time. Hence,

they cannot claim yearly enhancement on the minimum

wages. Their demand for yearly increment is found to be

untenable.

23.

Leaves with wages, in certain contingencies is one

of the term of employment or conditions of labour of

industrial workmen, which occasionally gives rise to

industrial disputes. Various enactments have made

provisions for leave with wages for commercial and

industrial workmen. For instance section 79 of the Factories

Act, 1948, makes provision for annual leave with wages.

Section 52 of the Factories Act 1948 requires that every

week, a workman should have atleast one day as holiday

either on Sunday or any other day. Therefore, salary paid

to a workman by week or month includes salary paid by

way of holiday pay in respect of Sunday and other

declared holidays. On the basis of above principles, the

industrial adjudication has to make reasonable provisions

for a weekly off in respect of workmen who may not strictly

fall within the purview of the Factories Act or the Shops

and Commercial Establishments Act or any other

analogous Act. In doing so, the industrial adjudication

cannot ignore the needs of national economy.

24.

As projected by the Institute, claimants are given 30

days earned leaves in a year, 10 days medical leaves,

besides weekly offs. Claimants could not dispute this

proposition. Therefore, it is emerging over the record that

as far as claims in respect of weekly offs and leaves are

concerned, the Institute had granted their rights to them.

The claimants could not highlight a case for intervention

by the Tribunal in that regard.

25.

A workman, if his contract of service so provides,

shall be entitled to accumulate leave to his credit. He can

claim money compensation in terms of salary for leaves to

his credit, at the time of his retirement. Facility for

encashing of the leaves by a workmen can be given by an

employer when he carries on his business. It cannot be

claimed when the establishment has been closed or

transferred. The Institute permits the claimants for

encashment of 15 days leave in a calendar year. It is evident

rights of the claimants are being accorded to them by the

Institute in that regard.

26.

Claimants nowhere dispute that attendance cards,

appointment letter, identity card, and festival leaves are

being provided to them by the Institute. Resultantly, there

is no dispute in that regard that other legal facilities are

being accorded by the Institute to the claimants.

27.

Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, stipulates payment of

annual bonus @8.33% to an employee. Section 10 of the

said Act provides as under:

“10. Payment of minimum bonus.- Subject to the

other provisions of this Act, every employer shall

be bound to pay to every employee in respect of the

accounting year commencing on any day in the year

1979 and in respect of every subsequent accounting

year, a minimum bonus which shall be 8. 33 per cent.

of the salary or wage earned by the employee during

the accounting year or one hundred rupees,

whichever is higher, whether or not the employer

has any allocable surplus in the accounting year:

Provided that where an employee has not

completed fifteen years of age at the beginning of

the accounting year, the provisions of this section

shall have effect in relation to such employee as if

for the words” one hundred rupees”, the words”

sixty rupees” were substituted.”

28.

Claimants seek release of bonus @ 20% per annum

in their favour for the period 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09.

Though the Institute pleads that statutory minimum bonus

is being paid to them. Minimum statutory bonus would be

paid to an employ even in the absence of any allocable

surplus in the concerned accounting year. As projected in

the present controversy, the Institute provides recreational

facilities to its officers and their family members. In such a

situation there may not be allocable surplus for payment

of bonus at a rate higher than minimum statutory bonus.

2894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Resultantly, by payment of minimum bonus, the Institute

complies with the statutory provisions. I do not find any

case to issue directions to the Institute in that regard.

29.

Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, describes that

a worker who works overtime in a factory shall be entitled

to twice his ordinary rate of wages in respect of overtime

work. For the purpose of calculating such over time,

expression ‘ordinary rate of wages’ has been defined to

mean basic wages plus such allowances, including the

cash equivalent of the advantage accruing on account of

concessional sale to workers of foodgrains and other

articles as the worker is for the time being entitled to, but

does not include a bonus. Section 33 of The Mines Act,

1952 also speaks in similar terms. The above provisions

specifically includes dearness allowance in the definition

‘ordinary rate of wages’. For workers working in factories

and mines, rates of overtime have been fixed by relevant

statutes. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Ltd. (1964(1) LLJ

429), the Apex Court laid down principles for fixing overtime

allowance, which are detailed thus:

(i)

overtime allowance should have relation to total

wage packet, viz. basic wage dearness allowance,

(ii)

it should be fixed on consideration of the financial

capacity of the company, and

(iii)

it should also be fixed in consonance with the

practice prevalent in other concerns in the

neighbourhood.

30.

As projected by the union and not disputed by the

Institute, claimants are paid minimum wages, as notified

by the appropriate Government from time to time. Section

14 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 enacts that where an

employee, whose minimum rate of wages is fixed under

this Act by the hour, by the day or by such a longer wage

period as may be prescribed, works on any day in excess

of the number of hours constituting a normal working day,

the employer shall pay him for every hour or for part of an

hour so worked in excess of normal working hours at the

overtime rate fixed under the provisions of the said Act.

Precedent in Municipal Corporation, Hatta, (1998 (79) FLR

228) deals with the provisions of section 14 of the said

Act. In the said case, the Apex Court took note of the

provisions of section 14 of that Act and ruled that to claim

overtime under section 14, following conditions must be

fulfilled by an employee:

(1)

the minimum rate of wages should be fixed under

the Minimum Wages Act, 1948; and

(2)

such an employee should work on any day in excess

of the number of hours, constituting a normal

working day.

31.

The Court ruled that overtime under section 14 is

payable to those employees who are getting a minimum

rate of wage, as prescribed under the Minimum Wages

Act, 1948. These are the only employees to whom overtime

under section 14 would become payable. The Apex Court

announced that in the present case the respondents cannot

be described as employees who are getting minimum rate

of wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. They

are getting much more and that too under the Madhya

Pradesh Municipal Service (Scales of Pay and Allowances)

Rules, 1967. Resultantly section 14 has no application to

them.

32.

The Apex Court also took note of the proposition

that the employment of the respondents was under “any

local authority”, listed as item 6 in the Schedule to the

Minimum Wages Act, 1948, according to which they are

entitled and automatically get overtime under section 14

the said Act. Considering that proposition, the Court ruled

that the employees who are getting minimum rates of wages

under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 are only eligible to

get over time allowance under section 14 of the said Act.

Observations made by the Apex Court in that regard are

extracted thus:

“The application under section 22 of the Minimum

Wages Act, is, therefore, misconceived. The

respondents seem to have proceeded on the basis

that because employment under any Local Authority

is listed as Item 6 in the Schedule to the Minimum

Wages Act, 1948 they would automatically get

overtime under the said Act. Section 14, however,

clearly provides for payment of overtime only to

those employees who are getting minimum rate of

wage under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It does

not apply to those getting better wages under other

statutory Rules.”

33.

In Y.A. Mamarde (1972(25) FLR 186) wherein the

Apex Court had dealt with provisions of rule 25 of the

Minimum Wages (Central) Rules 1950 (in short the Rules)

and declared that the expression ‘ordinary rate of wages’

used in that rule reflects what a workman has actually

received rather than worker’s minimum entitlement under

the Act. By using the phrase “double the ordinary rate of

wages” the rule-making authority seems to us to have

intended that the worker should be the recipient of double

remuneration which he, in fact, ordinarily receives and not

double the rate of minimum wages fixed for him under the

Act. It has been commanded by the Apex Court that rule

25 of the Rules contemplates for overtime payment at

double the rate of wages which the worker actually receives,

including the casual perquisites and other advantages

mentioned in the explanation. This rate is intended to be

the minimum rate for wages for overtime work. It was

concluded therein that the minimum rates of wages for

overtime work need not as a matter of law be confined to

double the minimum wages fixed but may justly be fixed at

double the wages ordinarily received by that workman as

a fact.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2895

34.

Whether there is any conflict in law laid in precedent

in YA Mamarde (supra) and Municipal Council, Hatta

(supra)? When these two precedents are scanned, it

emerges that in YA Mamarde(supra), the Apex Court only

interpreted rule 25 of the Rules and did not deal with

provisions of section 14 of the Act. On the other hand,

precedent in Municipal Council Hatta, the Apex Court

interpreted the provisions of section 14 of The Minimum

Wages Act, 1948. Consequently, it is clear that there is no

conflict in the above two judgements handed down by

the Apex Court. In Sushil Kumar, (LPA No.13 of 2003

decided on 03.12.2003) High Court of Delhi was confronted

with such a proposition when parties raised an issue to

the effect that there was conflict in law laid in the two

precedents handed down by the Apex Court. On

consideration of the ratio laid down in the two precedents,

the High Court ruled that there was no conflict in the two

judgements since they operated in different areas. Hence

law laid in Municipal Council, Hatta (supra) would be

applicable to the case, since it has four dimensional

application to the facts.

35.

In National Airport Authority [2010 (127) FLR 111],

Single Judge of the High Court was to consider the

proposition whether 74 workers drawing more than the

notified minimum wages and enjoying other amenities and

conditions of employment better than those provided

under the Act and Rule’s were entitled to payment of

overtime rates in accordance with the provisions of rule

25 of the Rules. Relying the precedent in Municipal

Council, Hatta (supra), High Court ruled that an employee

even if in scheduled employment but drawing more than

minimum wages and enjoying better terms of employment

than under the Act and Rules, is not entitled to overtime at

double the rate as provided under the Rule. Law laid down

by the High Court is reproduced thus:

“I may however state my reasons for preferring the

view in Municipal Council, Hatta, of the employee

even if in scheduled employment but drawing more

than minimum wages and enjoying better terms of

employment than under the Act and the Rules, being

not entitled to overtime at double the rate as

provided in the Rules. The Minimum Wages Act,

1948 was only intended to secure minimum wages

and certain other conditions in scheduled

employment. It was not intended to and/or is not a

legislation to otherwise govern the contract of

employment between an employer and an employee

drawing more than the minimum wages, even in

scheduled employment. If an employee in a

scheduled employment is drawing more than the

notified minimum wages and enjoying amenities,

facilities and conditions of employment better than

those provided under the Act and the Rules, then

holding the provisions of the Act to be still

applicable to the employee would tantamount to the

legislature interfering in terms of employment in the

scheduled industry rather than securing minimum

wages and related conditions of employment in such

employment. The Supreme Court in Beed District

Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. State of

Maharashtra (2006(8) SCC 514) held that even while

interpreting a beneficent statute (in that case the

Payment of Gratuity Act) either a contract has to be

given effect to or the statute. It was held that the

Gratuity Act under consideration in that case, did

not contemplate that the workmen would be at liberty

to opt for better terms of the contract while keeping

the option open in respect of a part of the statute;

he has to opt for either of them and not the best of

the terms of statute as well as those of the W.P.(C)

No.2146/1992 Page 9 of 11 contract and that he

cannot have both. A reading of the Minimum Wages

Act, 1948 also shows that its scheme is to ensure

fixing of hours of work and minimum wages there-

for. It also does not envisage interference with the

terms of employment even in scheduled

establishments where workmen/employees are

enjoying wages more than the minimum and working

hours/conditions better than those prescribed in the

Act. Section 14 of the Act provides for work over

and above the time for which the workman is to

work in lieu of minimum wages. If the workman is

working for lesser hours than those for which he is

required to work to earn the minimum wage, then the

computation of overtime as done in the Rules on the

said premise cannot be made applicable to him”.

36.

The Institute nowhere projects that the claimants

are getting wages and amenities better than those fixed

under Minimum Wages Act, 1948. As projected by the

Institute, claimants are paid minimum wages notified by

the appropriate Government from time to time. In that

situation, claimants can put forth a claim for overtime

allowance in consonance with rule 25 of the Rules. In its

pleading, the Institute highlights that as and when

claimants were asked to work overtime, they are

compensated by way of grant of special leaves or special

incentives in the form of cash/gift, prizes etc. Special leave

or incentive in the form of cash can not be a substitute for

overtime allowance. Hence the Institute is commanded

that as and when overtime work is taken from the claimants,

they shall be paid twice their ordinary rates of wages in

respect of overtime work done by them.

37.

Two pairs of summer and winter uniforms, besides

shoes, gloves and socks are demanded by the claimants.

They nowhere dispute that uniforms besides shoes, gloves

and socks are given to them. On the other hand, washing

allowance @ Rs. 500.00 per month is also paid to them.

Thus, it is evident that the claim put forth in that regard

has already been granted to them by the Institute. No

further directions are needed in that regard.

2896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

38.

House rent allowance @25% of their earned wages

is the other demand raised by the claimants. The Institute

pays them 30% house rent allowance on the wages granted

to them. In such a situation, it is not a case that the

claimants can make out a case for issuance of instructions

to the Institute in that regard.

39.

In view of foregoing reasons the Institute in

commanded to pay minimum wages, besides other benefits

as detailed above, to the claimants. Difference of wages

paid less than the minimum wages shall also be released in

favour of the claimants at the earliest, not later than three

months from the date the award becomes enforceable,

under section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : 28.2.2014

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1126-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ukxkySaM iYi

,.M isij daiuh fyfeVsM ,aM ,p ih lh ,y ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

xqokgkVh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@125@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2014

S.O.

1126.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 01/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Guwahati, now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of NPPCL, Nagaland and HPCL, Kolkata

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 20/03/2014.

[No. L-42011/125/2012-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

GUWAHATI, ASSAM.

PRESENT :

Shri L.C. DEY, M.A., LL.B.

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

Ref. Case No.01 of 2013

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-

The President/The General Secretary, Workers’

Union, Nagaland Pulp & Paper Company Ltd., (NPPCL),

Nagaland.

-Vrs-

The Management of (1) NPPCL, Nagaland and (2)

HPCL, Kolkata.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

Mr. D. Baruah, Advocate,

Ms. B. Das, Advocate,

Mr. B. Barman, Advocate.

For the Management

Mr. S. Sarma, Advocate.

Mr. S. Barthakur, Advocate,

Mr. C. Chakrabarty, Advocate,

Mr. J. Roy, Advocate,

Mr. R. Hazarika, Advocate,

Miss S. Kakoti, Advocate.

Date of Award: 21.11.13

AWARD

This Reference has been initiated on an Industrial

Dispute exists between the employers in relation to the

Management of Nagaland Pulp and Paper Company Ltd.

(NPPCL) and their workman, which was referred to by the

Ministry of Labour, Government of India under Clause (d)

of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the ID Act vide their order No.L-42011/125/2012-IR(DU),

dated 21.12.2012 in respect of the matter specified in the

Schedule below:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Nagaland

Pulp & Paper Company Limited (NPPCL) in denying

implementation of 6^th Central Pay Commission Pay

Structure for the workers of NPPCL w.e.f. 01.01.2007

is valid & justified? If not, what relief the concerned

workmen of NPPCL are entitled to?”

After registration of this Reference notices were

issued upon both the Union and the Management of

NPPCL, Nagaland and HPCL, Kolkata, (since they were

made party to this Reference). Accordingly both the parties

appeared along with their learned Advocates. The

Management submitted their W.S. while the Union

although appeared through their learned Advocate and

sought for adjournment for filing claim statement on

different occasions. Subsequently the learned Advocate

for the Union appeared and submitted petition being

No.676/13 dated 11.9.2013 stating that the Union has

decided to discontinue the engagement of the said learned

Advocate who has also returned the brief along with the

relevant documents in connection with this present

reference to the Union; and prayed for allowing them to

withdraw the vokalatnama. Accordingly the prayer of the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2897

learned Advocate was allowed and notice was issued upon

the Union to appear and contest the proceeding but the

Union remained absent without any step in spite of causing

service of notice upon them by registered post with A/D.

In the mean time the Management is also found absent

since 13.11.2013. Thereafter this reference was fixed for

filing claim statement by the Union/for hearing of the

Management side if any fixing 21.11.2013. On that day

both the parties are found absent without any step. Finding

no other alternative the hearing of this reference is closed

and hence, this reference is taken up for disposal on merit

on the basis of the materials available on record.

The Union has not submitted any claim statement in

spite of allowing them sufficient opportunities as

mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs. The Management

of both the NPPCL, Nagaland and HPCL, Kolkata submitted

their written statement separately taking the common plea.

The Case of the Management of both the NPPCL,

Nagaland and HPCL, Kolkata, in brief, is that the Nagaland

Pulp and Paper Company Ltd. ( herein after called the

NPPCL) was incorporated in the year 1971 under the

Companies Act,1956 as amended, which is a Corporation

having its perpetual succession and common seal and it

was commissioned in the year 1982. However, since 1992

the production of the NPPCL completely stopped and as

such, it sustained continuous loss and the company could

not regain its position and became sick. Thereafter the

NPPCL was referred to Board for Industrial and Financial

Reconstruction ( herein after called BIFR) after becoming

a sick industry and subsequently BIFR approved the

revival plan vide communication dated 27.06.2007. The

Draft Rehabilitation Scheme approved by the BIFR of

NPPC envisages 1997 Pay Structure for its employees and

the matter was taken up with the DHI which communicated

the approval of the competent authority by their letter

dated 17.11.2008 and accordingly the said pay structure

was implemented in NPPCL in December,2008 with effect

from 27.06.2007 under the head ‘cash loss’ in plan

budgetary support sought by NPPC for the year 2007-08.

The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Government of

India, Silchar requested the NPPCL, Nagaland to offer their

demand/present status in respect of implementation of 6^th

Pay Commission pay structure for the workers of NPPC

on the basis of the letter submitted by the President,

General Secretary of the Union. The Management, vide

their letter No. NPPC:HR & ES, Wr/1/11 dated 25.02.2011

the Deputy General Manager (HR & ES) submitted the

detail report before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner ( C),

Silchar, Assam in respect of implementation of 6^th Central

Pay Structure. However, the opposite party clarified that

HPC and its subsidiaries are following the Industrial

Dearness Allowance pattern of pay structure and therefore

the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (central), Silchar intimated

the NPPCL, Nagaland to attend the joint discussion/

conciliation on 28.4.2011 in respect of implementation of

6^th pay commission to the employees of the Corporation

and accordingly the conciliation proceeding took place

on 27.5.2011. But the claimant/union sought time to submit

rejoinder application on receiving such application the

NPPCL was requested to examine the rejoinder application.

The union vide their letter dated 20.06.2011 submitted the

rejoinder application before the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner, Silchar who issued notice upon the NPPCL

to attend the conciliation proceeding on 08.09.2011. The

Union again vide their letter dated 05.09.2011 submitted

Additional rejoinder application before the ALC(C), Silchar.

The conciliation proceeding was held on 08.09.2011 and

the Labour Commissioner requested the NPPCL to look

into the contents enumerated in the rejoinder application

dated 20.6.2011 and 5.09.2011. The Management stated

that the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India vide letter

dated 07.10.2011 sanctioned a non plan loan of Rs. 1.75

Crores to HPC to meet the expenditure for payment of

outstanding salary and wages of the employees of the

NPPCL from 01.01.2011 to 31.03.2011. The ALC (C), vide

letter No.8(06)/2011-S/A dated 25.10.11 issued notice to

the NPPCL to attend the conciliation proceeding on

14.11.2011 but the said proceeding was adjourned till

outcome of the order be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in SLP(C) 33759/10 and the Union/Claimant

challenged the order dated 31.08.2010 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court in WA No. 512/1997 claiming the wages

at revised rates for the period from 01.01.1992 to 25.06.2007.

However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated

30.01.13 was pleased to dismiss the petition. Thereafter

the ALC (C), Silchar issued notice dated 16.01.12 to the

NPPCL to attend the conciliation proceeding and

accordingly they attended the conciliation but it failed.

The Management averred that in paragraph-2 of OM No.

2/11/96-DPE(WC)-GL-1 dated 14.01.1999 issued by the DPE

regarding the policy for the 6^th round of wage negotiation

in public sector enterprise provided that as regard sick

units registered with BIFR, approves revival plan of such

enterprise in which provision have been made for additional

expenditure on account pay revision, no revision of pay

would be allowed to the employees of such enterprises.

Being the position since the BIFR approved the revival

plan and provision was made for additional expenditure

on account of pay revision, which got implemented in

NPPCL which has not yet started the production of paper

and wages of the staff being funded by the HPC who in

turn took loan from the Government of India on high rate

of interest. It is also mentioned that the guidelines issued

by DPE for 7^th round of wages negotiation in CPSE dated

01.01.2007 clearly states that the Management of the CPSE

would be free to negotiate the wage structure for the

unionized workmen keeping in view and consistent with

the generation of the resources/profit by the concerned

enterprise. However, no budgetary support for the wage

increase shall be provided by the government under any

circumstances. The resources for meeting the increase

2898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

obligation for implementation of wage revision must be

internally generated and must come from improved

performance in term of productivity and profitability and

not from the government subvention.

The Management mentioned that at present the

Corporation does not have enough resources to revise

the pay scale of the NPPCL and as the Corporation incurred

a net loss of Rs.1190.05 lakh as on 31.03.2012 and the

accumulated losses incurred by the company till 31.03.2012

to Rs. 8393.36. The quantum of loss incurred by NPPCL

during last 3 years i.e. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 amounting

to Rs. 1438.03, Rs. 1343.60 and Rs.1190.05 respectively.

Further contention of the Management is that the

draft Rehabilitation Scheme for NPPCL envisages 1997

pay structure for the workman of NPPCL and the said pay

structure was implemented with effect from 27.06.2007 after

getting approval from the competent authority as

communicated vide DHI letter No. 8(84)/2007—PE VII dated

17.11.2008 and after signing the Memorandum of

Settlement with the workers Union of NPPCL on 03.12.2008

in presence of Joint Commissioner-State Conciliation

Officer, Government of Nagaland; and in the clause18.4 of

the said MOU it was clearly mentioned that during the

operation of MOU no demand(s) having monetary value/

financial implementation whatsoever nor any dispute can

be raised in respect of matters settled in this MOU made

by the Union. So the Union under the aforesaid MOU can

not claim the revision of wages under 6^th Pay Commission

as such, the 6^th Central Pay Commission pay structure can

not be acceded to as the same is not maintainable.

From the above it appears that the Union being the

claimant who raised the dispute have not come forward to

substantiate their claim and as such, I am constrained to

rely upon the W.S. along with the documents submitted

by the Management. On perusal of the W.S. and the

documents, it appears that the NPPCL has become a sick

industry for which the Government of India vide their letter

dated 7.10.2011 marked as Annexure-9 sanctioned a non

plan loss for Rs.1.75 Crore to the HPC to meet the

expenditure for payment of outstanding salary and wages

of the employees of NPPCL from 1.11.2011 to 31.3.2011. In

this connection conciliation was held in presence of the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Silchar but the

said conciliation proceeding was adjourned till out come

of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP

dated 31.8.10 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ

Appeal No. 512/1997 whereby claiming the wages at

revised rate for the period from 1.1.1992 to 25.6.1997.

However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated

30.1.2013 was pleased to dismiss the petition. Thereafter

another conciliation was held at the instance of the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Silchar but it failed.

The extract from the part-2 of OM No. 2/11/96-DPE(WC)-GL-1

dated 14.1.1999, the wages policies and related matters- a

Wage Policy/Pay Revision/ HPPC recommendation

regarding policy for 7^th round of wage negotiation for

unionized worker in central public sector enterprises with

effect from 1.1.2007, marked as Annexure-12 produced by

the Management, shows that the Management of CPSEs

would be free to negotiate the wage structure, for the

Unionised workmen keeping in view and consistent with

the generation of resources/profits by the concerned

enterprises and no budgetary support for the wage

increase shall be provided by the Government under any

circumstances; and the resources for meeting the increased

obligation for implementation of wage revision must be

internally generated and must come from improved

performance in terms of productivity and profitability and

not from Government subvention. It is also provided in

the said memorandum that as regards sick CPSEs

registered with Board for Industrial and Financial

Reconstruction (BIFR), until BIFR approves the revival

plan for such enterprise in which provision has been made

for additional expenditure on account of wage revision,

no revision of wage would be allowed to the employees of

such CPSEs.

It is also revealed from the W.S. submitted by the

Management along with the Memorandum of

Understanding (marked as Annexure-13) between the

Management of NPPCL and its recognized Union, which

was arrived at in presence of Joint Labour Commissioner-

cum-State Conciliation Officer, Labour Department,

Government of Nagaland, that 1997 pay structure for the

workman of NPPCL was implemented for the employees of

NPPCL with effect from 27.6.2007 after getting approval

from the competent authority. In the said MOU in clause-

18.4 it was provided that during the operation of MOU no

demand(s) having monetary value/financial implementation

whatsoever nor any dispute can be raised in respect of

the matters settled in the said MOU.

From the above discussion it is revealed that the

NPPCL is sick industry running loss and it has not yet

started its operation and production and as per the terms

of MOU as well as the government instruction regarding

revision of pay of the employee of the sick industry the

Union cannot claim for revision of their pay at par with the

6^th Central Pay Commission pay structure. Further the MOU

arrived at between the Management NPPCL and the

representative from the workers Union, on 22.11.2008

which was countersigned by the Joint Labour

Commissioner-State Conciliation Officer, Labour

Department, Government of Nagaland, Kohima on

3.12.2008 shall be binding on the parties to the agreement

in Section 18 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 which runs as

follows:-

“18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are

binding- (1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2899

the employer and workman otherwise than in the course

of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties

to the agreement.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), an

arbitration award which has become enforceable shall be

binding on the parties to the agreement who referred the

dispute to arbitration.

(3) A settlement arrived at in the course of

conciliation proceedings under this Act or an arbitration

award in a case where a notification has been issued under

sub-section (3A) of section 10A or an award of a Labour

Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal which has become

enforceable shall be binding on –

(a)

all parties to the industrial dispute;

(b)

all other parties summoned to appear in the

proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the

Board, arbitrator Labour Court, Tribunal or National

Tribunal, as the case may be, records the opinion

that they were so summoned without proper cause;

(c)

Where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b)

is an employer, his heirs, successors or assigns in

respect of the establishment to which the dispute

relates;

(d)

where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is

composed of workmen, all persons who were

employed in the establishment or part of the

establishment, as the case may be, to which the

dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all

persons who subsequently become employed in that

establishment or part.”

In view of my above discussion and having regard

to the provision of Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute

Act, I am of the opinion that the claim of the workman as

mentioned in the Schedule to this reference is not valid

and justified.

In the result, this Reference is decided in negative

granting no relief against the Union. Send the no relief

award to the Government as per procedure.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this

21^st day of November, 2013, at Guwahati.

L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1127-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy esustj

,uVhlh fyfeVsM] dks;EcVksjs ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdkas vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 82@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 20@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@08@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2014

S.O. 1127.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 82/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chennai, now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the General Manager, NTC Ltd.,

Coimbatore and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 20/03/2014.

[No. L-42011/08/2012-IR(DU]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 19^th February, 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 82/2012

(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 National Textile Corporation and their

workman).

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

: 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

NTC Mills Workers and

Staff Union

4/121, Kamaraj Nilayam

Pannimadai P.O.

Coimbatore

AND

The General Manager

2^nd Party/Respondent

NTC Ltd., NTC House

P.O. Box No. 2049, 35-B

Somasundaram Mills Road,

Coimbatore

APPEARANCE :

For the 1^st Party/

Sri G. Muthu, V.P. Rajendran,

Petitioner Union

Advocates

For the 1^st Party/

M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

Respondent

Advocates

2900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, vide its Order No. L-42011/08/2012-IR (DU)

dated 19.10.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of NTC mill management,

Coimbatore for non-implementation of sixth pay

commission recommendations to all employees of

NTC Mills, Southern Region, Coimbatore is

justifiable or not? To what relief, the employees are

entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 82/2012 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their

counsel and have filed Claim and Counter Statement

respectively. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder after the

Counter Statement was filed.

The averments in the Claim Statement in brief are

these:

The petitioner is a union functioning in National

Textiles Corporation (NTC) which is a Public Enterprise.

The NTC Management has not implemented 6^th Pay

Commission Recommendations to all employees of the

NTC. On the other hand, many Public Sector Units like

Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,

etc. have implemented the recommendation. The wages

for the employees of the textiles mills are based on awards

and settlements It is not in consonance with inflation. The

Pay Commission Recommendations are applicable to all

Public Sector Units. Textile mills like Anglo French Textiles

under Pondicherry Union Govt. has adopted this for the

textile sector also. The dispute raised by some of the unions

and pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu is

in respect of the employees of Tamil Nadu mills under

NTC only. The recommendations of the 6^th Pay

Commission Recommendations, if implemented would

benefit all the employees of the Southern Region in Kerala,

Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and also Tamil Nadu under

the management and control of National Textile

Corporation. An award may be passed extending the

benefits of 6^th Pay Commission Recommendations to all

classes of employees including staff and workmen.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows :

Prior to 1974 a number of textile mills in the country

became sick. They were notified as sick relief industrial

undertakings. The National Textile Corporation Ltd. was

established and various sick textile mills came under the

purview of the subsidiary companies that were formed

under the National Textile Corporation Ltd. The NTC

Company was having on its rolls Officers and other

employees on deputation from the Central Government

enjoying pay scales and other service conditions

determined by the Central Pay Commission. Such

employees in the Corporation Office and the subsidiary

companies also were governed by the recommendations

of the Central Pay Commission. However, the workmen

who were mostly called operatives and staff in textile mills

were governed by pay scales and other service conditions

which were evolved in the respective regions following

the recommendations of the 2^nd Central Wage Board for

Textile Industry. On behalf of Clerical and other staff

working in the textile mills writ petitions were filed seeking

extension of the Central Pay Commission

recommendations which were applicable to the staff of

the corporate office of the subsidiary companies and the

holding company under the claim that they were doing

the same kind of work. The Supreme Court has held that

the work done by them are not similar. However, some

relief was granted to the staff working in the mills.

Subsequently, there was another revision of wages by

settlement dated 11.09.2007. This was to remain in force

from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2012. If computerization could not

be introduced by 31.03.2012 the settlement was to remain

valid for a further period of 5 years. As full computerization

could not be introduced in the mills, the settlement is still

in operation. So far as the workmen are concerned, the

award passed by the Special Industrial Tribunal was in

force. After this, a dispute was raised and the reference

made consequently is still pending. Even while it is pending

a settlement was reached on 08.01.2009. This was to be in

force for a period of 5 years from 01.01.2008. By this

settlement it was agreed that further demand resulting in

any financial commitment will not be made. So it is not

permissible for the petitioner also to contest the issue.

The total number of workmen in all the 15 mills under the

NTC comes to 4000. There are about 200 other staff also.

The petitioner union has only 84 workmen on its rolls, all

of them in Murugan Mills, Coimbatore. The petitioner has

got only 2% membership of the entire members and

therefore has no representative capacity to raise the

dispute on behalf of the workmen of 15 textile mills in the

Southern Region. The mills under the National Textiles

Corporation are continuously incurring loss. It has no

capacity to bear additional financial burden. So it is not

permissible for the petitioner to claim increase in wages.

The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The petitioner has filed a rejoinder reiterating the

case in the petition and also countering the facts stated in

the counter statement.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext.W17 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M17.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2901

The points for consideration are :

(i)

Whether the refusal of the Respondent to implement

the recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission to

all employees of NTC Mills of Southern Region is

justifiable?

(ii)

What is the relief to which the employees are entitled

to?

The Points

The NTC Mills Workers and Staff Union which is

one of the several unions representing the staff and

workers of the textile unions under the Respondent has

raised the dispute claiming that the staff and workmen are

entitled to the benefits as recommended by the 6^th Pay

Commission. The members of petitioner union are all in

Murugan Mills, Coimbatore. The workers or staff of other

textile units under the NTC are not in the rolls of the

Petitioner Union.

9. The petitioner has claimed that all the workers

and staff of the different units of the NTC in the Southern

Region are entitled to the benefits of the 6^th Pay

Commission. It is alleged by the petitioner that the benefits

recommended by the 6^th Pay Commission has been

extended to only a few of the staff. It is claimed that this is

discriminatory and all are entitled to have the benefits. To

substantiate the claim it is stated by the petitioner that the

Public Sector Undertakings like BHEL and NLC have

implemented the recommendations of the 6^th Pay

Commission. According to the petitioner, the Pay

Commission Recommendations are applicable to all Public

Sector Units also.

10. All the above claims made by the petitioner are

effectively countenanced by the Respondent.

It is pointed out by the counsel for the Respondent

that the Pay Commission recommendations are not

intended to the workers or other staff of the Public Sector

Units. The recommendations of the Pay Commission would

have force only if it is approved by the Government. It is

not necessary that the entire recommendations made by

the commission are accepted by the Government. The

counsel has supplied the copy of the 6^th Central Pay

Commission report. The introductory portion of this would

show what are the terms of reference of the Commission.

It is to govern the structure of pay, allowances and other

facilities for the categories of employees including Central

Government Employees, personnel belonging to All India

Services, Defence Forces, Union territories, Officers and

Employees of Indian Audit and Accounts Department and

Members of the Regulatory Bodies set up under the acts

of the Parliament. Thus, it is clear that the staff and workmen

of the Public Sector Undertakings did not come under the

purview of the Commission. On the basis of the report of

the commission, accepting some of the recommendations

of the commission, the government has issued a

notification regarding the revised pay for Central Civil

Services. Rule-2 of this states that it shall apply to persons

appointed to Civil Services and posts in connection with

the affairs of the Union whose pay is debitable to the Civil

Estimates as also to persons serving in Indian Audit and

Accounts Department. This also makes it clear that it will

not apply to those working in Public Sector Undertakings.

11.The argument on behalf of the petitioner is that

the recommendations of the Commission were implemented

by the BHEL and NLC which are Public Sector

Undertakings. Probably, the recommendations might have

been accepted by these units and implemented by them. It

does not mean the recommendations should per se be

accepted by the NTC and the benefit should be extended

to the workmen and staff of the Corporation also.

According to the petitioner, some of the staff of the

Corporation are also getting the benefits of the Pay

Commission. This has been properly explained by the

Respondent. The Respondent is a Company which had

been formed based on the then requirement. Several textile

mills of the country had become sick and these were taken

over by the Government by the Sick Textile Undertakings

(Nationalization), Act, 1974. Nine subsidiary companies

were also formed. The textile mills which were vested with

the Government on nationalization and transferred to the

Respondent came under the purview of the different

subsidiary companies depending on their location. The

Respondent Company as well as the subsidiary companies

were having offices on their own rolls and also on

deputation from the Central Government and they were

enjoying pay scales and other service conditions

recommended by the Central Pay Commission and

implemented by the Government. Apart from these

persons, no one else working in different textile units were

enjoying this benefit. Those employees who were enjoying

the benefits were already in the service of the Govt. and

were entitled to continue to enjoy the same.

12.The petitioner has also stated in the Claim

Statement that the Anglo French Textiles under

Pondicherry Union Government has implemented the

recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission. However,

this also will not help the petitioner. Of course, if the

Respondent Corporation decides to implement the

recommendations of the Pay Commission it is well and

good. However, it is a policy decision to be taken by them.

The petitioner cannot claim the benefits of the 6^th Pay

Commission Recommendation as a matter of right.

13.The petitioner has stated that disparity is existing

in the wages between those who are enjoying the benefits

recommended by the Pay Commission and those others

like the workers and staff of the different textile units

working under the NTC. According to the petitioner, the

Apex Court has directed that equal pay should be given

for equal work. It is argued that on this basis also the

2902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workers and staffs of the textile units are entitled to have

the benefits of the Pay Commission. The relevant Supreme

Court judgment has been produced by the petitioner and

is in fact marked as Ext.W5. According to the petitioner,

the Apex Court had directed revision of pay to the staff

and sub-staff working in the mills. In the above case, the

staff and sub-staff engaged by the various textile mills

under the NTC had claimed equal pay for equal work. The

Apex Court has found that the nature of duties of the

staff in the two categories is not at par and therefore

demand for parity in pay scale is not tenable. In spite of

this dictum laid down, the Apex Court has stated that there

cannot be total denial of revision of pay to the staff and

sub-staff working in the mills. The Apex Court has stated

that the workers deserves some relief though not in parity

of pay scales with staff / sub-staff working in corporate

offices but on account of revision of pay-scales, increase

of DA or emoluments from time to times, as and when fell

due during the period of nearly three decades since when,

no revision of their pay-scales has been made. Thus, it

could be seen that the above direction was given by the

Apex Court since no revision of pay was given to them for

almost three decades. It was not a case of treating the

staff and sub-staff of NTC in par with the employees under

the Government. Again, the direction was not in respect

of the workmen but only in respect of the staff and sub-

staff.

14. The above judgment of the Apex Court was

rendered on 14.10.2003 Subsequently, there has been

revision of wages by negotiation between the workers

and settlement was effected. Wages of the staff category

was revised by settlement dated 11.09.2007. This was to

remain in force from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2012. The copy of

the settlement is marked as Ext.M6. The concluding portion

of the settlement states that it would be in force for a

period of 5 years from 01.04.2007 within which period for

computerization with reduction in staff strength will be

implemented in all units covered by the settlement. The

present dispute was raised even while the settlement was

in force, on 03.05.2011 as seen from Ext.W1 the letter

making the demand by the petitioner. So far as the workmen

are concerned another settlement was effected on

08.01.2009. It is to be in force for a period of 5 years from

01.01.2008. The settlement is marked as Ext.M3. Clause-

10 of this settlement states that both parties unanimously

agree that the settlement will be in force for a period of 5

years from 01.01.2008 so this was also in force at the

time when the dispute was raised. Ext.M3 comprises of

two different settlement entered into with two different

unions. In fact WW1 who is the General Secretary of the

Petitioner Union has also signed this settlement. It has

been admitted by WW1 during his cross-examination that

the settlement was in force when the dispute was raised.

The counsel for the Respondent has referred to the

decision reported in 1968 1 LLJ 555 where it has been held

that during the currency of a settlement dispute under

same issue could not be raised. For the very reason that

the dispute was raised during the currency of the

settlement the same is not maintainable.

15.Lastly it has been pointed out by the Counsel for

the Respondent that the petitioner is not competent to

represent the 4000 workmen of the 15 mills situated in

Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and

Puducherry. The membership of the petitioner is among

the workmen of Murugan Mills, Coimbatore only. As

admitted by WW1 himself the total number of workers in

the mill is only 420. According to MW1, examined on behalf

of the Respondent, the petitioner has membership of 100

workers. The result of the referendum conducted for

recognition of Trade Unions in the unit of NTC in Tamil

Nadu has been supplied. The percentage of votes obtained

by the petitioner union is 3.2 and total number of votes

obtained is 95. The referendum was in respect of the units

in Tamil Nadu only and the total number of the electorate

is 2952. Even in this, the representation of the petitioner is

only 3.2% only. The petitioner has stated in the petition

itself that a dispute has been raised on behalf of the

workmen of Tamil Nadu in the unit of NTC and that it is

already pending before the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal.

The claim made by the petitioner is that the present dispute

is on behalf of the employees of the units in Kerala,

Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh and also Tamil Nadu. Thus

they are claiming to be representing a very large number

of work force.

16.It is argued by the Counsel for the Respondent

that the petitioner is not entitled to raise the dispute since

they represent only a very small number of workmen. The

counsel has referred to the decision in the

MANAGEMENT OF MADURA MILLS CO. LTD. VS. THE

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MADRAS AND OTHERS

reported in 1973 2 LLJ 341 in this respect. In the above

case it was held that the evidence to show that the

petitioner has got support of a substantial number of

employees is vague. The order of the Tribunal was

quashed and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal

for consideration afresh. In the decision WAZIR SULTAN

TOBACCO CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

reported in 1964 1 LLJ 622 the Andhra Pradesh High Court

has held that the cause of the dismissed employee was

espoused by 104 workmen out of 2170 workmen and it

cannot be said to be substantial. In fact the petitioner

union who is having the membership of 95 members is

claiming to espouse the cause of 4000 workers who are

represented by the several unions. Certainly, the petitioner

could not be said to be having substantial representation.

The counsel for the Respondent has referred to the

Supreme Court decision NEWSPAPERS LTD. VS.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, UP AND OTHERS reported in

1957 2 LLJ 1 where it was held that making of a reference

is not destructive of the rights of an aggrieved party to

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2903

show that what was referred was not an “industrial

dispute” at all and therefore the jurisdiction of the Tribunal

to make the award can be questioned, even though factual

existence of a dispute may not be subject to a party’s

challenge. In the absence of a substantial representation,

the dispute raised by the petitioner could not be said to be

an “industrial dispute” coming under Section-2K of the

Industrial Disputes Act. For this reason also, the petitioner

is not entitled to any relief.

17.In view of my discussion, the petitioner is not

entitled to any relief.

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 19^th February, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/

WW1, Sri P.D. Mohanraj

Petitioner

For the 2^nd Party/

MW1, Sri N. Gunasekaran

Management

Documents Marked on the side of the Petitioner

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

03.05.2011

Copy of the ID raised by the Union

Ex.W2

04.05.2011

Copy of the letter by the Union to

the Management

Ex.W3

30.08.2011

Copy of the failure report by the

Assistant Labour Commissioner

Ex.W4

19.12.2013

Copy of the order by the Ministry

of Labour – Notice in ID 82/2012

Ex.W5

2004

Supreme Court Judgment made in

2004(1)LLN 32

Ex.W6

13.04.2004

Copy of granting relief by the

Ministry of Textiles

Ex.W7

02.03.2005

Copy of the circular by NTC

Ex.W8

05.10.2006

Statement of Arbitrator (JCL)

Ex.W9

16.10.2006

Copy of the settlement u/s 12(3)

of the ID Act.

Ex.W10

14.12.2011

Copy of the settlement u/s 12(3)

of the ID Act.

Ex.W11

03.02.2012

Copy of the letter by NTC to the

Union

Ex.W12

04.08.2012

Copy of the revision of Pay Scale

Ex.W13

Jan. 2013

Pay bill of the Mohanraj and

others

Ex.W14

31.01.2013

Copy of the Office bearers of the

Union

Ex.W15

23.01.1990

Copy of Registration Certificate

of the Union

Ex.W16

10.07.2012

Copy of the Union Annual Report

“E” form submitted to the

Registrar of Trade Union

Ex.W17

Bye Laws of the Union

Documents marked on the side of the Management

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex..M1

23.02.1987

Thiru K.E. Varadhan Award

Ex.M2

29.11.1996

Thiru K. Natarajan Award

Ex.M3

08.01.2009

Settlement

Ex.M4

Statement of number of Clerical

Staff Workmen in each of the 15

mills in Southern Region

Ex.M5

BIFR – Reference

Ex.M6

11.09.2007

Settlement

Ex.M7

05.03.2013

Settlement

Ex.M8

03.12.2012

Proceedings of the Misc.

Application hearing before

06.12.2012

BIFR the II Bench – in Misc. –

Application No. 429/2012 – BIFR

Proceedings

Ex.M9

20.09.2010

National Textile Corporation Ltd.

– Southern Regional office –

Consolidation – Balance Sheet,

Profit and Loss A/c for the year

ended 2009 and 2010

Ex.M10

20.10.2011

For the year ended 2010-2011

Ex.M11

20.11.2012

For the year ended 2011-2012

Ex.M12

2012-2013

For the year ended 2012-2013

Ex.M13

19.12.2010

Election of Union by Secret Ballot

– Results – Recognition of Four

Trade Unions

Ex.M14

18.12.2013

Charter of Demands – Jointly by

(1) CBE Periyar District Dravida

Panjalai Thozhilalar Munnetra

Sangam (L&F), (2) Kovai Mandala

Panjalai thozhilalar Sangam

(NDLF), (3) Kovai Mavatta Mill

Thozhilalar Sangam (CITU) and

(4) Desiya Panjalai Thozhilalar

Sangam (INTUC) – addressed to

Chief General Manager, NTC Ltd.,

Coimbatore

2904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.M15

23.08.2013

Letter from NTC Ltd., New Delhi

addressed jointly to the above 4

Recognized Unions – Recording

the discussions with Hon’ble MP

alongwith the Union and

Management representatives

Ex.M16

12.11.2013

Letter from NTC Ltd., CBE –

addressed to four (4) Recognized

Unions – for continuation of

discussion on 15.11.2013 on

Charter of Demands

Ex.M17

13.11.2013

Notice for a meeting for

Rationalization of Clerical Staff

category on 16.11.2013

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1128-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj

VsfydkWe] ukxiqj ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,o Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k CGIT/LC/R/109@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 20@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@03@2002&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2014

S.O.

1128.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

LC/R/109/2003) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur, now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Director Telecom

Nagpur and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 20/03/2014.

[No. L-40012/03/2002-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/109/2003

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE

Shri Deepak Kumar Dohare,

H. No. 416, Near Kali Mandir,

Banarasidas Mohalla,

Phaphoond Chouraha,

Distt. Oraiyya (UP)

.......Workman

Versus

The Director Telecom,

RE Project,

46, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur

......Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 4^th day of March 2014)

As per letter dated 9-6-2003 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-40012/

3/2002-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Director

Telecom, RE Project, Nagpur in terminating the

services of Shri Deepak Kumar Dohare w.e.f. 30-8-90

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

entitled for?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 4/1 to 4/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he

was initially appointed in April 1988 in establishment of

IInd party as casual labour. He was continuously working

with IInd party till 23-3-90. He was appointed against

permanent vacant post of labour. That he had completed

240 days continuous service and as such entitled to be

regularized. That IInd party discriminated him. Instead of

regularizing, his services, he was terminated without notice.

He was not paid retrenchment compensation. He was not

given opportunity of hearing,. No enquiry was conducted

against him. Termination of his services is in violation of

Section 25 of I.D.Act. However he is not in gainful

employment. On such ground, workman prays for setting

aside his termination and reinstated in service.

3. IInd party filed written Statement at Page 8/1 to

8/2. IInd party has denied all material contentions of

workman. IInd party submits that workman was engaged

on 1-4-88 for project work with condition that his service

will continue till completion of project. That in August

1989, workman was absent without intimation. He left

work before completion of the project. He submitted that

workman never completed 240 days during any calendar

year. In 1988, workman completed 214 days, in 1989, 102

days working. Workman was not working against vacant

permanent post. His services wee not terminated by IInd

party. Workman himself left job in august 1989 without

intimation. IInd prays 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 Director

Telecom, RE Project, Nagpur

in terminating the services

of Shri Deepak Kumar Dohare

w.e.f. 30-8-90 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not entitled

workman is entitled to?”

to relief claimed by him.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2905

REASONS

5. Though workman challenged termination of his

services for violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act claiming

that he had completed 240 days continuous service. He

was working in IInd party from April 1988 till 1990. Affidavit

of evidence is filed but workman failed to appear for his

cross-examination therefore his evidence can not be

considered. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri

W.N.Lanjewar covering contentions of management in

Written Statement. Said witness was not made available

for cross-examination. Affidavit of Shri D.S.Thakur is filed.

Workman remained absent and filed to cross-examine him.

Thus workman has not participated in reference

proceeding. His evidence cannot be considered as he failed

to appear for his cross-examination. As evidence of

management’s witness remained unchallenged, I find no

reason to disbelieve his evidence. Thus claim of workman

is not substantiated by evidence that he had completed

240 days continuous service therefore no relief can be

granted in his favour. Learned counsel for IInd party R.S.

Khare submitted bunch of citation as workman has not

substantiated his claim, ratio held in citation needs no

discussion. For above reason, I record my finding in Point

No.1 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Action of the management of Director Telecom, RE

Project, Nagpur in terminating the services of Shri

Deepak Kumar Dohare w.e.f. 30-8-90 is proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief prayed by him.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1129-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy esustj

,u Vh lh fyfeVsM] dks;EcVksjs ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 81@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 20&03&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@07@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2014

S.O. 1129.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 81/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chennai, now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the General Manager NTC Ltd.,

Coimbatore and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 20-03-2014.

[No. L-42011/07/2012-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 7^th November, 2013

Preset K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 81/2012

(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

NTC Mill Management and their workman)

BETWEEN

1. The General Secretary

: 1^st Party/1^st Petitioner Union

Coimbatore District Mill

Labour Union, Cbe-9

2. The General Secretary

: 1^st Party/2^nd Petitioner Union

Kovai Periyar Mavatta

Dravida Panchalai

Thozhilalar Munnetra

Sangam, Cbe-45

3. The General Secretary

: 1^st Party/3^rd Petitioner Union

Coimbatore Regional

Mill Labour Union,

Cbe-35

4. The General Secretary

: 1^st Party/4^th Petitioner Union

National Textile Workers

Union, Cbe-45

AND

The General Manager

: 2^nd Party/Respondent

NTC Ltd., Coimbatore-9

Appearance:

For the Petitioner Unions : M/s Senthilnathan, Advocate

For the 2^nd Party/

: M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

Management

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-42011/07/2012-IR (DU)

dated 12.10.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

2906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the NTC Mill Management,

Southern Region, Coimbatore in respect of collecting

union subscription for more than one union is

justifiable or not? If not, what relief available to the

petitioner Union/employee?”

After the receipt of the Industrial Dispute this

Tribunal has numbered it as ID No. 81/2012 and issued

notices to both sides. Though the Respondent has entered

appearance through counsel, the First Party have failed to

appear, initially. My predecessor has considered the case

and has answered it against the First Party in the absence

of any material. Subsequently, the case has been restored

to file on application of the First Party on 19.04.2013. After

this the case was being posted for filing of the Claim

Statement by the First Party. In spite of repeated postings

given, the First Party have failed to file their Claim

Statement. Though, four unions are arrayed as First Party,

none of them have come forward to put forth their claim

by filing a Claim Statement. On all the occasions all of

them as well as the counsel were absent.

In the absence of any material to justify the dispute

under reference on the part of the First Party this Tribunal

is not in a position to answer the reference in favour of the

First Party. I find that the First Party are 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 7^th November, 2013)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th Petitioner Union :

None

For the 2^nd Party/Management :

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

N/A

On the Management’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1130-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,- osQ-

,l- bathfu;lZ ,aM dkWUVSªDVlZ ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2]

paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 128@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20&03&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@240@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2014

S.O.

1130.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 128/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, No. II Chandigarh, now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of The Managing Director, M/s AKS

Engineers & Contractors & Others and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

20-03-2014.

[No. L-42012/240/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri A.K. Rastogi, Presiding Officer.

Case No.128/2011

Registered on 28.4.2011

Sh. Bhoop Singh, S/o Sh. Prema,

Village Diargi, PO Diargi,

Tehsil Sadar, Mandi (HP).

......Applicants

Versus

The Managing Dir., M/s AKS Engineers and

Contractors Kol Dam Hydra Electric Power Project,

Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla.

Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,

Kol Dam Hydra Electric Power Project, Village Kayam,

PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.

.........Respondents

APPEARANCES:

For the workman

- Sh. M. S. Gorsi for the workman

For the Management - None for respondent No.1

Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent

No. 2

AWARD

Passed on-- 7.5.2013

Vide Order No.L-42012/240/2010 (IR(DU)), dated

28.3.2011 the Central Government 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 (in

short Act) has referred the aforesaid industrial disputes

for adjudication to this Tribunal.

“Whether the action of the management of M/s AKS

Engineers and Contractors a contractor of NTPC

Koldam Hydroelectric Power Project, Bilaspur in

terminating the services of their workman Sh. Bhoop

Singh S/o Sh. Prema w.e.f. 14.1.2008 for his alleged

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2907

act of habitual absenteeism is legal and justified?

What relief the workman is entitled to?”

Story in the claim statement is different from the

reference. The reference is about the termination of the

service of the workman on a charge of habitual absenteeism

while the claim statement is about retrenchment in violation

of Section 25G of the Act. It has been alleged that the

juniors were retained at the time of retrenchment of the

workman. Violation of Section 25H has also been alleged.

Dispute under reference has no mention in the claim

statement. Respondent No.1 Managing Director M/s AKS

Engineers (in short AKS) failed to appear despite sufficient

notice hence case proceeded against him. Respondent

No.2 Italian Thai Development Company (in short ITD)

contested the claim to say that the claimant has made out

a case for violation of provisions of retrenchment, whereas

it is revealed from the record of the employer i.e. sub-

Contractor respondent No.1 AKS that the workman had

been removed from the service after charge-sheeting and

holding a full-fledged inquiry on a charge of misconduct.

Hence the claimant has no case.

Despite several opportunities given to workman he

did not appear for evidence. From the claim statement itself

no dispute under reference is made out hence a ‘No

Dispute’ award is passed in the case. Reference is answered

against the workman. Let two hard copies of the award

and one soft copy be sent to the Central Government as

per the directions of the Central Government.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1131-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy esustj

vkWMZusUl iSQDVªh] tcyiqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdkas vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k CGIT/LC/R/66@93) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14011@19@91&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2014

S.O.

1131.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

LC/R/66/93) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Jabalpur, now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of General Manager, Ordnance Factory,

Jabalpur and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 20/03/2014.

[No. L-14011/19/91-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/66/93

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE

The Secretary,

Council of Trade Union,

1123, Wright Town,

In front of Gate No.3,

Jabalpur

......Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

Ordnance Factory,

Katni, Jabalpur

......Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 18^th day of February 2014)

As per letter dated 24-3-93 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-14011/

19/91-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“D;k vkMZusal QSDVªh] dVuh ftyk tcyiqj e-iz- ds

izca/kdksa }kjk lacaf/kr fuEufyf[kr 14 nSfud osru Hkksxh

Lohijksa dks fu;fefrdj.k u djus] fu;fer osrueku u

nsus ,ao lajk/ku dk;Zokgh ds yafcr jgrs gq;s lacaf/kr lHkh

fuEu 14 Jfedksa dks 15-11-91 ls lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus

dh dk;Zokgh U;k;ksfpr gSA ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr deZdkj

fdl vuqrks"k dk gdnkj gSa A”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workmen filed statement of claim at

Page 5/1 to 5/9. Case of workmen is that workmen 1 to 14

belongs to backward community. They claims to be

entitled to benefits and other emoluments and equality

before law. That they were subjected to discriminative

attitude. That they were employed by IInd party Ordnance

Factory Katni as sweeper in factory area and colliery of

Ordnance Factory. That they were in employment of IInd

party from 1982 to 15-11-91. Their services were terminated

without reasons. They were not paid retrenchment

compensation. That termination is in violation of

provisions of I.D.Act, 1947. Workman submits that by

virtue of continuously working, they were entitled for

regularization in service. Management adopted unfair

labour practice to deprive status of regular employee and

victimize them,. Workmen were not regularized in service.

They were not paid wages of regular employee on principle

of equal pay for equal work. Workman were initially paid

wages Rs. 7.50 per day wages increased to Rs. 9.50 in

1984, Rs. 12 in 1989, Rs. 22 after 1989.

2908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Workman submits that he had completed 240 days

continuous service against regular vacancies. That even

after working for more than 5 years, they were not

regularized wages of regular employees in Pay Rs. 750-

950 were not paid to them. That their services were

terminated in violation of Section 33(C)(b) during pendency

of conciliation proceeding referring the ratio held in various

cases. Workman says that they are entitled for

regularization on completing 240 days continuous service.

That IInd party has violated Schedule-V, Item No.10 of

I.D.Act. IInd party has engaged in unfair labour practice

which reads as under- Employ worker as Badlis, casuals

or temporaries and continue them as such for years with

the object of depriving them of the status of privilege of

permanent workman, comes under the purview of unfair

labour practice. The termination of their service is illegal.

On such ground, workman prays for reinstatement and

regularization of their services with consequential benefits.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/3

opposing claim of workman. IInd party submits that the

workman were intermittently engaged as daily rated

workers as and when required when regular sweepers were

absent. That services of few of them were taken on daily

wage basis against the functional requirement. There is

no question of terminating their services as the workman

were not employed as regular employee/sweeper. It is

submitted that the workman have not put up service for

more than 5 years claimed by them. They are not entitled

for regularization of service. Their services were engaged

on daily wages. Workman were paid Rs. 25/- per day . It is

denied that workmen are discriminated as they belong to

SC community. All other adverse contentions of workmen

are denied.

During pendency of reference, workman Harish

Kumar died. His LRs are substituted on record.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the termination of

In Negative

14 daily wage employee

shown in the list instead of

regularizing their services

during pendency of concilia-

tion proceeding from 15-3-91

is legal?

(ii)If so, to what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?”

REASONS

Workmen are challenging termination of their

services for violation of provisions of I.D.Act. Identical

affidavit of evidence are filed by workmen Hiralal, Ishwari

Prasad, Ram Prasad, Santosh, Anthailal, Laxmibai, Vinod

Ramashray, Smt.Chanshambai, Subhash Barthari, Asha

Samari, widow of Harish. All of those workmen have stated

in their affidavit that they were working as sweeper from

1982. Late Hiralal was also working from 1982. They were

paid wages Rs. 7.50. the wages were increased time to

time. Lastly Rs.22/- from 1989 onwards. That they were

continuously working from 1982 to 1991. Thereafter they

were engaged as contracts labour. Their services were not

regularized. The contractor was nominal. The work was

extracted by the management. In his cross-examination,

late Heeralal denies that he was working as sweeper in

Ordnance Factory Katni on daily wages. He denies that

he was engaged as per exigency of work when regular

employee was absent. He denies that he has not completed

240 days continuous working in any of the year. He

confirms content of Para-8 of the affidavit and he and

other workers were working under contractor Ramarao.

Shri Ishwari Prasad in his cross-examination says

he was working as sweeper. He was interviewed, his name

was called from Employment Exchange. He received letter

of appointment, he was paid salary every month. He denies

that he was working under contractor. He claims ignorance

of the contents of his affidavit. Ram Prasad in his cross-

examination says letter of appointment was received by

him. He denies that he was working as per exigency. He

denies suggestion that written appointment letter was not

given to him. That he was not working under contractor.

That he was discontinued from 1980. He denies that he

was engaged when regular employee was absent.

Shri Santosh in his cross-examination says he did not

recollect whether appointment letter was given to him,

pay slip was issued by management. He denied that he

was working under contractor. He denies that his services

were not terminated by the management. He denies that

his services were discontinued after the contract period

was completed. Shri Anthailal in his cross-examination

says appointment letter was given to him. His services

were orally discontinued. That he donot work under

contractor after termination of his service. Again he says

that after 2006, he did not work under any contractor. He

was unable to tell whether payment was made to him by

contractor of the management. That he had submitted

application form. He was interviewed, then appointment

letter was issued to him. Laxmi bai in her cross-examination

says that he was working on daily wages, she denies that

she was engaged for work as per exigencies when regular

sweeper was absent. She denies that she was working

under contractor. Some suggestions are denied by Vinod,

Subhash & Asha Samari.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of Niranjan

Lal. Management’s witness says workmen were not

employed as regular worker sweeper since 1982. That they

were engaged on daily rated basis as per requirement.

There is no question of terminating their services. That

the workman did not put in more than 5 years regular

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2909

service claimed by them. That Section 25-F of I.D.Act is

not attracted as workman did not work more than 240

days continuous service. That they are not entitled for

regularization. The termination of their service did not

work more than 240 days continuous service. That they

are not entitled for regularization. The termination of their

service is in violation of Section 33(2)(b) , 3(b) is denied.

Management’s witness in his cross-examination says that

he joined Ordnance Factory as Dy.General Manager on

19-4-2010 presently he is working as Joint General

Manager. That regular sweeper are working in the factory.

Their designation is changed as MTS. He denied that

workmen was appointed on pay scale basis. He denies

that employees were working from 1982 as regular

sweepers. Management’s witness admits that workmen

were not paid retrenchment compensation. However he

adds that they were not employees of IInd party. The

management’s witness has not produced any document

that all those employees were working as employees of

the contractor. The documents relating to the agreement

between contractor and management is not produced.

Whether the contractors were holding licence, whether

the establishment of IInd party is registered under

CL(R&A)Act, 1970. There is absolutely no pleadings or

evidence. The written notes submitted by counsel for

workman is consistent with their pleadings. In cross-

examination of workman, there was no denial that the

employees were not working with the IInd party as

sweeper, rather it is defence of IInd party that they were

employed as temporary employee as per need of the work.

The evidence of all the workmen that they were working

with IInd party from 1982 to 1991 is not shattered. I donot

find reason to disbelieve their evidence. Their services

are discontinued without notice, no retrenchment

compensation is paid to them. The evidence of the

workman that they were engaged after interview submitting

applications is not supported by the documents. Thus

recruitment process was not followed. The termination of

their service is in violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act.

therefore I record my finding on Point No.1 in Negative.

10.

Point No.2- in view of my finding on Point No.1, the

termination of service of workman is in violation of Section

25-F of I.D.Act, question arises whether they are entitled

for reinstatement with back wages. The evidence of the

employees/ workmen is not supported by document that

recruitment process was followed. Workmen were engaged

on daily wages from 1982 to 1991. Considering their

appointment was not made after following recruitment

process, they were not appointed against any vacant post

therefore the relevant would not be justified. Considering

the length of service put by those workmen, the reasonable

compensation would be appropriate. Reasonable

compensation Rs. 1 Lakh would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Action of the IInd party management terminating

services of 14 employees in the list is illegal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. One

Lakh to those 14 employees shown in the list.

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] 20 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1132-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lqifjUVsUMsUV

jsy Mkd lsok] tcyiqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k CGIT/LC/R/60@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@239@2002&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2014

S.O.

1132.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. CGIT/

LC/R/60/03) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Jabalpur, now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Superintendent Rail Dak Seva,

Jabalpur and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 20/03/2014.

[No. L-40012/239/2002-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/60/2003

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE

Shri Vinod Kumar Garg 74 others,

EWS/82, Dhanvantri Nagar,

Jabalpur.

......Workmen

Versus

The Superintendent,

Rail Dak Seva,

Jabalpur Mandal,

Jabalpur

......Management

2910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 26^th day of February 2014

As per letter dated 25-3-2013 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

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

40012/239/2002-IR(DU). The dispute under reference

relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Suptd.

of Rail Dak Seva, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur in not

regularizing the services of part time casual labour

working continuously as Class IV employees with

all consequential benefits is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the concerned workmen are

entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices are issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 6/1 to 6/3. Ist party workman submits that they

were appointed in 1986. The details shown in Para-1 of

the statement of claim. They were working as waterman/

Farrash in establishment of IInd party. That Competent

Authority issued circular dated 16-9-92, 28-4-97. That CAT

Hyderabad has referred judgment holding that part time

casual labour worker who rendered service more than a

decade are fully entitled for declaring their status as

temporary Group D staff. The copy of judgment and

circulars are produced. That they are working for more

than 15 years on part time basis. They press for temporary

status of Group D employee.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/3.

The engagement of Ist party workman as part time

waterman/Farrash is not denied. However it is submitted

that workmen are not entitled to temporary status of Group

D staff. Ministry issued communication dated 17-5-89

specifying purpose of recruitment in Group D post. Casual

labour stands at Sl. No.1 in priority subject to the

vacancies. That regularization of Ist party workman in

Group D post is not feasible. Quantum of work in RMS is

decreasing day by day and accordingly there is curtailment

of staff. At present the work is maintained within the

available staff. On such ground, IInd party denies claim of

the Ist party workman.

Ist party submitted rejoinder at 10/1 to 10/2

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of

In Affirmative

the management of Suptd.

of Rail Dak Seva, Jabalpur

Division, Jabalpur in not

regularizing the services of

part time casual labour

working continuously as

Class IV employees with all

consequential benefits is

legal ?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Relief prayed by

workman is entitled to?”

workmen are rejected.

REASONS

Though workmen are claiming temporary status as

Group D staff, their engagement as part time employee

since more than 15 years is not disputed. All the workmen

filed affidavit of their evidence. However they failed to

make available for their cross-examination. As per

ordersheet dated 4-10-10, their evidence was closed with

observation that their evidence shall not be looked into.

As such there is no evidence in support of claim by

workman. IInd party has not participated in the reference

proceeding, no evidence is adduced therefore I record my

finding on Point No.1 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Suptd. of Rail Dak

Seva, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur in not regularizing

the services of part time casual labour working

continuously as Class IV employees with all

consequential benefits is legal.

(2)

Workmen are not entitled to relief as prayed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1133-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj

flD;wfjVh isij fey] gks'kaxkckn ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k CGIT/LC/R/91@99) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@42@98&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2014

S.O.

1133.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. CGIT/

LC/R/91/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Jabalpur, now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of General Manager, Security Paper

Mill, Hoshangabad and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 20/03/2014.

[No. L-42011/42/98-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2911

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/91/99

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B. PATLE

General Secretary,

SPM Karamchari Union,

Hoshangabad

......Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

Security Paper Mill,

Hoshangabad

.......Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 3^rd day of March, 2014)

As per letter dated 16-2-99 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-42011/

42/98/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Security Paper Mill in not regularizing the

Group “C” and Group “D” employees as per

recommendations of NPC Report is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are

entitled for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Union failed to submit Statement of claim. Ist

party is proceeded exparte on 29-9-09. IInd party

management filed exparte Written Statement on 9-7-2011.

IInd party submits that workman was holding civil post.

Dispute is not tenable under I.D.Act. The Tribunal lacks

jurisdiction to decide the reference. In Original Application

No. 1148/96 and 550/97, CAT Bombay bench held that

industrial law is not applicable to persons holding civil

post.

IInd party further submits that recommendations of

National Pay Commission were accepted by Govt. The

Pay Commission was implemented from 21-10-92 entering

tripartite settlement. The NPC recommended creation of

new post and upgradation of existing post in all cadres i.e.

Group A, B, C & D and unclassified industrial and re-

designation of almost all posts. However the fact is that

the NPC did not make any recommendations that Group C,

D employees or for that matter any categories of employees

should be regularized from 21-10-92. That 21-10-92 was

agreed in the settlement for implementation of the report

and appointed against upgraded post were regularized

from said date. The employees promoted against newly

created post on adhoc basis were regularized convening

DPC after recruitment rules in respect of those post were

published. Soon after implementation of NPC report many

employees were given adhoc promotion giving relaxation

in qualifying service. IInd party submits that recruitment

rules were in draft stage and many of the employees in the

feeder posts had not put in the requisite years of qualifying

service. On such ground, IInd party prays for rejection of

the demand of Union for regularization of Group C & D

employees w.e.f. 21-10-92.

Considering pleadings, 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 General

Manager, Security Paper

Mill in not regularizing the

Group “C” and Group “D”

employees as per recommen-

dations of NPC Report is legal

and justified?

(ii)If not, what relief the

Workmen are not

workman is entitled to?”

entitled to relief

claimed by Union.

REASONS

Union has not participated in the reference

proceeding. Statement of claim is not filed. Claim for

regularization of Group C, D employees on 21-10-92 is

opposed by the management filing Written Statement.

Union not adduced any evidence. Management witness

Shri K.N. Mahapatra supported most of the contentions

in Written Statement in Affirmative of his evidence.

Management’s witness is not cross-examined. There is

no reason to disbelieve evidence of management’s

witness. For absence of evidence by Ist party Union, I

record my finding on Point No.1 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The Whether the action of the management of

General Manager, Security Paper Mill in not

regularizing the Group “C” and Group “D”

employees as per recommendations of NPC Report

is legal and proper.

(2)

Workmen are not entitled to relief prayed by Union.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

2912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1134-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj gSM bafM;u

,xzhdYpjy fjlpZ bafLVV~;wV jhtuy ohV fjlpZ LVs'ku] bankSj ds

izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k CGIT/LC/R/

91@94) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@03@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@15@93&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2014

S.O.

1134.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

LC/R/91/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Jabalpur, now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Head, Indian Agricultural

Research Institute, Regional Wheat Research Station,

Indore and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 20/03/2014.

[No. L-42012/15/93-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/91/94

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B. PATLE

Smt. Meera Bai,

W/o Shri Ram Kishan,

Gaon Pipalyahana,

Indore

.......Workman

Versus

The Head,

Indian Agricultural Research Institute,

Regional Wheat Research Station,

Indore

......Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 28^th day of February 2014)

As per letter dated 13-7-94 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/

15/93-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Head,

Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Regional

Wheat Research Station, Indore in terminating the

services of Smt. Mira Bai is legal and justified? If

not, what relief she is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party filed Statement of claim at Page 4/1 to

4/3. Case of Ist party workman is that she was working as

permanent labour from 1987 in establishment of IInd party.

She was paid salary in pay scale Rs. 750-940 per month.

Her services were discontinued/ terminated in 1992. She

submits that her services were terminated without issuing

chargesheet or conducting enquiry. She was called for

interview for permanent post in 1988, 1990, 1992. She was

not paid retrenchment compensation. Her services are

terminated to cause harassment. Other casual labours were

called for interview were regularized even after they had

crossed the prescribed age limit. That in October 1996,

Hon’ble Agriculture Minister had assured regularization

of daily wage labours. Despite she had continued more

than 240 days working, her services are terminated illegally.

She prays for reinstatement with consequential benefits.

IInd party filed Written Statement at page 6/1 to 6/3.

IInd party denied that workman was engaged in 1977. It is

denied that she was working as permanent labour. As IInd

party workman was first engaged in 1981 as seasonal

labour. She worked for 53 days in 1981. The wages were

paid as per the notification under Minimum Wages Act. It

is denied that workman was continuously working till 1992.

That muster roll of seasonal labours is not maintained. It

is denied that IInd party was engaging about 50 labours.

As per IInd party it was engaging 15-20 labours in sowing

season. That workman is not covered under Section 25 B

of I.D.Act. She has not worked for more than 240 days

continuously during any of the year. IInd party further

submits that it is not covered as Industry under I.D.Act.

That IInd party is involved in Research and not carrying

for profit motive. That IInd party is a sub station of ICER

society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860.

The allegation of workman are denied that unsuitable

persons were regularized and her services are terminated

to calls made to her. Workman is not entitled for

absorption. She is not entitled for any of the relief prayed.

On such ground, IInd party claims for rejection of claim.

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 Head,

Indian Agricultural Research

Institute, Regional Wheat

Research Station, Indore in

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2913

terminating the services of

Smt. Mira Bai is legal and

justified?

(ii)If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?”

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

Workman filed her affidavit of evidence stating that

she was working at Regional Research Centre, Indore. In

1992, she alongwith Keram Singh, Reham Singh, Mangu

Singh, Tarachand, Shantibai, Tejubai were called for

interview for absorption as permanent labour. That the

labours without experience are regularized. Despite of her

experience, she was not regularized. In her cross-

examination, workman says that she was not at work for 1-

2 months in a year. She was working rest of the year. She

says she was engaged during sowing season for 2 months

and harvesting season for 3 months. That she had failed

in the interview. That IInd party was taking soyabeen and

wheat crops. The evidence of workman is not cogent that

she was continuously working and completed 240 days

continuous service in particular year. The evidence of

management’s witness A.N.Rurali is on the line that

seasonal labours were engaged for sowing and harvesting

season. Workman was not continuously engaged. The

personal files of the seasonal labours were not maintained.

Payment was made as per muster roll. As sanctioned post

are not available, workman cannot be regularized. In his

cross-examnation, management’s witness says workman

was not working throughout the year. Labours were

engaged for seasonal work. The experienced labours were

regularized. The witness denied that workman had

completed more than 240 days continuous working. The

evidence discussed above is not sufficient to establish

that workman had completed 240 days continuous service

during any of the year. As such workman is not covered

as workman under Section 25-B of I.D.Act.

Learned counsel for IInd party has submitted bunch

of citations in which evidence adduced by workman is not

sufficient to prove that she was continuously working for

240 days during any of the year as such workman is not

entitled to protection of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. The

detailed discussions of ratio held in the citations is not

necessary. For the reasons discussed above, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Head, Indian

Agricultural Research Institute, Regional Wheat

Research Station, Indore in terminating the services

of Smt. Mira Bai is proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief prayed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1135-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMfotuy

bathfu;j VsfydkWe izkstsDV] Xokfy;j ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdkas

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj/230@93) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@118@91&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2014

S.O.

1135.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. CGIT/

LC/R/230/93) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur, now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of Divisional Engineer,

Telecom Project, Gwalior and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 20/03/2014.

[No. L-40012/118/91-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/230/93

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Chhote Khan,

S/o Shri Habi Khan,

Village Germi,

Distt. Bhind (MP)

.......Workman

Versus

Divisional Engineer,

Telecommunication Deptt.,

Gwalior (MP)

.....Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 9^th day of October 2013)

As per letter dated 20-22/10/93 by the Government

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/

118/91-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Divisional

Engineer Telecommunication Gwalior in terminating

the services of Shri Chhote Khan without any

charges and without retrenchment compensation is

justified or not? If not, for what relief the workman

is entitled for?”

2914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed his statement of claim

at Page 3/1 to 3/3. Case of workman is that he was engaged

on daily wages by IInd party from 1-10-85. Since then he

was continuously working with IInd party with devotion.

His services were discontinued from 1-8-87. His services

were orally terminated without issuing notice , pay in lieu

of notice was not paid to him, he was not paid retrenchment

compensation. He had completed 240 days continuous

service prior to termination of his services. IInd party has

violated provisions of Section 25-F, H & N of I.D.Act. On

such grounds, IInd party prays for his reinstatement with

consequential benefits.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/2.

IInd party submits that Divisional Engineer, Telecom

Gwalior is impleaded as party. That the workman was

working under Junior Telecom Officer, Gwalior who was

under control of the Divisional Engineer, Telecom Bhopal.

That workman was engaged as casual labour for specific

period in coaxial cable project, Gwalior. Workman was

engaged purely on temporary basis for specific work. He

was not appointed against any vacant post. There was no

need to give him notice. Workman is not covered under

I.D.Act. His services automatically came to end on 1-8-87

when he remained absent without prior intimation. IInd

party prays for rejection of claim.

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 Divisional

Engineer Telecommunication

Gwalior in terminating the

services of Shri Chhote Khan

without any charges and

without retrenchment

compensation is legal?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Relief claimed by

workman is entitled to?”

workman is rejected.

REASONS

Though workman is challenging termination of his

services alleging violation of Section 25-F, H & N of

I.D.Act filing his statement of claim, however he did not

participate in further proceedings of the reference, he has

not adduced any evidence in support of his claim. His

evidence was closed on 23-7-09. Management filed

affidavit of evidence of witness Shri S.N.Tiwari. Witness

of the management has stated that workman was engaged

as casual labour for specific work. His services

automatically came to end on 1-8-87 as he remained absent

without intimation. The evidence of management’s witness

remained unchallenged. Workman failed to adduce

evidence in support of his claim therefore the action of the

management cannot be said illegal. For above reasons, I

record my finding on Point No.1 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Action of the management of Divisional Engineer

Telecommunication Gwalior in terminating the

services of Shri Chhote Khan is proper.

(2)

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1136-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esustj okYol

çksMD'ku Hkkjr gSoh bysfDVªdYl fyfeVsM] f=kph ds izcaèkr=k ds

lac¼ fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 11@2013) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2014

S.O.

1136.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 11/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chennai, now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Manager (Valves Production), Bharat

Heavy Electricals Ltd., Trichy and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 20/03/2014.

[No. L-42025/03/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Monday, the 16^th December, 2013

Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2915

Industrial Dispute No. 11/2013

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

2(A)(2)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended

by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010) between the

Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and their

workman]

BETWEEN

Sri K. Sivasubramaniyan

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Manager

2^nd Party/Respondent

(Valves Production)

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

Building No. 5

Trichy-14

APPEARANCE:

For the 1^st Party/

M/s S. Muthukrishnan,

Petitioner

Advocate

For the 2^nd Party/

M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

Management

Advocates

AWARD

This is an Industrial Dispute taken on file under

2(A)(2)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended

by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010).

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief is this :

The Respondent Company had appointed the

petitioner as Artisan, by order dated 10.02.2009. while he

was working with the Respondent, the Respondent had

issued a Charge Sheet dated 30.01.2010 to the petitioner

alleging that Experience Certificate produced by him is

not genuine and he has committed the misconduct of

giving false information regarding his previous experience

for securing employment. Not satisfied with the

explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Respondent

conducted domestic enquiry against the petitioner. In the

enquiry the charge was found proved and the petitioner

was imposed the punishment of removal from service with

effect from 18.10.2010. The appeal filed by the petitioner

against this order was dismissed. The removal of the

petitioner from service is arbitrary and unreasonable. The

petitioner had not furnished any false information. The

certificate submitted by him is genuine. The petitioner is

entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of

service, back wages, etc.

Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending

as follows:

In 2008, the petitioner had applied for the post of

Artisan (temporary) in response to the employment notice

of the Respondent. The stipulated maximum age for

applying for the post was 30 years. The petitioner was

aged 31 years, 7 months and 15 days as on the cut-off

date. In his application he has shown work experience of 3

years with M/s Metcon Enterprises, Trichy to claim

relaxation of age. The petitioner had passed the test and

also the interview. After submitting his documents, the

petitioner had joined duty on 10.02.2009. When a reference

was made to M/s Metcon Enterprises who had issued

experience certificate to the petitioner for confirmation, a

reply was received stating that the petitioner worked in

the said firm as Fitter through Contractor. The contents of

the letter raised doubt about its genuineness and on

further verification, a Partner of M/s Metcon Enterprises

stated that the letter was not issued by the firm and that

the signatory was not authorized to sign on behalf of the

firm as on the date of issuance of the letter. Working with

a Contractor could not be considered as experience

in M/s Metcon Enterprises. Thus, the experience claimed

by the petitioner had turned out to be not genuine. A

charge sheet was issued to the petitioner for the

misconduct of false information regarding his previous

experience. The petitioner was not able to prove

genuineness of the certificate in the enquiry proceedings.

The petitioner was found guilty of the charges and the

punishment of removal from service was imposed on him.

In 2011, the Respondent had released another employment

notice for the post of Artisan-IV (Temporary) and the

petitioner had also applied for this post. He had secured

good marks in the test and had become eligible to be

considered for interview. His application for the post

showed that he had claimed experience of 20 months with

the Respondent Company. On verifying his file it was

revealed that he was earlier removed from the service of

the Management. So he was not called for interview. By

responding to the notification of vacancies in 2011, the

petitioner is to be deemed to have acquiesced to his earlier

termination so it is not permissible for him to raise the

industrial dispute. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of the petitioner examined as WW1 and documents marked

as Exs.W1 to Ex.W4 and Exs.M1 to Ex.M27.

The points for consideration are :

(i)

Whether the termination of the petitioner from

service of the Respondent on 18.10.2010 is legal and

justified?

(ii)

Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement

in service. If not, what if any, is the relief to which he

is entitled?”

The Points

The petitioner had applied for temporary post as

Artisan in the Respondent Company in the year 2008. The

maximum age limit for the post was 30 years. However, an

applicant was entitled to relaxation in age limit provided

2916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

he has necessary experience. The petitioner who was over

aged by 1 year, 7 months and 15 days on the cut-off date

of the application had given his application alongwith two

experience certificates from two different establishments

including that of one M/s Metcon Enterprises. The

petitioner became successful in the test conducted for the

post, was interviewed and was appointed and had joined

duty on 10.02.2009. The respondent subsequently noticed

that the experience certificate issued by M/s Metcon

Enterprises is not a genuine one, that the petitioner had

furnished false information and initiated disciplinary

proceedings against him. On the basis of the finding in

the enquiry that the certificate is not genuine, the petitioner

was terminated from service.

The only question that requires consideration is

whether the petitioner has furnished any false information

to the Management while applying for the post of Artisan,

so as to get age relaxation. Ex.M3 is the copy of the

application given by the petitioner to the Respondent. In

Column No. 14 of the same regarding relaxation of age, he

has stated that he has experience in M/s. Metcon

Enterprises, Trichy from March 2005 to March 2008. The

experience certificate issued by M/s. Metcon Enterprises

is seen at Page-29 of the typed set of the documents of the

Respondent and is marked alongwith joining report of the

petitioner as Ex.M6. This certificate states that the petitioner

has been working as Fitter under the Contractor of the

Company from March 2005 to March 2008 and has worked

in fabrication of boiler components for BHEL, Trichy. Ex.M8

is the letter written by the Respondent to the Managing

Director of M/s Metcon Enterprises to confirm the

experience claimed in the said Company by the petitioner.

The petitioner had joined the Respondent Company even

prior to this. Ex.M9 is said to be the letter written by the

authorized signatory of Metcon Enterprises stating that

the petitioner has worked in the establishment as Fitter

under its Contractor from March 2005 to March 2008 and

that the certificate is in order. The letter is seen signed by

one Govindarajulu. Thus, by Ex.M9 there is a confirmation

of the experience certificate earlier issued, that also by the

authorized signatory. One does not know what prompted

the Respondent to make a further verification regarding

the genuineness of the confirmation letter. What is stated

in the Counter Statement is that the statement in the letter

that “the petitioner worked in the said firm as Fitter

through their Contractor” raised doubt about the

genuineness and further verification was made with

Metcon Enterprises and the partner of Metcon Enterprises,

Karuppuswamy confirmed that the letter dated 12.06.2009

i.e. Ex.M9 was not issued by the firm and the signatory

was not authorized to sign on behalf of the firm as on the

date of issuance of the letter. It is pertinent to note that

even in the experience certificate dated 28.03.2008

submitted by the petitioner what is stated is that the

petitioner has worked under the Contractor of Metcon

Enterprises and not under the Enterprises directly. Thus,

it could be seen that the petitioner has not attempted to

conceal anything in his experience certificate, or rather

the experience certificate issued by Metcon Enterprises

was not a false one. Though, Ex.M9 and also the

experience certificate dated 28.03.2008 are by the authorized

signatories, the signatures are by two different persons,

yet there is no case for the Respondent that the person

who signed the experience certificate dated 28.03.2008 is

not has no authority to sign it and that it is not a genuine

one. The case is that the signatory in Ex.M9 was not

authorized to sign for Metcon Enterprises on the day on

which it was issued. As pointed out by the counsel for the

petitioner, the interesting part is that below the typed

contents of Ex.M9 there is a handwritten endorsement

that the letter was not issued by the Company and that

Govindarajulu who signed the letter on behalf of the

Company was not in the rolls of the Company as on

12.06.2009. There is only the statement in the Counter

Statement that this is written by Karuppuswamy, a partner

of Metcon Enterprises. It was for the Respondent who

has claimed in the enquiry proceedings that the signatory

to Ex.M9 has no authority to do so, to prove the same. But

no such proof is seen given in the enquiry proceedings.

On going through the documents produced by the

Respondent themselves, it could be seen that the petitioner

had not concealed any information or had given any false

information or had made any attempt of fraud. Even in his

application, he did not claim that he worked with Metcon

Enterprises directly. It is clear from the experience certificate

given that he worked under the Contractor of Metcon

Enterprises which was doing the work of boiler

components of BHEL. The demand of the Respondent at

the time of application was that the applicant should

have previous experience for age relaxation. That the

petitioner has worked for Metcon Enterprises through a

Contractor and has gained experience of the work should

not be a disqualification and could not have been

disregarded for the purpose of relaxation of age. Again, it

could be seen that Govindarajaulu who issued Ex.M9 was

a partner of Metcon Enterprises on the day on which it

was issued. Ex.W4 is the information supplied to the

petitioner by the Respondent itself on application under

the Right to Information Act. This gives the names of

Partners of M/s Metcon Enterprises from 01.01.2004 to

31.03.2010. This shows that Govindarajulu was a partner

of Metcon Enterprises as on the date when Ex.M9 was

issued. The case of the Respondent that the petitioner

has furnished false information seems to be only imaginary.

There is no case for the Respondent that the petitioner

did not work with the Contractor of M/s Metcon

Enterprises at all. So it is to be assumed that the case of

the petitioner that he worked for Metcon Enterprises under

its Contractor is not in dispute at all. So there is no question

of the petitioner lacking in experience for getting age

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2917

relaxation. The Enquiry Officer has given a finding based

on wrong analysis of facts. When Govindarajulu was a

partner of Metcon Enterprises even in July 2010, there

was no basis for the Enquiry Officer to state that the

letter showing the names of partners will not indicate the

date upto which Govindarajulu was a partner in the firm in

the year 2009. The petitioner who had obtained a job by

his severe effort with the Respondent was wrongly and

unjustly removed from service by the Respondent.

To crown the above, the Respondent has been cruel

enough not to call the petitioner for interview on a

subsequent application even though he has qualified the

written test with good marks. What is stated in the Counter

Statement is that even though removal of the petitioner

from the service of the Respondent previously was not a

disqualification for applying for job again, he was not

called for interview because of his previous removal from

service. The case of the Respondent that a second

application by the petitioner for a place in the Respondent

Company will amount to acquiescence of his previous

removal from service certainly could not be accepted. He

has challenged the order within time and therefore will be

entitled to relief if his case is genuine.

In view of my discussion above, the petitioner is

entitled to the relief of reinstatement in the service of the

Respondent. Considering the circumstances, I am inclined

to grant him 50% of back wages also with continuity of

service.

Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to reinstate

the petitioner in service with 50% back wages within one

month. The petitioner will be entitled to continuity of

service and other attendant benefits also.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 16^th December, 2013)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/

: WW1, Sri K. Sivasubramaniyan

Petitioner

For the 2^nd Party/

: None

Management

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

18.10.2010

Charge Sheet

Ex.W2

01.11.2010

Penalty Advice

Ex.W3

07.11.2012

Certificate to be issued by the

Conciliation Officer as provided

u/s 2A of the ID Act, 1947

Ex.W4

29.07.2010

Information under RTI Act, 2005

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

BHEL recruitment policy (extract

from Personnel Manual)

Ex.M2

Employment notice (No. 283) for

ARTISANS (Petitioner got the job,

in response to this notice)

Ex.M3

23.10.2008

Application of the petitioner

dated 23.10.2008

Ex.M4

25.01.2009

Permission slip for written test to

be conducted on 25.01.2009 (a

declaration from the candidate is

included in this slip)

Ex.M5

03.02.2009

Offer of appointment dated

03.02.2009

Ex.M6

10.02.2009

Joining report dated 10.02.2009

alongwith documents vis. (a)

Attestation form (4 pages), (b)

Experience Certificates from

Stahllform Technik Pvt. Ltd. and

M/s Metcon Enterprises (c) OBC

Certificates

Ex.M7

17.02.2009

Office Order – Joining the

Company dated 17.02.2009

Ex.M8

22.05.2009

Letters (2 Nos.) dated 22.05.2009

sent by BHEL to the respective

organizations

confirm

genuineness of the experience

certificate

Ex.M9

12.06.2009

Reply sent by M/s Metcon

Enterprises dated 12.06.2009

(Endorsement made by partner on

a later date denying issuance of

such a letter also seen in the

bottom end of the letter)

Ex.M10

30.01.2010

Charge Sheet

Ex.M11

16.02.2010

Reply dated 16.02.2010 (reply to

charge sheet)

Ex.M12

04.03.2010

Notice of enquiry dated 04.03.2010

(sitting on 10.03.2010)

Ex.M13

10.03.2010

Minutes of enquiry proceedings

conducted on 10.03.2010

Ex.M14

15.04.2010

Minutes of enquiry proceedings

conducted on 15.04.2010

Ex.M15

Enquiry findings alongwith letter

dated 15.07.2010 (show cause

notice) inviting views of the

petitioner to the findings

Ex.M16

20.08.2010

Reply to the findings

Ex.M17

18.10.2010

Penalty advice dated 18.10.2010 –

Removal from Service

Ex.M18

28.10.2010

Appeal against the penalty

2918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.M19

01.11.2010

Rejection letter dated 01.11.2010

and confirming the punishment

Ex.M20

04.11.2010

Office Order – Name deleted from

Roll list

Ex.M21

17.05.2012

Petition under S.2A before ALC

(Central)

Ex.M22

Reply submitted to ALC © by

BHEL

Ex.M23

Employment notice no. 290

Ex.M24

30.05.2011

Application dated 30.05.2011 made

by the petitioner alongwith (a)

Experience Certificates – 3 Nos.

inclusive of BHEL

Ex.M25

24.08.2011

Order dated 24.08.2011 in WP

(MD). 9565/2011

Ex.M26

Standing Orders of BHEL

ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1137-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ps;jeSu

jsftesaVy ,lksfl,'ku g D;w 1] bZ ,e bZ lsaVj] fldUnjkckn ds

izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;&1] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 12@2011) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@03@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 24th March, 2014

S.O.

1137.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 12/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Hyderabad, now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of The Chairman, regimental Association,

HQ 1, EME Centre, Secunderabad and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

24/03/2014.

[No. L-42012/03/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

Present : SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI,

Presiding Officer

(Dated the 13th day of February, 2014)

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 12/2011

Between:

Sri S.C. Roy,

S/o Late Satish Chander Roy,

R/o 24-641,

Maruthinagar, Road No.4,

Trimulgherry, Secunderabad-15.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Chairman,

Regimental Association, HQ 1,

EME Centre, Secunderabad-10.

The Commandant,

Military College of EME,

Secunderabad,

Lt.Col, O/o EME Archives &Museum

(EME A & M)

C/o Military College of Electronics and

Mechanical Engineering

Pin.900543.

C/o 56 APO

….Respondents

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. R. Yogender Singh, C.V.N.

Rama Krishna & S. Maheshwarudu,

Advocates

For the Respondent : Sri G. Jaya Prakash Babu, Advocate

AWARD

Sri S.C. Roy, the Petitioner has filed this petition

invoking Sec.2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

seeking for setting aside the termination order dated

1q6.9.2010 issued by the third Respondent declaring it as

void, illegal and to reinstate the Petitioner into the services

of the Respondent with back wages and all other

consequential benefits.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as

follows:

Petitioner was appointed as Technical Supervisor at

EME Archives & Museum w.e.f. 3.10.1990, which involves

with maintenance of Museum located in the premises of

Military College of EME, Secunderabad. He was appointed

through association which is registered under Societies

Act, and which is under the control of the 1st Respondent,

which in its turn being maintained with the Central

Government funds, through which Petitioner was receiving

the consolidated pay of Rs.5500 per month. Respondents

are paying the salaries of the employees of association

which is also controlling the affairs of Museum. Being an

association, Respondent organization is squarely covered

under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2nd Respondent is

the controlling authority of the affairs of the 3rd

Respondent. 3rd Respondent is the delegated authority

of 1st Respondent who terminated the services of the

Petitioner vide orders dted 16.9.2010 without assigning

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2919

any reason. Petitioner served the said organization very

devotedly and his services were appreciated by each and

every authority of the Respondent organization. During

the month of August, 2010 Petitioner fell sick due to kidney

problem for which he has under gone treatment in care

hospital, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad to the knowledge of

the Respondents. Surprisingly, while he was unable to

attend to his duties, he received a letter on 16.9.2010,

wherein, the 3rd Respondent terminated his services

without any reason which is in total violation of law and

principles of natural justice . Legal notice was issued by

the Petitioner to the Respondents and it was duly

acknowledged by 3rd Respondent during the month of

October, 2010 but they have not responded. Another legal

notice dated 8.12.2010 also was issued to the Respondents

but without any response. The action of the Respondents

in terminating the services of the Petitioner after extracting

his services for 21l years and without following the

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not correct.

Hence, the petition.

Counter in the form of affidavit is filed by Col.

Shaji M. Varghese, MCEME on behalf of Respondents

No.1,2 and 3 with the averments in brief as follows:

Petitioner was appointed by MCEME as Technical

Supervisor to look after EME , Archives & Museum and

his salary was given from Regimental Association as

Archives & Museum is a Regimental Institute of Corps of

EME. No Central Government funds are provided to

Regimental Association and thus it does not come under

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In a capacity of administrator

appointed by 2nd Respondent. Third Respondent has

authority to issue the termination bringing it to the

knowledge of 1st and 2nd Respondents. Petitioner never

informed the organization about his sickness and he

absented himself on many occasions without informing

and causing inconvenience. Petitioner was requested to

offer his resignation in view of advancing age of 66 years

and medical condition which was not disclosed to

organization. Prolonged absence was affecting the Central

Institute of Corps. Notice dated 8.12.2010 was replied by

Sri D. P. Ghadge, Lieutenant Colonel, Officer-in-charge,

Archives and Museum though their counsel, Sri G. Jaya

Prakash Babu, Sr. Central Government Standing Counsel

on 15.1.2011. Petitioner’s appointment was temporary and

it does not come under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

No Central Government funds are spent for paying salary

to the Petitioner. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

entertain his claim. Petitioner was a Sub-Major and retired

from service on attaining the age of superannuation and

he was appointed by the Respondents purely on

temporary basis. His services were used depending on

the exigencies of the Respondents. In view of

advancement of age and his frequent absence to duty

was hampering the maintenance and other works of the

Respondent Department which is an association, his

services were terminated. The same is valid. Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 does not apply to this case. Petition is

liable to be dismissed.

To substantiate his contentions, Petitioner/workman

has examined himself as WW1 and got marked Ex.W1 to

W6. on behalf of the Respondent management MW1 was

examined and Ex.M1 and M2 were marked.

Heard the arguments of either party.

The points that arise for determination are:

Whether this Tribunal got jurisdiction to entertain

this case?

II.

Whether the impugned termination order is liable to

be set aside? If so, on what grounds?

III.

To what relief the Petitioner is entitled to?

Point No. I :

It is the contention of the Petitioner that being an

association, the Respondent organization squarely

covered under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Where as it

is the contention of the Respondents that EME Archives

and Museum in which the Petitioner has been engaged as

Technical Supervisor is maintained by Regimental

Association, as the said Archives and Museum is a

regimental institute of Corps of EME and further no Central

Government funds are provided to Regimental Association

and thus, it does not come under Industrial Disputes Act,

1947.

There is no evidence made available on record to

show that any central government funds are provided to

Regimental Association. Ex.W6 is the letter which,

according to the Petitioner, shows that there are grants

from the central government. But a perusal of the said

letter does not give raise to the understanding that any

central government funds were allocated to the

Respondent organization.

It is the specific contention of the Respondents that

Respondent does not come under the definition of

‘Industry’ as defined in Sec. 2(j) of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 and Petitioner does not come under the definition

of workman as defined in Sec.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 and therefore, there is no industrial dispute to

be taken cognizance off by this forum.

10.

Now it is to be verified whether Respondent

organization is an industry and whether Petitioner is a

workman. Sec.2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines

the ‘Industry” as follows:

‘‘Industry” means any business, trade, undertaking,

manufacture or calling of employers and includes

any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or

industrial occupation or avocation of workmen”

2920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Whereas the Respondent organization is Archives

and Museum. It is neither doing any business nor doing

any trade and it is not an undertaking and it is not

manufacturing any goods or services. It is an

archaeological museum which is meant for preservation

of the important documents and objects to the benefit of

society. There will be neither profit nor any earning in it.

By any stretch of imagination the said organization can be

brought into the purview of the definition of ‘Industry’

as provided in Sec.2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The contention of the Petitioner that since being an

Association, Respondent organization is squarely comes

under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not at all a proper

and acceptable. Just because Respondent organization is

an association it will not attract any of the ingredients of

Sec.2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, the

Respondent organization i.e., EME Archives and Museum

in which Petitioner worked as technical supervisor is not

an ‘Industry’.

11.

Petitioner has been engaged as Technical Supervisor

to look after EME Archives and Museum by MCEME,

after his retirement from services as Sub-Major, Military

College of EME. He was being paid salary of Rs.5500/- per

month. At no point of time he has drawn salary of less

than Rs.1600/- per month, as can be seen from the material

on record. It can be said so since at the time of his

appointment his salary was Rs.3000/- per month as per his

own evidence as WW1. It was raised from time to time

and his last drawn pay was Rs.5500/- per month. His

designation itself indicates that he was employed in a

supervisory capacity. Ex.M2 indicates the various duties

which were entrusted to the Petitioner as Technical

Supervisor of EME Archives and Museum. A perusal of

the said duties clearly show that he was holding a very

responsible job and he was practically incharge of the

Museum. Thus, it can not be said that he has been a

workman and he will come under the purview of the

definition of workman as indicated in Sec.2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

12.

Even otherwise as already discussed above,

Respondent organization is not an ‘Industry’ and thus,

Petitioner can not be treated as workman and for this reason

also the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondents

can not be termed as an industrial dispute.

In view of the fore gone discussion it is held that,

this court can not decide the present dispute which is not

an industrial dispute.

This point is answered accordingly.

13.

Point No. II :

To arrive at comprehensive disposal of this case

this point is also to be taken up, irrespective of the finding

given in Point No.I.

14.

No doubt, the impugned order i.e., Ex.W1 is not

containing any reasons for termination of the Petitioner

from service. It is the contention of the Petitioner that

while he was attending to service regularly, surprisingly

and suddenly his services were terminated by virtue of

Ex.W1 order. Whereas it is the contention of the

Respondents that Petitioner has been absenting himself

from duties frequently due to his advanced age and also

illness and that he did not inform of his sickness to the

Respondent and never sought for any leave but absented

himself that result is to substantial inconvenience to the

Respondent organization and that after orally requiring

the Petitioner to offer resignation and since he failed to

offer any such resignation, his services were terminated

by virtue of Ex.W1 order. But as already discussed above,

Ex.W1 contains none of these reasons.

15.

The record indicates that Petitioner suffered serious

ailments like Kidney problem and was admitted in Care

Hospital for treatment in August, 2010. But he failed to

disclose the said fact to the Respondents and did not

obtain any leave, as can be seen from the material on

record. He admitted that he has not taken any leave during

his service as Technical Supervisor. But he was

hospitalized and under went treatment. That means,

without applying for and securing leave, he has done so.

It is the complaint of the Respondents that he was

frequently absenting himself from duties unauthorizedly

causing inconvenience and hardship to the Respondents.

The very fact that he failed to secure any leave, though

he was hospitalized clearly indicates there is substance in

the contentions of the Respondents. He further admitted

while he was under cross examination as WW1 that

Respondent organization asked him to offer resignation,

but claimed that, that was after they served termination

letter on him. But the fact remains that there is substance

in the contentions of the Respondents that due to the

frequent absence from the duty on the part of the Petitioner

without intimation, hardship was there for them. Petitioner

though, there was some reasonable cause for his absence

like sickness, he failed to inform of the same to the

Respondents and he never sought for grant of any leave.

This conduct on his part indicates that he was consciously

committed the lapse of unauthorized absence from duties.

Considering all these circumstances one can not say that

termination of the service of the Petitioner from duties is

in any way incorrect. But terminating his services without

assigning any reasons in the termination letter is not correct

and proper. In any view of the matter for this reason, the

impugned termination order is liable to be set aside if it is

an industrial dispute.

16.

But since, the present dispute is not an Industrial

Dispute as per the finding arrived at while deciding Point

No.I, this forum shall not interfere with the impugned order.

This point is answered accordingly.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2921

17.

Point No. III :

In view of the finding given in Point Nos. I and II

Petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result:

In the result, petition is dismissed.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant

transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 13th day of

February, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for the

the Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri S.C. Roy

MW1: Sri Col. Suresh G

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1 :

Photostat copy of the termination order

dt.16.9.2010

Ex.W2 :

Photostat copy of letter of reply to Ex.W1

Ex.W3 :

Photostat copy of legal notice dt.8.12.2010

Ex.W4 :

Photostat copy of postal receipts (3 nos.) dt.

9.12.2010

Ex.W5 :

Photostat copy of acknowledgement (2 nos.)

Ex.W6 :

Photostat copy of lr No.N-24006/EMERA,

showing the grants from the Central

Government

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1 :

Photostat copy of termination order dt.16.8.2010

Ex.M2 :

Photostat copy of reply notice dt.15.1.2011

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1138-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ

ifV;kyk ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

172@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@03@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@22@97&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th March, 2014

S.O.

1138.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 172/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, No. II Chandigarh, now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of State Bank of Patiala and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 25/03/2014.

[No. L-12012/22/97-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.172/2005

Registered on 19.11.1997

Sh. Anil Kumar,

C/o Luxmi Beat House,

Railway Road,

Narwana Distt- Jind.

......Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager (Operations),

State Bank of Patiala,

Head Office,

The Mall, Patiala.

.......Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. H.S. Hundal Adv.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi Adv.

AWARD

Passed on- 20.2.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/

22/97/IR(B-I) Dated 5.11.1997, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub

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

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of Patiala in imposing penalty of removal from

services w.e.f. 10.2.96 on Sh. Anil Kumar ex-clerk-

cum-typist is legal and just? If not to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to and from what

date?”

In response to the notice, the workman appeared

and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was

working as Clerk-cum-typist with the respondent-bank at

Khanauri when he was served with a charge-sheet dated

13.5.1994 to which he submitted reply. That an Inquiry

Officer was appointed who submitted report and on the

basis of the report, his services were terminated vide order

dated 25.3.1996 after serving a show cause notice. His

appeal was also dismissed. His dismissal is illegal as

charge-sheet served was not accompanied by the list of

witnesses, list of documents and it does not disclose on

what evidence it was based. The Inquiry Officer conducted

the inquiry in haste and did not give the opportunity to

the workman to examine expert witness and other

documents needed in his defence. Inquiry Officer

2922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

recorded the findings which are perverse and did not

consider the evidence which was in favour of the workman.

The comments given by him were not duly considered by

the Regional Manager. It is further pleaded that Sh. S.S.

Mehmi who conducted the preliminary inquiry has

specifically stated that fraud could not be committed

without the involvement of the Branch Manager and the

Cashier, but no action has been taken against the said

person. Thus, all the proceedings are illegal and his

termination is not sustainable and he be reinstated in

service.

Respondent-management filed written reply pleading

that a proper and legal inquiry was conducted and

considering the inquiry report, the services of the workman

were terminated which is legal and valid.

In support of its case workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as

set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand the management examined Inder

Singh an Officer who filed his affidavit supporting the

case of the respondent management.

I have heard Sh. H.S. Hundal, counsel for the

workman and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management

and perused the file carefully.

Workman was charge-sheeted vide charge-sheet

dated 13.5.1994 and the relevant portion read as follow:-

(1)

That you tempered with bank’s record while by

making fictitious entries in the following accounts of

inoperative account interest bearing register and also

received the payment of amount lying in these accounts

by closing these accounts fraudulently on the dates noted

below and subsequently destroying the record pertaining

to these entries of the inoperative Saving Account interest

bearing register by removing the relevant pages of the

said register. The details the amount withdrawn fraudulently

by you from the accounts are given below –

Sr. Dated

Amount

Particulars

No.

1. 8.10.93

Rs.2302/-

SB A/c 1025 of Sh. Harbans Singh

2. 22.10.93 Rs.1350/-

SB A/c 1453 of Sh. Jangir Singh

3. 11.10.93 Rs.1017/-

SB A/c 1191 of Sh. Maghar Singh

4. 15.10.93 Rs.111/-

SB A/c 1354 of Sh. Puran Singh

5. 8.12.93

Rs.1500/-

SB A/c 2644 of Sh. Ram Kumar

6. 17.12.93 Rs.1150/-

SB A/c 1412 of Sh. Paramjit Singh

(ii)

that the vouchers dated 6.10.1993 were made missing

from Khanauri Branch by you.

He submitted reply and finding it not satisfactory a

regular inquiry was ordered. During the course of the

inquiry, the management examined 12 witnesses and the

workman has also examined two witnesses and placed

certain documents on record. All the witnesses of the

management were examined in the presence of the workman

who cross-examined them. After considering the evidence

led before it, the Inquiry Officer submitted a detailed report

dated 27.9.1995 holding that charges are proved against

him. It is nowhere pointed out that any Rules or

Regulations was violated by the Inquiry Officer while

conducting the inquiry. The list of documents and list of

witnesses was not supplied along with the charge-sheet,

the same do not itself vitiate the inquiry as the same was

supplied to him during the inquiry proceedings. It cannot

be said by stress of imagination that the Inquiry Officer

acted in a biased manner. Workman was given due

opportunity to lead his evidence and it is for him to examine

any expert witness but if he failed, he cannot say that an

opportunity was not given to him for the examination of

the expert witness. Thus the workman has failed to make

out a case that the inquiry held in the present case was

not fair and proper rather, it is to be held that the inquiry

conducted was legal and valid one.

Acting on the inquiry report the workman was

dismissed from service vide order dated 14.5.1996 after

serving of a show cause notice on him and the appeal

preferred by him was also rejected. It was submitted by

the learned counsel for the workman that the punishment

awarded to the workman is harsh and he be awarded lesser

punishment than termination of his service. Suffice it to

say that the workman was working in the bank whose

business depends on the honesty of its workers. But in

the present case the workman has not only withdrawn the

amounts from certain accounts fraudulently but destroyed

the record which is a grave misconduct and in the

circumstances the punishing authority has rightly awarded

the punishment which do not call for any interference by

this Tribunal.

In result, it is held that the action of the management

in imposing the penalty of removal from service w.e.f.

10.2.1996 on the workman is legal and proper and he is not

entitled to any relief and the reference is accordingly

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] 25 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1139-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos ds

izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 667@2005) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@169@95&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2923

New Delhi, the 25th March, 2014

S.O.

1139.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 667/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour

Court,No. II Chandigarh, now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Northern railway and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 25/03/2014.

[No. L-41012/169/95-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. 667/2005

Registered on 25.8.2005

Sh. Puni Chand,

LR Pointsman,

Railway Station, Palampur,

Village Dhad & Tehsil Palampur,

District Kangra. (HP).

.......Petitioner

Versus

Divisional Railway Manager,

Northern Railway, Ferozepur.

......Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. Manoj Dhiman, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on- 24.2.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-41012/

169/95 - IR(B-I) Dated 21.1.1997, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub

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

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the Divisional Railway

Manager, Northern Railway, Ferozepur in terminating

the services of Sh. Puni Chand Ex. L.R. Pointsman

Palampur Railway Station, Palampur w.e.f. 21.1.94 is

legal and just. If not to what relief the workman is

entitled to and from which date?”

In response to the notice the workman appeared

and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was

illegally placed under suspension on 18.11.1991and

without serving any charge-sheet, he was reinstated on

29.1.1992. Thus he is entitled to full pay for the said period

from 18.11.1991 to 29.1.1992 as his suspension was illegal.

It is further pleaded that workman reported for duty

to the Station Superintendent, PLMX who refused to allow

him to join and asked him to report duty at Hussainpur.

Since there was no order, he did not report for duty at

Hussainpur. He was charge-sheeted for not joining the

duty at Hussainpur and thereafter an inquiry was

conducted and he was removed from service which is

illegal. He filed an appeal/revision dated 25.4.1996 before

the competent authority which was accepted and the

punishment of removal was converted into a censure vide

order dated 31.7.1997. This order absolves the workman

from all the charges. That the workman is entitled to full

back wages and with installments of D.A from 31.1.1992 to

5.9.1997; 4 notional holidays and full TA during the inquiry

period; LAP, HAP and CL from 18.11.1991 to 5.9.1997,

packing allowances etc. and also all the benefits of his

promotion to A-Grade in the scale of Rs.3050-4590 as the

same was not given to the workman on the allegation that

SF-5 was pending against him.

It is further pleaded that workman joined the duty

on 11.9.1998 and the respondent management proceeded

to recover penal rent for Quarter No.T-8-D w.e.f. 20.1.1994

to 5.12.1996 and the said order is also illegal as he was

never asked to vacate the quarter.

Thus it is pleaded that the above said claim be given

to the workman.

The management filed written statement pleading

that on the message dated 14.11.1991, the workman was

placed under suspension for misbehaving with the Station

Superintendent. That the workman did not attend the

office since the day of his suspension and remained

absent. He was transferred from PLMX to HSQ vide order

dated 8.12.1991. His suspension order was revoked vide

message dated 29.1.1992 and he reported for duty and

Station Superintendent directed him to report to TI/PTK

for getting himself spared for transfer to HSQ but the

workman did not report for duty and thereafter

continuously remained absent. Since he remained absent,

he was issued charge-sheet dated 26.3.1992 for imposing

a major penalty and after completion of all the proceedings,

copy of the inquiry report was sent to him vide order dated

2/8.9.1993 and was asked to join duty at HSQ but he did

not join the duty. Again a notice dated 22.12.1993 was

issued to him to join the duty on 20.1.1994 and when he

failed, his services were terminated vide order dated

4.2.1994. He preferred a revision petition and the same

was sent to General Manager (P) and his penalty was

reduced to censure vide order dated 31.7.1997 and he

joined his duty on 5.9.1997. That his absence period from

31.9.1992 to 5.9.1997 was treated as follow:-

2924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

LAP

31.1.92

27.3.92

57 days

1.7.92

15.7.92

15 days

1.1.93

15.1.93

15 days

1.7.93

2.7.93

02 days

Total

89 Days

HAP

28.3.92

30.6.92

95 days

16.7.92

31.12.92

169 days

16.1.93

19.2.93

35 days

3.7.93

12.7.93

10 days

1.1.94

10.1.94

10 days

1.7.94

10.7.94

10 days

1.1.95

10.1.95

10 days

1.7.95

10.7.95

10 days

1.1.96

10.1.96

10 days

1.7.96

10.7.96

10 days

1.1.97

10.1.97

10 days

1.7.97

10.7.97

10 days

Total

389 days

LWP

20.2.93

30.6.93

131 days

13.7.93

31.12.93

172 days

11.1.94

30.6.94

171 days

11.7.94

31.12.94

174 days

11.1.95

30.6.95

171 days

11.7.95

31.12.95

174 days

11.1.96

30.6.96

172 days

11.7.96

31.12.96

174 days

11.1.97

30.6.97

171 days

11.7.97

5.9.97

057 days

Total

1567 days

Workman was promoted in September 1998 and his

salary was fixed as per Rules and the arrears have been

drawn. That he is not entitled to any causal leave and he

is not entitled to TA as he was not transferred from one

place to another.

In support of its case the workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as

set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand the respondent management has

examined Sh. Banwari Lal, Chief Office Superintendent who

filed his affidavit supporting the case of the respondent

management and also filed all the documents.

I have heard Sh. Manoj Dhiman, counsel for the

workman and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management

and has gone through the file carefully.

It was contended by the learned counsel for the

workman that the workman was illegally placed under

suspension vide order dated 18.11.1991 and was taken

back on duty and when he reported for duty on 30.1.92 at

PLMX, he was not allowed to join the duty and the letter

regarding his transfer came into existence later on. It was

further contended that the penalty of removal from service

was reduced to ‘censure’ vide order dated 31.7.1997 and

being so, his absence is to be treated as duty period and

he is entitled to increase in pay from 31.1.1992 to 5.9.1997

along with TA etc. and in the circumstances he be paid all

the benefits as claimed by him the claim petition.

It is not disputed that the Station Superintendent,

PLMX reported on 14.11.1991 that he was mishandled by

the workman as is clear from the letter (Annexure A1) and

he was placed under suspension vide order of the same

date (Annexure A2). He was asked to join duty vide order

dated 29.1.1992 (Annexure A5) but prior thereto he was

transferred from PLMX to HSQ vide order dated 8.12.1991

(Annexure A4). According to the management the Station

Superintendent PLMX spared him and asked him to join

duty as per his transfer orders but he did not join the duty

and unauthorizedly remained absent from 31.1.1992.

Thereafter a charge-sheet was served on him for remaining

absent from duty and there is no denial of the fact that the

inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry officer submitted

its report. The workman did not challenge the Inquiry

report on any of the ground whatsoever. Again there is

no denial of the fact that the workman was provided a

copy of the inquiry report and was again asked to join the

duty vide letter dated 2/8.9.1993 (Annexure A7) but he did

not join the duty. Again a notice dated 22.12.1993

(Annexure A8) was sent to him but he did not join the

duty and consequently his services were terminated vide

order dated 4.2.1994. Again it is admitted case that an

appeal preferred by him was dismissed, but in revision the

penalty was reduced to a ‘censure’.

If the penalty imposed was reduced to ‘censure’ the

same do not ipso facto entitle the workman to claim the

benefits as asked for in the claim petition as his guilt for

remaining absent from duty stood proved during the

inquiry proceedings and on the basis of the inquiry report,

the penalty of ‘Censure’ was imposed on him and he

cannot say that he is entitled to all the benefits during the

period he remained absent from duty.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2925

The period during which he remained absent i.e.

from 31.1.1992 to 5.9.1997 was treated as LAP, HAP and as

the leave of the kind due vide order dated 29.4.2000

(Annexure 18) and as reproduced above; and it cannot be

said that the competent authority did not pass any order

and workman cannot claim the pay for the whole period.

Since he remained under suspension he cannot claim any

casual leave or any TA etc. There is nothing on the file

that any benefit of the workman was withheld by the

management on being promoted as Pointsman A-Grade

vide order dated 24.9.1998. It is not shown that the

respondent management cannot recover the penal rent

for the quarter which remained in the occupation of the

workman. Thus, workman is not entitled to any of the

reliefs claimed.

The reference was whether the termination of the

services of the workman was legal and just, but his

termination was already set aside by the competent

authority and only punishment of censure was imposed

which is held to be legal and valid as departmental inquiry

has not been challenged on any of the ground. The

workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is

accordingly 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] 25 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1140-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k ,o Je U;k;ky;] ua- II p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 1346@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

25&03&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@185@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th March, 2014

S.O.

1140.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.1346/

2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, No. II Chandigarh, now 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 25-03-2014.

[No. L-12012/185/2004-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. 1346/2008

Registered on 17.1.2008

Sh. Kanwar Bhan,

R/o Village Adiyana,

District Panipat (Hr).

.......Petitioner

Versus

The Chief Manager,

State Bank of India,

Panipat.

........Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. Naveen Daryal Adv.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi Adv.

AWARD

(Passed on- 21-2-2014)

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/

185/2004 IR(B-I)) Dated 28.12.2007, 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 State

Bank of India, Panipat in terminating the services of

Sh. Kanwar Bhan S/o Sh. Surat Singh, Guard w.e.f.

28.10.2002 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

In response to the notice, the workman appeared

and submitted statement of claim pleading that the

respondent bank vide its letter dated 8.5.2000 (Exhibit P2)

sent requisition for the services of Ex-serviceman and in

response to the said letter the Zila Sainik Board, Panipat

recommended the name of the workman vide letter dated

9.5.2000. That the workman has worked with the

respondent management from 10.5.2002 to 28.10.2002

continuously but was not allowed to do his duty after

28.10.2002 which amounts to retrenchment and thus his

services were retrenched without complying with the

provisions of Section 25F of the Act. That the management

kept in service the persons who were junior to him and

also regularized the services of certain persons and thus

there is a contravention of the provisions of Section 25G

and 25H as well as Section 25N of the Act. That the

respondent bank is a commercial establishment and it

cannot dispense with the services of the workman.

2926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Respondent management filed written statement

pleading that the workman was engaged purely on need

basis as a Badli Guard against a leave vacancy from

10.5.2002 to 28.10.2002 and separately at another branch

on seven occasions and he actually worked for 88 days.

Since the workman was engaged only as a Badli Guard,

the provisions of the Act have not been violated and he is

not entitled to any benefit under the Act.

In support of its case the workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as

set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand management examined Sh. S.C.

Sharma, Chief Manager who filed his affidavit supporting

the case of the management.

I have heard Sh. Naveen Daryal, counsel for the

workman and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi counsel for the

management.

It was argued by the learned counsel for the workman

that workman was employed by the bank through Zila

Sainik Board, Panipat and he did his duty for 92 days and

further carried me through Section 22 of the Punjab Shops

and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 to submit that

since the workman worked for more than 90 days, he was

not to be removed from service without service of notice

etc. and thus the management has contravened the

provisions of Section 25F of the Act. It was further

contended that the persons junior to the workman were

retained in service and even after retrenchment of the

workman new recruitment was made and thus there is a

contravention of other provisions of the Act also and the

workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with all the

benefits.

I have considered the contention of the learned

counsel.

According to the workman he worked for 92 days

with respondent bank, whereas according to the bank, he

worked for 88 days. Be that as it may, the question to be

seen is whether the workman falls within the definition of

‘retrenchment’ in order to get benefits under the Act.

‘Retrenchment’ has been defined in Section 2(oo) as

termination by the employer of the service of a workman

for any reason whatsoever, otherwise then as a punishment

inflicted by way of disciplinary action.

Section 25F prescribes the conditions to retrench a

workman and provides that no workman who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year shall be

retrenched except on the conditions prescribed in the said

Section. ‘Continuous service’ has been defined in Section

25B of the Act and provides that a workman is deemed to

be any continuous service for a period of one year if he

actually worked for not less than 240 days during a period

12 calendar months.

Thus a workman who has worked for 240 days

entitled to notice or compensation in lieu of notice as

prescribed under Section 25F of the Act. But in the present

case, according to the workman himself he worked only

for 92 days and therefore he do not fall within the definition

of ‘retrenchment’ and cannot claim the protection of

Section 25F of the Act. Similarly, he cannot say that Section

25G and 25H of the Act has been violated in his case.

Section 22 of the Punjab Shops and Commercial

Establishment Act provides that no employee shall be

removed from service without one month’s previous notice

or pay in lieu thereof but the jurisdiction under the said

Section only vest with the Judicial Magistrate and not in

this Tribunal. Since the workman is not a ‘retrenched’

employee, he is not entitled to the protections as provided

under the provisions of the Act.

It may also be added that workman himself admitted

that he was employed as ‘Badli Guard’ and used to work in

the leave vacancy of the Guard. Thus, his statement shows

that he was temporarily employed against a leave vacancy

and as such he cannot claim to be employed as Guard as a

matter of right and on this score also, he is not entitled to

any relief, as his services were to be discontinued on

joining of the duty by the person in whose place he was

employed.

In result, it is held that action of the respondent

management in terminating the service of the workman

w.e.f. 28.10.2002 is legal and valid and workman is not

entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly

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] 25 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1141-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

9@12] 10@12] 11@12] 12@12] 13@12] 14@12] 15@12] 16@12]

17@12] 18@12 vkSj 1@13) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 25&03&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12025@01@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th March, 2014

S.O.

1141.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 9/12,

10/12, 11/12, 12/12, 13/12, 14/12, 15/12, 16/12, 17/12, 18/12

& 1/13) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, now as shown in the Annexure

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2927

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of State Bank of India and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 25/03/2014.

[No. L-12025/01/2014-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE

(1)

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/RC/9/2012

Shri Umesh Kumar Saini,

S/o shri Uma Shankar Saini,

H. No.330/1, Ranipur, Shukla Nagar,

Madanmahal, Distt. Jabalpur.

........Workman

Versus

Managing Director,

State Bank of India,

Head Office, Indore (MP)

.......Management

(2)

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/RC/10/2012

Shri Mukesh Kumar Saman,

S/o Late Shri Ramesh Prasad Saman,

R/842, Belbag Toria,

Distt. Jabalpur.

......Workman

Versus

Managing Director,

State Bank of India,

Head Office, Indore (MP)

.....Management

(3)

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/RC/11/2012

Shri Rajkumar Sen,

S/o Shri Banshi Lal Sen,

R/o H.No. 2801/21, Adarsh Colony,

Adhartal, Jabalpur

Distt. Jabalpur.

.....Workman

Versus

Managing Director,

State Bank of India,

Head Office, Indore (MP)

.....Management

(4)

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/RC/12/2012

Shri Mukesh Kumar Burman,

S/o Shri Phoolchand Burman,

R/o E/4A, Near At Railway Qtr.,

Howbagh Gorakhpur,

Distt. Jabalpur.

......Workman

Versus

Managing Director,

State Bank of India,

Head Office, Indore (MP)

......Management

(5)

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/RC/13/2012

Shri Ramnarayan Pathak,

S/o Late Shri Gendalal Pathak,

R/o H.No. 1176,

Laxmi Bhavan, Hawbagh Station Road,

Gorakhpur, Distt. Jabalpur.

.......Workman

Versus

Managing Director,

State Bank of India,

Head Office, Indore (MP)

......Management

(6)

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/RC/14/2012

Shri Ravindra Yadav,

S/o Shri Ramkishore Yadav,

R/o H.No.238,

Near Maszid at Rampur,

Jabalpur

......Workman

Versus

Managing Director,

State Bank of India,

Head Office, Indore (MP)

....Management

(7)

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/RC/15/2012

Shri Mukesh Amrani,

S/o Shri Gunna Ram Amrani,

R/o Ashok Tea Stol,

Gandhi Chowk,

Pali Road, Umariya (MP).

.......Workman

Versus

Managing Director,

State Bank of India,

Head Office, Indore (MP)

......Management

(8)

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/RC/16/2012

Shri Sunil Kumar Nahar,

S/o Shri Kandhilal Nagar,

R/o 1566, Bhantalaiya,

Distt. Jabalpur.

.......Workman

Versus

Managing Director,

State Bank of India,

Head Office, Indore (MP)

......Management

(9)

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/RC/17/2012

Shri Kriishna Kumar Singh,

S/o Late Shri Kishan Singh,

R/o H.No. 992, Aheer Mohalla,

Gorakhpur,

Distt. Jabalpur.

......Workman

Versus

Managing Director,

State Bank of India,

Head Office, Indore (MP)

.....Management

2928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(10)

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/RC/18/2012

Shri Nirvachan Kol,

S/o Late Dularwa Kol,

R/o Ujaniya Post,

Mehroai,

Distt. Umariya, MP

........Workman

Versus

Managing Director,

State Bank of India,

Head Office, Indore (MP)

.....Management

(11)

CASE NO.CGIT/LC/RC/1/2013

Shri Ravi Yadav,

S/o Shri Buddhulal Yadav,

R/o Sharda Nagar, Bus Depot,

Karmeta, Distt. Jabalpur.

.....Workman

Versus

Managing Director,

State Bank of India,

Head Office, Indore (MP)

.....Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 24th day of February 2014)

These proceedings are submitted under Section

2(A)(2) of I.D. Act by respective workmen. As per order

dated 17-2-2014 on application submitted by Ist party

workman in case No. 9/12, all those proceedings are

clubbed for common judgment. Though the applications

are submitted by individual workman separately, their

contentions are identical except the date of their

appointment. The applicants submitted that they are

employees of Respondent No.1 Bank working on post of

messenger on daily wages. Respondent No.1 Bank is

merged in Respondent No. 2, SBI. Workman are thrown

out of employment after merger of Respondent No.1 in

Respondent No. 2 SBI. It is submitted that the Union

submitted dispute before RLC(C), Bhopal vide application

dated 3-9-10. The conciliation proceedings were not fruitful.

RLC submitted failure report vide letter dated 27-6-2012 to

Govt. of India.

It is further submitted that during pendency of

conciliation proceeding before RLC, some employees filed

Writ Petition No. 15314/2010 before Hon’ble High Court.

The writ was disposed off by Hon’ble High court on

27-9-2012 directing workman to take recourse to remedy

available under I.D. Act. Directions were also given by

Hon’ble High Court that Industrial Court/Labour Court to

decide such proceedings within six months. That workman

in Case No. 9/12 had raise dispute before RLC, failure report

was submitted in the matter on 27-6-2012. All the workmen

have proposed dispute as under-

“Whether the termination of workman is justified

and legal? If not, to what relief he is entitled and

which direction should be given to the management?

Further whether the action of the respondents Bank

in not continuing the services of the workman after

merger of the respondents Bank in the light of the

Gazette notification dated 28-7-2010 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled and which

direction should be given to the management?”

Respective workman further submits that they are

qualified and educated were appointed in the State Bank

of Indore in Case No. 9/12 on 20-1-99, Case No. 10/12 on

3-3-99, in case No. 11/12 on 21-6-98, in Case No. 12/12 on

15-3-98, in Case No. 13/12 on 1-4-99, in Case No. 14/12 on

26-2-99, in Case No. 15/12 on 2-8-03, in Case No. 16/12 on

4-7-98, in Case No. 17/12 on 4-6-06, in Case No. 18/12 on

2-8-03 and in Case No. 1/13 on 3-2-00 on daily rate basis.

All the workmen claimed that they worked honestly,

sincerely. That they were appointed following prescribed

procedure under law. That they were paid less emoluments.

The workman were hopeful that their services would be

regularized after passage of time. Therefore they

continuously rendered their service. That their wages

were paid through cheque by the Bank.

The workman further submits that as per decision

and settlement between respondent No.1and 2, the State

Bank of Indore is merged in State Bank of India. The

formalities are completed. The settlements in respect of

employees and offices and other liabilities have also been

finalized. That no steps are taken to protect interest of

those workmen therefore Union raised demand to

safeguard their right. All the workman claimed to have

rendered service for 15-20 years though their date of

joining service is specifically stated in Para-5 of their

application. That merger has been approved by

Government issuing notification in Gazette published on

28-7-2010. Clause 7 of the notification deals with that every

permanent officer and other permanent employee of the

Transferer Bank including the officers or employees on

probation ( except the Board of Directors and executive

trustees) serving in the employment of the transferor Bank

immediately before the effective date shall hold his office

or service therein in the Transferee Bank on such terms

and conditions as may be approved by the Central Board

of the transferee bank and shall continue to work as an

officer as the case may be employee of the transferee bank.

Provided that the pay and allowance offered to the offices

or employees of the transferor bank shall not be less than

the overall pay and allowances as they would have drawn

in the transferor Bank. Clause-8 of the notification is also

reproduced which provides the officers or employees of

the transferor bank shall be given an offer of employment

of option letter in writing by the Transferee Bank and where

an officer or other employee of the Transferor bank doesnot

exercise any option, within a period of fifteen days from

the date of the option letter given for exercising the option,

to be in the employment of the transferee bank such officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2929

or employee shall be deemed to have accepted to continue

in the service of the transferee bank.

Workman further submits that notification is clear

that employee of the Respondent No. 1 Bank ought to

have been continued in service. Alternately they should

give option provided in the notification of merger. That no

steps are taken as per notification calling option of the

workman. The notification debars workman to approach

Court/Tribunal for the dispute. It is violation of the welfare

policy of the Central Govt.

Workman submits that they were continuously

working since their initial engagement on daily wages

without any break. That they had completed 240 days

continuous service during each of the year of their service.

That because of the merger of Respondent No.1 in

Respondent No.2 Bank, their services are terminated by

oral order from 14-8-2010 in Case No. 9/12, from 23-8-2010

in Case No.10/12, from 23-8-2010 in Case No. 11/12, from

28-7-2010 in Case No. 12/12, 31-8-2010 in Case No. 13/12,

from 21-8-10 in Case No. 14/12, from 21-8-2010 in Case No.

15/12, from 21-8-2010 in Case No. 16/12, from 30-8-2010 in

Case No. 17/12, from 29-5-2010 in Case No. 18/12 and from

21-8-2010 in Case No. 1/13.

All the workmen submits that IInd party Bank is

covered as industry under Section 2(j) of I.D.Act. They

are covered as workman under Section 2(s) of I.D.Act.

That provisions of Section 25-F, G, H & 25(N) of I.D.Act

are applicable to them, their services are terminated in

violation of section 25-G, F, H , 25-N of I.D.Act. that

termination of their services is covered as retrenchment

under Section 2(oo) of I.D.Act. Management has not

violated mandatory provisions of I.D.Act. Notice was not

issued to them, retrenchment compensation was not paid

to them by the management. That they were appointed

following prescribed procedure as per law. They have

acquired status of permanent employee. Their claim for

regularization was pending before Conciliation Officer.

During pendency of conciliation proceedings, their

services are illegally terminated by the Bank in violation

of Section 33 of I.D.Act. All the workmen submits that

termination of their service is illegal. They were not given

opportunity of defence. On such ground, workman prays

for setting aside their termination and management be

directed to reinstate them as peon with back wages.

IInd party filed Written Statement in all cases. Written

Statement filed by IInd party No.2 is identical. IInd party

submits that application filed under Section 2A(2) of I.D.Act

is not tenable. Separate application was filed challenging

liability of proceeding filed without filing conciliation

proceeding challenging their termination. Said application

has been rejected in all cases as per order dated

20-6-2013. IInd party further submits that State Bank of

India is established under Section 3 of State Bank of India

Act, 1955 to carry on the business of banking and other

business. Section 35 of the Act provides power and

procedure for acquisition of business of other banks by

the State Bank of India. The State bank of India with the

sanction of Central Govt. and in consultation with the

Reserve Bank entered into negotiation for acquiring the

business including assets and liabilities of the State Bank

of Indore. In exercise of powers under Section 35(2), Central

Govt. accorded its sanction to the acquisition vide

notification dated 28-7-2010. That Clause 7 & 8 of the said

notification are reproduced. As per clause 7, every

permanent officer of other permanent employee of the

Transferred Bank including the officers or employees on

probation ( except the Board of Directors and executive

trustees) serving in the employment of the transferor Bank

immediately before the effective date shall hold his office

or service therein in the Transferee Bank on such terms

and conditions as may be approved by the Central Board

of the transferee bank and shall continue to work as an

officer as the case may be employee of the transferee bank.

Provided that the pay and allowance offered to the offices

or employees of the transferor bank shall not be less than

the overall pay and allowances as they would have drawn

in the transferor Bank. As per Clause-8 of the notification

the officers or employees of the transferor bank shall be

given an offer of employment of option letter in writing by

the Transferee Bank and where an officer or other

employee of the Transferor bank doesnot exercise any

option, within a period of fifteen days from the date of the

option letter given for exercising the option, to be in the

employment of the transferee bank such officer or employee

shall be deemed to have accepted to continue in the service

of the transferee bank. That notwithstanding provisions

of I.D.Act, 1947 or any other law for time being in force,

the transfer of service of officer or employee of transferor

bank to be transferee bank shall not entitle such officer or

other employee to any compensation under the provisions

of the said I.D.Act or any other law and no such claim

shall be entertained by the court, tribunal or any other

authority. IInd party submits that Ist party workman who

have been engaged on daily wages on temporary basis

therefore he is not entitled to the option under notification

dated 28-7-2010. The workmen have no right to continue

in service of SBI. He cannot claim such direction to

continue in service in State Bank of India. It is further

submitted that several persons are engaged on daily wages

by some of the branches, offices of State Bank of Indore

without following the recruitment rules. Such persons

cannot be absorbed in services of State Bank of India. It is

submitted that All India State Bank of Indore Employees

Coordination Committee raised dispute with respect of

regularization of temporary workmen in State Bank of

Indore before RLC, Bhopal. The said dispute was raised

w.r.t. 342 persons. Management of Bank participated in

conciliation proceedings filing suitable reply. The

conciliation proceeding ended in failure. The report of

failure of conciliation was submitted to Government on

2930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

27-6-2012. IInd party further submits that though efforts

were made for searching details of working of workmen in

State Bank of Indore , the record was not found about

their working in any branch or the office of State Bank of

Indore. IInd party strictly dispute that the workman had

ever worked in State Bank of Indore.

IInd party has denied Ist party workman working as

messenger on daily wage basis. Workmen have not

disclosed name of the branch, office he was working. It is

denied that because of merger of State Bank of Indore in

State Bank of India, workman is thrown out of employment.

It is submitted that after failure of conciliation, appropriate

Government has referred matter to the Tribunal for

adjudication. Relief is of regularization of the workman

and not termination of their service. It is reiterated that

workman have not stated anything about their

qualification, no record is available in the Bank regarding

their appointment in State Bank of Indore following

prescribed recruitment procedure. Applicant also not

produced such documents. It is denied that workmen were

paid less emolument. That there is no provision for

regularization of service of persons engaged on daily wage

basis. That Central Govt. has issued notification for merger

of State Bank of Indore in State Bank of India. The persons

working on daily wages or temporary basis have no right

to continue for indefinite period in State Bank of Indore.

They have no right to continue service in State Bank of

India. It is denied that as per clause-7,8 of the notification

of merger, workman are entitled to an option to continue in

State Bank of India. Such right is given only to the

permanent officers and employees of State Bank of Indore.

The notification doesnot deal with persons working on

daily wage basis. It is denied that the notification violates

policy of Government of India.

10.

IInd party denies that workman have completed 240

days continuous service during any of the year. It is

submitted that no record is available in that regard. It is

not disputed that the IInd party Bank is covered as industry

under I.D.Act. However it is submitted that business of

State Bank of Indore is taken over by State Bank of India.

Workman cannot invoke provisions of Section 25-F, G, N

of I.D.Act. IInd party denies that workman were appointed

after filing the recruitment procedure. It is denied that

workman acquired status of permanent employee. It is

reiterated that several persons were engaged temporary

by some branch, office of State Bank of India. There were

no vacancies after merger of business of State Bank of

Indore, it is not possible for State Bank of India to continue

service to all such persons. Therefore their services

required to be dispensed with. However any record was

not traced with respect of workmen in those cases. If those

workmen furnishes necessary details of their working and

satisfy requirement under Section 25-F of I.D.Act, IInd

party is ready to pay compensation as per law. That it is

not possible to continue those workmen in the Bank. That

those workmen were engaged as daily wages, casual

labours by State Bank of Indore due to exigencies they

were never appointed against sanctioned vacant post

following recruitment rules. IInd party referred to the ratio

held in various cases by Apex Court submits that persons

engaged on daily wages without following recruitment

process are not entitled for reinstatement. That

irregularities cannot be perpetuated. On such grounds,

IInd party for rejection of the claim of all workmen.

11.

Ist party workmen filed identical rejoinder in all the

cases. Ist party submits that the services of workman are

terminated due to merger of State Bank of Indore in State

Bank of India. Their services are terminated by

management without complying provisions of I.D.Act by

oral order. It is denied that they were engaged without

following recruitment rules. That they were working on

the post of full time messenger. They were getting monthly

salary from IInd party No.1. they were regularly working

more than 240 days during each of the year. They are

covered under Section 25-F of I.D.Act. That workmen was

working in Gorakhpur branch from their initial appointment

till date of termination, management has not issued notice,

no retrenchment compensation is paid. Management not

followed Section 25-G, H of I.D.Act before termination of

their services. Management not complied with Rule 77, 78

of Industrial Dispute(Central) Rules 1957. Reference is also

made to directions issued by Hon’ble High Court in Writ

petition No. 15314/2010. That they are thrown out of

employment after notification of merger dated 28-7-2010.

That all the workmen submits that they are entitled to be

continued in service by the IInd party Bank, oral

termination of their service is illegal. On such grounds, all

workmen prays for their reinstatement with back wages.

12.

Considering pleadings between parties and order

dated 20-6-2013 rejecting objection to the tenability of

these proceedings, 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 IInd

In Affirmative

party No. 2 Bank in not continuing

service of workman in Bank after

merger of State Bank of Indore as

per notification dated 28-7-2010 is

legal and justified?

(ii) whether the termination of workman

In Negative

Shri Umesh Saini from 14-8-2010 in

Case No. 9/12, Mukesh Saman from

23-8-2010 in Case No.10/12,

Raj Kumar Sen from 23-8-2010

in Case No. 11/12, Mukesh

Burman from 28-7-2010 in

Case No. 12/12, Ramnarayan

Pathak from 31-8-2010 in Case

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2931

No. 13/12, Ravindra Yadav from

21-8-10 in Case No. 14/12, Mukesh

Amrani from 21-8-2010 in Case

No. 15/12, Sunil Nahar from

21-8-2010 in Case No. 16/12,

Krishan Kumar Singh from 30-8-2010

in Case No. 17/12, Nirvachan Kol

from 29-5-2010 in Case No. 18/12

and Ravi Yadav from 21-8-2010 in

Case No. 1/13 is legal and justified?

(iii) If so, to what relief the workman As per final order.

is entitled to?”

REASONS

13.

Workman in all those cases have pleaded that as per

Clause-7 of the notification of merger, the employees and

officers of State Bank of Indore have right to be continued

in services. As per clause-8 of the notification of merger,

the officers and employees of the State Bank of Indore

shall be given an offer of employment of option letter. The

option is required to be called from officers/ employees,

the option is to be submitted within 15 days. If the officer/

employee fail to submit their option within 15 days, it is

deemed that officer/employee is deemed to have continued

in service of the transferee Bank i.e. State Bank of India.

Learned counsel for workman Mr. Verma during course of

argument pointed out that management’s witness in his

cross-examination has stated that the workmen are not

continued in service because of merger of the Bank. That

the branch is not closed, the business is not closed. all

other employees are working. As per pleadings and

evidence by parties, the notification of merger daed

28-7-2010 was not in dispute. Point No.1 directly relates to

whether the Ist party workman in all the cases have right

to be continued in service as per notification of the merger.

The copy of notification in gazette dated 28-7-2010 is

produced. Counsel for IInd party management has

admitted said notification. Clause-7 of the notification

deals with that every permanent officer or other permanent

employee of the Transferred Bank including the officers

or employees on probation ( except the Board of Directors

and executive trustees) serving in the employment of the

transferor Bank immediately before the effective date shall

hold his office or service therein in the Transferee Bank

on such terms and conditions as may be approved by the

Central Board of the transferee bank and shall continue to

work as an officer as the case may be employee of the

transferee bank. Proviso is clear that the pay and allowance

offered to the offices or employees of the transferor bank

shall not be less than the overall pay and allowances as

they would have drawn in the transferor Bank.

Clause-8 of the notification deals with the officers

or employees of the transferor bank shall be given an

offer of employment of option letter in writing by the

Transferee Bank and where an officer or other employee

of the Transferor bank does not exercise any option, within

a period of fifteen days from the date of the option letter

given for exercising the option, to be in the employment of

the transferee bank such officer or employee shall be

deemed to have accepted to continue in the service of the

transferee bank.

Above clauses do not include temporary casual

employees engaged on daily wages. All the workmen filed

affidavit in support of their claim stating that they were

appointed against vacant post of messenger. They have

stated that they were engaged on daily wages. Payment

vouchers are produced in all the cases. Workman in their

cross-examination have stated that they were paid wages

by voucher. Workmen have not produced appointment

letters, any documents regarding their appointments made

after filing conciliation process. The management’s witness

Chandan Kumar in his evidence has stated that all the

workmen were engaged on daily wage basis by State Bank

of Indore without following recruitment procedure. In his

cross-examination, he claims ignorance whether list of daily

wage employees working in bank was prepared. He stated

that the merger document did not provide for absorption

of daily wage employees therefore daily wage employees

are not absorbed in service. Careful reading of clause-7,8

of the notification of merger doesnot find reference of

employees engaged on daily wage basis. Both the clauses

deals with only the permanent employees engaged in the

transferor Bank. The notification of merger doesnot give

any right to continue in service to the daily wage

employees therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Negative.

14.

Point No.2- before dealing with evidence adduced

by parties, it is convenient to consider the arguments

advanced by counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for

workman Shri Verma submits that workmen were appointed/

engaged on different dates shown in the chart except

Umesh Kumar Saini workman in Case No. 9/12, all the

workmen have completed more than 240 days service

preceding 12 months of termination of their services.

Workman Umesh completed 212 days working considering

Sundays and National holidays as provided under Section

25-B(2) of I.D.Act. His working days comes more than 260

days. That Section 25-F(a, b) of I.D.Act are mandatory.

The services of the workmen were orally terminated

without notice, no retrenchment compensation was paid,

list of daily wage employee was not displayed on notice

board. Rule 77 not followed. Section 25-F, G, H are violated.

That as per section 35(8) of State Bank of India Act and

Clause 9 of the merger notification, workman cannot claim

compensation therefore they are entitled only for

reinstatement. It is argued that for violation of Section 25-G,

workmen are entitled only relief of reinstatement rather

than compensation. The branches are not closed, business

of State Bank of Indore is not closed. That unfair labour

practice is committed by management under item 10,

2932

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Schedule V of I.D.Act. Reliance is placed on bunch of

citations in support of his argument. I will deal with the

citations at relevant point.

15.

Learned counsel for IInd party Shri Ashish Shroti

submits that the notification of merger issued on

28-7-2010 came in force after 30 days from 27-8-2010. The

services of the workmen have been terminated prior to

merger came in force. The services of workmen are

discontinued by State Bank of Indore is not retrenchment

by State Bank of India. That clause 7, 8 of merger

notification not cover daily wage employees. Section 35(8)

of State Bank of India Act prevails on I.D.Act, section

25(j) prevails on other acts. Section 25-FF, 25(fff) of I.D.Act

deals with transfer, closure of the establishment.

Compensation as per section 25-F of I.D.Act requires to

be paid in both the cases. It is emphasized that the workmen

were not working for 240 days uninterrupted period.

Existence of seniority list is not proved. Seniority list is

not produced therefore violation of Section 25-G is not

established. Workmen are not entitled to reinstatement.

Further argument were advanced in AIR-1986-132 relied

by counsel for Ist party concession was made in said

case by counsel for management. There is no specific

pleading about unfair labour practice but argument was

advanced that engagement of the workman varies more

or less 10 years. It is emphasized that the workmen are not

entitled to reinstatement as they were engaged on daily

wages.

16.

Learned counsel for workmen Mr. Verma in reply

submits that as per Para-4 of the merger notification,

liabilities of State Bank of Indore are transferred to State

Bank of India. That section 2(j) of I.D.Act was amended in

1974 whereas section 35(8) of State Bank of India is earlier

enactment. The compensation cannot be claimed by

employees in view of clause 7,8,9 of merger agreement

and Section 35(8) of State Bank of India Act. That Central

Rule 77 is parimateria of Bombay Rul1 81. Said rule is not

complied. Violation of section 25-G of I.D.Act is proved. It

is emphasized that workmen be allowed reinstatement with

back wages. Considering tenor of arguments of Section

25-j of I.D.Act, Section 35(8) of state Bank of India Act

needs to be considered.

Section 25(j) of I.D.Act –

“ Laws inconsistent with Chapter-V(a) including

standing orders made under Industrial Employment

(Standing Orders)Act, 1946, provisions under

Chapter V(a) of I.D.Act should prevail over

provisions inconsistent with any other law including

standing orders.”

Section 35(8) of State Bank of India Act also

provides that the agreement for time being in force on

acquisition of the business and the assets and liabilities

of any banking institution under said section prevents for

the provisions of I.D.Act. no officer or other employee of

the Banking institution is entitled to any compensation to

which he may be entitled under that Act or that other law

or that agreement and no claim in respect of such

compensation shall be entertained by any court, tribunal

or other authority, if on his having accepted in writing a

offer of employment by the State Bank on the terms and

conditions proposed by it he has been employed on terms

and conditions proposed by it.”

The notification of merger doesnot cover employees

working on daily wages, no such right is given to the Ist

party workman, no option is called from Ist party workmen

for continuing their employment in the transferee Bank.

The claim of the Ist party workman for compensation

under I.D.Act cannot be barred under Section 35(8) of

State Bank of India Act or Clause (9) of merger of the

notification dated 28-7-2010.

17.

Turning to the evidence, all the workmen have filed

affidavit of evidence almost identical stating that they

were working in State Bank of Indore from respective

dates of their initial engagement i.e. Case No. 9/12 on

20-1-99, Case No. 10/12 on 3-3-99, in case No. 11/12 on

21-6-98, in Case No. 12/12 on 15-3-98, in Case No. 13/12 on

1-4-99, in Case No. 14/12 on 26-2-99, in Case No. 15/12 on

2-8-03, in Case No. 16/12 on 4-7-98, in Case No. 17/12 on

4-6-06, in Case No. 18/12 on 2-8-03 and in Case No.

1/13 on 3-2-00 till termination of their services i.e. from

14-8-2010 in Case No. 9/12, from 23-8-2010 in Case No.

10/12, from 23-8-2010 in Case No. 11/12, from 28-7-2010 in

Case No. 12/12, 31-8-2010 in Case No. 13/12, from 21-8-10

in Case No. 14/12, from 21-8-2010 in Case No. 15/12, from

21-8-2010 in Case No. 16/12, from 30-8-2010 in Case No.

17/12, from 29-5-2010 in Case No. 18/12 and from 21-8-2010

in Case No. 1/13.

18.

Shri Umesh Kumar in R/9/2012 has proved the

payment vouchers Exhibit W-1(1) to W-1(142), bonus

payment voucher are admitted and marked as Exhibit W-

2(1) to W-2(12). In his cross-examination, he says written

appointment letter was not given to him, he worked for

about 11 years. Peon acquainted to him was working in

the Bank, he has given information about the vacant post.

He was interviewed by Branch Manager Shri Sharma,

nobody had accompanied him at that time. The documents

were made available to him by Branch Manager Mr.

Dharmik. That he had not submitted application before

RLC. Bhopal/ Jabalpur.

19.

The cross-examination of workman in Cases 10/12

to 18/12 and 1/13 is similar. The evidence of management’s

witness and his cross-examination is similar. In Case No.

10/12, payment vouchers are produced at Exhibit W-1 to

W-9 & M-1 to M-82, in Case No. 11/12- payment vouchers

are produced at Exhibit W-1 to W-15 & M-1 to M-85, in

Case No. 12/12- payment vouchers are produced at Exhibit

W-1 to W-18 & entry in miscellaneous expenditure register

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2933

Exhibit M-1, in Case No. 13/12 – Payment vouchers is

produced at Exhibit W-1 to W-23 & copy of payment

charges at Exhibit W-24, vouchers Exhibit W-25 to 28, in

Case No. 14/12- payment vouchers are produced at Exhibit

M-1 to M-26, in Case No. 15/12-payment vouchers are

produced at Exhibit M-1 to M-45, in Case No. 16/12-

documents Exhibit W-1 to W-109, Exhibit M-1 to M-115

are produced regarding payment of wages to the workman

Sunil Kumar, in Case No. 17/12, documents Exhibit W-1 to

W-35 and copy of entries in miscellaneous expenditure

M-1 to M-28 are produced by management regarding

payment of wages to the workman, in Case No. 18/12-

documents Exhibit W-1 to W-6 payment voucher and copy

of entries in miscellaneous expenditure register are

produced by Ist party Exhibit M-1 to M-46 produced by

IInd party, in Case No. 1/13, documents Exhibit W-1 to

W-109 are produced by Ist party. The charts are submitted

by Ist party on the basis of documents produced in

respective cases. The chart of working days prepared by

Ist party shows working days in 12 calendar months

preceding termination of the respective workman, working

days are shown as- in Case No. 9/12- 212 days, Case No.

10/12 -262 days, in case No. 11/12 – 252 days, in Case No.

12/12 – 322 days, in Case No. 13/12 – 293 days, in Case No.

14/12 – 281 days, in Case No. 15/12 – 330 days, in Case No.

16/12 – 266 days, in Case No. 17/12 – 274 days, in Case No.

18/12 – 291 days and in Case No. 1/12- 260 days. The

working days shown in the chart as per the documents

were not in dispute during course of argument by learned

counsel for IInd party.

20.

Relevant portion in evidence in cross-examination

of workman needs to be considered. In Case No. RC/13/

12, Ram Narayan Pathak in his cross-examination says

that he was working in Sadar cantonment branch, Regional

office, Raipur branch. He was not given appointment letter.

He denies that he had not worked for 240 days. His family

is supported from pension of his wife. Shri Ravindra Yadav

in Case no. 14/12 in his cross-examination says that he

was paid weekly wages. He has worked for more than 240

days as messenger. Appointment letter was not given to

him. He was interviewed by Branch Manager and his family

details were asked for interview. Shri Mukesh Amrani in

Case No. RC/15/12, in his cross-examination says that he

was interviewed by Branch Manager, he worked till merger

of the Bank. He worked under different Branch Managers.

He was only candidate at the time of his interview. Almost

similar evidence is deposed in their cross-examination by

Shri Mukesh Kumar Burman in Case No. 12/12, Shri Ravi

Yadav in Case No. 1/13, Shri Sunil Kumar Nagar in case

No. 16/12, Shri Krishna Kumar Singh in Case No. 17/12 &

Shri Nirvachan Kol in Case No. 18/12.

21.

The management’s witness Chandan Kumar has

stated that workmen were engaged on daily wages by

State Bank of Indore. Workmen did not work on the post

of messenger on daily wages. He was not appointed

against vacant post. Workmen did not work for 15-20 years.

In his cross-examination, management’s witness says that

he was not acquainted with workman. He claims ignorance

whether the workman was continuously working till

14-8-09 till date of merger. That branch is not working on

Sunday and national holidays for about 60-70 days in an

year. He claims ignorance whether list of daily wage

employees working in the Bank was prepared. He denies

that junior employees are still working in the Bank. He

denies that the work done by workman is given to

outsourcing agency. Management’s witness admits that

as merger document donot provide for absorption of daily

wage employees, therefore daily wage employees are not

absorbed in service.

22.

Certain citations relied by Shri Shroti Advocate

counsel for IInd party needs minute consideration. In Case

of Regional Manager, State Bank of India versus Rakesh

Kumar Tiwari reported in 2006(1) Supreme court Cases

530, their Lordship held Respondent workman’s

appointment being totally adhoc without following

procedure in law, it would be ironical if they, who had

benefited by the flouting of the rules of appointment could

reply upon those very rules when their services were

dispensed with. Their Lordship held there is no need for

workman to have been in continuous employment within

meaning of Section 25-B for applicability of Section 25-G

& H. Similar view is taken by their Lordship in Case of

Jaipur Development Authority versus Ramsahai and

another reported in 2006(11) Supreme Court Cases 684, in

case of Surendranagar District Panchayat versus

Dahyabhai Amarsingh reported in 2005(8) Supreme Court

Cases 750- workman claiming to have been in employment

for 10 years with employer, if the employer did not produce

record adverse inference was drawn by the Court. In

present case, the documentary evidence is clinching that

workmen have completed more than 240 days service.

Therefore the ratio held in case cannot be applied to case

at hand. Their Lordship dealing with section 25-G, H of

I.D.Act held in absence of regular employment of workman

employer is not expected to maintain seniority list of

employees engaged on daily wages. In present case,

evidence shows that the employees in all those cases are

working about more than 4-10 years. He had completed

240 days continuous service as such were regularly

working in State Bank of Indore prior to merger of State

Bank of Indore in State Bank of India. There is no evidence

by IInd party that their services were discontinued at any

time therefore ratio in above case cannot be applied to

case at hand.

23.

The cases relied by counsel for Ist party workman in

Devinder Singh versus Municipal Council Sanaur reported

in AIR 2011-Supreme Court 2532. In Para-14 , their Lordship

held that it is apposite to observe that the definition of

workman also doesnot make any distinction between full

2934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

time and part time employee or a person appointed on

contract basis. In Para 26, their Lordship held the other

reason given by High Court is equally untenable. The

appellant could hardly be blamed for the delay in the

adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court or the

writ petition filed by the respondent. The delay of 4-5

years in the adjudication of disputes by the Labour Court/

Industrial Tribunal is a normal phenomena. If what the

High Court has done is held to be justified, gross illegalities

committed by the employer in terminating the services of

workman will acquire legitimacy. In case of H.D.Singh

versus Reserve Bank of India and others reported in AIR-

1986 Supreme Court 132(1). Their Lordship held appellant

entitled to set aside the order of Industrial Tribunal and

directed respondent Bank to enlist the appellant as regular

employee as Tikka Mazdoor to reinstate him and pay him

his back wage upto date. In case of Robert D’Souza versus

Executive Engineer, Southern Railway, reported in AIR-

1982 Supreme Court 854(1). Their Lordship held termination

of service of workman is brought about for any reason

what so ever it would be retrenchment except in the case

falls within any of the excepted categories i.e. termination

by way of punishment inflicted pursuant to disciplinary

action, voluntary retirement of the workman, retirement of

the workman on reaching the age of superannuation,

termination or the service on the ground of ill-health. In

Para-21 their Lordship observed once it is held that

operation of statutory rule in the Manual, the appellant

had acquired a status of temporary railway servant, that

the termination of service in the circumstances alleged

doesnot constitute retrenchment, would the termination

be still valid. Further 2302 prescribes the mode, manner

and methodology of terminating service of a temporary

railway servant and admittedly the procedure therein

prescribed having not been carried out, termination is void

and invalid. Their Lordship concluded in Para 27 and he

declared that termination of service of the appellant was

illegal and invalid and the appellant continues to be in

service and he would be entitled to full back wages. In

case of Krishan Singh versus Executive Engineer, Haryana

State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak (Haryana)

reported in 2010(3) Supreme Court Cases 637, their Lordship

held discretion vested in Labour Court an Industrial

Dispute relating to discharge or dismissal of workman and

if the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction in the

facts and circumstances of the case to direct reinstatement

of a workman with 50 % back wages. Considering pleadings

of parties and evidence on record, interference by High

Court was found not proper. In case of Harjinder Singh

Versus Punjab State Warehousing Corporation reported

in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 116, their Lordship held Section

25 G prescribes the principle for retrenchment and applies

ordinarily the principle of “last come first go” which is not

confined only to workmen who have been in continuous

service for not less than one year. In large number of cases

like present one relief has been denied to the employees

falling in the category of workmen, who are illegally

retrenched from service by creating by lanes and side lanes

in the jurisprudence developed by this Court in three

decades. The stock plea raised by the public employer in

such cases is that the initial employment/engagement of

the workman employee was contrary to some or the other

statute or that reinstatement of the workman will put

unbearable burden on the financial health of the

establishment. The Courts have readily accepted such

plea unmindful of the accountability of the wrongdoer

and indirectly punished the tiny beneficiary of the wrong

ignoring the fact that he may have continued in the

employment for years together and that microwages

earned by him may be the only source of his livelihood. It

need no emphasis that if a man is deprived of his livelihood,

he is deprived of all his fundamental and constitutional

rights and for him the goal of social and economic justice,

equality of status and opportunity, the freedoms enshrined

in the constitution remain illusory. Therefore the approach

of the courts must be compatible with the constitutional

philosophy of which the Directive principles of State Policy

constitute an integral part and justice due to the workman

should not be denied by entertaining the specious and

untenable grounds put forward by the employer- public

or private.

24.

Workman in Case No. 9/12 Umesh completed 212

days working days during preceding 12 months of his

termination. Learned counsel for Ist party workman Shri

Verma submits that in the evidence in cross-examination

of management’s witness Bank was remaining closed on

Sunday and National Holidays for 60-70 days. As per

Section 25(B)(2) of I.D.Act, the Sunday and holidays needs

to be included in the working days. There was no counter

to above submissions.

Section 25(B)(2) of I.D.Act provides-

(2)

Where a workman is not in continuous service within

the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or

six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous

service under an employer-

(a)

for a period of one year, if the workman during a

period of 12 calendar months preceding the date

with reference to which calculation is to be made,

has actually worked under the employer for not less

than-

(i) ……..

(ii)240 days, in any other case.

In calculation of period under Section 2(B) Sunday

and holidays should be taken into account as per ratio

held in Reddy versus Brook Bond referred in 1994-FLR

328(DB) in the commentary. Thus all the workmen have

completed 240 days continuous service during 12 months

preceding their termination. As per evidence of the

management’s witness, termination notice was not given,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2935

retrenchment compensation was paid to the workmen.

Seniority list was not displayed on notice board. The

witness of the management in cross-examination in Case

No. 9/12, management witness Chandra Mohan claims

ignorance whether list of daily wage employees working

in the bank was prepared. He denies that junior employees

are still working in the Bank, in Case No. 10/12, management

witness Shri Prakash Garehte says he did not see list of

daily wager after merger of State Bank of Indore in State

Bank of India, neither their Bank has prepared list of daily

wager working in State Bank of Indore. In Case No. R/11/

12, Shri Prakash Garehte in his cross-examination was

unable to tell how many employees similar to workman

Rajkumar were working in State Bank of Indore. He admits

that services of employees of State Bank of Indore are

transferred to State Bank of India as per merger notification.

That there were no rules or direction for engaging daily

wagers in State Bank of Indore or State Bank of India.

25.

Industrial Dispute Central Rule 77 provides: the

employer shall prepare a list of all workmen in particular

category from which is arranged according to seniority of

their services in that category and a copy thereof to be

pasted on notice board in the premises of industrial

establishment atleast 7 days before the actual date of

retrenchment. No evidence is adduced by management

regarding compliance of Rule 77 that list of daily wage

employees discontinued from service was displayed on

notice board 7 days before. Thus termination of services

of Ist party workmen is in violation of Section 25-F, G of

I.D.Act. Therefore I record my finding on Point No.2 in

Negative.

26.

Point No.3- In view of my finding in Point No.2, the

termination of services of workmen in all cases is in

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

to what relief workmen are entitled. Learned counsel for

workmen Shri Sanjay Verma pointing out my attention to

merger notification- Clause 8,9 and Section 35(8) of State

Bank of India Act submits that only reinstatement with

back wages should be granted in all cases. In reply, Shri

Shroti Advocate for IInd party submits that reinstatement

is not automatic, facts and evidence needs to be

considered. Both the counsel relied on bunch of citations.

27.

The bunch of citations relied by counsel for Ist party

Shri Sanjay Verma. Ratio held in 2006-5-SCC-127, 2006-5-

SCC-173, 2007-5-SCC-742, 2007-9-SC-353, 2007-9-SCC-748,

2008-1-SCC-575, 2008-4-SCC-261, 2008-8-SCC-402, 2008-

9-SCC-486, 2009-15-SCC-327, 2009-16-SCC-562, 2010-6-

SCC-773, 2010-9-SCC-126, 2012-1-SCC-558, 2013-2-SCC-

751, 2013-5-SCC-136, 1994-MPLJ-704. Their Lordship held

that for violation of section 25-F of I.D.Act, reinstatement

with back wages is not automatic, compensation is

awarded Rs. 10,000 to 2 Lakh considering length of service

and other aspects in the case.

“In 1994-MPLJ-704, their Lordship held considering

the peculiar circumstances of the case, in our

opinion, it will be open to the Municipal Council to

terminate the employment of five workmen for want

of sanction of posts after complying with the pre-

requisites of section 25-F of the I.D.Act but that

would not give right to the Municipal Council not to

pay full back wages till date of taking action.”

Copy of judgment in writ petition No. 15091/2007 is

also relied. In view of large number of citations from

Supreme Court are relied by learned counsel for workmen,

in the judgments cannot be beneficially applied to case at

hand.

In case of Dalbir Singh versus Municipal Corporation

2011-SC-2532, their Lordship set-aside judgment of Hon’ble

High Court allowing compensation and restoring the

Labour Court judgment for reinstatement.

In case of Asstt. Engineer, Rajasthan Development

Corporation and another reported in 2012(5) Supreme court

Cases 136, relied by counsel for IInd party . Their Lordship

observed in para 23 of the judgment that two decision in

this court in Harjinder Singh and Devendra Singh upon

his reliance has been placed by learned counsel for

Respondent No. 23, 24. In case of Harjinder Singh, this

court did not interfere in order of High Court which

awarded compensation to workman by modifying the

award of reinstatement passed by Lower Court. However

on close scrutiny of facts, it transpires that was a case

where a workman was initially employed by Punjab State

Warehousing Corporation as work charge motor mate but

after few months he was appointed as work munshi in the

regular pay scale for three months. In para-25 of the

judgment, their Lordship observed in Devendra Singh,

workman was engaged by Municipal council, Sanaur on

1-8-94 for doing the work of clerical nature. He continued

in service till 29-9-96. His service was discontinued w.e.f.

30-9-96 in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. on industrial

dispute being referred for adjudication, the Labur Court

held that the workman had worked for more than 240 days

in a calendar year preceding the termination of his service

and his service was terminated without complying with

the provisions of Section 25-F. Accordingly the Labour

Court passed an award for reinstatement of the workman

but without back wages. Upon challenge being laid to the

award of the Labour Court, the Division Bench set aside

the order of the Labour Court should not have ordered

reinstatement of the workman because his appointment

was contrary to the Recruitment Rules and Articles 14 and

16 of the constitution. In para-26, their Lordship observed

in Devinder Singh, court has not dealt question about the

consequential relief to be granted to the workman whose

termination was held to be illegal being in violation of

Section 25-F.

2936

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In AIR-1986-SC-132 case of H.D.singh versus

Reserve Bank of India, their Lordship dealing with Section

25(B) (2) considering the record was destroyed, drawn

inference that appellant worked more than 240 days. Ratio

cannot be beneficially applied as all the workmen as per

payment vouchers and documents completed 240 days

continuous service.

In case of L.Robert Disouza versus Executive

Engineer , Southern Railway in AIR-1982-SC-854(1) their

Lordship setaside the order of High Court and declared

that termination of service of appellant was illegal and

invalid. The applicant continues to be in service would be

entitled to full back wages.In cases Apex Court in (Para 24

Supra) held that for violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act,

reinstatement with back wages is not automatic. The facts

and evidence of the case needs to be considered. The

ratio in above cited case cannot be applied to case at

hand.

In case of Krishan Singh versus Executive Engineer,

Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak

reported in 2010(3) SCC 637. Their Lordship considering

no plea taken by employer before Labour Court that post

in which workman was working was not sanctioned or his

employment was not to satisfactory rules or that he was

employed elsewhere, there was no vacancy. Their Lordship

directed reinstatement with 50 % back wages.The facts of

present case are not comparable. All the workmen were

engaged on daily wages. There is no question of sanction

of post therefore ratio in above case cannot be applied.

In case of Sunita Gupta versus Nagar Palika Parishad

Sabalgarh and another reported in 2010(3)MPHT 243(DB).

The petitioner was engaged as daily wager w.e.f. 1-9-98.

Her services were terminated from 13-3-00. She worked for

more than 240 days in 12 months, her termination was

without following section 25-F of I.D.Act. Their Lordship

allowed reinstatement without back wages. In view of ratio

held in recent cases by Apex Court as relied by counsel

for Ist party workman in para 24 supra, that for violation of

Section 25-F, reinstatement with back wages is not

automatic. The ratio held in above case cannot be applied.

In case of Shri Harjinder Singh versus Punjab State

Warehousing Corporation reported in AIR 2010-SC-1116.

Their Lordship found retrenchment of appellant in

contravension of last come first go overruled. The award

of reinstatement with back wages by Labour Court was

restored. As held by the Lordship in 2013-5-SCC-136 para-

26 discussed above in Devendra Singh’s case the court

has not laid principles about consequential relief to be

granted to workman whose termination held to be illegal

being in violation of Section 25-F.The principles cannot

be applied to present case.

On point of violation of Section 25-G of I.D.Act relies

on ratio held in case of Bhogpur Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd.

Versus Harmesh kumar in AIR 2007-SC-288(1) . their

Lordship dealing with Section 25-F, 2(oo)(bb) , 25(G) of

I.D.Act held workman not completing 240 days of service,

he was seasonal workman. Provisions of Section 25-G, H

of I.D. Act do not apply.

In case of J.K.Synthetics Ltd. Versus K.P.Agrawal

and another reported in 2007(2) Supreme Court Cases 433,

their Lordship dealing with burden of proof , back wages

held it is necessary for employee to plead that he was not

gainfully employed from date of termination though

employee cannot be asked to prove the negative, he has

to atleast assert on oath that he was neither employed nor

engaged in any gainful business or venture and that he

did not have any income. Then burden will shift to

employer. In present case, all the workmen in their evidence

have claimed that they were unemployed after

discontinuation of service in their cross-examination, they

claims that their wife and other family members are

supporting. The management has not adduced any

evidence that any of the workmen is in gainful employment.

The ratio held in case of Deepali 2013-10-SCC-324 relates

to termination of a teacher. The facts of said case are not

available. Therefore ratio cannot be applied to case at

hand. Reliance is also placed in ratio held in AIR-1971-SC-

2171. The ratio cannot be applied to case at hand as the

trend is subsequently changed by the Apex Court in the

matter of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic.

Therefore the ratio cannot be applied to present case.

28.

Counsel for IInd party Shri Shroti relies on ratio held

in Case of District Red Cross Society versus Babita Arora

and others reported in 2007(7) Supreme Court Cases 366.

The facts of said case are not comparable as there was

closure of one unit and remaining units of the hospital

were functioning. Workman’s claim for benefit of Section

25(G) was rejected. Ratio cannot be beneficially applied to

present case.

In case of Regional Manager SBI versus Rakesh

Kumar Tiwari reported in 2006(1) Supreme Court Cases

530, the respondent workman had not raised any plea in

respect of violation of Section 25-G, their Lordship held it

was not open to Tribunal to go on the tangent and conclude

that termination of service of respondents was invalid. In

present case, in their rejoinder all workmen have raised

pleading about violation of Section 25-G of I.D.Act, Rule

77. Ratio cannot be beneficially applied. In case of Sr.

Senior Superintendent Telegraph versus Santosh Kumar

seal and others reported in 2010(6) Supreme Court Cases

773 , their Lordship considering workmen engaged on daily

wages 25 years back worked hardly for 2-3 years-

compensation Rs.40,000/- each was granted.

In present case, workmen have worked for different

period. Workman in Case no. 9/12 was working from

20-1-99 to 14-8-10, in Case No.10/12 from 3-3-99 to 23-8-10,

in Case No. 11/12 from 21-6-98 to 23-8-10, in Case No.12/12

from 15-3-98 to 28-7-10, in Case no.13/12 from 1-4-99 to

31-8-10, in Case No. 14/12 from 26-2-99 to 21-8-10, in Case

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2937

No. 15/12 from 2-8-03 to 21-8-10, in Case No. 16/12 from 4-

7-98 to 21-8-10, in Case No. 17/12 from 4-6-06 to 30-8-10, in

Case No. 18/12 from 2-8-03 to 29-5-10 & in Case No. 1/13

from 3-2-00 to 21-8-10. Workman in Case No.15/12 worked

from 2-8-03 to 21-8-10 for about 7 years and workman in

Case No.17/12 worked from 4-6-06 to 30-8-10 for about 4

years, workman in Case No. 18/12 worked from2-8-03 to

29-5-10 for about 7 years and workman in Case No 1/13

worked from 3-2-00 to 21-8-10 for about 10 years. The ratio

in the Para 24 supra relied is clear that reinstatement with

back wages is not automatic. The facts of each case needs

to be considered. The workman who worked more than 10

years and workman working between 7,4 years needs

different consideration. Workman who have completed 10

years service for long time deserves reinstatement with 50 %

back wages. Employees working more than 7 years service

deserves compensation Rs. 1,50,000 and workman working

for about 4 years deserves compensation Rs.1,00,000.

Accordingly I record my finding on Point No.3.

29.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Workman in Case No. RC/9/12 to 18/12 & RC/1/13

are not entitled for continuation of service as per

notification of merger dated 28-7-2010.

(2)

Termination of workman in all cases i.e. RC/9/12 to

18/12 & RC/1/13 is illegal for violation of Section

25-F, G, H of I.D. Act.

(3)

IInd party is directed to reinstate workman in Case

No. RC/9/12, 10/12, 11/12, 12/12, 13/12, 14/12, 16/12,

1/13 with 50 % back wages and continuity of service

within six weeks.

(4)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs.1,50,000 to workman in Case No. RC/15/12 & RC/

18/12. IInd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs.1,00,000 to workman in Case No. RC/17/12.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workmen

within six weeks. 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] 25 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1142-—jk"Vªifr] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds fjDr in gsrq fyad

vf/dkjh ds :i esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k&lg&Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds ihBklhu vf/dkjh Jh jk/s';ke ckiwth

iVsy dks 10&03&2014 ls N% ekg dh vof/ rd vFkok fu;fer

in/kj.k dh fu;qfDr gksus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls

tks Hkh igys gks rc rd ds fy, vfrfjDr dk;ZHkkj lksairs gSa A

¹la- ,&11016@03@2009&lh-,y-,l-&IIº

jkts'k oqQekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th March, 2014

S.O.

1142.—The President is pleased to entrust

the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer of

the CGIT-cum-Labour court, Bhubaneswar to

Sh. Radheyshyam Bapuji Patle, Presiding officer, CGIT-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur for a period of six months

with effect from 10-3-2014 or till the post is filled on regular

basis or until further orders whichever is earlier.

[No. A-11016/03/2009-CLS-II]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1143-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 229@2011) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@32@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th March, 2014

S.O.

1143.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 229/

2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-

Labour Court-1, New Delhi 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 25/03/2014.

[No. L-12012/32/2002-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL-NO. I,

DELHI

I.D. No. 229/2011

Shri Krishan Gopal Gupta,

S/o Shri Rajaram Gupta,

176, Panna Lal,

Jhansi – 284002 (U.P.)

.......Workman

Versus

The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Region-III, Zonal Office,

Jammu-180004.

......Management

2938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Special drive for recruitment of clerical staff in Ladakh

region was initiated by State Bank of India (in short the

bank). Claimant was selected as clerk/typist. Offer of

appointment was given to him vide letter dated 07.10.1989

specifying therein that his candidature was being

considered for appointment at Leh branch of the bank. He

accepted the offer and joined at Leh branch of the bank on

22.04.1990. He worked there for a week and absconded on

30.04.1990. He resumed his duties on 26.10.1990. He was

confirmed in services of the bank with effect from

27.04.1991. He got leaves for 15 days sanctioned and

proceeded to his native place at Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, on

30.04.1991. Thereafter he opted not to resume his duties.

He sent volley of applications for leave on medical grounds,

which applications did not find favours with the bank.

Notices were sent, asking him to resume his duties but to

no avail. Ultimately, notice dated 22.02.1996 was sent

calling upon him to resume his duties within a period of 30

days, failing which he were to deemed to have abandoned

his services. The clerk/typist, namely, Shri Krishan Gopal

Gupta, opted not to join his duties, despite service of the

said notice. He was deemed to have abandoned his

services, vide letter dated 23.03.1996. Aggrieved by the

said action of the bank, Shri Gupta raised a demand for

reinstatement in service, which was not conceded to.

Resultantly, he raised a dispute before the conciliation

officer. Since his claim was contested by the bank,

conciliation proceedings ended into a failure. On

consideration of failure report, submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to Central Government Industrial Tribunal,

Chandigarh, for adjudication, vide order No.L-12012/32/

2002-IR(B1) New Delhi dated 17.05.2001 with following

terms:

“Whether action of Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India, Region III, Zonal Office, Jammu,

in not transferring Shri Krishan Gopal Gupta, Clerk/

Typist from Leh to Jammu on medical grounds and

presumed to have been voluntarily resigned and

abandoned his appointment in the bank with effect

from 27.04.1991 is justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled and from which date?”

Claim statement was filed by Shri Krishan Gopal

Gupta pleading therein that he was appointed as clerk/

typist by the bank, on his selection for that post by

Banking Service Recruitment Board, Chandigarh. He was

asked to join duties at Leh(Ladakh) branch. He gave

joining report on 22.04.1990. His services were confirmed

as clerk/ typist on 27.04.1991. He worked at Leh branch

upto 30.04.1991 and proceeded on sanctioned leave of 15

days to his native place at Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh. While at

Jhansi, he fell ill. On account of his ailment, he was not in

a position to join duties. He moved various applications

for leave, which applications were supported by medical

certificates. Doctor told him that his illness was result of

working at high altitude, where temperature used to go

down to -30 degrees Celsius in winter season. On account

of continued illness, which was directly attributable to

living at very high altitude, he could not join his duties.

He was examined by medical officer appointed by the bank

at Jhansi, who opined that it was unsafe for him to join

duties at Leh. From May 1991 to March 1996, leave

applications were regularly sent by him to the bank. He

also made continuous requests for his transfer from Leh

to some other place in plains. From letter dated 08.08.1994,

it was perceived that his application for transfer was under

consideration. His request for transfer was bonafide, on

account of his illness.

To his utter surprise, he received a letter dated

23.03.1996 wherein he was informed that he is deemed to

have voluntarily resigned from his job with effect from

27.04.1991. Said action of the bank is illegal and void ab

initio. No opportunity of being heard was given to him

before passing the order. His absence from duty was

neither unauthorized nor willful as he was prevented from

joining duties at Leh on account of illness. The bank was

not in a position to remove him from service with

retrospective effect. He had never been absent from his

work for a period of 90 days or more without submitting

applications for leave. He had submitted sufficient

documentary evidence about his illness and even the Board

of Doctors, appointed by the bank, gave an opinion in his

favour. He claims that order dated 23.03.1996 may be

declared illegal and the bank may be commanded to

reinstate him in service with continuity and full back

wages. He also claims cost of litigation.

Claim was demurred by the bank, pleading that

remedy of statutory appeal was not availed by the claimant,

hence the dispute is not maintainable. Claim statement is

hopelessly time barred. Claimant had filed a similar suit at

civil court, Jhansi, which was decided against him. Claim

is barred on principles of res judicata, pleads the bank.

The bank projects that special recruitment drive was

initiated to recruit clerk/typist for Ladakh region by the

bank. Incumbents, competing against that special

recruitment drive, were well aware that their services were

meant for Ladakh region in Jammu & Kashmir State. In

case recruitment process would have been launched for

posts in all areas of the country, there would have been

toughest competition and remotest chance of selection

for the claimant on the post of clerk/typist. Claimant

accepted his appointment for Ladakh region and was

estopped from backing out of his contractual obligations.

The bank pleads that after joining his duties on

24.04.1990, claimant absconded from his work place on

31.04.1990. He opted not to join his duties till 26.10.1990,

despite repeated notices sent in that regard. When he was

asked to show cause, he represented that he was confined

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2939

to bed due to illness. Taking a lenient view on his

representation, claimant was allowed to resume his duties

on 27.10.1990. After a short active service of about six

months, claimant succeeded in getting leave of 15 days

sanctioned in his favour. Thereafter, he never reported at

his work place. He made representations to the bank,

requesting for his transfer from Leh to Jhansi, where his

spouse was working in Life Insurance Corporation of India.

To achieve his motive, he exercised pressure upon the

bank from a Member of Parliament. Allergic bronchitis,

the disease from which he is alleged to have been

suffering, is controllable disease and as such, claimant

was never incapacitated to render his services at Leh.

Notices dated 01.07.1992, 23.07.1992, 15.11.1994, 03.01.1996

and 14.02.1996 were sent to him calling upon him to join

his duties. He opted not to join his duties. Lastly, notice

dated 22.02.1996 was sent calling upon him to join his

duties within a period of 30 days, failing which he were to

deemed to have voluntarily abadoned his services. Since

the claimant opted not to join his duties despite receipt of

the aforesaid notice, his services were deemed to have

been abandoned, vide letter dated 23.03.1996. Order passed

by the bank is in conformity with his service conditions.

The said order was passed by the competent authority.

There is no case in favour of the claimant for grant of any

relief, muchless the relief of reinstatement in service with

continuity and full back wages.

The case was transferred to this Tribunal for

adjudication, vide order No.L-12012/32/2002-IR(B-I) New

Delhi dated 13.11.2002, by the appropriate Government.

Vide order No.Z-22019/6/2007-IR(C-II), New Delhi

dated 11.02.2008, case was transferred to Central

Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, New Delhi, for

adjudication, by the appropriate Government. It was

retransferred to this Tribunal for adjudication by the

appropriate Government, vide order No.Z-22019/6/2007-

IR(C-II), New Delhi dated 30.03.2011.

On pleadings of the parties, following issues were

settled by my learned predecessor:

(i)

Whether the claim is premature and not maintainable

as mentioned in Para No.2 of the preliminary

objection?

(ii)

Whether the petition is bad for non and mis-joinder

of necessary party?

(iii)

Whether claim is barred by time?

(iv)

Whether the petition is barred under principles of

res-judicata as per para No.5 of the preliminary

objections?

(v)

As in terms of reference.

(vi)

Relief.

10.

Claimant has examined himself and Shri Devender

Sharma, Postal Assistant, to substantiate his claim. Shri

Devender Kumar Sharma was examined by the bank to

project its case. No other witness was examined by either

of the parties.

11.

Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri R.S. Saini,

authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the claimant. Ms.Kitu Bajaj, authorized representative,

raised submissions on behalf 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

12.

At the outset it has been argued by the bank that

remedy of appeal was available to the claimant against

order dated 21.03.1996. He had not availed remedy of

appeal and moved the Conciliation Officer straightway.

The bank argued that the dispute, raised by the claimant,

is pre-mature. Contra to it, Shri R.S. Saini, presents that

the dispute was raised by the claimant before the

Conciliation Officer in consonance with provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) and the

Conciliation Officer entered into conciliation proceedings,

which proceedings resulted into failure when the bank

adopted a stubborn attitude. On consideration of failure

report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate

Government exercised its powers available under section

10(1)(d) of the Act and referred the dispute for adjudication.

According to Shri Saini, the dispute is in consonance with

spirit of the Act. For an answer to the above contention,

it would be expedient to ascertain as to what term “industrial

dispute” means. For construction of the term “industrial

dispute”, definition provided in section 2(k) of the Act is

to be taken note of. Said definition is extracted thus:

“2(k) “Industrial dispute” means any dispute or

difference between employers and employers, or

between employers and workmen, or between

workmen and workmen, which is connected with

the employment or non-employment or the terms of

employment or with the conditions of labour, of any

person;”

13.

The definition of “industrial dispute” referred above,

can be divided into four parts, viz. (i) factum of dispute, (2)

parties to the dispute, viz.(a) employers and employers,

(b) employer and workmen, or (c) workmen and workmen,

(3) subject matter of the dispute, which should be

connected with –(i) employment or non employment, or

(ii) terms of employment, or (iii) condition of labour of any

person, and (4) it should relate to an “industry”.

14.

The definition of “industrial dispute” is worded in

very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the

meaning given to word “workman” it would seem to

include all “employers”, all “employments” and all

2940

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“workmen”, whatever the nature or scope of the

employment may be. Therefore, except in the case where

there can be a dispute between the employers and

employers and workmen and workmen, one of the parties

to an industrial dispute must be an employee or a class of

employees. The first point, therefore, to be noted, perhaps

self evident, is that the phrase “employer and workmen”,

the plural may include singular on either side or any

permutation of singular or plural, the masculine including

the feminine. In order, therefore, to determine as to whether

a controversy or difference or a dispute is an “an industrial

dispute’ or not, it must first be determined whether the

workman concerned or workmen sponsoring his cause

satisfy the conditions of clause(s) of section 2 of the Act.

Here in the case the bank does not dispute status of the

claimant to be of a workman within the meaning of section

2(s) of the Act.

15.

The Apex Court put gloss on the definition of

“industrial dispute” in Dimakuchi Tea Estate [1958 (I) LLJ

500] and ruled that the expression “any person” in clause

(k) of section 2 of the Act must be read subject to such

limitation and qualification as arise from the context, the

two crucial limitations are (i) the dispute must be a real

dispute between the parties to the dispute (as indicated in

the first two parts of the definition clause) so as to be

capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to the

dispute giving necessary relief to other, and (2) the person

regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one for

whose employment, non employment, terms of employment

or conditions of labour, as case may be, the parties dispute

for a direct or substantial interest. Where workman raised

a dispute as against their employment, the person

regarding whose employment, non employement, terms of

employment or conditions of labour, the dispute is raised

need not be strictly speaking “workman” within the

meaning of the Act, but must be one in whose employment,

non employment, terms of employment, or conditions of

labour the workmen as a class have a direct or substantial

interest. The observations made by the Apex Court are to

be extracted thus:

“We also agree with the expression “any person” is

not co extensive with any workman, particular or

otherwise, equal with other, that the crucial test is

one of community of interest and the person

regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one in

whose employment, non employment, terms of

employment, conditions of labour (as the case may

be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or

substantial interest. Whether such direct or

substantial interest has been established in a

particular case will depend on its facts and

circumstances.”

16.

In Kyas Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. [1958 (2)

LLJ 660], the Apex Court ruled that an industrial dispute

need not be a dispute between the employer and his

workman and that the definition of the expression

“industrial dispute” is wide enough to cater a dispute

raised by the employer’s workman with regard to non

employment of others, who may not be employed as

workman at the relevant time. The Apex Court in Bombay

Union of Journalist [1961 (II) LLJ 436] has observed that

in each case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute

has acquired the character of an industrial dispute, the

test is whether at the date of reference, the dispute was

taken up as submitted by the union of the workmen of the

employer against whom, the dispute is raised by an

individual workman or by an appreciable number of

workmen. In order, therefore, to convert an individual

dispute into an industrial dispute, it has to be established

that it has been taken up by the union of employees of the

establishment or by an appreciable number of the

employees of the establishment. As far as union of the

workmen of establishment itself is concerned, the problem

of espousal by them generally presents little difficulty,

since such workmen who are members of such unions

generally have a continuity of interest with an individual

employee who is one of their fellow workman. But difficulty

arise when the cause of a workman, in a particular

establishment, is sponsored by a union which is not of

the workmen of that establishment but is one of which

membership is open to workmen of their establishment as

well as in that industry. In such a case a union which has

only microscopic number of the workmen as its member,

cannot sponsor any dispute arising between the workmen

and the management. A representative character of the

union has to be gathered from the strength of the actual

number of co workers sponsoring the dispute. The mere

fact that a substantial number of workmen of the

establishment in which the concerned workman was

employee were also members of the union would not

constitute sponsorship. It must be shown that they were

connected together and arrived at an understanding by a

resolution or by other means and collectively submitted

the dispute.

17.

The expression “industrial disputes” has been

construed by the Apex Court to include individual

disputes, because of the scheme of the Act. In Raghu

Nath Gopal Patvardhan [1957(1) LLJ 27] the Apex Court

ruled as to what dispute can be called as an industrial

dispute. It was laid thereon that (1) a dispute between the

employer and a single workman cannot be an industrial

dispute, (2) it cannot per-se be an industrial dispute but

may become if it is taken up by a trade union or a number

of workmen. In Dharampal Prem Chand [1965 (1) LLJ 668]

it was commanded by the Apex Court that a dispute raised

by a single workman cannot become an industrial dispute

unless it is supported either by his union or in the absence

of a union by substantial number of workmen. Same law

was laid in the case of Indian Express Newspaper (Pvt.)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2941

Limited [1970 (1) LLJ 132]. However in Western India

Match Company [1970 (II) LLJ 256], the Apex Court referred

the precedent in Dimakuchi Tea Estate’s case [1958 (1) LLJ

500] and ruled that a dispute relating to “any person

becomes a dispute where the person in respect of whom it

is raised is one in whose employment, non employment,

terms of employment or conditions of labour, the parties,

dispute for a direct or substantial interest”.

18.

What a substantial or considerable number of

workmen would be in a given case, depend on particular

facts of the case. The fact that an “industrial dispute”, is

supported by other workmen will have to be established

either in the form of a resolution of the union of which

workman may be member or of the workmen themselves

who support the dispute or in any other manner. From the

mere fact that a general union, at whose instance an

“industrial dispute” concerning an individual workman is

referred for adjudication, has on its roll a few of the workmen

of the establishment as its members, it cannot be inferred

that the individual dispute has been converted into an

“industrial dispute”. The Tribunal has therefore, to

consider the question as to how many of the fellow

workman actually espoused the cause of the concerned

workman by participating in the particular resolution of

the union. In the absence of a such a determination by the

Tribunal, it cannot be said that the individual dispute

acquired the character of an industrial dispute and the

Tribunal will not acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate upon

the dispute. Nevertheless, in order to make a dispute an

industrial dispute, it is not necessary that there should

always be a resolution of substantial or appreciable number

of workmen. What is necessary is that there should be

some express or collective will of a substantial or an

appreciable member of the workmen treating the cause of

the individual workman as their own cause. Law to this

effect was laid in P.Somasundrameran [1970 (1) LLJ 558].

19.

It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is a

registered trade union or a recognized trade union. Once it

is shown that a body of substantial number of workmen

either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored

the workman’s cause, it is sufficient to convert it into an

industrial dispute. In Pardeep Lamp Works [1970 (1) LLJ

507] complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen were

filed before the Conciliation Officer by the individual

workmen themselves. But their case was subsequently

taken up by a new union formed by a large number of co

workmen, if not a majority of them. Since this union was

not registered or recognized, the workmen elected five

representatives to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed

workmen. Thus cases of the dismissed workmen were

espoused by the new union, yet unregistered and

unrecognized. The Apex Court held that the fact that these

disputes were not taken up by a registered or recognized

union does not mean that they were not “industrial

dispute”.

20.

It is not expedient that same union should remain

incharge of that dispute till its adjudication. The dispute

may be espoused by the workmen of an establishment,

through a particular union for making such a dispute an

“industrial dispute”, while the workman may be

represented before the Tribunal for the purpose of section

36 of the Act by a member of executive or office bearer of

altogether another union. The crux of the matter is that the

dispute should be a dispute between the employer and

his workmen. It is not necessary that the dispute must be

espoused or conducted only by a registered trade union.

Even if a trade union ceases to be registered trade union

during the continuance of the adjudication proceedings

that would not affect the maintainability of the order of

reference. Law to this effect was laid by the High Court of

Orissa in Gammon India Limited [1974 (II) LLJ 34]. For

ascertaining as to whether an individual dispute has

acquired character of an individual dispute, the test is

whether on the date of the reference the dispute was taken

up as supported by the union of the workmen of the

employer against whom the dispute is raised by the

individual workman or by an appreciable number of the

workman. In other words, the validity of the reference of

an industrial dispute must be judged on the facts as they

stood on the date of the reference and not necessarily on

the date when the cause occurs. Reference can be made to

a precedent in Western India Match Co.Ltd. [1970 (II) LLJ

256].

21.

As noted above, provisions of the Act nowhere

places embargo on a workman, or a union or considerable

number of workmen to avail statutory right of appeal first

and then seek redressal of grievance before the

Conciliation Officer, to raise a dispute in that regard. A

union or an individual workman is not saddled with a

responsibility to prefer statutory appeal first and only then

to raise an industrial dispute. Statutory appeal, if any, gives

an additional remedy to a retrenched workman which he

may avail, if finds proper. In case he does not avail the

statutory remedy, provisions of the Act would not come

in his way. Here in the case, claimant opted not to avail

statutory right of appeal and sought redressal of his

grievance before the appropriate forum under provisions

of the Act. No illegality was committed by him in that

regard. Submissions raised by the bank do not have any

teeth to eschew the cause of the claimant. Resultantly, it is

concluded that the dispute was properly raised. The issue

is, therefore, answered in favour of the claimant and

against the bank.

Issue No.II

22.

When called upon to advance arguments as to how

claim petition put forth by the claimant is bad for non-

joinder or mis-joinder of necessary parities, Ms,Bajaj had

to cut a sorry figure. She could not project as to who was

the necessary party whom the claimant would have

2942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

impleaded in the arrays of respondents. Evidently, the bank

miserably failed to discharge onus resting on it in that

regard. It is crystal clear that the bank was the only party,

that was to be impleaded in the dispute. The issue is,

therefore, answered in favour of the claimant and against

the bank.

Issue No.III

23.

Next count of attack made by the bank is that the

claim is hopelessly barred by time. Section 10 (1) of the

Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for making

reference of the dispute for adjudication. The words ‘at

any time’ used in sub section (1) of section 10 of Act does

not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference.

Law of limitation, which might bar any Civil Court from

giving remedy in respect of lawful rights, cannot be applied

by Industrial Tribunals. However, policy of industrial

adjudication is that stale claim should not be generally

encouraged or allowed unless there is satisfactory

explanation for delay. In Shalimar Works Ltd. [1959 (2) LLJ

26], the Apex Court pointed out that though there is no

limitation prescribed in making reference of the dispute to

Industrial Tribunal, even so, it is only reasonable that

disputes should be referred as soon as possible after

having arisen and on failure of conciliation proceedings.

In Western India Match Company [1970 (2) LLJ 256] the

Apex Court observed that in exercising its discretion,

Government will take into account time which has lapsed

between its earlier decision and the date when it decides

to consider it in the interest of justice and industrial peace

to make the reference for adjudication. Same view was

taken in Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. [1975 (2) LLJ 326]. In

Gurmail Singh [2000 (1) LLJ 1080] Industrial Adjudicator

dismissed the reference on the ground that there was delay

of 8 years in raising the dispute, which delay was condoned

by the Apex Court and it was ordered that the workman

would not be entitled to any back wages for the period of

8 years but would be entitled to 50% of wages from the

date it raised the dispute till the date of his reinstatement.

In Prahalad Singh [2000 (2) LLJ 1653], the Apex Court

approved the award of the Tribunal in not granting any

relief to the workman who preferred the claim after a period

of 13 years without any reasonable or justifiable grounds.

In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. [2002 (2) SCC 4] a lapse of seven

years in raising the dispute was held to be a factor to

refuse the relief. The Apex Court ruled that the appropriate

Government has to exercise its powers of referring the

dispute in a reasonable manner. Delay of seven years made

the Court to conclude that there was no dispute existing

or apprehended when decision was taken to refer it for

adjudication. Same view was taken in Haryana State Co-

operative Land Development Bank [2005 (5) S.C.C. 91].

From above decisions, it can be said that the law relating

to delay in raising or reference of dispute is bereft of any

principles, which can be easily comprehended by the

litigants.

24.

As emerge out of the reference order, claimant raised

a dispute before the Conciliation Officer in the year 2000.

Conciliation proceedings failed and failure report was

submitted to the appropriate Government, vide letter dated

21.01.2001. Thereafter, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, in May 2001. As projected

above, order dated 21.03.1996 made it known to the claimant

that he was deemed to have abandoned his service, on

the strength of the aforesaid order in March 1996. Claimant

approached the Conciliation Officer within a span of four

years. This gap of four years is not so inordinate to

conclude that the claim had become stale. There are no

reasons to announce that the claimant raised a dispute

before the Conciliation Officer after a long delay.

Resultantly, it is held that the dispute has not become

stale, which fact may frustrate right of seeking compulsory

adjudication from an industrial adjudicator. The issue is,

therefore, answered in favour of the claimant and against

the bank.

Issue No. IV

25.

In its written statement, bank pleads that similar suit

was filed by the claimant before the Civil Court, Jhansi,

wherein he suffered an order against him. The bank claims

that the order passed by the civil court operates as res-

judicata. Shri Saini argued that neither the said order has

been placed before this Tribunal nor the Civil Court is

competent to adjudicate an industrial dispute. For an

answer to this proposition, law relating to doctrine of res-

judicata would be noted. Law laid under section 11 of the

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (in short the Code) embodies

the doctrine of res-judicata or the rule of conclusiveness

of a judgment, as to the point decided either of fact, or of

law, or of fact and law, in every subsequent suit between

the same parties. It enacts that once a matter is finally

decided by a competent court, no party can be permitted

to reopen it in a subsequent litigation. The doctrine of res-

judicata has been explained in the simplest possible manner

by Das Gupta J. in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal (AIR

1960 S.C. 941) in following words:

“The principle of res-judicata is based on the need

of giving a finality to judicial decision. What it says

is that once a res is judicata, it shall not be adjudged

again. Primarily it applies as between past litigation

and future litigation. When a matter – whether on a

question of fact or a question of law – has been

decided between two parties in one suit or

proceeding and the decision is final, either because

no appeal was taken to a higher court or because

the appeal was dismissed, or no appeal lies, neither

party will be allowed in a future suit or proceedings

between the same parties to canvass the matter

again”.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2943

26.

It is not every matter decided in a former suit that

will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit. To

constitute a matter as res-judicata under section 11 of the

Code, the following conditions must be satisfied:

The matter directly and substantially in issue in the

subsequent suit must be the same matter which

was directly and substantially in issue either actually

or constructively in the former.

The former suit must have been a suit between the

same parties or between parties under whom they or

any of them claim.

Such parties must have been litigating under the

same title in the former suit.

The court which decided the former suit must be a

court competent to try the subsequent suit or the

suit in which such issue is subsequently raised.

The matter directly and substantially in issue in the

subsequent suit must have been heard and finally

decided by the court in the former suit.

27.

In Nawab Hussain, (1977 Lab. I.C.911), the Apex

Court enunciated general principles of doctrine of res-

judicata as under:

“The principle of estoppel per res-judicata is a rule

of evidence. As has been stated in Marginson v.

Blackburn Borough Council [1939 (2) KB 426 at P.437]

it may be said to be “the broader rule of evidence

which prohibits the reassertion of a cause of action.”

This doctrine is based on two theories: (i) the finality

and conclusiveness of judicial decisions for the final

termination of disputes in the general interest of the

community as a matter of public policy, and (ii) the

interest of the individual that he should be protected

from multiplication of litigation. It, therefore, serves

not only a public but also a private purpose by

obstructing the reopening of matters which have

once been adjudicated upon. It is thus not

permissible to obtain a second judgment for the same

civil relief on the same cause of action, for otherwise

the spirit of contentiousness may give rise to

conflicting judgments of equal authority, lead to

multiplicity of actions and bring the administration

of justice into disrepute. It is the cause of action

which gives rise to an action, and that is why it is

necessary for the courts to recognize that a cause of

action which results in a judgment must lose its

identity and vitality and merge in the judgment when

pronounced. It cannot therefore survive the

judgment, or give rise to another cause of action on

the same facts. This is what is known as the general

principle of res-judicata.”

28.

Section 11 of the Code bars trial of any suit as well

as an issue which had been decided in a former suit. Issues

are of three kinds: (i) Issue of fact; (ii) Issue of law ; and

(iii) Mixed issues of law and fact. A decision on an issue of

fact, however erroneous it may be, constitutes res-judicata

between the parties to the previous suit and cannot be

reagitated in collateral proceedings. Law to this effect was

laid in Mathura Prashad [1970 (1) SCC 613]. A mixed issue

of law and fact also, for the same reasons, operates as res-

judicata.

29.

To invoke plea of res-judicata it should be shown

that the court which decided the former suit must have

been a court competent to try the subsequent suit. Thus,

the decision in a previous suit by a court, not competent

to try the subsequent suit, will not operate as res-judicata.

The expression “competent to try” means “competent to

try the subsequent suit if brought at the time the first suit

was brought”. In other words, the relevant point of time

for deciding the question of competence of the court is

the date when the former suit was brought and not the

date when the subsequent suit was filed. In order that a

decision in a former suit may operate as res judicata, the

court which decided that suit must have been either – (a)

a court of exclusive jurisdiction, or (b) a court of limited

jurisdiction; or (c) a court of concurrent jurisdiction.

In industrial jurisdiction principles analogus to res-

judicata are applicable.

30.

Now it would be considered as to whether a Civil

Court is competent to adjudicate an industrial dispute,

relating to rights and liabilities created under the Act. Such

proposition was raised before the Apex Court in Premier

Automobiles Ltd. [1975 (II) LLJ. 445], wherein following

principles were enunciated :

“(I)

If the dispute is not an industrial dispute, nor does

it relate to enforcement of any other right under the

Act the remedy lies only in the Civil Court.

(II)

If the dispute is an industrial dispute arising out of a

right or liability under general or common law and

not under the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court

is alternative, leaving it to the election of the suiter

concerned to choose his remedy for relief which is

competent to be granted in a particular remedy.

(III)

If the industrial dispute relates to the enforcement

of a right or an obligation created under the Act,

then the only remedy available to the suiter is to get

an adjudication under the Act.

(IV)

If the right which is sought to be enforced is a right

created under the Act such as Chapter V-A then the

remedy for enforcement is either section 33-C or the

raising of an industrial dispute, as the case may be.”

However, in relation to Principle No.2, the Court

added that “there will hardly be a dispute which will be an

“industrial dispute” within the meaning of section 2(k) of

the Act and yet will be arising out of a right or liability

under the general or common law only and not under the

Act”.

2944

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

31.

In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

(1995 Lab. I.C. 2241), the Apex Court analysed the earlier

dicta and re-stated the law as follows:

“(1)

Where the dispute arises from general law of contract,

i.e., where reliefs are claimed on the basis of the

general law of contract, a suit filed in civil court

cannot be said to be not maintainable, even though

such a dispute may also constitute an “industrial

dispute” within the meaning of Section 2(k) or

Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2)

Where, however, the dispute involves recognition,

observance or enforcement of any of the rights or

obligations created by the Industrial Disputes Act,

the only remedy is to approach the forums created

by the said Act.

(3)

Similarly, where the dispute involves the recognition,

observance or enforcement of rights and obligations

created by enactments like Industrial Employment

(Standing Orders) Act, 1946- which can be called

‘sister enactments’ to Industrial Disputes Act- and

which do not provide a forum for resolution of such

disputes, the only remedy shall be to approach the

forums created by the Industrial Disputes Act

provided they constitute industrial disputes within

the meaning of Section 2(k) and Section 2-A of

Industrial Disputes Act or where such enactment

says that such dispute shall be either treated as an

industrial dispute or says that it shall be adjudicated

by any of the forum created by the industrial

Disputes Act. Otherwise, recourse to Civil Court is

open.

(4)

It is not correct to say that the remedies provided by

the Industrial Disputes Act are not equally effective

for the reason that access to the forum depends

upon a reference being made by the appropriate

Government. The power to make a reference

conferred upon the government is to be exercised to

effectuate the object of the enactment and hence

not unguided. The rule is to make a reference unless,

of course, the dispute raised is a totally frivolous

one ex-facie. The power conferred is the power to

refer and not the power to decide, though it may be

that the Government is entitled to examine whether

the dispute is ex-facie frivolous, not meriting an

adjudication.

(5)

Consistent with the policy of law aforesaid, we

commend to the Parliament and State Legislatures

to make a provision enabling a workman to approach

the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal directly – i.e.,

without the requirement of a reference by the

Government – in case of industrial disputes covered

by Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. This

would go a long way in removing the misgivings

with respect to the effectiveness of the remedies

provided by the Industrial Disputes Act.

(6)

The certified Standing Orders framed under and in

accordance with the Industrial Employment

(Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are statutorily imposed

conditions of service and are binding both upon the

employers and employees, though they do not

amount to “statutory provisions”. Any violation of

these Standing Orders entitles an employee to

appropriate relief either before the forums created

by the Industrial Disputes Act or the Civil Court

where recourse to Civil Court is open according to

the principles indicated herein.

(7)

The policy of law emerging from Industrial Disputes

Act and its sister enactments is to provide an

alternative dispute resolution mechanism to the

workmen, a mechanism which is speedy, inexpensive,

informal and un-encumbered by the plethora of

procedural laws and appeals and revisions applicable

to civil courts. Indeed, the powers of the Courts and

Tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act are far

more extensive in the sense that they can grant such

relief as they think appropriate in the circumstances

for putting an end to an industrial dispute”.

Same view was taken by the Apex Court in Steel

Authority of India [2001 (7) SCC 1].

32.

Facts detailed in preceding sections make out that

the rights which the claimant claim and obligations which

are imposed on the bank arise out of rights and obligations

created by the Act. An industrial dispute within the

meaning of section 2(k) was referred for adjudication by

the appropriate Government to this Tribunal, invoking its

powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of

the Act. A Civil Court is not competent to adjudicate an

industrial dispute. Hence, Principle (2) referred in para 30

and Principle (1), referred in para 31, do not come into play.

Therefore, judgment of civil court cannot operate as res-

judicata. It would not restrain the claimant in any manner,

from agitating his claim against the bank before this

Tribunal. Issue is, therefore, answered in favour of the

claimant and against the bank.

Issue No. V

33.

In affidavit Ex.WW1/A, tendered as evidence,

claimant unfolds that he worked at Leh branch of the bank

upto 30.04.1991. He proceeded on leave for 15 days to his

native place at Jhansi. He fell ill and could not join his

duties. He applied for leave on medical grounds. Doctor

opined that his illness was result of working at Leh, which

is situated at an altitude of 12000 feet above sea level.

Temperature remains very low during winter season at -30

to -35 degree centigrade and oxygen level is deficient there.

He was not in a position to join his duties and as such

applied for transfer from Leh to some other place in plains.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2945

He had been virtually sending applications from May, 1991

to March,1996, which were supported by medical

certificates. During course of his cross examination, he

projects that on the instructions of the bank, he was

medically examined at Jhansi and report in that regard is

Ex.WW1/1.

34.

In his affidavit Ex.MW1/A, tendered as evidence,

Shri Devender Kumar Sharma details that the claimant was

appointed against a special recruitment drive for Ladakh

region in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Recruitment was

restricted to award staff for that region only. Claimant

offered his services for Ladakh region pursuant to

advertisement published, in that regard. He joined his

services at Leh branch on 24.04.1990. He was half-hearted

towards his duties and always remained in search of a

chance to run away from Leh. Claimant remained absent,

without any leave to his credit. He made a representation

to the bank claiming that he was suffering from allergic

bronchitis and sought transfer to Jhansi, where his spouse

was working. He exerted pressure on the bank through

Shri Sachidanand, Member of Parliament. Opinion of the

Chief Medical Officer of the bank was sought, who opined

that allergic bronchitis does not incapacitate the claimant

to render services at Leh.

35.

Facts unfolded by the claimant and Shri Devender

Kumar Sharma are to be appreciated in the light of the

documents proved by the parties. As emerge out of offer

letter Ex.WW/3, post of clerk/typist at Leh branch of the

bank was offered to the claimant. Claimant accepted that

offer and joined at Leh branch on 22.04.1990. It is not a

matter of dispute that conditions of service, detailed in

Ex.WW1/3, were accepted by the claimant. Ex.WW1/3

brings it to light that the claimant was called upon to give

an undertaking, in writing, to the effect that he was willing

to be transferred to any branch in the Circle at any time

and an application for transfer to any place of his choice

shall not be entertained by the bank before completion of

two years confirmed service. Claimant served the bank

upto 29.04.1990. He absented himself in a unauthorized

manner. He makes a candid admission that he was absent

from his duties from 30.04.1990 to 26.10.1990. He joined

his duties on 27.10.1990 and served the bank upto

30.04.1991. He sought leave for 15 days and left for his

native place. Thereafter, he did not turn up to join duties

and sent applications for leave, claiming himself to be

suffering from nasal trouble, which made him unable to

breathe properly. For the first time, on 28.09.1991, he wrote

to the bank that he may be transferred to some branch in

plains in Jammu region of the bank, which fact has been

brought over the record through application Ex.WW1/20.

Transfer applications started pouring in the bank thereafter,

since the claimant presented that he was unable to work at

high altitude branch at Leh. On 02.10.1993, the claimant

sent application for transfer on the prescribed proforma,

as emerge out of Ex.WW1/98, wherein he sought his

transfer either to Jhansi, Babina or Kanpur branches of

the bank. Another application on prescribed proforma

was sent by the claimant on 11.04.1994 wherein request

for transfer to Jhansi, Babina or Lucknow branches of the

bank was made.

36.

Before proceeding to appreciate facts detailed above,

it would be expedient to know law relating to transfer of

an employee from one place to another. It is well known

that an employee in any concern is in the ordinary course

of business liable to be transferred. No concern could

possibly run if it has no right to transfer its employees

from one branch to another. Transfer might cause some

inconvenience but all employees are bound to suffer this

inconvenience unless there is some stipulation in their

conditions of service, which says that they will remain at

a particular branch or place of business. This liability to

be transferred is normal incidence of service in any concern

and it does not necessarily involve punishment. Right to

transfer an employee is implied right of the employer. No

express term in the contract of service is necessary in that

regard. Right to transfer an employee exists even in

absence of a contract, unless there is a contract to the

contrary. The implied right of the employer to transfer is

available even where an employee is a probationer. In the

absence of anything in the contract of service, general

right of the employer to transfer an employee will remain.

Even where there are standing orders, they do not lay

down all service conditions and even when not mentioned

in the standing orders, an employer has implied right to

transfer an employee from one place to another.

Circumstances that on previous occasions, transfers were

only made with the consent of the employees does not

debar an employer from ordering transfer in the interest of

exigencies of business. When right of transfer was

incorporated in the appointment letter, the employee is

bound to obey the transfer orders issued by the employer.

37.

Shastri Award stipulates that there shall ordinarily

be no transfer of subordinate staff and if there is any

transfer at all, it should not be beyond the language area

of the person so transferred. It has further been detailed

therein that even in case of workman not belonging to

subordinate staff, as far as possible, there should be no

transfer outside the State or language area in which the

employee has been serving, except of course with his

consent. In all cases, number of transfer to which a

workman is subject should be strictly limited and normally

it should not be more than once a year. Ordinarily, an

employee agrees to serve an employer at a particular

station. It may be possible to imply right of employer to

transfer his employee to another branch when the transfer

was ordinary incidence to the employment.

38.

In Alexandera Banzouron (AIR 1930 PC 119), a bank

employee, who refused to abide by the transfer order from

one branch to another, was dismissed for disobedience.

2946

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Before the Judicial Committee, his plea was that in terms

of his contract of service, he was not liable to be transferred

to other branches of the bank. It was found that transfer

was one of the ordinary incidence of conditions of his

service and the Judicial Committee observed that from the

point of view of proper organization of their staff, it is

difficult to assume that the bank would willingly agree

that its employees should not be bound to serve outside

a place where the contract was made, except with their

consent and in their Lordship’s opinion, such conditions

of contract would require to be clearly established, which

in their opinion was not established in that case.

39.

In Kundan Sugar Mills [1960(1) LLJ 266], the Apex

Court ruled that there was liability of being transferred as

an implied obligation of an employee. In Dewan Sugar &

General Mills Ltd. [1954 (1) LLJ 36], the Labour Appellate

Tribunal ruled that an employee is bond to suffer

inconvenience of transfer unless there is some stipulation

in his conditions of service that he will remain stationary

at one place. Principles of law were stated in the following

words:

“Unless in a particular case it is shown that the

management have entered into special agreement

whereby they have bound themselves to keep the

employees at a particular branch of their business,

which is in our view, an ordinary incidence of

conditions of service of the workman that he should

be liable for transfer to other branches of the concern

operating in other centres. Unless the management

is free to exercise this right, it may not always be

possible or convenient for it to carry on its business

properly. It must, however, be remembered that the

management for effecting transfer of workmen from

one place to another is to act bonafide and in the

interest of its business”.

40.

Liability to be transferred from one place to another

by the employer necessarily implies two things, namely,

(i) it can be only taken away or curtailed or regulated in

express terms, and (ii) that the power is only in the

employer, which means that only the employer or a person

either expressly authorized by him or one who can be said

to have that authority impliedly can exercise that power.

Whether an employee can claim transfer on the grounds

of some inconvenience, domestic difficulties or health

conditions? For an answer to this proposition, contract of

service of the employee is to be looked into, with a view to

ascertain whether such right was available to the employee.

In case employer had recognized such right in favour of

his employee, even in that situation, the employer is to

see the exigencies of his business before granting such

right. Employer is to see that its man power has been

distributed in accordance with the needs of the branches

being run to carry on the business. It will also be taken

note of that in case request of one employee is accepted,

situation may prompt others to make request for their

transfers too. Exigencies of business, administrative

reasons, public interest and maintenance of work culture

in the concern are factors which an employer has to judge.

The employer has to consider propriety, necessity or

desirability of request of transfer, made by the employee.

If request for transfer, made by an employee, is prompted

by extraneous consideration then subsequent circums-

tances, which may come to his rescue, would not justify

his request for transfer. It would be expedient to note that

when request of transfer was put forth, employee projected

his aptitude for work, his past conduct has been good and

his efficiency was found to be satisfactory. In case he

was found to be an unwilling worker at the place from

where he seeks transfer, his request would found to be

persuaded by extraneous considerations, which may put

a blot on genuineness of the request made.

41.

As noted above, Shastri Award stipulates that the

banks should not transfer workman outside the State or

language area in which he has been working, except with

his consent. Number of transfers to which a workman can

be subjected have been strictly limited to not more than

once in a year. Limitation on number of transfers was

imbibed therein with a view to reduce the difficulty of

shifting people from one place to another. The bank, in its

15^th meeting of Joint Consultation Committee held on

24.09.1970 agreed that save for special cases warranted

by administrative exigencies, transfer from branches with

surplus staff to the branches where vacancies exist may

generally be effected on following basis: (a) where needs

of the branch are such that an experienced employee is

required, say for opening of new branches or for a branch

which requires senior employees and does not have an

employee with atleast three years service, junior-most

employee with three years service or more may be

transferred, (b) if there are employees with the same length

of service, procedure which is valid for entrusting

officiating powers in similar situation should be followed.

Person who is junior-most, in terms of principles laid down

for determination of seniority for the purpose of officiating

in respect of employees of same seniority, will be

transferred.

42.

Transfer policy regarding deployment of staff was

formulated by the bank wherein it has been incorporated

that the bank in its discretion will determine number of

employees to be re-deployed/transferred from a branch/

office/center to another branch/office or location at the

same centre. Redeployment/transfer of employees from a

branch/office within the center will be on the basis of

length of stay at the branch/office and will be made on the

principles of ‘first come first go’, i.e. longest to stay at a

branch/office will be transferred/redeployed first. Such a

condition for local transfer will be confined to locality

within the centre, such redeployment may be between

branches/offices/location within the control of Assistant

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2947

General Manager of a region or from one region to another

or from region to branch/office/location within the control

of another Assistant General Manager and General

Managers controlled branch/office/ location to Head

Office and Central Office, establishment etc. and vice versa.

With a view to facilitating such transfer/redeployment,

branch-wise/record-wise list of staff (both clerical as well

as subordinate staff) will be prepared and updated every

year on 1^st of August and names of employees will be

arranged in descending order of the length of stay at the

branch/office. The above list will be prepared by each

branch/office, including Zonal Office, Local Head Office,

Learning Centres and Central Office establishments located

at the Center. Concerned controllers of the branches or

offices will be responsible for preparation and accuracy of

the list. Transfers will be effected jointly by the Assistant

General Managers and/or controllers under whose control

the transferor and the transferee branches/offices function.

The bank further stipulates in the policy that an attempt to

bring any political or other outside influence for seeking

transfer from one place to another would amount to

misconduct, which would make an employee liable for

appropriate disciplinary action.

43.

Turning to facts, claimant joined at Leh branch of

the bank on 22.04.1990. He served there till 29.04.1990.

Thereafter, he absented himself in an unauthorized manner

upto 26.10.1990. However, he was allowed to join duties

by the bank on 27.10.1990 and his services were confirmed

on 27.04.1991. He got leave for 15 days sanctioned and

left for his native place at Jhansi on 30.04.1991. In a short

span of one year, claimant remained absent for a period of

six months. Thereafter, he absented himself in an

unauthorized manner and opted not to join his duties till

the date when he was deemed to have voluntarily

abandoned his service. While leaving for his native place,

he was hale and hearty, as emerge out of affidavit Ex.WW1/

A, wherein he claims that he fell ill at Jhansi, which reason

incapacitated him from joining his duties. These facts

bring it to light that the claimant was an unwilling worker.

He never intended to serve the bank at Leh branch, except

for confirmation of his services by the bank.

44.

Ex.WW1/3 stipulates that he was required to give

an undertaking that he would be willing to accept his

transfer to any branch in the Circle at any time and his

application for transfer to a place of his choice shall not be

entertained by the bank before completion of two years of

confirmed service. Thus, terms of his service, contained

in Ex.WW1/3, bring it to light that till completion of two

years confirmed service, the claimant cannot request his

employer to entertain an application for transfer to a place

of his choice. Memorandum of Settlement arrived at on

19.10.1966 stipulates that an award staff shall be entitled

to privilege leave on substantive pay for one month on

completion of 11 months service in the bank. As detailed

above, claimant had only completed six months service to

the bank and 15 days leaves were sanctioned in his favour.

Thereafter, there were no leaves of any kind to his credit.

His absence from duty, with effect from 30.04.1991 till the

date when he was deemed to have abandoned his services

can never be termed as service rendered by him.

Resultantly, it is clear that the claimant had not rendered

two years confirmed service with the bank till date. In

such a situation, applications for transfer, moved by the

claimant, were in contravention to conditions of service,

governing him.

45.

Admittedly his transfer applications were not

granted by the bank. Whether rejection of his transfer

application could be treated as grievance with which the

claimant suffered? In its circulars, the bank had detailed

grievances, redressal of which can be sought by award

staff, which grievances are defined as follows:

(i)

Complaints relating to unfair treatment or wrongful

exaction on the part of any superior official.

(ii)

Complaints affecting one or more individual workers

regarding wage payment, overtime, leave, order of

transfer, seniority, working assignment, working

conditions and rights and privileges of employees

under prescribed terms and conditions of service.

46.

Grievances in respect of order of transfer can be

sought to be redressed only if orders are complained

against on the grounds of victimization, perversity or

malafide of superior officials but not on grounds of

rejection of requests for deferment or cancellation of

transfer order on the grounds of compassion or individual

or family inconvenience alone. Initially a complaint in

respect of grievance is to be made in writing on the

prescribed form by the concerned employee and put up to

the initial authority in respect of departments or the branch,

in which an employee is working, either directly or through

the recognized unions. The initial authority for this purpose

is defined by Local Head Office at every Circle, having

regard to the nature or size of the office where the employee

is working. The initial authority should investigate the

matter, giving fair opportunity to the complainant to adduce

evidence and establish his case and give his decision on

the complaint in writing within seven working days of its

receipt.

47.

As noted above, non-passing of an order of transfer

may amount to a grievance. The claimant nowhere projects

that he made a complaint in respect of the grievance to the

initial authority, for investigation of the same. When he

has not made out a grievance, there arose no occasion for

the claimant to make an appeal to the Appellate Authority

designate by Local Head office in that regard. No case

could be projected by him for making reference of his

grievance to the Grievance Committee. Thus, it is evident

that the claimant could not make out a case that he raised

a grievance when his transfer was not effected and it was

2948

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

not investigated by the initial authority, not to talk of

raising an appeal before the Appellate Authority or making

a reference to the Grievance Committee, constituted by

the bank. Resultantly, it is crystal clear that the claimant

opted not to avail the procedure for redressal of his

grievance, when his request for transfer to a place of his

choice was not conceded to by the bank.

48.

Whether inaction on the part of the bank in not

passing order on his request for transfer, would amount to

his victimization or malafide of the bank in that regard? At

the cost of repetition, it is pointed out that the claimant

had not rendered confirmed service of two years before

making a request for his transfer from Leh branch to some

other branch of his choice. He opted not to join his duties

when his sanctioned leave for 15 days came to an end in

May 1991. Till the bank took drastic action in March 1996

of forming an opinion and passing an order that the

claimant is deemed to have abandoned his service, the

claimant never went to Leh branch to assume his duties.

His thrust of contention had been that he fell ill on account

of hard weather faced by him at Leh, which is located at

high altitude of 12000 feet above sea level. However, he

nowhere projects that he fell ill while being in Leh. His

case has been that he fell ill after reaching his native place

at Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh. Medical certificates, placed over

the record, highlight that initially the claimant was

suffering from rhinitis, subsequently with allergic rhinitis

and thereafter with allergic bronchitis. Allergic rhinitis or

bronchitis is a disease of pollution, or pollution is mainly

responsible for this disease. Leh is not near any coal field.

Neither air pollution nor water pollution nor environmental

pollution exists at Leh. Admittedly, Leh is located at a very

high altitude, where less oxygen is there in the air. Less

oxygen in the air may result in respiratory problem.

However, while at Leh, claimant had not developed any

such problem. Therefore, it does not lie in his mouth that

he fell ill on account of hard weather faced by him at Leh.

49.

As per case of the claimant, he fell ill at Jhansi, Uttar

Pradesh. He might have developed allergy, when he came

in contract to some allergen. He was supposed to keep

himself away from the allergen, which was responsible for

allergic rhinitis or allergic bronchitis. Instead of keeping

himself away from that allergen, the claimant remained in

Jhansi and his problem aggravated. Therefore, it cannot

be said that on account of his posting at height altitude,

he fell ill, which illness incapacitated him in performance

of his duties.

50.

Claimant conceded that in April 1990, there were

25-30 employees working in Leh branch of the bank. Out

of those employees 10-12 were locals. He feigned

ignorance that except local employees, other employees

wanted their transfer(s) to a place of their choice. In case

the bank would have considered request of transfer, made

by the claimant, without rendering two years confirmed

service at Leh branch, then all other employees would

have been prompted to make such a request. Furthermore,

it would have become difficult for the bank to have

sufficient manpower to run its Leh branch. These factors

bring it over the record that refusal of request of transfer

by the bank was neither prompted by any act which may

amount to unfair labor practice or victimization of the

claimant.

51.

In Leh Region, the bank was running branches at

Udhampur, Leh, Kargil, Banihal, Patote, Garhi, Ramban,

Ram Nagar, Doda, Chinar, Thatri, Ghogalansar, Udrana,

Kistwar, Kumbadhkang, Assar, Fire & Fury, Mastlang,

Ramsu, Drass, Kud, Shakar, Pancheri, Trishul, Saspol,

Shargola, Khellani, Seri and Bhalara. Udhampur branch of

the bank is not at a very high altitude, where the claimant

would have been subjected to very difficult season. He

had not requested the Regional Manager, Leh, for his

transfer to Udhampur branch of the bank. Initially, he

claimed for his transfer to Jammu Region of the bank, which

request could have been considered by the Circle Head

only on completion of two years of confirmed service.

Therefore, one may comment that the claimant was

attempting to seek change of his region so that he may

not be called upon to work in Leh Region any more.

Evidently, such steps were taken by the claimant to seek

his transfer to a place of his choice so that he may reach

near Jhansi, his native place. Demands made by the

claimant were not in consonance with his service

conditions. Physical incapacity, if any, suffered by the

claimant, was not on account of tough weather at Leh but

on account of allergy which he contacted at Jhansi, Uttar

Pradesh. In such a satiation, I do not find any justification

in the request of transfer made by the claimant.

52.

Shri Devender Kumar Sharma unfolds that the

claimant exerted pressure on the bank for his transfer

through Shri Sachidanand, Member of Parliament. As

pointed out above, such an act amounts to misconduct,

under service conditions applicable to him. The bank had

not initiated any action in that regard. It has further been

brought over the record by Shri Sharma that the Chief

Medical Officer of the bank opined that allergic rhinitis/

bronchitis would not incapacitate the claimant to render

his services at Leh. There is no denial of these facts.

These factors further give reaffirmation to the proposition

that the claimant was bent upon to seek his transfer, no

matter he violates service conditions and commits a

misconduct. One who violates rules of service cannot

seek equity from his employer. These reasons make me to

comment that act of the bank, in not transferring the

claimant from Leh, is neither unjustified nor illegal. The

bank was within its right when request for transfer made

by the claimant was not considered. Issue referred by the

appropriate Government in that regard is answered in

favour of the bank and against the claimant.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2949

53.

As conceded by the claimant in his testimony, he

had not joined his services after 30.04.1991. He further

concedes that notice Ex.WW1/M1 was served upon him.

He does not dispute that notice Ex.WW1/M2 was served

upon him. He presents that notice was replied by him,

vide Ex.WW1/179. However, he admits that no

documentary proof has been placed before the Tribunal

to substantiate that Ex.WW1/179 was transmitted by him

to the bank. He had made no denial that notice Ex.WW1/

M3 was served upon him. It is also not disputed by him

that Ex.WW1/M4 was received by him. He admits that

letters Ex.WW1/M5 to Ex.WW1/13 were received by him.

54.

Above facts highlight that the claimant opted not

to report for his duties despite various letters and notices

sent by the bank. His overstayal of sanctioned leaves for

such a long period made the bank to assume that he had

voluntarily abandoned his services. Settlement dated

14.04.1989(commonly known as V Bipartite settlement)

projects that 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 extension or

without any leave to his credit or beyond period of leave

sanctioned originally/ subsequently or when there is

satisfactory evidence that he has taken up employment in

India or when the bank is reasonably satisfied that he has

no intention to join duties, the bank may at any time

thereafter give notice calling upon him to report for duty

within 30 days of the notice and on his failure to report for

duty, the employee would be deemed to have voluntarily

retired from bank’s services on expiry of the said notice.

For the sake of convenience, provisions of V Bipartite

settlement are extracted thus:

“ XVII Voluntary Cessation of Employment by the

Employees.

The earlier provisions relating to the voluntary

cessation of employment by the employee in the earlier

settlements shall stand substituted by the following :

(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

extension 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 inter alia the grounds 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.

(b)

Where an employee goes abroad and absents

himself for a period of 150 or more consecutive days

without submitting any application for leave, or for

its extension or without any leave to his credit or

beyond period of leave sanctioned originally/

subsequently or when there is a satisfactory

evidence that he has taken up employment outside

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 notice, stating inter alia the grounds 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.

(c)

If an employee again absents himself within a period

of 30 days without submitting any application after

reporting for duty in response to the notice given

after 90 days or 150 days absence, as the case may

be, the second notice shall be given after 30 days of

such absence giving him 30 days time to report. If

he reports in response to the second notice, but

absents himself a third time from duty within a period

of 30 days without application, his name shall be

struck off from the establishment after 30 days of

such absence under intimation to him by registered

post deeming that he has voluntarily vacated his

appointment”.

2950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

55.

Thus, it is evident that overstayal of sanctioned

leave may be treated as voluntary abandonment of service.

Therefore, question would be as to under what

circumstances overstayal would be considered as

voluntary abandonment of services? Such proposition was

raised before the Apex Court in Jeevan Lal(1961(2) FLR

537) wherein the Court was called upon to construe as to

what continuous absence in the context of gratuity scheme

would mean. It was ruled therein that if an employee

continues to be absent from duty without obtaining leave

and in an unauthorized manner for such a long period of

time, then inference may reasonably be drawn from such

long absence that by his absence he is absenting from

service and long unauthorized absence may ultimately be

held to cause break in continuity of service. It was also

observed therein that it was always to be question of fact

to be decided on the circumstances of each case whether

or not a particular employee can claim continuity in service

for the requisite period or not. The case where long

unauthorized absence gives rise to an inference that such

service is intended to be abandoned by the employee is of

course different.

56.

In Shahoodul Haq (AIR 1974 SC 1986) the Apex Court

laid down law to the same effect. It would be expedient to

reproduce the observations made by the Apex Court,

which are detailed as under:

“The undenied and undeniable fact that the appellant

had actually abandoned his post or duty for an

exceedingly long period, without sufficient grounds

for his absence, is so glaring that giving him further

opportunity to disprove what he practically admits

could serve no useful purpose. It could not benefit

him or make any difference to the order which could

be and has been passed against him. It would only

prolong his agony. On the view we have adopted

on the facts of this case, it is not necessary to

consider the further question whether any notice

for termination of services was necessary or duly

given on the assumption that he was not punished.

We do not think that there is any question involved

in this case which could justify an interference by

us.”

57.

In Venkatiah (1963(7) FLR 343), the Apex Court was

dealing with the same proposition. Observations made

therein are relevant for consideration, which are

reproduced thus:

“It is true that under common law an inference that

an employee has abandoned or relinquished service

is not easily drawn unless from the length of absence

and from other surrounding circumstances an

inference to that effect can be legitimately drawn

and it can be assumed that the employee intended

to abandon service. Abandonment or relinquishment

of service is always a question of intention, and

normally, such an intention cannot be attributed to

an employee without adequate evidence in that

behalf”.

58.

In Syndicate Bank (2000 (85) FLR 807) and Manzur

Ali Khan (2001(91) FLR 28), sharing the same view it was

announced that if a person absents himself beyond the

prescribed period for such leave of any kind can be granted,

he should be treated to have resigned and ceased to be in

service. It was concluded therein that in such cases, there

was no need to hold an enquiry or to give any notice as it

would amount to useless formalities.

59.

In the light of the above proposition of law, it would

be expedient to know what the words ‘abandon’ and

‘abandonment’ mean? Ordinarily, the word ‘abandon’ does

not mean ‘merely leave’ but ‘leaving completely and

finally. Word “abandonment” would indicate that it has a

connotation of finality, which would mean relinquishment

or extinguishment of a right, giving up of something

absolutely, giving up with an intent of never claiming a

right or interest, to renounce or forsake utterly. In order to

constitute an “abandonment” there must be a total or

complete giving up of duties, so as to indicate an intention

not to resume the same. Abandonment must be total and

under circumstances which clearly indicate an absolute

relinquishment. A failure to perform duties pertaining to

an office must be with an actual or imputed intention on

the part of the officer to abandon and relinquish the office.

60.

Abandonment is a voluntary positive Act. A man

must expressly say that he gives up his right. If he remains

quiet, it cannot be said that he is forsaking his title to

property or his interest therein. An office is abandoned

by ceasing to perform its duties. A temporary absence is

not, ordinarily sufficient to constitute an abandonment of

an office. A mere absence of a workman from duty cannot

be treated as an abandonment of service. Abandonment

or relinquishment of service is always a question of

intention and normally, such an intention cannot be

attributed to an employee without adequate evidence is

that behalf. However, the “intention” may be inferred from

the acts and conduct of the party. The question as to

whether the job, in fact has been abandoned or not, is a

question of fact which is to be determined in the light of

the surrounding circumstances of each case.

61.

Whether the bank had followed requisite procedure

provided by Clause XVII of the V Bipartite Settlement ? At

the cost of repetition, it is said that when an employee

absents himself from work for a period of 90 days or more

consecutive days: (i) without submitting any application

for leave; or (ii) application for extension of leave; or (iii)

without any leave to his credit; or (iv) beyond period of

leave sanctioned originally/subsequently; or (v) when

there is satisfactory evidence that he has taken up

employment in India; or (vi) when the bank is reasonably

satisfied that he has no intention of joining duties, the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2951

bank may at any time thereafter give notice to him at his

last known address calling upon him to report for duty

within 30 days of the notice stating the grounds for coming

to the conclusion that the employee has no intention of

joining duties and furnishing necessary evidence where

available. It is evident that the employer shall serve a

notice on the employee calling upon him to join his duties

within 30 days of the notice. The employer is obliged to

state the grounds for coming to the conclusion that the

employee has no intention of joining duties. It is also to

be detailed in the notice that in case of his failure to report

for duty within 30 days of the notice or offer on explanation

for his absence, and expression of intention of joining

duties, he shall be deemed to have voluntarily retired from

bank’s service on expiry of the said notice. When contents

of notice dated 23.03.1996 are perused, it is clear that the

bank detailed that the claimant had absented himself from

duty since 30.04.1991 unauthorizedly, which position was

in contravention of service rules applicable to him. Spell

of his long unauthorized absence, made his intention of

not joining duties apparent and well known. He absented

himself from reporting for his duties for a period of 90 or

more consecutive days without any extension of leave.

Time and again, the bank wrote to him calling upon him to

report for duties, but to no avail. In letter dated 23.03.1996,

it was emphasized by the bank that his absence was highly

irregular and in contravention of the service rules.

Therefore, it is evident that in the notice sent to the

claimant, the bank detailed grounds for coming to

conclusion that he had no intention of joining his duties.

30 days’ time was given to the claimant to report for his

duty, but he had not availed that opportunity.

Consequently, it is evident that all requirements detailed

in Clause XVII of the V Bipartite settlement stood satisfied.

The claimant voluntarily abandoned his services.

62.

There are circumstances which give reaffirmation to

these facts. The bank informed the claimant vide letter

dated 23.03.1996 that he is deemed to have voluntarily

abandoned his service with effect from 30.04.91. Despite

that he did not come out of slumbers. That fact bring his

intention to abandon his services over the record. These

circumstances make it evident that he had no intention to

join and abandoned job voluntarily.

63.

Whether the bank was enjoined with a duty to

initiate enquiry against the claimant for his unauthorized

absence, before invoking provisions of clause 17 of 5^th

Bipartite Settlement ? In Suresh Chand (2007 LLR 344)

contention of the workman that no domestic enquiry was

conducted and termination of his services was illegal, was

brushed aside and it was ruled that when a workman absents

from duty without any intimation or prior permission,

termination of his services without holding an enquiry

will be justified. In Vijay Pal (2007 L.L.R.7) and G.T.Lad

(1979 Lab.I.C. 2910) same proposition of law were laid. In

Syndicate Bank (AIR 2000 S.C. 2198) the Apex Court was

confronted with such a proposition, as exists in the present

controversy. Workman was absent from his work place

for a period of 90 or more consecutive days. A notice was

served upon him to report for duty within 30 days of notice

along with the grounds on which bank came to the

conclusion that the workman had no intention to join his

duties. The workman did not respond to that notice at all.

The bank passed orders to the effect that the workman

had voluntarily retired from the service of the bank. The

Apex Court laid that as far as principles of natural justice

are concerned the Court was to consider: (1) whether show-

cause notice detailing the note of complaint or accusation

was served, (2) whether an opportunity was there for the

workman to state his case, and (3) whether the management

acted in good faith and has been fair, reasonable and just.

It was ruled therein that on the facts and circumstances of

the case the principles of natural justice were inbuilt in the

clause relating to voluntary cessation of employment and

when workman had not opted to join his duties on service

of notice, principles of natural justice were complied with.

The law laid by the Apex Court in the precedent referred

above is applicable to the case of Shri Gupta. In view of

these reasons it is concluded that Shri Gupta can not

agitate that principles of natural justice were not followed

when order impugned was passed by the bank. On these

count too, Shri Gupta has no case for intereference by this

Tribunal. Resultantly issues, referred in the reference order,

are answered in favour of the bank and against the

claimant.

Relief.

64.

In view of reasons detailed above, I find action of

the bank in treating Shri Gupta deemed to have voluntarily

abandoned his service as just, fair and legal. He is not

entitled to any relief. His claim is brushed aside. An award

is, accordingly, passed in favour of the bank and against

the claimant. It be sent to appropriate Government for

publication.

Dated : 27--02-2014

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1144-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 27@1999)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@90@94&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

2952

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 25th March, 2014

S.O. 1144.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/1999)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Bank of India and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

14/03/2014.

[No. L-12012/90/94-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/27/1999

Date: 20.02.2014.

Party No. 1

The Regional Manager,

Bank of India, Chandrapur,

Regional Office, 13 Mul Road,

Chandrapur. (MS).

Versus

Party No. 2

The Regional Secretary,

B.O.I. Workers Organisation,

“OM Niwas” Laxmi Nagar,

Wadgaon Road,

Chandrapur- 442 401.

AWARD

(Dated: 20th February, 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 had referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Bank of India and their workman, Shri D. N.

Punekar, to the CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-12012/90/94-IR (B-II) dated

26.08.1994, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of

India, Chandrapur in terminating the services of

Shri D. N. Punekar, Sepoy w.e.f. 11.07.1993 is justified?

If not, what relief is the said workman entitled to?”

Subsequently, the case was transferred to this

Tribunal for adjudication in accordance with law.

On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to

file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, in response to which, the union, “Bank of India

Workers Organisation”, (“the union” in short) filed the

statement of claim on behalf of the workman Shri D.N.

Punekar, (“the workman” in short) and the management of

Bank of India, (“party no.1” in short) filed the written

statement.

The case of the workman by the union in the

statement of claim is that the party no.1 is a Nationalized

Bank and it (the union) is a registered trade union under

the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the service conditions of

the employees of the Nationalised Banks are governed by

the provisions of the Sastry Award, Desai Award and

Bipartite Settlements, signed under the Act and the

workman is a member of the union and upon the

requirement of the party no.1, the name of the workman

was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he was

interviewed by the Bank officials and after completing the

necessary formalities, the workman was selected for the

post of sub-staff (sepoy) and he came to be appointed at

Bamhni branch in the year 1990 and his services were

terminated w.e.f. 11.07.1993 and from the date of his

appointment till the date of his termination from services,

the workman was required to perform all the duties of

permanent sub-staff working in the bank for full day, but

no appointment order was given to him with malafide

intention by party no.1 and his name was also not shown

on the muster roll of Bamhni Branch and he was paid less

salary than what was provided in the Bipartite Settlement

and no holiday or Sundays were given in a sense, no

payment for the holidays and Sundays was made to him

and the workman worked for 15 days, 228 days, 225 days

and 127 days in the years 1990, 1991, 1992 and up to

10.07.1993 respectively and the vacancy, in which his

appointment was made was of permanent nature and after

the termination of the services of the workman, persons

juniors to him in service were continued or reappointed

by party no.1 and since, the appointment of the workman

was against vacancy of permanent nature, automatically

he got the status of permanent employee within the

provisions of Bipartite Settlement and he was deemed to

have been confirmed in the services of party no.1, after six

months, from the date of his appointment and the

termination of the workman was illegal, as no notice as

required under the law was given to him and neither any

charge sheet was submitted nor any departmental enquiry

was conducted against him and as the workman had

worked for more than 240 days continuously preceding

the date of termination and as the provisions of Section

25-F of the Act were not complied with, his termination

amounted to retrenchment and as such, the termination of

the workman from services was illegal and as juniors to

the workman were appointed in service by party no.1, there

was violation of the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H

of the Act and the workman is entitled for reinstatement in

service with continuity, full back wages and all other

consequential benefits.

The party no.1 in the written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that the workman was engaged purely on casual

basis by the Bamhni Branch, whenever the regular sepoy

of the branch was remaining on leave and the same was

done to enable the bank to give minimum service to its

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2953

customers and the name of the workman was sponsored

by the Employment Exchange for selection of persons to

be engaged on casual basis and was not for appointment

on permanent or regular basis and no such indent was

given by it and for appointment of persons in sub-staff

cadre on regular basis, an indent to that effect is required

to be sent to the Employment Exchange and the

Employment Exchange accordingly is required to sponsor

the candidates for such selection and the engagement of

the workman from time to time on casual basis was

dependent upon the existence of any leave vacancy or

temporary increase in work of the branch and the workman

was never appointed on regular basis at any time and his

engagement was always coming to an end automatically

on cessation of the leave vacancy or temporary increase

in work and there was never any termination of the services

of the workman and a person working in the leave vacancy

is required to do all the duties of the regular employee and

as such, performance of duties of a regular/permanent sub-

staff by the workman is wholly irrelevant.

The party no.1 has admitted the claim of the workman

about the number of days of his engagement as claimed in

paragraph 5 (b) of the statement of claim. It is further

pleaded by the party no.1 that as the engagement of the

workman was on casual basis and his non-engagement

was not based on misconduct, there was no necessity of

submitting charge sheet or departmental enquiry and there

is usually a panel of persons, who are required to be

engaged, whenever such contingency arises, depending

upon the availability of such person on that particular day

and there is as such, no question of persons on such

panel being either senior or junior to each other and the

provisions made in the first bipartite settlement, particularly

para 20.7 permits the Bank to engage the services of

temporary casual sepoy in the leave vacancies of regular

sub-staff and as such, its action was wholly within the

frame work of law and is legal and justified and the workman

did not work for 240 days preceding the date of his

termination and the provisions of Sections 25-B and 25-F

are not applicable to the case of the workman, since his

each engagement was casual and the same was coming to

an end, with the end of the contingency and the provisions

of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act are not attracted and

the workman is not entitled to any relief.

In support of the claim, five witnesses including the

workman have been examined by the union, besides

placing reliance on the documentary evidence. The

witnesses examined by the workman are (1). Shri Digambar

Namdeo Punekar (the workman), (2). Shri Vinayak Joshi,

(3). Shri Shirish A. Damle, (4). Shri Arvind M. Tamhaney

and (5). Shri Rajendra M. Dahikar.

One Shri Laxmichand S. Kharole has been examined

as the only witness on behalf of the Party No. 1.

At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

representative for the Party No. 1 that the workman was

engaged on purely casual basis temporally and his

engagement was as and when required basis, due to taking

of leave by the permanent Sub-staff or temporary increase

of work load in the branch and the workman did not

complete 240 days of work in the preceding 12 calendar

months of the alleged date of termination and the evidence

on affidavits of the witnesses examined by the union are

general affidavits and no reliance can be placed on the

same, as no document has been produced by the workman

to demonstrate that he had worked for 240 days in the

preceding 12 months of the alleged date of termination

and the workman has failed to discharge the burden of

proving that in fact he had worked for 240 days in the

preceding 12 months of the date of termination, so the

provisions of the Act are not applicable and the workman

is not entitled to any relief.

In support of the submissions, reliance was placed

by Party No. 1 on the decisions reported in AIR 2004 SC –

4791 (M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Hariram), (2006) 1 SCC –

106 (R.M. Yellatti Vs Asstt. Executive Engineer), (2006) 9

SCC – 697 (Krishna Bhagya Jal Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mohd.

Raffi), (2006) 9 SCC – 132 (Surendra Nagar District

Paanchayat Vs. Gangaben), Writ Petition No. 1072/2002 of

Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, (2006) 6 SCC – 221

(Reserve Bank of India Vs. Gopinath Sharma) and AIR

2006 S C – 839 (Regional Manager, SBI Vs. Rakesh Kumar).

It is to be mentioned here that no argument as

advanced by the union.

At the outset, I think it necessary to mention that it

is settled beyond doubt by the principles enunciated by

the Hon’ble Apex Court in a string of decisions that the

Tribunal cannot travel outside the terms of reference and

the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in industrial disputes is

limited to the points specifically referred for its adjudication

and to matters incidental there to.

Though the reference has been made by the Central

Government for adjudication of the legality or otherwise

of the termination of the workman, the union, in the guise

of raising the dispute on behalf the workman has tried to

challenge the policy adopted by the party no.1 of engaging

persons on temporary basis, inspite of having number of

permanent vacancies in the cadre of sub-staff at different

branches of the Bank. In view of the settled principles that

the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the terms of reference

as already mentioned above and in view of the fact that

such specific terms of reference has not been made by the

Government, such claim cannot be adjudicated.

Moreover, from the materials on record including

the pleadings of the parties, it is found that the engagement

of the workman in this case as sepoy was not against any

2954

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

permanent vacancy in the branch, but his engagement

was on temporary basis as a daily wager, as and when

required basis against leave vacancy of the permanent

sub-staff or due to temporary increase of workload in the

branch.

At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention the

principles enunciated by the Hon,ble Apex Court in the

decision reported in (2006) 6 SCC-221 (supra). The Hon’ble

Apex Court have held that:-

“ Labour Law-Daily wager-Disengagement of-

Validity-Workman not appointed to any regular post

but engaged on the basis of need of work on day to

day basis, held had no right to post.”

10.

At this juncture, I also think it necessary to mention

about the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court

in the decision reported in AIR 2006 SC-1806 (Secretary,

State of Karnatak Vs. Umadevi & others)(Constitutional

Bench).

It is said decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court have

held that:-

“Rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed and the

court/Tribunal cannot direct regularisation of

temporary appointees de hors of rules-State owned/

operated corporations-Appointment-Modes of

appointment – Held regularization cannot be a mode

of appointment- Public Sector- Appointment- Mode

of appointment-Held, regularization cannot be a

mode of appointment- Labour Law- Appointment-

Mode of appointment-Held, regularization cannot

be a mode of appointment- Regularization- Held, not

a permissible mode of appointment.”

It is also settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that:

“The term ‘temporary employee’ is a general category

which has under it several sub-categories e.g. casual

employee, daily-rated employee, ad hoc employee, etc. A

daily-rated or casual worker is only a temporary employee,

and it is well settled that a temporary employee has no

right to the post, or to be continued in service, to get

absorption, far less of being regularized and getting regular

pay. No doubt, there can be occasions when the state or

its instrumentalities employee persons on temporary or

daily wage basis in a contingency as additional hands

without following the required procedure, but this does

not confer any right on such persons to continue in service

or get regular pay. Unless the appointments are made by

following the rules, such appointees do not have any right

to claim permanent absorption in the establishment. The

Court cannot direct continuation in service of a non-regular

appointee. Even if an ad hoc or casual appointment is

made in some contingency the same should not be

continued for long, as was done in the present case. A

casual or temporary employment is not an appointment to

a post in the real sense of the term. The argument that

since one has been working for some time in the post, it

will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was

aware of the nature of the employment when he first took

it up, is one that would enable the jettisoning of the

procedure establish by law for public employment.”

It is also settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that:-

“Employment on daily wage – Confers no right of

permanent employment- Daily wager appointed on

less than minimum wages – Not forced labour –

Continued on post for long period – Daily wagers

from a class by themselves – They cannot claim

parity visa-a-vis those regularly recruited on basis

of relevant rules and cannot be made permanent in

employment.

Employees were engaged on daily wages in the

concerned department on a wage that was made known to

them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not

being paid. Those who were working on daily wages

formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they

are discriminated as against those who have been regularly

recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can

be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim

that such employee should be treated on a par with a

regularly recruited candidate and made permanent in

employment even assuming that the principle could be

invoked for claiming the equal wages for equal work. There

is no fundamental right in those who have been employed

in daily wages or temporally or on contractual basis, to

claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service.

They cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular

appointment to be made only by making appointments

consistent with the requirements of articles 14 and 16 of

the Constitution. The right to be treated equal with the

other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be

extended to a claim for equally treatment with those who

were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals

as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be

absorbed in service even though they have never been

selected in terms of relevant recruitment rules.”

Keeping in view the settled principles as mentioned

above, now, the present case in hand is to be considered.

11.

On perusal of the materials on record including the

pleadings of the parties and taking into consideration the

submissions made during the course of argument by the

party No.1, it is found that the workman was engaged as a

Sepoy on daily wages basis at Bamhni Branch and he

worked in the said branch intermittently in the leave

vacancy of permanent Sub-staff or when there was

temporary increase of work in the branch. The

appointment of the workman was not against any

permanent post. It is clear from the record that the

appointment of the workman was not in accordance with

the of the Rules of recruitment of Party No. 1. It is also

clear from the pleadings of the party No.1 that the workman

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2955

worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months

of the alleged date of termination i.e. 11 07.1993. To avail

the benefits of Section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary to

show that infact the workman had worked for 240 days in

the preceding 12 months of the date of termination. As

admittedly, the workman worked for 240 days in the

preceding 12 months of the date of termination, it was

necessary for Party No. 1 to comply with the provisions

of Section 25-F of the Act. As the mandatory provisions

of section 25-F of the Act were not complied with, the

termination of the services of the workman is illegal.

12.

Now, the question remains for consideration is as to

what relief or reliefs the workman is entitled.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in

(2013) 5 SCC-136 (Asstt. Engineer, Rajsthan Development

Corporation Vs. Gitam Singh) 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, (2010) 3 SCC-192 (Harjinder Singh Vs.

Punjab State Warehousing Corporation) and (2010) 9 SCC-

126 (Incharge Officer Vs. Shankar Setty)and 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 line 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 all 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 case, it is admitted

that the workman was engaged as a daily wager in1990. It

is also found that he continued as such till 10.07.1993,

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. 45,000/-

(Rupees forty Five thousand only) in lieu of reinstatement

shall be appropriate, just and equitable. Hence, it is

ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of Bank of India,

Chandrapur in terminating services of Sri D.N. Punekar,

Sepoy w.e.f. 11-07-1993 is illegal and unjustified. The

workman is entitled for monetary compensation of Rs.

45,000/- (Rupees Forty 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. 45,000/- to the workman Shri D.N.Punekar 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

per cent per annum.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1145-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks cSad ds

izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 554@2005) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25&03&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@32@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQEkj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th March, 2014

S.O.

1145.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 554/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of UCO Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 25-03-2014.

[No. L-12012/32/2001-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 No. I.D. No.554/2005

Registered on 23.8.2005

Sh. Lokesh Kumar,

C/o Sh. H. Ghai,

K.No. 2158, Sector 38C, Chandigarh.

.......Petitioner

Versus

UCO Bank,

The Divisional Manager,

UCO Bank, Sector 17B, Chandigarh

......Respondent

2956

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. Tek Chand Sharma

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi

AWARD

(Passed on 19.2.2014)

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/

32/2001/IR(B-II) Dated 8/13.6.2001, 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 UCO

Bank in terminating the service to Sh. Lokesh Kumar

is just and legal? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to and from which date?”

In response to the notice the workman appeared

and filed statement of claim pleading that he was appointed

as Clerk with the respondent bank on compassionate

grounds and he did his duty honestly and efficiently. The

respondent management vide order dated 21.3.1995 served

a charge sheet on him to which he submitted reply.

Thereafter vide order dated 26.4.1995 an Inquiry Officer as

well as Presenting Officer was appointed. After completing

the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report. On its

basis his services were terminated. The appeal preferred

by him was also dismissed. He had challenged his dismissal

order on the ground that the inquiry conducted is not fair

and proper. That the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting

Officer were senior to him and he was not told about the

assistance of a co-worker and had no legal knowledge.

That the charge-sheet served on him was vague which

was drawn on a pre-determined conclusion and the Inquiry

Officer conducted the inquiry against the settled principles

of rules and regulations and he has not been given

opportunity of being heard and to present his case to the

Inquiry Officer. That the Inquiry Officer and the Branch

Manager pressurized him to admit the charges on the

assurance that a lenient view would be taken. That he is a

victim of double jeopardy as he was compelled to deposit

the amount and on the other hand his services were

terminated. That his termination on the basis of improper

inquiry is liable to be set aside.

Respondent management filed written statement

pleading that workman made fraudulent withdrawals of

sum of Rs.85000/- as mentioned below :-

Sr. Date

Amount

A/C No.

A/C Holder

No.

30.11.91

Rs.10,000/-

S/B a/c 3356

S.K. Saxena

29.1.92

Rs.10,000/-

S/B a/c 1724

P.S. Chauhan

3.3.92

Rs.15,000/-

S/B a/c 1724

-do-

29.4.92

Rs.10,000/-

S/B a/c 1724

-do-

29.5.92

Rs.10,000/-

S/B a/c 1724

-do-

6.7.92

Rs.10,000/-

S/B a/c 1724

-do-

29.7.92

Rs.20,000/-

S/B a/c 2035 Nachhatar Singh

On the basis of fake withdrawal slips he made

confessional statement on 26.11.1994 and deposited the

amount as follow:-

26.11.1994

Rs.10000/-

28.11.1994

Rs.05000/-

02.12.1994

Rs.40000/-

03.12.1994

Rs.30000/-

Total

Rs.85000/-

Considering the gravity and misconduct, he was

served with a charge-sheet to which he submitted reply

and considering the same as not satisfactory, an inquiry

was ordered by appointing an Inquiry Officer as well as

Presenting Officer. During the course of inquiry the

workman again made his confessional statement and

accordingly the Inquiry Officer submitted the report that

charges were proved against the workman. Acting on the

report of the Inquiry Officer and serving a show-cause

notice to the workman, his services are legally and validly

terminated. There is no defect in the conduct of the inquiry.

The appeal preferred by him was also dismissed.

In support of its case the workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as

set in the claim petition.

On the other hand the respondent bank has examined

Sh. Prem Chand Gupta, Manager who filed his affidavit

supporting the case of the respondent bank as set out in

the written statement.

I have heard Sh. Tek Chand Sharma, counsel for the

workman and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management

and perused the file including the copy of the inquiry

proceedings. The charge-sheet was served on the workman

for fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.85000/- as reproduced

above. He denied the charges. Thereafter inquiry was

initiated by appointing an Inquiry Officer as well as

Presenting Officer. The workman appeared before the

Inquiry Officer on 19.5.1995 and sought adjournment for

arranging his defence representative which was allowed.

But he could not arrange the defence representative. He

denied the charges before the Inquiry Officer. The case

was fixed for recording the statements of the management

witnesses on 5.10.1995 when 7 witnesses came present.

Inquiry report further shows that on that day, the workman

had shown his willingness to admit the charges and he

was given time by the Inquiry Officer to rethink about his

confession. But after sometime, he again appeared and

admitted the charges and his statement was recorded.

Relying on his confessional statement, charges were found

proved against him. It cannot be said that he made

confessional statement under the pressure of anyone. The

Inquiry Officer has specifically gave him time to think over

the matter before recording his statement. Workman

cannot say that he was not been allowed to engage the

co-worker as opportunity was afforded to him to bring his

defence representative. It is not shown how any Rules

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2957

and Regulations were violated in the conduct of the

inquiry. Acting on the inquiry report, the disciplinary

authority awarded a punishment after serving a show cause

notice and the appeal preferred by him was also dismissed.

There is no illegality in the inquiry and the same is held to

be fair and proper.

It was argued that charges pertained to the year

1991-92 and he was charge sheeted on 1995 i.e. after a

considerable delay and he has deposited the alleged

amount and therefore the punishment of removing him

from service is highly excessive and is not justified.

This Court has the powers to award lesser

punishment in lieu of dismissal, but this power is to be

exercised in exceptional cases and that too warranted by

the material on record. The workman was an employee of

the bank. There is no denial of the fact that bank business

survives on honesty. But the workman is guilty of

fraudulently withdrawing sum of Rs.85000/- from the

accounts of different account-holders and in the

circumstances it cannot be said that the punishment

awarded is to be interfered with. Thus, no reason is made

out to award him lesser punishment.

In result, it is held that the action of the management

in terminating the services of the workman is just and

legal and the workman is not entitled to any relief. The

reference is accordingly 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] 25 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1146-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯lfMdsV cSad

ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

142@94) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20&03&2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@81@94&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th March, 2014

S.O.

1146.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 142/94) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

20-03-2014.

[No. L-12012/81/94-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/142/94

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE

Shri Satish Kumar,

S/o Shri Bherulalji Solanki,

151/2, Hath Ki Chowki,

Near Marimata Mandir,

Ratlam

......Workman

Versus

The Branch Manager,

Syndicate Bank,

Ratlam

....Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 18^th day of February, 2014)

As per letter dated 11-8-94 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/

81/94- IR(B-2). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Syndicate

Bank, Ratlam in terminating the services of Shri

Satish Kumar, casual worker w.e.f. 18-11-92 is

justified? If not, what relief is the said workman

entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman Satish Kumar submitted

Statement of claim at Page 5/1 to 5/9. The case of Ist party

workman is that he was working as part time sweeper-

cum- attendant in Syndicate Bank, Ratlam as per oral order

of the Branch Manager. He had worked for two months as

attendant. He was also working as part time sweeper for 3

months. That on 18-11-92, IInd party No.3 refused work

to the workman. That he had received copy of the letter

addressed to ALC, Bhopal expressing probabilities that

workman was not verbally appointed. IInd party No.3 had

informed that the payments made to the workman against

non-banking work. Workman further submits that he

received bonus for the year 1991, that payment by oral

orders is not legal. Without giving one month’s notice or

pay in lieu of notice, his services were discontinued. That

the Bank was paying salary under different rates. That

IInd party No.2 addressed letter to Secretary, Human

Rights Commission admitting that the workman worked as

part time sweeper/ attendant. IInd party No.2 has illegally

transferred Santosh from Ujjain to Ratlam Branch. Post of

part time sweeper is filled by calling name from local

Employment Exchange. The transfer of Santosh is illegal.

IInd party No.2 deliberately transferred Santosh from Ujjain

2958

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to fill up the vacancy at Syndicate Bank, Ratlam which is

without jurisdiction. The workman further submits that

the Bank has flouted norms/ policy of Bank by transferring

person from other place whereas this post is filled up locally

which is non-transferable post. Workman further submits

that he belongs to SC, he was appointed temporarily on

daily wage basis from 31-7-91 by IInd party No.3. However

he was working on the post of sweeper on daily wage

basis. Workman further submits that public sector

undertaking has to follow formalities in the matter of

recruitment of employees. IInd party No.2,3 suppressed

facts before ALC. No requisition was sent to the Local

Employment Exchange. Act of IInd party No.2 is illegal.

That he was not regularized in the vacant post. He was

not paid equal pay for equal work. The Bank’s recruitment

policy cannot take away his right for regularization in

vacant post. In conciliation proceeding, management’s

representative was not willing to settle the arbitration for

his reinstatement. Above points are reiterated by workman

extensively in Statement of claim. The oral order is illegal

that IInd party violated Article 14 of constitution. On

such ground, workman is praying to set-aside his order of

oral termination and regularized his services and reinstate

him.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to

8/11. IInd party has denied claim of workman. It is

submitted that workman was engaged as casual worker on

temporary basis in 1991 by Branch Manager, Ratlam. That

the workman claims that he was working from 31-7-91 till

4-12-91. His services were terminated from 18-11-92. It is

submitted that workman was engaged by Branch Manager

without authority. The branch had a panel of Badli part

time sweeper for engaging him in service. One Hargovind

was first empanelled in working in Ratlam Branch since

1988. He was working in leave vacancy of permanent part

time sweeper. That workman was not empanelled candidate

for temporary engagement. The Branch Manager flouted

norms/ policy of Bank and transferred workman without

approval of the Dy.General manager, temporarily

appointed workman Satish is illegal. The payments were

made to workman debiting general charges account. That

there is no post of part time sweeper in the Bank. Workman

was engaged as temporary sweeper in Ratlam Branch in

1991. The appointment is without approval of competent

authority as such illegal. Workman is not entitled for

regularization. The Branch Manager Mr. Naik did not give

work to workman as he was not entitled to work as part

time attendant. The workman was engaged for non-

banking work. His appointment was unauthorised and

illegal. That as per panel of temporary part time sweeper,

Mr. Hargovind was to be given preference in temporary

appointment as against Shri Satish kumar, workman. All

other adverse contentions of workman are denied. IInd

party prays for rejection of claim.

Workman has filed rejoinder at Page 15/1 to 15/3

reiterating his contentions in Statement of claim.

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 Syndicate

Bank, Ratlam in terminating

the services of Shri Satish

Kumar, casual worker w.e.f.

18-11-92 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?”

entitled to relief

prayed.

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his services

by IInd party on multiple ground. His affidavit of evidence

is filed. Workman has stated that he was orally engaged

by Branch Manager Ratlam from 31-7-91 as casual labour/

part time sweeper. Suddenly he was discontinued from

work. Other person from Ujjain was transferred in his

place. That transfer of said employee is illegal and only

motivated for termination of his service. He further states

that the transfer of class-IV employee from one division

to another is illegal. The candidates from Local Employment

Exchange are not for engaged in his place. The payment

of wages for non-banking work is legal. In his cross-

examination, workman says he was orally engaged by

Branch Manager Shri Arora. Shri K.C.Raikwar Branch

manager had given written appointment letter for the period

July to August 1991. Mr. Arora was promoted after three

months. The post was not advertised. Mr. Arora had told

him that his name would be called by Employment

Exchange. That his work was found satisfactory by

K.C.Raikwar, Branch Manager. Order of termination was

not given to him. After his termination, Santosh was

engaged in his place. However workman was unable to

tell specific period and specific date of his working, the

evidence of workman is not specific or cogent for how

much period, he was working in the Bank. As per his

pleadings, he was working in Bank from 31-7-91 to

4-12-91. Thus workman has not worked for more than 240

days. Workman is not covered under Section 25(b) of

I.D.Act. The counsel for workman Shri R.K.Soni submitted

written notes of argument. The working days of workman

are stated to be 150 days. When workman has not

completed 240 days continuous service, he is not covered

under Section 25(B) of I.D.Act. The workman is not entitled

to protection under Section 25-F of I.D.Act. Therefore

discontinuation of workman cannot be said in violation of

Section 25-F of I.D.Act. workman is not entitled to

reinstatement or regularization in service. For above

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2959

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Syndicate Bank,

Ratlam in terminating the services of Shri Satish

Kumar, casual worker w.e.f. 18-11-92 is proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief prayed by him.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1147-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad

vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

40@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@03@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@27@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th March, 2014

S.O.

1147.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 40/2004) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Chandigarh, now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Central Bank of India and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 25/03/2014.

[No. L-12011/27/2004-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 No. I.D. No. 40/2004

Registered on 30.11.2004

The President,

Central Bank of India Employees’

Union Haryana, 129, Lal Kurti,

Ambala Cantt (Haryana).

.....Petitioner

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

106, Railway Road,

Ambala Cantt (Haryana).

.......Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Ex parte.

For the Management :

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi Adv.

AWARD

(Passed on- 19.2.2014)

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12011/

27/2004 [IR(B-II)] Dated 31.5.2004, 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 Central

Bank of India, Ambala Cantt in non-considering the

pension option scheme opted by Sh. Nand Kishore,

Employee No.22683 Staff at Ambala City office is

legal and justified? If not, what relief the said

workman is entitled to?”

In response to the notice the workman filed

statement of claim pleading that he was appointed as Peon

in the bank on 25.8.1970. He opted for pension as per

Employees Pension Regulations 1995 which was accepted

by the management vide letter dated 5.1.1996. But the

management treated him as non-optee for pension which

act is illegal and he be treated as optee for the Pension

Scheme.

In its written statement, the management pleaded

that pension option scheme was launched by the

respondent bank in the year 1995 for its employees and

every employee was to give its option in the prescribed

proforma. That the workman did not opt for the option

scheme and due to technical error a letter was issued which

was later on rectified. Since the workman failed to opt for

the scheme, he is not covered under the Pension Rules.

In support of its case the workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as

set out in the statement of claim.

On the other hand, respondent management

examined Sh. A.K. Batra who filed his affidavit reiterating

the case of the respondent.

Workman was proceeded against ex parte vide order

dated 20.3.2012.

I have heard Sh. N.K. Zakhmi counsel for the

management.

It was argued by the learned counsel that pension

scheme was launched by the respondent bank in the year

1995 and options were invited from its employees and

workman failed to exercise the option.

Now, according to the workman he opted for the

scheme and his option was duly acknowledged by the

respondents. But later on, refused to consider him as

pension optee.

2960

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Though the management has taken a stand that

workman did not opt for the pension scheme, but its

witness namely Sh. A.K. Batra admitted during cross-

examination that workman opted for pension scheme and

the Central Office acknowledged the application vide its

letter Mark M2. A perusal of the said document shows

that it was issued by the Pension Department

acknowledging the receipt of application of workman for

option to join the pension scheme. Later on letter dated

3.2.2000 Mark M4 was sent to the Branch Manager

intimating that the option of the workman has not been

received and was advised to send the same again who in

turn sent the same vide letter dated 15.2.2000. Thus, the

stand of the respondent-bank stands falsified from the

statement of its witness and it stands proved on the file

that workman gave option for the Pension Scheme and as

such, is to be treated as pension optee and he is entitled

to the benefits of the pension scheme.

Thus, in result the reference is answered that the

action of the respondent management in not considering

the pension option scheme of the workman is illegal and

unjustified and the workman being pension optee is entitled

to the benefits of the Pension Scheme. Let hard and soft

copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for

further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1148-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc us'kuy

cSad ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

201@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25&03&2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@93@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th March, 2014

S.O. 1148.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 201/

2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh, 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 25/03/2014.

[No. L-12012/93/2010-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 No. I.D. No. 201/2011

Registered on 5.7.2011

Sh. Suraj Parkash,

S/o Sh. Sukhdev Raj,

R/o H.No.35, CC,

Nanagal Township,

Nangal, Punjab.

......Petitioner

Versus

Chairman, Punjab National Bank,

Through Zonal Manager,

Zonal Office, Punjab National Bank,

The Mall, Shimla (HP).

......Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. O.P. Batra Adv.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi Adv.

AWARD

Passed on- 10.2.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/

93/2010 IR(B-II)) Dated 6.6.2011, 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 demand of Sh. Suraj Parkash S/o

Sh. Sukhdev Raj, Ex-Chowkidar Punjab National Bank,

Mehtabpur, Distt. Una (HP) against the Chairman,

Punjab National Bank, The Mall, Shimla (HP) for

reinstatement in service we.f. 15/10/1987 is just, valid

and legal? What relief the workman is entitled for

and what directions are necessary in the matter?”

In response to the notice the workman appeared

and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was

registered with the Employment Exchange and when

management sent requisition for appointment of

Chowkidar, he was intimated by the Exchange for interview.

He was selected and appointed as Chowkidar w.e.f.

15.2.1983 with the respondent bank at Mehtabpur, District

Una. It is pleaded that the minimum qualification

prescribed was 8^th Class and there was no condition of

maximum qualification, though he was matriculate at that

time.

That on 22.6.1987 a charge-sheet was issued to him

for not disclosing the fact of his education and he did not

admit the charge. An Inquiry Officer was appointed who

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2961

was requested to summon the witness in defence and his

request was not allowed. The inquiry conducted is illegal

and unjustified. On the basis of the inquiry report, his

services were terminated on 15.10.1987, which is illegal

and unjustified. That the punishment awarded is

disproportionate to the charges. The appeal preferred by

him was dismissed. He also filed a civil suit which was

dismissed and the revision preferred was withdrawn by

him to file the present reference. That order of dismissal

dated 15.10.1983 is illegal and he be reinstated in service.

Respondent management filed written statement

pleading that as per Circular No.80/84, the qualification

for appointment of a Peon for General Category is Middle

Pass which further provides that the candidates who have

passed 10^th Class are not eligible for appointment as such.

That the workman got the appointment by concealing the

material fact and he actually passed the Matriculation

examination under Roll No.625018 in the year 1980. The

workman intentionally concealed the fact of his

qualification even while giving the declaration on 15.2.1983.

He was charge-sheeted and he admitted the charges while

submitting his reply. He also admitted the charges before

the Inquiry Officer who submitted a report which is legal

and valid. He again admitted the charges while submitting

reply to the show cause notice dated 1.9.1987 and he was

guilty of misconduct and the disciplinary authority rightly

passed the order dismissing him from service.

The workman filed his affidavit.

On the other hand Jeet Singh, Senior Manager of

the respondent bank filed his affidavit along with

documents.

I have heard Sh. O.P. Batra, counsel for the workman

and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.

The admitted facts are that the respondent bank

issued a Circular No.80/84 (Annexure I) wherein

educational qualifications are prescribed for recruitment

of subordinate staff and it provides Middle Pass for

General Category candidates. Clause 5 and 6 of the said

Circular further read as follow :-

(v) The undertaking to be obtained from the

subordinate staff at the time of their appointment, as laid

down on management Dav. Department Circular No. 2

dated 20^th April, 1972 has also been revised as under:-

“I hereby declare that I have passed Middle

examination from ………….. School which is a

Government recognized School/and have studied

up to IX standard examination/and have studied up

to X standard examination/class but have not passed

final examination of X class.* I am fully aware that if

it is found at any stage that I have suppressed

material information regarding my education, I shall

be disqualified and liable to be removed from bank’s

service.”

(VI) It should be ensured that only such candidates

are appointed in the subordinate cadre in Bank’s service

who have passed VIII class/standard examination

irrespective of the fact that they have pursued their studies

up to IX/X class. It is also reiterated that the candidates

who have passed X class examination/matriculation

examination are not eligible for appointment in the

subordinate cadre.

The workman was appointed as Chowkidar w.e.f.

15.2.1983. He was charge-sheeted on the ground that he

declared his qualification having passed 8^th Class in the

year 1978 from Punjab School Education Board and actually

had passed Matriculation examination in March 1980 under

Roll No.625018 and thus concealed the material information

with regard to educational qualification while seeking an

employment in the bank. He admitted the allegation to be

correct in his reply (Annexure IV). Thereafter the Inquiry

Officer was appointed and he admitted the charges to be

correct in the proceedings dated 4.8.1987 and accordingly

the Inquiry Officer submitted the report holding that

charges are proved against him. Since the workman

admitted the charges, he cannot urge now that inquiry

was not fair and proper. Rather the learned counsel for the

workman did not raise any argument regarding this fact.

Therefore inquiry is held to be legal and valid.

The learned counsel for the workman has drawn my

attention towards copy of the judgment in Civil Writ

Petition No.10307 of 2009 dated June 30, 2010 titled Bank

of Baroda Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government

Tribunal Chandigarh and another and submitted that in

similar circumstances where the workman possessed

higher qualification and was terminated by the management

for concealment of facts, his termination was set aside by

the Hon’ble High Court and since, the case of the present

workman is similar to the said case, the termination order

in the present case may also be set aside.

I have considered the contention of the learned

counsel.

As stated above, as per Circular No.80/84 the

qualification for recruitment of subordinate staff was only

Middle Pass and it was specifically provided therein that

the candidate who have passed Matriculation examination

are not eligible for appointment. Thus, there was an

express condition regarding the eligibility and the

candidates who are only Middle Pass were to appear for

the subordinate staff and the person having higher

qualification i.e. even having passed Matriculation

examination was not eligible for the appointment. There is

no denial of the fact that on the day the workman was

selected and appointed as chowkidar i.e. on 15.2.1983, he

was matriculate having passed the exam in March 1980.

He gave a specific declaration (Annexure III) dated

15.2.1983 that he passed his Middle Standard examination

from Government High School and have not passed

2962

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Matriculation examination at the time of his appointment

in the bank. He further declared that if any

misrepresentation/falsification has been found in his

declaration regarding his qualification, he shall be liable

for disciplinary action including termination of his service.

Thus at the time of joining the service he got the

employment by misrepresenting his qualification, though,

he was not qualified to be appointed as such and the bank

was well within its rights to award the punishment

terminating his services.

In Civil Writ Petition No.10307 of 2009, though the

allegation was that the workman was matriculate but, it

was found that he actually appeared for the examination

but did not qualify the same and as such he remained only

Middle Pass and in those circumstances when the

workman was not found to be possessing higher

qualification, his order of termination was set aside by the

Hon’ble High Court. But in the present case it is an admitted

fact that the workman was possessing higher qualification

then required for appointment as a Peon and Circular No.80/

84 specifically prohibits the appointment of a person who

have passed Matric exam, as much as, the workman himself

has given a declaration that he is only Middle Pass and if

said statement is found to be false his services may be

termination. Thus the ratio of the said case is not applicable

to the facts of the present case.

The learned counsel for the workman has also drawn

my attention towards Clause 19.5 of the Bipartite Settlement

and submitted that if workman got the employment by

misrepresentation the same would not amount to

‘misconduct’ as defined in the said provision. Suffice to

say that the provisions of Clause 19.5 are applicable when

an employee commit certain act while performing his duties

but in the present case the workman got employment by

misrepresentation of facts and therefore the act of the

management cannot be termed as illegal.

In result, it is held that demand of the workman is

not valid and legal and 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] 25 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1149-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc us'kuy

cSad ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

133@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@03@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@80@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th March, 2014

S.O.

1149.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 133/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi, as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of Punjab

National Bank and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 25/03/2014.

[No. L-12011/80/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K.YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. I, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX,

DELHI

I.D. No.133/2013

The General Secretary,

Punjab National Bank Employees Union,

Parwana Bhawan, 44824/24, Ansari Road,

Daryaganj, New Delhi.

......Workman

Versus

The Chief Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

No.7, Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi-110066.

.....Management

AWARD

Temporary part time sweepers are being engaged

by Punjab National Bank (in short the bank) against

permanent vacancies. Those temporary part time sweepers

are working continuously with the bank, without being

regularized as part time sweeper. Settlements, dated

07.05.1984 and 08.11.1989, were entered into between the

bank and the workers unions, which settlements were not

complied with by the bank. PNB Employees’ Union (in

short the union) made representation in that regard but to

no avail. Department of Economic Affairs(Banking

Division), Ministry of Finance, Government of India, issued

Circular No.115/2001 SCT(B) dated 19.02.2006 wherein it

was emphasized on the banks to regularize services of

part time sweepers as full time sweepers and not to make

temporary appointments in future against regular

vacancies. The said circular also remained unheeded. The

union espoused cause of temporary part time sweepers

and raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer on

06.07.2009. The bank contested the claim put forward by

the union and as such 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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2963

order No.L-12011/80/2010-IR(B-II), New Delhi dated

27.05.2011, with following terms:

“Whether action of management of Punjab National

Bank, New Delhi in denying demand of PNB

Employees’ Union for regularization of service of 72

temporary sweepers working at different branches

(as per list annexed) is just, fair and legal? What

relief workmen are entitled to?”

Claim statement was filed by the union on behalf of

72 sweepers before this Tribunal on 22.06.2011. The bank

filed its written statement on 29.07.2011. During pendancy

of the dispute for adjudication, services of Smt. Kamla

and Smt. Savitri, who were concerned workmen in the

dispute referred above, were dispensed with by the bank

on 13.06.2013 and 01.07.2011 respectively. Complaint,

moved by the union, under section 33A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act), was registered as an

industrial dispute. It has been pleaded therein that the

above dispute, referred by the appropriate Government,

pends adjudication before this Tribunal. Smt. Kamla and

Smt. Savitri are concerned workmen, whose names appear

at Serial Nos.8 and 58 respectively of the list annexed by

the appropriate Government with the reference order. In

contravention of provisions of Section 33 of the Act, the

bank removed them for services in February 2013 and on

25.06.2013. The union presents that the bank has scant

respect for law and committed flagrant violation of

provisions of Section 33 of the Act. Act of the bank

amounts to unfair labour practice in terms of section 25-T

of the Act and it is liable to be proceeded for the offence

committed by it. It has been claimed that Smt. Kamla and

Smt. Savitri may be reinstated in the service of the bank

with all consequential benefits.

Counter was made by the bank pleading that

Smt. Kamla and Smt. Savitri were working as sweepers as

leave gap arrangement. Smt. Kamla was working at Bhikaji

Cama Place, New Delhi, since April 1998. After posting of

Shri Het Ram, permanent full time sweeper, she stopped

working with effect from 13.06.2013. Smt. Savitri was

working as leave gap arrangement at Patparganj branch,

Delhi, since September 2005. Smt. Sarla Devi was posted

at the branch on 16.06.2009, who was transferred to Chawri

Bazar branch on 19.09.2012, on her conversion as peon.

Smt. Savitri was not working from 19.09.2012 to 22.05.2013.

Smt. Savitri received her last wages only in June 2011.

Claim put forward by the union that services of Smt. Savitri

were terminated in February, 2011 is farther from truth.

Since Smt. Kamla and Smt. Savitri were working on leave

gap arrangement, they were not engaged any further when

regular incumbents joined. There is no case to assert that

their services were terminated by the bank. Claim put

forward has no substance and may be dismissed, pleads

the bank.

Since facts pleaded in the claim statement, relating

to engagement of Smt. Kamla and Smt. Savitri as temporary

part time sweepers, raising of dispute before this Tribunal,

seeking regularization of their services besides others,

pendancy of the dispute before the Tribunal on the dates

when Smt. Kamla and Smt. Savitri were bade farewell by

the bank, are not in dispute hence parties were not called

upon to adduce evidence on the matter.

Arguments were heard at the bar. None came

forward on behalf of the union to advance arguments.

Shri Rajat Arora, authorized representative, advanced

arguments on behalf of the bank. I have given my careful

considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and

cautiously perused the records. My findings on issues

involved in the controversy are as follows:-

Section 33 of the Act bars alteration in conditions of

service “prejudicial” to the workman concerned in the

dispute and punishment of discharge or dismissal when

either is connected with pendente lite industrial dispute

“save with the permission of the authorities before which

the proceedings is pending” or where the discharge or

dismissal is for any misconduct not connected with the

pendente lite industrial dispute without the “approval of

such authority”. Prohibition contained in Section 33 of

the Act is two fold. On one hand, they are designed to

protect the workman concerned during the course of

industrial conciliation, arbitration and adjudication, against

employers’ harassment and victimization, on account of

their having raised the industrial dispute or their

continuing the pending proceedings and on the other,

they seek to maintain status quo by prescribing

management conduct which may give rise to “fresh

dispute” which further exacerbate the already strained

relations between employer and the workman. Where

industrial disputes are pendente lite before an authority

mentioned in the section, it was thought necessary that

such disputes should be conciliated or adjudicated upon

by the authority in a peaceful atmosphere, undisturbed

by any subsequent causes for bitterness or

unpleasantness. To achieve this object, a ban has been

imposed upon the employer exercising his common law,

statutory or contractual right to terminate the services of

his employees according to contract or the provisions of

law governing such service. The ordinary right of the

employer to alter the terms of his employees’ services to

their prejudice or to terminate their services under the

general law governing contract of employment, has been

banned subject to certain conditions. This ban, therefore,

is designed to restrict the interference of the general rights

and liabilities of the parties under the ordinary law within

the limits truly necessary for accomplishing the object of

those provisions. Anxiety to know about ban on the right

of the employer, persuades me to reproduce the provisions

of Section 33 of the Act thus:

2964

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged

under certain circumstances during pendancy of

proceedings. –(1) During the pendancy of any

conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer

or a Board or of any proceeding before an arbitrator

or a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal

in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer

shall,-

(a)

in regard to any matter connected with the

dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen

concerned in such dispute, the conditions of

service applicable to them immediately before

the commencement of such proceeding; or

(b)

for any misconduct connected with the

dispute, discharge or punish, whether by

dismissal or otherwise, any workman

concerned in such dispute.

Save with the express permission in writing of

the authority before which the proceeding is

pending.

(2)

During the pendancy of any such proceeding in

respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may,

in accordance with standing orders applicable to a

workman concerned in such dispute or, where there

are no such standing orders, in accordance with the

terms of the contract, whether express or implied,

between him and the workman-

(a)

alter, in regard to any matter not connected

with the dispute, the conditions of service

applicable to that workman immediately before

the commencement of such proceeding ; or

(b)

for any misconduct not connected with the

dispute, discharge or punish, whether by

dismissal or otherwise, that workman:

Provided that no such workman shall be discharged

or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month

and an application has been made by the employer to the

authority before which the proceeding is pending for

approval of the action taken by the employer.

(3)

Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

(2), no employer shall, during the pendancy of any

such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute,

take any action against any protected workman

concerned in such dispute –

(a)

by altering, to the prejudice of such protected

workman, the conditions of service applicable

to him immediately before the commencement

of such proceeding; or

(b)

by discharging or punishing, whether any

dismissal or otherwise, such protected

workman,

save with the express permission in writing of the

authority before which the proceeding is pending.

Explanation. – For the purposes of this sub-section, a

“protected workman”, in relation to an establishment,

means a workman who, being a member of the executive or

other office bearer of a registered trade union connected

with the establishment, is recognized as such in accordance

with rules made in this behalf.

(4)

In every establishment, the number of workmen to

be recognized as protected workmen for the

purposes of sub-section (3) shall be one per cent of

the total number of workmen employed therein

subject to a minimum number of five protected

workmen and a maximum number of one hundred

protected workmen and for the aforesaid purpose,

the appropriate Government may make rules

providing for the distribution of such protected

workmen among various trade unions, if any,

connected with the establishment and the manner

in which the workmen may be chosen and recognized

as protected workmen.

(5)

Where an employer makes an application to a

conciliation officer, Board, an arbitrator, a Labour

Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under the

proviso to sub-section (2) for approval of the action

taken by him, the authority concerned shall, without

delay, hear such application and pass, within a period

of three months from the date of receipt of such

application, such order in relation thereto as it deems

fit.

Provided that where any such authority considers it

necessary or expedient so to do, it may, for reasons to be

recorded in writing, extend such period by such further

period as it may think fit.

Provided further that no proceedings before any

such authority shall lapse merely on the ground that any

period specified in this sub-section had expired without

such proceedings being completed.”

As noted above sub-sections (1) and (2) are

designed for different purposes since sub-section (1)

applies to the proposition when the employer wants to

alter service conditions of the workman to his prejudice in

regard to any matter connected with the dispute or for any

misconduct connected with the dispute, in that situation

he is obliged to seek prior permission in writing of the

authority before whom the dispute is pending and in a

case where the employer wants to alter service conditions

of a workman in regard to a matter not connected with the

dispute or for any misconduct not connected with the

dispute, in that situation he is obliged to seek approval of

the order under sub-section (2) of the aforesaid section.

When an employer violates the provisions of sub-section

(1) or sub-section (2) of section 33 of the Act, an instant

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2965

remedy is provided to the workman by the provisions of

section 33A of the Act. In other words, where an employer

has contravened the provisions of section 33, the

aggrieved workman has been given the option to make a

complaint in writing, to the authority before which an

industrial dispute is pending, with which the aggrieved

workman is concerned. The complaint of such

contravention can be made not to the adjudicating

authorities, but to the conciliatory authority also. If a

complaint is made to a conciliatory authority, viz. a

Conciliation Officer or a Board of Conciliation, clause (a)

of section 33 A of the act authorizes a Conciliation Officer

or the Board to take such complaint into account in

bringing about a settlement of the complained dispute.

The Conciliation Officer or the Board is not empowered to

adjudicate upon the dispute, which is the area of

adjudicatory authorities. When a complaint is made to

adjudicatory authority viz. Arbitrator, Labour Court,

Tribunal or National Tribunal, it will adjudicate upon the

dispute as if it is a dispute referred to or pending before it.

To attract the provisions of section 33A of the Act,

following conditions precedent are to be satisfied:

that there should have been a contravention by the

management of the provisions of section 33 of the

Act,

that the contravention should have been during the

pendency of the proceedings before the conciliatory

authorites or Labour Court, Tribunal or National

Tribunal , as the case may be.

that the complainant should have been aggrieved

by the contravention , and

that the application should have been made to the

Labour Court, Tribunal or the National Tribunal in

which original proceedings are pending.

Whether union has been able to establish above

conditions. As projected in the claim statement, temporary

part time sweepers are engaged by the bank. Settlements

dated 07.05.1984 and 08.11.1989 were entered into between

the bank and the unions, wherein it was agreed that

temporary part time sweepers would be regularized as part

time sweepers and full time sweepers. It is also not a

matter of dispute that Department of Economic Affairs

(Banking Division), Ministry of Finance, Government of

India, New Delhi, issued circular suggesting to the bank

that services of part time sweepers may be regularized as

full time sweepers and in future temporary appointments

may not be made. When above instructions/settlement

were not adhered to, the union raised a dispute seeking

regularization of services of 72 temporary part time

sweepers. Since the bank contested the claim, the

appropriate Government referred the dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication. The dispute was received by

this Tribunal and registered as such on 22.06.2011, calling

upon the bank to file its written statement on 12.07.2011.

10.

As projected by the bank, Smt. Kamala was working

as temporary part time sweeper since April 1998, whose

services were discontinued with effect from 13.06.2013.

Smt. Savitri was working as temporary part time sweeper

since September 2005, who was bade farewell on

01.07.2011. Therefore, it is emerging over the record that

during pendency of the dispute before this Tribunal, Smt.

Kamla and Smt. Savitri were not engaged any further.

11.

Question for consideration would be as to whether

action of the bank amounts to retrenchment of services of

Smt. Kamla and Smt. Saviri. For that purpose, definition of

the term retrenchment is to be construed. Retrenchment

has been defined in section 2(oo) of the Act, which

definition is extracted thus:

“2(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the

employer of the services of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted

by way of disciplinary action, but does not include-

(a)

voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b)

retirement of the workman on reaching the age

of superannuation if the contract of

employment between the employer and the

workman concerned contains a stipulation in

that behalf; or

(bb) termination of the services of the workman as

a result of the non-renewal of the contract of

employment between the employer and the

workman concerned on its expiry or of such

contract being terminated under a stipulation

in that behalf contained therein; or

(c)

termination of the services of a workman on

the ground of continued ill-health”.

12.

Definition of retrenchment is very wide and in two

parts. The first part is exhaustive, which lays down that

retrenchment means the termination of the service of a

workman by the employer “for any reason whatsoever”

otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of

disciplinary action. Thus main part of the definition itself

excludes the termination of service, as a measure of

punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action from

the ambit of retrenchment. The second part further excludes

(i) voluntary retirement of the workman, or (ii) retirement

of workman on reaching the age of superannuation, or (iii)

termination of the service of a workman as a result of non-

renewal of contract of employment, or (iv) termination of

contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained

in the contract of employment in that behalf, or (v)

termination of service on the ground of continued ill health

of the workman. Reference can be made to the precedents

in Avon Services (Production Agencies) (Pvt.) Ltd. [1979

(I) LLJ 1] and Mahabir [1979 (II) LLJ 363].

2966

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

The bank projects that Smt. Kamla and Smt. Savitri

were working as leave gap arrangements. From its

pleadings, it emerged over the record that the bank claims

them to be badli workmen. “Badli workman” means a

workman who is employed in an industrial establishment

in the place of another workman whose name is borne on

the muster rolls of the establishment, but shall cease to be

regarded as such for the purposes of section 25-C of the

Act, if he has completed one year of continuous service in

the establishment. In other words, ‘badli workman is

appointed against a post, permanent or temporary, when

the incumbent on that post is temporarily absent. Unless

he has completed one year continuous service in the

establishment, a badli workman cannot claim status of a

permanent workmen, even though the management fails

to satisfactorily prove that the permanent incumbent was

there in the respective place or was temporarily absent.

Name of badli workmen should not be found in the muster

roll of the establishment, but he should act for some other

workman whose name is found in the muster roll. Therefore,

a workman cannot be stated to be badli workman simply

because the management has chosen to describe him as

badli workman in the muster roll. Explanation appended to

section 25C of the Act, makes it clear that badli workman is

specifically a workman who has been employed in place

of another workman whose name is borne on the muster

roll of the establishment. However, on completion of one

year continuous service, he acquires status of a permanent

workman.

14.

As detailed above, Smt. Kamla and Smt. Savitri

rendered continuous service for a period of 15 years and

5 ¾ years as leave gap arrangement. The bank has not

come out with a plea that their engagement orders made

them known that in the event of permanent employees

join their duties they would not be engaged any furthers.

No claim was made that action of termination of their

services falls within the exceptions contained in section

2(oo) of the Act. Act of dispensing with their services

does not fall within the main part of the definition, enacted

by section 2(oo) of the Act. In view of these facts action

of termination of their services for “any reason

whatsoever” would amount to retrenchment and fall within

the mischief of section 2(oo) of the Act. Evidently, there

was violation of provisions of section 33 of the Act, since

Smt.Kamla and Smt. Savitri were not engaged any further

with effect from 13.06.2013 and 01.07.2011 respectively.

By way of not engaging them, the bank contravened

provisions of section 33 of the Act. That contravention

was during pendancy of proceedings before this Tribunal.

15.

There is no quarrel on the proposition that Smt.

Kamla and Smt. Savitri were aggrieved by the contravention

of the provisions of section 33 of the Act. Since

contravention of the provisions of section 33 of the Act,

during pendancy of compulsory adjudication proceedings

of the industrial dispute has come over the record,

occasion arose for this Tribunal to embark upon an

adjudication of the dispute contained in the complaint

under reference. The dispute which was raised by Smt.

Kamla and Smt. Savitri, besides others, before this Tribunal

was connected with the dispute in respect of which their

services were dispensed with. Therefore, the bank was

required to move an application for permission of such an

action before this Tribunal, as provided by the provisions

of section 33(1)(a) of the Act. Admittedly no such an

application for permission was moved by the bank. Since

the dispute, which was pending before this Tribunal at

the time of contravention of section 33 of the Act, hence

Smt. Kamla and Smt. Savitri have rightly filed this complaint

before this Tribunal.

16.

What is the effect of non-moving an application for

permission? Such proposition was taken note of by the

Apex Court in Jaipur Zila Sehkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank (AIR

2002 S.C. 643) wherein a clear case of contravention of the

proviso to section 33(2)(b) of the Act was canvassed before

the Court. It would be expedient to reproduce the law laid

in the above precedent, which are extracted thus:

“The proviso to Section 33(2)(b) as can be seen

from its very unambiguous and clear language, is

mandatory. This apart from the object of Section 33

and in the context of the proviso to Section 33(2)(b),

it is obvious that the conditions contained in the

said proviso are to be essentially complied with.

Further any employer who contravenes the

provisions of Section 33 invites a punishment under

S.31(1) with imprisonment for a term which may

extend to six months or with fine which may extend

to Rs.1000/- or with both. This penal provision is

again a pointer of the mandatory nature of the

proviso to comply with the conditions stated therein.

To put it in other way, the said conditions being

mandatory, are to be satisfied if an order of discharge

or dismissal passed under Section 33(2)(b) is to be

operative, if an employer desires to take benefit of

the said provision for passing an order of discharge

or dismissal of an employee, he has also to take the

burden of discharging the statutory obligation

placed on him in the said proviso. Taking a contrary

view that an order of discharge or dismissal passed

by an employer in contravention of the mandatory

conditions contained in the proviso does not render

such an order inoperative or void, defeats the very

purpose of the proviso and it becomes meaningless.

It is well settled rule of interpretation that no part of

statute shall be construed as unnecessary or

superfluous. The proviso cannot be diluted or

disobeyed by an employer. He cannot disobey the

mandatory provision and then say that the order of

discharge or dismissal made in contravention of

Section 33(2)(b) is not void or in-perative. He cannot

be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2967

The interpretation of statute must be such that it

should advance the legislative intent and serve the

purpose for which it is made rather than to frustrate

it. The proviso to Section 33(2)(b) affords protection

to a workman to safeguard his interest and it is a

shield against victimization and unfair labour

practice by the employer during the pendency of

industrial dispute when the relationship between

them are already strained. An employer cannot be

permitted to use the provision of Section 33(2)(b) to

ease out a workman without complying with the

conditions contained in the said proviso for any

alleged misconduct said to be unconnected with

the already pending industrial dispute. The

protection afforded to a workman under the said

provision cannot be taken away. If it is to be held

that an order of discharge or dismissal passed by

the employer without complying with the

requirements of the said proviso is not void or

inoperative, the employer may with impunity

discharge or dismiss a workman.”

17.

The Apex Court dealt with the situation of the

withdrawal of such approval application or not making an

application in the following manner:

“The view that when no application is made or the

one made is withdrawn, there is no order of refusal

of such application on merit and as such the order

of dismissal or discharge does not become void or

inoperative unless such an order is set aside under

Section 33A, cannot be accepted. In our view, not

making an application under Section 33(2) (b)

seeking approval or withdrawing an application once

made before any order is made thereon, is a clear

case of contravention of the proviso to Section

33(2)(b). An employer who does not make an

application under Section 33(2)(b) or withdraws that

one made, cannot be rewarded by relieving him of

the statutory obligation created on him to make such

an application. If it is so done, he will be happier or

more comfortable than an employer who obeys the

command of law and makes an application inviting

scrutiny of the authority in the matter of granting

approval of the action taken by him. Adherence to

and obedience of law should be obvious and

necessary in a system governed by rule of law. An

employer by design can avoid to make an application

after dismissing or discharging an employee or file it

and withdraw before any order is passed on it, on its

merits, to take a position that such order is not

inoperative or till it is set aside under Section 33A

notwithstanding the contravention of Section

33(2)(b) proviso, driving the employee to have

recourse to one or more proceeding by making a

complaint under Section 33A or to raise another

industrial dispute or to make a complaint under

Section 31(1). Such an approach destroys the

protection specifically and expressly given to an

employee under the said proviso as against possible

victimization, unfair labour practice or harassment

because of pendency of industrial dispute so that

an employee can be saved from hardship of

unemployment.”

18.

No application for seeking permission to dispense

with their services was moved, as contemplated by the

provisions of section 33(1)(a) of the Act. It is evident that

dispensing with the services of Smt. Kamla and Smt. Savitri

is void ab initio, since it was done by the bank in

contravention of the provisions of section 33(1)(a) of the

Act. Smt. Kamla and Smt. Savitri are deemed to be in the

service of the bank, with all consequential benefits. An

award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dated : 10.3.2014

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

vkns'k

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1150-—tcfd dsUnzh; ljdkj dk er gS fd Hkkjr

ljdkj ds izca/u vkSj muds dkexkjksa ds chp ,d vkS|ksfxd

fookn Fkk A

vkSj tcfd dsUnz ljdkj dh jk; gS fd mi;qZDr fookn

jk"Vªh; egRo ds loky ls lac¼ gSa vkSj jk"Vªh; vkS|ksfxd

U;k;kfèkdj.k }kjk U;k;fu.kZ;u fd;k tkuk pkfg, A

vkSj tcfd dsUnzh; ljdkj us vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e]

1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 7[k }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, dydÙkk esa eq[;ky; lfgr Je ea=kky; ds vkns'k

la[;k ,y&16011@3@2004&vkb vkj (Mh ;w) fnukad 15&12&1998

}kjk jk"Vªh; vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k xfBr fd;k rFkk U;k;ew£r Jh ,-

osQ- pØorhZ dks blds ihBklhu vf/dkjh ds :i esa fu;qDr fd;k

vkSj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (1d) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, mDr vkS|ksfxd fookn dks U;k;fu.kZ;u

gsrq mDr jk"Vªh; vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k dks fu£n"V dj fn;k_

vkSj tcfd U;k;ew£r Jh ,- osQ- pØorhZ us mi;qZDr jk"Vªh;

vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/dj.k dk dk;ZHkkj 31&12&1999 dks NksM+ fn;k_

vkSj tcfd dsUnz ljdkj us fnukad 14&3&2002 ds vkns'k

ds }kjk jk"Vªh; vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k dk iquxZBu fd;k vkSj U;k;ew£r

Jh ch-ih- 'kekZ dks blds ihBklhu vf/dkjh ds #i esa fu;qDr

fd;k_

vkSj tcfd U;k;ew£r Jh ch-ih- 'kekZ us jk"Vªh; vkS|ksfxd

U;k;f/dj.k dk dk;ZHkkj fnukad 23&1&2003 dks NksM+ fn;k_

vkSj tcfd dsUnz ljdkj us fnukad 28&1&2004 ds vkns'k

ds }kjk jk"Vªh; vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k dk iquxZBu fd;k vkSj U;k;ew£r

Jh â"khds'k cSuthZ dks ihBklhu vf/dkjh ds :i esa fu;qDr fd;k_

2968

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkSj tcfd U;k;ew£r Jh â"khds'k cSuthZ us jk"Vªh; vkS|ksfxd

U;k;f/dj.k dk dk;ZHkkj fnukad 3&5&2006 dks NksM+ fn;k_

vkSj tcfd dsUnz ljdkj us fnukad 6&3&2007 ds vkns'k ds

}kjk jk"Vªh; vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k dk iquxZBu fd;k vkSj U;k;ew£r

Jh lh-ih- feJk dks blds ihBklhu vf/dkjh ds :i esa fu;qDr

fd;k_

vkSj tcfd U;k;ew£r Jh lh-ih- feJk us jk"Vªh; vkS|ksfxd

U;k;f/dj.k dk dk;ZHkkj fnukad 2&4&2009 dks NksM+ fn;k_

vkSj tcfd dsUnz ljdkj us fnukad 14&6&2010 ds vkns'k

ds }kjk jk"Vªh; vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k dk iquxZBu fd;k vkSj U;k;ew£r

Jh ekf.kd eksgu dks blds ihBklhu vf/dkjh ds :i esa fu;qDr

fd;k_

vkSj tcfd U;k;ew£r Jh lh-ih feJk us viuh lsok fuo`fÙk

ij jk"Vªh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;f/dj.k dk dk;ZHkkj NksM+ fn;k_

vr% vc] dksydkrk esa eq[;ky; lfgr jk"Vªh; vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k xfBr fd;k tkrk gS ftlds ihBklhu vf/dkjh

Jh nhid lkgk js gksaxs vkSj mi;qZDr fookn dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq

mi;qZDr jk"Vªh; vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k dks bl funs'k ds lkFk fu£n"V

fd;k tkrk gS fd U;k;ew£r Jh nhid lkgk js bl ekeys esa ml

pj.k ls vkxs dkjZokgh djsaxs A ftl pj.k ij ;g bls U;k;ew£r Jh

ekfud eksgu ljdkj }kjk NksM+k x;k Fkk vkSj bls rnuqlkj fuiVk,axs A

¹la- ,y&16011@3@2004&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

ORDER

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2014

S.O.

1150.—Whereas the Central Govt. is of the

opinion that an industrial dispute existed between the

management of Govt. of India Mint and their workmen:

And whereas the Central Government is of the

opinion that the above dispute involved a question of

national importance and should be adjudicated by a

National Industrial Tribunal.

And whereas the Central Government in exercise of

the powers conferred by Section 7 B of the I.D. Act, 1947

(14 of 1947) constituted a National Industrial Tribunal vide

Ministry of Labour Order No.L-16011/3/2004-IR(DU) dated

15.121998 with headquarters at Kolkata and appointed

Justice Shri A.K. Chakraborty as its Presiding Officer and

in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1A)

of Section 10 of the said Act, referred the said Industrial

Dispute to the said National Industrial Tribunal for

adjudication;

And whereas Justice Shri A.K. Chakraborty

relinquished charge of the above National Industrial

Tribunal on 31.12.1999;

And whereas Central Government vide order dated

14.3.2002 reconstituted the National Tribunal and

appointed Justice Shri B.P. Sharma as its Presiding Officer;

And whereas Justice Shri B.P. Sharma relinquished

the charge of the said National Industrial Tribunal on

23.1.2003;

And whereas Central Government vide order dated

28.1.2004 reconstituted the National Tribunal and

appointed Justice Shri Hrishikesh Banerji as its Presiding

Officer;

And whereas Justice Shri Hrishikesh Banerji

relinquished the charge of the said National Industrial

Tribunal on 03.05.2006;

And whereas Central Government vide order dated

06.03.2007 reconstituted the National Tribunal and

appointed Justice Shri C.P. Mishra as its Presiding Officer;

And whereas Justice Shri C.P. Mishra relinquished

the charge of the said National Industrial Tribunal on

02.04.2009;

And whereas Central Government vide order dated

14.06.2010 reconstituted the National Tribunal and

appointed Justice Shri Manik Mohan Sarkar as its Presiding

Officer;

And whereas Justice Shri Manik Mohan Sarkar

relinquished the charge of the said National Industrial

Tribunal on his retirement;

Now, therefore, a National Industrial Tribunal is

constituted with Headquarters at Kolkata with Justice

Shri Dipak Saha Ray as its Presiding Officer and the above

said dispute is referred to the above said National Industrial

Tribunal for adjudication with a direction that Justice

Shri Dipak Saha Ray shall proceed in the matter from the

stage at which it was left by Justice Shri Manik Mohan

Sarkar and dispose of the same accordingly.

[No. L-16011/3/2004-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1151-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w- lh- ,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 66@91)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@472@1990&vkbZ-vkj- (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2014

S.O.

1151.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/91)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of WCL and their

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2969

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 26/03/2014.

[No. L-22012/472/1990-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/66/91

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE

Organising Secretary,

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),

PO Chandametta,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

......Workman

Versus

Manager,

Tandsi Project,

Western Coal Fields Ltd.,

PO Tandsi,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

.....Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 7^th day of February 2014)

As per letter dated 10-4-91 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/

472/90-IR(Coal-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the Project Officer, Tandsi

Project of WCL, Kanhan Area , PO Rampur, Distt.

Chhindwara (MP) in dismissing from services to

Shri Y. Baby S/o Yohannan clerk of Tandsi Project,

WCL, Kanhan Area w.e.f. 2-3-90 is justified? If not,

to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed Statement of claim at

Page 4/1 to 4/9. Case of workman is that he was working as

clerk in Tandsi Project in WCL since past 20 years. His

performance was excellent. He had not received any kind

of warnings. That he was elected as Vice President of

R.K.K.M.S (INTUC) in January 1989. That he was raising

day to day demand for welfare of workers. He was fighting

with the management for good of the employees. That

chargesheet was issued to him on 10-10-89 about 12 hours

he entered in administrative section, signed in attendance

been put in his attendance on 8-10-89. The workman said

that the charges were false. The allegations of abuses and

threatening to kill were also false. The workman had

replied to the charge denying the allegations. Enquiry

was conducted denying him reasonable opportunity for

his defence. In absence of Defence Assistant, enquiry

was conducted . The enquiry is vitiated for violation of

principles of natural justice. As enquiry is found vitiated

as per order dated 19-7-02, the said order received finality.

The detailed contentions of workman about the grounds

of illegality of enquiry are not narrated. Ist party workman

further submits that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are

perverse was dismissed from service without going

through the entire record. The statements of the

management’s witnesses are not sufficient to prove charges

against him. The workman prays for his reinstatement with

full back wages.

Management of IInd party filed Written Statement

at Page 10/1 to 10/3. IInd party submits that chargesheet

was issued to workman for the allegation that workman

had abused Shri Indrajit Singh and threatened to kill him.

It amounts to misconduct. The abuses and threats were

given by the workman as to why his attendance on

8-10-89 was circled. The enquiry was conducted against

workman on different dates. Workman repeatedly remained

absent under the pretext of illness. The cross-examination

of witness B.Prasad was adjourned enquiry was proceeded

further in absence of the workman. That the workman was

trying to prolong the enquiry. It is submitted that the

enquiry conducted against workman is proper. It enquiry

is not found proper, then management requested

permission to lead evidence to substantiate charges.

Workman filed rejoinder at Page 11/1 to 11/7

reiterating his contentions in Statement of Claim that

enquiry conducted was not proper. He was impleaded in

false charges. The statement of witnesses are not sufficient

to prove the charges etc. findings of Enquiry Officer are

perverse.

Preliminary issue relating to legality of enquiry is

decided by my predecessor as per order dated 19-7-10.

The enquiry is found vitiated, management has been

permitted to lead evidence to prove misconduct against

workman.

Considering pleadings and facts stated above, 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 charges alleged

In Affirmative.

against workman are proved?

(ii) Whether the punishment of

In Affirmative.

dismissal from service of

workman Y.Baby is proper and

legal?

(iii) If so, to what relief the workman

Workman is not

is entitled to?

entitled to relief

as prayed by him.

2970

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REASONS

As stated above, enquiry conducted against

workman is found illegal and the management is permitted

to adduce evidence to prove the charges against workman.

Management has filed affidavit of witness Ashok Kumar

Soni, Head Security Guard. In his affidavit, management’s

witness says the incident is of 9-10-89. He was on duty at

payment counter. There was queue of the employees

coming for receiving bonus amount. Around 12 hours,

they had noise from his side. When he turned, he noticed

that Y. Baby clerk was standing in front of table of Indrajit

Singh. Y. Baby was shouting loudly, uttering indecent

abuses and threatening Indrajit Singh. Presently he had

seen the incident at that time clerk Nagendra Sinha Chief

Security Officer, Mr. Khemchand clerk were present. Shri

Nagendra died on 2008. Khemchand clerk was removed

from service on 12-4-89. Bisen Singh Head clerk retired in

2001 and his whereabouts were not known. Shri D.Prasad

retired from service in 2002. In his cross-examination,

above witness says that on 9-10-89 his duty was at counter

of Tandsi Project. That about 400-500 labours has come

to receive amount. He was to look after their arrangement.

The distance between office and Tandsi Project is of

200 ft. The payment was made from the window. The office

door was closed. Nobody could enter in office.

Shri Y. Baby was clerk working in cash department was

inside. Shri Y. Baby was not paying bonus to labours.

Indrajit Singh was Office Superintendent. After hearing

shouting, the witness had come there taking round. He

got main gate opened. It required about 10 minutes time

that he was concerned with the security guard. He had

not received order in writing to open main gate. He was

not called by Indrajit Singh. Hawaldar Bisen Singh had

opened the door. He was inside. Bisen Singh was senior

to him witness was told to go out and see the security.

Then he had come out. In entire cross-examination,

evidence of Ashok Kumar Soni that Shri Y. Baby workman

was standing in front of table of Indrajit Singh and abused

him in indecent language threatened to kill him is not

challenged. The evidence of above point of Ashok Kumar

is absolutely not shattered. The death of clerk Nagendra

Singh, removal of clerk in service, retirement of Head

Security Guard retirement of Shri Bisen Prasad in 2002 is

not challenged. The evidence of Shri Ashok Kumar Soni

is cogent that at the time of incident, workman has abused

Indrajit Singh and threatened to kill him. Affidavit of

evidence of Indrajit Singh is filed on record. He has also

narrated the incident that workman Y. Baby was asking

him that his attendance on 8-10-89 was round up. That he

thrown attendance register and abused him, threatened to

kill him. The report about incident given by him is also

submitted alongwith affidavit. Unfortunately said witness

died during pendency and could not be cross-examined.

The incident of present case is of 9-10-89. For long

time, the case is pending. It cannot be reason to discard

his evidence on affidavit filed in the matter.

Written notes of argument is submitted by Advocate

S.Pandey is mostly devoted about the enquiry conducted

against workman is not proper. Enquiry was conducted in

absence of Defence Assistant. Witnesses could not be

cross-examined. Workman was suffering from illness.

Legality of enquiry has decided by my predecessor as per

order dated 19-7-2010. Enquiry is found not proper and

legal. Said order has received finality therefore the

contentions on the point of legality of enquiry cannot be

considered at this stage. As discussed above, the evidence

of management’s witness Ashok Soni about incident of

9-10-89 is not shattered. The notes of argument submitted

on behalf of workman is silent about evidence of

Shri Ashok Kumar Soni or Indrajit Singh. For the reasons

discussed above, I hold that charges against Ist party

workman are proved. Therefore I record my finding in Point

No.1 in Affirmative.

10.

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

both charges against workman are proved from evidence

of the management’s witnesses, the question arises

whether the punishment of dismissal imposed against

workman is proper and legal.

11.

Learned counsel for workman in his notes of

argument has prayed for setting aside order of termination

and reinstatement with back wages be allowed. Counsel

for management Shri A.K.Shashi at the time of argument

submits that the workman not adduced evidence. As per

evidence of Shri Ashok Soni workman has taken law in his

hand. Gross misconduct is proved against him. The time

of affidavit filed by workman, his age was 53 years. He

attended age of superannuation. There is no evidence

that workman was unemployed after termination. There is

no reason to interfere in the punishment. The evidence of

Shri Ashok Soni and affidavit of Indrajit , report submitted

alongwith affidavit of Indrajit Singh shows that the

workman had asked Indrajit why his attendance on

8-10-89 was encircled. He had thrown attendance register,

abused Indrajit Singh and threatened to kill him. As per

evidence on record, Indrajit was working as

Superintendent as such he was superior of the Ist party

workman. Certainly the misconduct committed proved

on part of Ist Party workman is of serious nature.

12.

Learned counsel for IInd party workman relies on

ratio held in :

“Case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Versus

S.C.Sharma reported in 2005-II-LLJ-153. Their

Lordship of Apex Court set-aside impugned order

which granted the respondent back wages. It

observed the respondent had neither pleaded nor

placed any material to show that he was not gainfully

employed. He pointed out that initial burden was

on the employee to prove the above facts.”

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2971

In present case, after enquiry found vitiated,

workman has not adduced any evidence. As per findings

in Point No.1, charges against workman are proved by the

management. The charges against workman are about

abusing and threatening to kill superior officers. Thus

serious misconduct on part of workman is proved.

Therefore I do not find reason to interfere in the order of

dismissal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No.2 in Affirmative.

13.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

The action of the Project Officer, Tandsi Project of

WCL, Kanhan Area , PO Rampur, Distt. Chhindwara

(MP) in dismissing from services to Shri Y. Baby S/o

Yohannan clerk of Tandsi Project, WCL, Kanhan

Area w.e.f. 2-3-90 is proper and justified.

Relief prayed by workman for reinstatement is

rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1152-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,- ,l- vkbZ-

ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 51@2006) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@122@2005&vkbZvkj (lh ,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2014

S.O.

1152.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 51/2006) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Archaeological

Survey of India, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 26/03/2014.

[No. L-42012/122/2005-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/51/2006

Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. PATLE

Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma,

S/o Shri Sampat Prasad Sharma,

Resident of Village & PO Sildaha,

Thana: Patharia, Tehsil Mungeli,

Bilaspur

.....Workman

Versus

Superintending Archaeologist,

Archaeological Survey of India,

Nayapalli VIP Area,

Bhubaneshwar Circle,

Bhubaneshwar (Orissa)

The Superintending Archaeologist,

Archaeological Survey of India,

No. J-10, Anupamanagar,

Raipur (CG)

The Asstt. Conservator,

Archaeological Survey of India,

Bharatiyanagar,

Bilaspur

.....Managements

AWARD

(Passed on this 11th day of February 2014)

As per letter dated 11-8-06 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.J-42012/

122/2005-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates

to:

“ Whether the action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the

services of Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma w.e.f.

3-9-2001 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman filed Statement of Claim at Page 2/3

to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was engaged

as Security Guard from 19-10-99 with IInd party No.3. His

services were orally terminated from 3-9-2001. When he

claimed his salary he had filed proceeding before Labour

Court, Bilaspur for recovery of wages. The said Court

passed order on 13-2-04 for payment of wages within 30

days. Wages were paid to him on 14-8-04 in compliance of

the order. That his services are terminated in violation of

Section 25-F, G of I.D.Act. Workman was not paid

retrenchment compensation. On such ground, workman

prays for his reinstatement with back wages.

Though management of IInd party appeared and

requested time for filing Written Statement on 21-2-08, no

written Statement is filed by IInd party. IInd party is

proceeded on 12-1-2011.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

2972

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of Archaeologi-

cal Survey of India in termi-

nating the services of Shri

Narendra Kumar Sharma

w.e.f. 3-9-2001 is legal and

justified?

(ii)If not, what relief the workman

As per final order.

is entitled to?”

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his services

orally for violation of Section 25-F, G of I.D.Act. No Written

Statement is filed by the management though appearance

was caused. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence.

Workman has stated that he was engaged as Security

Guard on 19-10-99. His services were orally terminated

from 31-12-2001. That he had completed more than 240

days continuous service. He had filed proceeding for

recover of wages in Bilaspur Court. He was paid wages on

14-8-04 as per order passed by the Court. His services

were terminated without notice, no retrenchment

compensation was paid. Evidence of workman remained

unchallenged. I find no reason to disbelieve his

evidence . Considering evidence discussed above, I record

my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

In view of my finding in Point No.1, services of

workman is terminated illegally, question arises whether

workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages.

Workman was hardly working for about 2 years. The

pleadings and evidence doesnot show that he was

engaged following recruitment process therefore the

workman cannot be allowed reinstatement. Considering

the short spam of service, compensation Rs. 30,000 would

be reasonable. Accordingly I record my finding in Point

No.2.

In the result, award is passed as under :—

(1)

Action of the management of Archaeological Survey

of India in terminating the services of Shri Narendra

Kumar Sharma w.e.f. 3-9-2001 is illegal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 30,000

within 30 days from the date of order.

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] 26 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1153-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,- ,l- vkbZ-

ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 52@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@123@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2014

S.O.

1153.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 52/2006) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Archaeological

Survey of India, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 26/03/2014.

[No. L-42012/123/2005-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/52/2006

Presiding Officer : Shri R.B. PATLE

Shri Roop Chand Pandey,

S/o Shri Dwaraka Prasad Pandey,

Resident of Village & PO Malhar,

Tahsil Masthuri,

Bilaspur

.....Workman

Versus

Superintending Archaeologist,

Archaeological Survey of India,

Nayapalli VIP Area,

Bhubaneshwar Circle,

Bhubaneshwar (Orissa)

The Superintending Archaeologist,

Archaeological Survey of India,

No. J-10, Anupamanagar,

Raipur (CG)

The Asstt. Conservator,

Archaeological Survey of India,

Bharatiyianagar,

Bilaspur

......Managements

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2973

AWARD

(Passed on this 11^th day of February 2014)

As per letter dated 11-8-06 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-42012/123/2005-IR(CM-II). The dispute under

reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the

services of Shri Roopchand Pandey w.e.f. 3-9-2001

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

workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed Statement of Claim at

Page 2/3 to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

engaged as Security Guard from October 99 against vacant

post. His service record was excellent. Workman had

claimed his past salary. IInd party No.1 had assured to

pay his salary. However instead of paying his salary, his

services were orally discontinued from 3-5-01. That he

had filed some proceeding before Labour Court, Bilaspur

for recovery. Order was passed on 13-2-04 for payment of

his wages within 30 days. The workman was paid his

wages on 14-8-04. That his services are orally terminated

from 31-12-01 in violation of Section 25-F, G of I.D.Act.

Workman prays for his reinstatement with consequential

benefits.

Though IInd party management appeared and

requested time for filing Written Statement on 21-2-08, no

Written Statement is filed in the matter. IInd party is

proceeded exparte on 12-1-2011.

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 Archaeological

Survey of India in terminating

the services of Shri Roopchand

Pandey w.e.f. 3-9-2001 is legal

and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

As per final order.

is entitled to?”

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his services

orally for violation of Section 25-F, G of I.D.Act. No Written

Statement is filed by the management though appearance

was caused. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence stating

that his services were orally terminated from 31-12-2001.

That he had completed more than 240 days continuous

service. He had filed proceeding for recover of wages in

Bilaspur Court. He was paid wages on 14-8-04 as per order

passed by the Court. His services were terminated without

notice, no retrenchment compensation was paid. Evidence

of workman remained unchallenged. I find no reason to

disbelieve his evidence . Considering evidence discussed

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

In view of my finding in Point No.1, services of

workman is terminated illegally, question arises whether

workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages.

Workman was hardly working for about 2 years. The

pleadings and evidence doesnot show that he was

engaged following recruitment process therefore the

workman cannot be allowed reinstatement. Considering

the short spam of service, compensation Rs. 30,000/- would

be reasonable. Accordingly I record my finding in Point

No.2.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Action of the management of Archaeological Survey

of India in terminating the services of Shri

Roopchand Pandey w.e.f. 3-9-2001 is illegal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.30,000

within 30 days from the date of order.

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] 26 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1154-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l- bZ- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 76@2004)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@305@2003&vkbZvkj (lh ,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2014

S.O.

1154.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 76/2004) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of SECL, Gevra Area,

South Eastern Coalfield Limited, and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 26/03/2014.

[No. L-22012/305/2003-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

2974

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/76/2004

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE

Shri Raj Kumar Sharma,

Clerk III of SECL,

Qr. No. M/101, Dipika Colony,

PO Gevra, Distt Korba (CG)

The President,

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan

Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),

Qt. No. B/21, Indiria Vihar,

Seepat Road, Bilaspur (CG)

.....Workman/Union

Versus

Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.,

Headquarters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur,

Bilaspur

Chief general Manager,

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.,

Gevra Project, Distt Korba ,

Korba (Chhattisgarh).

......Managements

AWARD

(Passed on this 3^rd day of March, 2014)

As per letter dated 29-6-04 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/

305/2003-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates

to:

“ Whether the action of the management of SECL

Headquarters, Bilaspur in allowing the wage

protection to Shri Raj Kumar Sharma on his selection

to Clerk Grade III alongwith similarly placed workers

and thereafter withdrawing the pay protection, only

in respect of Shri Raj Kumar Sharma and recovering

arrears amounting to Rs.1,25,000/- from his salary is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim

at Page 2/1 top 2/3. The case of Union is that workman Raj

Kumar Sharma was appointed in WCL(SECL) in 1983

Category I General Mazdoor Mechanical Fitter. After

completion of one year service, he was promoted to

Category II General Mazdoor (ITI). In January 1987, he

was promoted to EPGH Grade E. In August 1987, he was

promoted to E.P.Fitter-III in excavation cadre of NCWA.

He continued to work in EP Fitter Category III till October

1995. He was placed in clerical Grade III from 2-11-95. On

1-12-97, agreement was raised between RKKMS Union

and SECL management for wage protection to the workman

Shri Raj Kumar Sharma. The letter was issued by Personal

Manager of Dipika Project dated 26-5-99. That the

management of SECL made payment of wages accordingly

till October 2000.

It is alleged that on 20-11-2000, suddenly

management of SECL issued letter to withdraw wage

protection of the workman and deduction from payment

was ordered. Management deducted wages of Rs. 1,25,000

from pay of workman. Union submits that the management

of SECL is acting in arbitrary manner. It discriminates

employee in matter of pay protection. Management has

committed breach of agreement and provisions of I.D.Act,

the weaker employees are discriminated by the

management. It amounts to unfair labour practice. On such

ground, Union is praying that benefit of pay protection of

Raj Kumar Sharma be continued and suitable directions

be issued.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 14/1 to

14/11 . IInd party raised objection that the workman is not

covered under I.D.Act. RKKMS has no locus-standi to

raise dispute. The statement of claim filed by Union

through Shri K.N.Trivedi claiming to be President of

RKKMS. It is reiterated that Shri Trivedi is not office

bearer of said Union. He has no locus-standi to represent

the employee. That Shri K.N.Trivedi is not employee of

SECL neither he is office bearer of Trade Union operating

in SECL. That letter was received by management from

Shri S.Q.Zama, General Secretary of Mine workers

Federation, Central Trade Union of INTUC. That Shri

Trivedi is not office bearer. There was amalgamation of

RKKMS with RCWF election of newly formed union namely

Rashtriya colliery Mazdoor Congress (INYUC), Bilaspur

held on 22-8-03. The registrar of Trade Union had issued

letter. The Writ petition No. 927/03 is filed by Shri

K.N.Trivedi.

IInd party further submits that the service conditions

of employees of SECL are covered by NCWA and cadre

scheme. The promotions are given as per cadre scheme

on recommendation of DPC. The selected candidate is

entitled to the pay scale prescribed for the post, pay

protection is not given under NCWA. There is no

agreement with Union in the matter of pay protection. It is

reiterated that the selected candidates have option to join

the post and they are entitled to the pay scale prescribed.

The employees are not forced to work on the post, they

can return back to their original post. The allegation of

discrimination by management in the matter of pay

protection is denied. The settlement in the matter of pay

protection is denied that any agreement arrived without

authority is not legal granting pay protection is matter of

policy affecting the company. Pay protection policy is

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2975

decided by the company level. The management has not

deducted any amount from wages of workman concerned.

Workman is paid wages as per NCWA. The contentions

of workman are imaginary based on assumption. IInd party

prays for rejection of claim.

Union filed additional Statement of Claim reiterating

its contentions. Management filed rejoinder at Page 15/1

to 15/5 reiterating its contentions in Written Statement.

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

Withdrawal of Pay

Management of SECL Head-

protection given to

quarters, Bilaspur in allowing

Shri Raj Kumar

the wage protection to Shri

Sharma is proper.

Raj Kumar Sharma on his

selection to Clerk Grade III

alongwith similarly placed

workers and thereafter with-

drawing the pay protection,

only in respect of Shri Raj

Kumar Sharma and recovering

arrears amounting to

Rs. 1,25,000/- from his salary is

legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

As per final order.

is entitled to?”

REASONS

Union has taken case of workman Raj Kumar Sharma.

His pay protection was withdrawal by management of

SECL and recovery of arrears from his pay. As per Para-7

of the statement of claim, workman submits that agreement

was raised between Union RKKMS and SECL for pay

protection. Management had denied such agreement.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. In para-6 of his

affidavit, workman has stated that as per agreement dated

1-12-97 between Union RKKMS and SECL management,

pay protection was given to him. However the said

agreement is not produced by workman. Workman in

his cross-examination says the dispute was raised by

RKKMS. He was member of said Union. He was active

Union member. In his further cross-examination he says

he was appointed as General Mazdoor Category I.

promotions are given as per cadre scheme. He claims

ignorance whether there is no cadre scheme for General

Mazdoor. In his further cross-examination, workman says

that for EPGH employees, separate cadre scheme is

provided. In EPGH Fitter Grade-III. In 1993 he was posted

as clerk Grade-III. The agreement between Union and

management have taken place in 1997 but as I have noted

that such agreement is not produced on record. Workman

in his further cross-examination says NCWA and standing

orders are condition of service. He claims ignorance

whether NCWA and standing orders provide for pay

protection.

Shri K.N.Trivedi filed affidavit of evidence. His

cross-examination is on the point whether he was office

bearer of RKKMS Union or that the said controversy lost

relevance as workman himself has filed affidavit of his

evidence in support of his claim. The order of reference

made by Central Govt. is not challenged by the management

therefore reference is required to be decided either way.

The question whether Shri K.N.Trivedi was President of

union or not after dispute was referred to the Tribunal has

absolutely no relevancy for deciding the reference.

Therefore I am not inclined to discuss said point in detail.

10.

The documents produced by workman Exhibit

W-1 about promotion on recommendation of DPC to clerk

grade-II dated 22-1-03. Exhibit W-2 is office order about

promotion of Shri V.B.S.Murthy, Turner Cat-IV Exhibit

W-3 is office order dated 25-12-91- promotion to the post

of store issuer. Exhibit W-4 is copy of interview call issued

to one Ramdayal. Exhibit W-5 is copy of interview call to

Shri Rajendra Singh Kunwar, exhibit W-6 is copy of fixation

statement of Shri Jaiswal. W-7 is copy of fixation of Suresh

Kumar Soni. All those documents are absolutely not

concerned with Raj Kumar Sharma and are of no help for

deciding the claim of pay protection granted to Shri Raj

Kumar Sharma. Vide Exhibit W-9, letter sent by ALC,

Bilaspur to Chief General Manager SECL Gevra Area

observing that the workman had already raised Industrial

Dispute through Union after going through the documents

he felt that opportunity should be given to the management

of SECL, that the management was requested to make

payment as per discussion held on 1-12-97. Exhibit W-10

is letter given by Personal Manager to workman Raj Kumar

Sharma that he was illegally granted pay protection. The

pay protection was cancelled. As per document Exhibit

W-11, Personal Manager, Dipika Project issued order dated

26-5-99 granting pay protection to the workman from 2-11-

95. The said order is silent about the agreement between

management and Union dated 1-12-97. No evidence is

adduced by Union that Personal Manager of Dipika Project

was competent to grant pay protection to the employees

while order Exhibit W-11 was issued only in respect of

workman Raj Kumar Sharma and any other employees were

not covered in said order. Office order Exhibit W-12 is

issued on 12-11-95. Ist party workman was selected as

clerk Grade C on recommendation of DPC. Letter Exhibit

W-13 is sent by Dy. Chief personal Manager Gevra Area

on 12-2-99. On examination of papers, it was seen that

workman was engaged in clerical work after he was injured

in mine work therefore his pay protection seems to be

right. Said letter also doesnot refer to agreement between

union and management dated 1-12-97. No evidence is

adduced that Dy.Personal Manager , Gevra Area was

competent to grant pay protection as per Exhibit W-13.

2976

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Said letter was the basis for issuing order of pay

protection Exhibit W-11. Thus the pay protection granted

to workman Raj Kumar Sharma is not supported by

agreement between union and the management. No rule

under standing orders or NCWA is produced to grant of

pay protection to the employees of SECL.

11.

Management has produced documents of cadre

scheme Exhibit M-1, appointment letter of workman Exhibit

M-2, letter Exhibit M-3 that the General Mazdoor promoted

to clerk Grade III were not entitled to protection. Said letter

was issued by Dy.Chief Personal Manager of SECL,

Bilaspur. Letter Exhibit M-4 is also issued by Dy. Chief

Personal Manager of SECL. That pay protection is not

given to Shri Raj Kumar Sharma and Maheshwar Das Clerk

Grade-III. Thus the documents produced on record shows

that pay protection claimed by workman was denied by

the authority in 1997 itself. Management has produced

documents Exhibit M-5 to M-7 relating to the cadre scheme.

Detailed discussion of those documents is not necessary

as the claim for Pay protection is based on agreement

between the management and the Union. Said agreement

is not produced or proved by the union. The evidence of

management’s witness Hemant Jha is consistent with the

contentions in the Written Statement filed by the

management. That the Personal Manager, Dipika project

inadvertently by mistake granted pay protection to

workman vide order dated 26-5-99 w.e.f. 2-11-95. His

evidence is that workman was paid excess payment by

mistake. Therefore it was decided to recover vide order

dated 22-9-2000. In his cross-examination, the witness says

documents order dated 10-10-97 bears signature of Dy.

Chief Personal Manager. Exhibit M-3 is zerox copy of

order dated 26-5-99 signed by Personal Manager. Even if

hierarchy of the officers is considered, the directions

issued by Dy. Chief Personal Manager has to prevail work.

The Dy. Personal Manager of Gevra mines considered the

matter of pay protection. The evidence of management’s

witness Sujata Rani is on the point that authority like Sub

Area Manager, General Manager, Chief General Manager

of the area has no power to grant pay protection to any

employees. That workman Raj Kumar Sharma was initially

appointed to the post of General Mazdoor General

Category. Vide letter dated 10-10-97, Head Quarter clarified

that employees in General Mazdoor Category selected to

the post of Clerk Grade-III by the Selection Committee are

not entitled for pay protection. His evidence on above

point is not challenged in his cross-examination. Said

witness in her cross-examination says workman was given

pay protection in Clerk Grade-III till 1999. Thereafter pay

protection was not given to him. That pay protection was

wrongly given to the workman against the rules.

12.

At the time of argument, learned counsel of Ist party

Union Shri R.C. Shrivastava relies on ratio held in –

“Case of Indu Bhushan Dwivedi and State of

Jharkhand and another reported in SCLJ-416. Their

Lordship in Para 18 held that the basic canons of

justice that no one can be condemned unheard and

no order prejudicially affecting any person can be

passed by a public authority without affording him

reasonable opportunity to defend himself or

represent his cause. The facts of the present case

are not comparable. From Para-6 of the judgment it

is clear that the chargesheet was issued to the

Judicial Officer, enquiry was conducted and

punishment was imposed. The punishment of

dismissal from service was set-aside by substituting

for voluntary retirement. The observation is not a

principle laid down in the case and same cannot be

beneficially applied to the case before me.

Shri R.C. Shrivastava counsel for Union further relied

on ratio held in Case of Scientific Engineering House Pvt.

Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax. Said case related

to assessee under Income Tax. The facts are not

comparable . I find no ratio held in the case to support the

argument advanced by learned counsel.

13.

Counsel for management Shri A.K. Shashi produced

copy of judgement in

Writ Petition no. 928/97 by Hon’ble High Court,

Jabalpur . In Para 9 of the judgment their Lordship rejected

claim of petitioners for pay protection. However directions

were given that respondents shall not make any recovery

of any alleged excess payment made to the petitioners on

the basis of their earlier pay fixation and grant of pay

protection. The copies of award in R/79/94 by this Tribunal,

NGP/263/2000 by CGIT, Nagpur, R/149/97 by my

predecessor, claim for pay protection was rejected, SECL

was party in all those reference case.

14.

Considering the reasons discussed above and

agreement dated 1-12-97 between management and Union

is not produced by Union, pay protection granted by Dy.

Personal Manager cannot be said legal. If illegal pay

protection was withdrawn, it cannot be said that the action

of the management of IInd party is illegal. However excess

amount cannot be recovered. For above reasons, I record

my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

15.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Action of IInd party management of SECL in

cancelling pay protection to the workman Raj Kumar

Sharma is proper and legal.

(2)

However IInd party shall not make any recovery of

excess payment made to workman.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2977

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1155-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l- bZ- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 6@2011)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@33@2010&vkbZvkj (lh ,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2014

S.O.

1155.—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 Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Rajgama Sub Area

of SECL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 26/03/2014.

[No. L-22012/33/2010-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/6/2011

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Jagatmani Mandal,

Ex- Mining Sirdar,

Qr. No. A-2, Rescue Room,

Rajgamar Colliery,

Post Rajgamar,

Korba (C.G).

......Workman

Versus

Dy. General Manager,

Rajgamar Sub Area of SECL,

Post Rajgamar, Korba (C.G).

.....Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 13th day of February, 2014)

As per letter dated 27-1-2011 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/

33/2010-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager

of SECL, Korba Area, District Korba (CG) in

terminating Shri Jagatmani Mandal, Ex-Mining Sirdar

from service w.e.f. 7-7-2006 is legal and justified? To

what relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman filed Statement of Claim. IInd party

filed Written Statement. Workman not adduced evidence.

Management’s evidence is recorded. Application is filed

by workman for withdrawing of his case. Personally I

confirmed the contents of the application for withdrawal

of his claim. The workman admits to withdraw his case for

the reasons that his parents are ill and he deserves to look

after cultivation of his land. Withdrawal is permitted. For

want of prosecution, the reference cannot be decided on

merit which stands disposed off.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1156-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ- lh-vkbZ-

ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

606@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@03@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@408@1999&vkbZvkj (lh ,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2014

S.O.

1156.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 606/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Court-II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of FCI,

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 26/03/2014.

[No. L-22012/408/1999-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. 606/2005

Registered on 23.8.2005

Sh. Gurmeet Singh,

S/o Sh. Bakshish Singh,

Village, Duddian, PO: Majitha,

Amritsar.

......Petitioner

2978

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

86, Rani Ka Bagh,

Amritsar, Amritsar (Punjab).

......Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

: Ex parte.

For the Management

: Sh. N.K. Zakhmi Adv.

AWARD

(Passed on- 3.3.2014)

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22012/

408/99/IR(CM-II) Dated 29.2/7.3/2000, 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 Food

Corporation of India, Amritsar in terminating the

services of Sh. Gurmeet Singh, S/o Sh. Bakshish

Singh w.e.f. 1.1.1997 without paying him

retrenchment compensation is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and

from which date?”

In response to the notice, the workman submitted

statement of claim pleading that he joined the service of

the respondent management in 1982 and continuously

worked as Palledar for 15 years against a permanent post

and used to draw Rs.1890/- as salary. His Provident Fund

was deducted from 1.1.1995 onwards. His services were

illegally terminated on 1.1.1997 without service of any

notice, charge-sheet and inquiry and payment of

retrenchment compensation and in violation of the

provisions of Section 25G, H and N of the Act. That he be

reinstated in service.

Respondent management filed written reply

controverting the averments and pleaded that workman is

not its employee and there is no relationship of employer

and employee between the parties. It is further pleaded

that in view of Ishwari Prasad Committee Report, a 3-

Member Team was constituted and it was known as TMC

System and wages of the workers were paid to TMC who

used to make the payment to the workers. That there were

36 labourers and during the month of January 1994, 12

more fictitious names were added without any authority

by the then AM(D). That the name of the workman as

included in those 12 names. That he never worked at the

said depot.

Parties led their evidence.

Workman appeared in the witness box and filed his

affidavit reiterating the case as set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand the respondent management

examined K.K. Verma, Area Manager who filed his affidavit

along with the documents reiterating the stand taken by

the respondent management.

Workman was proceeded against ex parte vide order

dated 25.1.2011.

I have heard N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the

management and have gone through the file carefully.

Though the management has taken the stand that

TMC System was introduced as per Ishwari Prasad

Committee Report and only 36 labourers were covered

under the said scheme and later on in the year 1994, the

then AM(D) introduced 12 fictitious workers including

the name of the workman who did not work for the FCI,

but it is for the workman to show that he actually joined

the service of the respondent management. According to

him he joined the service in the year 1982. There is nothing

on the file except his bare statement that he actually joined

the respondent management in the year 1982. He admitted

during cross-examination that there was no advertisement

for the vacancies and no appointment letter was issued.

In the circumstances, it cannot be said that he was in the

service of the respondent management which is a statutory

body and is governed by its rules and regulations for

employing a person. It is not shown whether any Rules

and Regulations were followed before inducting the

workman in the employment of the respondent

management. The workman has nowhere pleaded or

proved that he was inducted in the employment under the

TMC Scheme in consequence of the Ishwari Prasad

Committee Report. Thus it cannot be said that he was an

employee of the respondent management at any point of

time and his services were terminated and he is not entitled

to any relief.

In result, the reference is accordingly 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] 26 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1157-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 48@2013)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@27@2013&vkbZvkj (lh ,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vfèkdkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2979

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2014

S.O.

1157.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 48/2013) of

the Central Government Industrial 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 workmen, received

by the Central Government on 26/03/2014.

[No. L-22012/27/2013-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 21^st day of February, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 48/2013

Between :

The President(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana),

Telengana Trade Union Council,

H. No. 5-295, Indranagar, Opp. Bus stand,

Mancherial-504 208,

Adilabad District.

….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Srirampur Area, Srirampur,

Adilabad district – 504303.

….Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: Party in person

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya

Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

order No. L-22012/27/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 23.4.2013

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of

the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between

the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company

Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur

Area, Sreerampur, Adilabad Dist., in terminating the

services of Sri Bukala Thirupathi, Ex-Badli Coal Filler,

IK-1A incline, SCCL, Sreerampur Area with effect

from 1.1.2003 is justified? If not, to what relief the

applicant is entitled for?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.

No. 48/2013 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

The case stands posted for appearance of Petitioner

and filing of claim statement to 21.2.2014.

At this stage, representative of Petitioner Union

filed a memo on 21.2.2014, stating to the effect that

Petitioner is not pressing the claim since management

offered employment to the workman Sri Bukala Thirupathi.

In the circumstances, recording this memo, a ‘Nil’

Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 21^st

day of February, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1158-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 65@2013)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@50@2013&vkbZvkj (lh ,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2014

S.O.

1158.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 65/2013) of

the Central Government Industrial 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 workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 26/03/2014.

[No. L-22012/50/2013-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

2980

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI,

Presiding Officer

Dated the 21^st day of February, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 65/2013

Between :

The President(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana),

Telengana Trade Union Council,

H. No. 5-295, Indranagar, Opp. Bus stand,

Mancherial-504 208,

Adilabad District.

….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Ramagundam-I Area, Godavarikhani-505 209.

Karimnagar district.

….Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: Party in person

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya

Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

order No. L-22012/50/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 30.5.2013

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of

the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between

the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company

Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Ramagundam-I Area, Godavrikhani, Karimnagar

Distt., in terminating the services of Sri Shaik Anwar

Hussain, Ex-CF, GDK-6B Inc. S.C.Co. Ltd.,

Ramagundam-I Area, Godavarikhani with effect from

14.8.2001 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the

applicant is entitled for?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.

No. 65/2013 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

The case stands posted for appearance of Petitioner

and filing of claim statement to 21.2.2014.

At this stage, representative of Petitioner Union

filed a memo on 21.2.2014, stating to the effect that he is

not pressing his claim since management offered

employment to the workman Sri Shaik Anwar Hussain.

In the circumstances, recording this memo, a ‘Nil’

Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 21^st

day of February, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1159-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w- lh- ,y-

ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 65@11)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@4@1991&vkbZvkj (lh ,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2014

S.O.

1159.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 65/91)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of WCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 26/03/2014.

[No. L-22012/4/1991-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/65/91

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE

The Organising Secretary,

RKKMS(INTUC),

Post Chandametta,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

.....Workman/Union

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2981

Versus

General Manager,

Kanhan Area of WCL,

PO Dungariya,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

......Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 17^th day of February 2014)

As per letter dated 10-4-91 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/

4/91-IR(Coal-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of W.C.L

Kanhan Area in respect of their Nandan Mine No.1

in dismissing the services of Shri Panoo S/o Mouji

General Mazdoor Token No. 892 is proportionate to

the gravity of the offence and justified? If not to

what relief the workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. workman filed Statement of claim at Page 6/1

to 6/5. Case of workman is that he was employed by IInd

party at Nandan Mine 15 years back. He was rendering

satisfactory services. His younger son suffered from

mental illness. Workman was required to take him for

treatment to various places. He had informed about his

inability to the management. That he could not attend

duty from 1-9-88 for above reason. That on 25-2-89, he

requested Suptd. Of Mines to allow him on duty but he

was not allowed to join duty on the ground that he was

absent from duty without satisfactory cause. Workman

further submits that he had not received any documents

from IInd party of enquiry conducted against him, that

enquiry is conducted without his knowledge as such

exparte. Workman prays to set aside order of his dismissal

from service alleging enquiry conducted against him in

violation of principles of natural justice. Workman prays

for reinstatement with back wages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/7.

IInd party submits that the reference is not tenable under

Section 2(k) of I.D.Act. the Union has agreed to avoid

Board of Conduct formulated at company level. That

workman is not member of the Union. Union is not

competent to raise dispute. That workman was appointed

as tub loader on 30-11-75. He was working at Nandan

Colliery till 21-9-98. Workman was not on duty as he was

posted to Hirdagarh Siding of Kanhan Area w.e.f. 23-9-78.

He remained absent from duty on humanitarian ground.

He was continued. The period of his working is shown 9

months in 1984-85, 9 months in 1985-86, Nil in 1986-87, 8

months in 1987-88.

IInd party submits that charge-sheet was issued to

workman for unauthorised absence. Workman did not

attend Enquiry Proceedings. Enquiry was conducted

exparte. Charges are proved against workman of

unauthorized absence. Considering report of Enquiry

Officer, punishment was imposed. IInd party denies that

enquiry is conducted in violation of principles of natural

justice. IInd party denies that workman is entitled for

reinstatement.

As per order dated 12-6-2012, my predecessor held

that enquiry conducted against workman is legal and

proper.

Considering pleadings between parties 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 charges against

In Affirmative

workman are proved from

evidence in Enquiry

Proceedings?

(ii) Whether the punishment of

In Affirmative

dismissal of workman is

proper and legal?

(iii) If so, to what relief the workman

Workman is not

is entitled?

entitled to relief

prayed.

REASONS

As stated above, enquiry conducted against

workman is found legal and proper by my predecessor

vide order dated 12-6-2012. In view of said order, question

remains for decision whether the evidence in Enquiry

Proceedings is sufficient to prove charge against workman

and punishment of dismissal is proper and legal. The

record of Enquiry Proceedings is produced. The enquiry

was proceeded in absence of workman. Statement of

management witness Shri Chakravorty is recorded in

Enquiry Proceedings. Management’s witness has stated

that workman Shri Pannu S/o Mouji General Mazdoor

Token No. 892 was absent from duty from 1-9-88 till date

without any intimation. Management’s Representative

produced document certified by Token Clerk. Exhibit C is

that workman Pannu was absent from duty w.e.f. 1-9-88.

The evidence of management’s witness remained

unchallenged. Exhibit D is produced by management’s

witness certified by wages clerk that Pannu had not taken

any kind of leave during the period in question. The above

evidence proves charges against workman. Therefore I

record my finding on Point No.1 in Affirmative.

Point No.2- workman is challenging his dismissal

from service for unauthorized absence. The question is

whether the punishment of dismissal for unauthorized

absence is disproportionate. The perusal of charge-sheet

is 1 & 3 of the Enquiry Report shows that charges against

2982

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman was of unauthorized absence from 1-9-88 till date

of issuing charge-sheet i.e. 26-2-89. The period of

unauthorised absence comes 5 months 25 days. If such

long absence without intimation is considered, the

punishment of dismissal cannot be said improper, illegal. I

find no reason to interfere in the order of punishment as

workman has not adduced any evidence on other issues.

For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.2 in

Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of W.C.L Kanhan

Area in respect of their Nandan Mine No.1 in

dismissing the services of Shri Panoo S/o Mouji

General Mazdoor Token No. 892 is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief as prayed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1160-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l- bZ- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 83@92)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@22@1990&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2014

S.O.

1160.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 83/92) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of SECL, and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 26/03/2014.

[No. L-22012/22/1990-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/83/92

Presding Officer : Shri R.B.PATLE

The Secretary,

MP Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU),

PO Kurasia colliery,

Distt. Surguja (MP)

.....Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

Chirimiri Area of SECL,

PO Chirimiri ,

Distt. Surguja (MP)

......Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 27^th day of February 2014)

As per letter dated 29-4-92 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/

22/90-IR(C-II).The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Kurasia

colliery of Chirimiri Area of SECL inn denying the

continuity of service to Shri M.K.Chanda is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party Union filed statement of claim at Page

2/1 to 2/5. Case of Ist party Union is that workman

ShriM.K.Chanda was working as Mazdoor Cat-II in

excavation section in Kurasia colliery. That prior to

17-9-82 services of workman were unblemished. Workman

was Secretary of M.P. Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (CITU) of

the colliery unit. That chargesheet was issued to workman

on 17-9-83 making false allegations. The chargesheet was

replied by workman denying the allegations. Enquiry

started on 6-6-84. Enquiry was not conducted as per

principles of natural justice. The enquiry is not legal. As

enquiry conducted against workman is found legal and

proper, I am not inclined to narrate the pleading on point

in detail. The workman has referred to statements of

witnesses in their cross-examination. That MW Sahu did

not accept his signature in report submitted by Security

Officer Shri Pandey. Witness Pal, Shri Sonwani stated that

they did not see workman instigating other workmen.

Union precisely contents that the charges are not proved

against him. That the punishment of dismissal imposed

against him is disproportionate. It is further submitted by

Union that higher leadership of the Trade Union had

intervened and workman was reinstated in service. After

order of dismissal was reviewed, the workman was denied

continuity of service. It is illegal. Union prays that workman

Shri M.K.Chanda be allowed continuity of service prior to

his re-appointment from 28-10-85.

Written Statement is filed by IInd party at Page 7/1

to 7/7. IInd party did not dispute that workman

M.K.Chanda was Secretary of M.P. Koyla Shramik Sangh.

Strike notice dated 20-8-83 was served to the local

management raising six demands. Strike was threatened,

in case the demands were not fulfilled, the management

informed ALC, Shahdol about threats of strike vide letter

dated 5-9-83. There were discussions before ALC between

the representative of management and Union. However

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2983

Shri Chanda did not sign those discussions. It is submitted

that the workman had no intention to resort to strike on

12-9-83. However Shri M.K.Chanda had instigated 17

workmen. They had not reported to the work despite of

signing attendance register on 12-9-83. It is submitted that

the chargesheet was issued to Shri M.K.Chanda for

misconduct under Clause 17(i)(i) of Mines Act and 38(i)(b)

of Coal Mines Regulation 1957. The reply given by Shri

M.K.Chanda was not found satisfactory. Enquiry Officer

was appointed to Shri Baldev Singh and Shri D. Kumar

Dy. Personal Manager was appointed as Management

Representative. Enquiry was conducted as per rules. It is

denied that principles of natural justice were not followed

while conducting enquiry. On 9-6-84, Vinod Kumar Sahu,

Sunil Kumar Mukherjee, Ramjee Pandey MW-I to III were

produced by management. The witness were cross-

examined by co-worker. On 11-6-84, statement of MW-IV

Arun Kumar Singh was recorded. The witness was cross-

examined. On 9-12-84, workman was called to produce his

defence. However workman had given his own statement.

He was cross-examined by management representative.

The allegation of workman that the charges are not proved

is denied. It is not disputed that on intervention of the

Union leadership, workman was re-appointed on

humanitarian ground from 28-9-85. Workman is not entitled

to continuity of service. On such grounds, IInd party prays

for rejection of the claim of Union.

Union filed rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/3 reiterating its

contention in Statement of claim.

Vide order dated 12-12-2013, enquiry conducted

against workman is found legal. Parties not adduced

evidence on other issues.

Considering pleadings and finding 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 misconduct alleged

In Affirmative

against workman is proved from

evidence in Enquiry Proceedings?

(ii) Whether the denial of continuity

In Affirmative

of service of Ist party workman is

justified?

(iii) If not, what relief the workman is Workman is not

entitled to?”

entitled to con-

tinuity of service

REASONS

As stated above, enquiry conducted against

workman is found legal and proper. Both parties have not

adduced evidence. The law is settled that if enquiry is

found legal only evidence in Enquiry Proceedings needs

to be considered towards proof of the charges. No fresh

evidence can be recorded in the matter. The record of

enquiry proceeding is produced at Exhibit M-1 to M-9.

Exhibit M-1 is Strike Notice given by Local Union. M-2 is

the report given by security guard that workman Shri

M.K.Chanda had come to the factory premises should be

taken out of the gate. Exhibit M-3 is also confidential letter

given by Suptd. of Mines to Dy. CME about workman

M.K.Chanda coming to colliery and instigated co-workers

for not going to duty. Exhibit M-4 is the chargesheet issued

to Shri M.K. Chanda. the allegation were causing willful

damage to work in progress or to property of the employer

under provisions of Mines Act 1952, breach of Mining

rules 38(1)(b) . The statements of witnesses shows that

Shri M.K.Chanda had come to the Mine premises and

instigated workman not to go for duty. The charges are

supported by same evidence. The findings of Enquiry

Officer cannot be said perverse.

As per pleadings between parties, workman was re-

appointed after intervention of Union leaders, the

management submits that Shri M.K.Chanda was re-

appointed on humanitarian grounds. When findings of

Enquiry Officer are supported by same evidence, the denial

of continuity of service to workman cannot be said illegal.

Therefore I record my finding on Point No.1, 2 in

Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Kurasia colliery of

Chirimiri Area of SECL in denying the continuity of

service to Shri M.K.Chanda is legal and proper.

(2)

Shri M.K.Chanda workman is not entitled to

continuity of service.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1161-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l- bZ- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 170@99)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@211@1998&vkbZvkj (lh ,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2014

S.O.

1161.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 170/99) of

the Central Government Industrial 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

26/03/2014.

[No. L-22012/11/1998-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

2984

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/170/99

Presding Officer : Shri R. B. PATLE

Smt.Shanti Sharma,

Hari Om Payasi,

Arti Payasi,

Dipika Payasi,

Arpit Payasi – LRs of

Late Surendra Kumar Sharma,

Ex.Mining Sirdar,

Narayan Incline, Purani Basti,

PO Kotma, Distt. Shahdol (MP)

......Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Jamuna & Kotma area of SECL,

PO Jamuna Colliery,

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

......Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 7th day of February 2014)

As per letter dated 22-4-99 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/

211/98(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Jamuna

and Kotma Colliery of SECL, Shahdol (MP) in

dismissing Shri Surendra Kumar Sharma, Mining

Sirdar, w.e.f. 12-11-97 is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed Statement of claim at

Page 4/1 to 4/6. Case of Ist party workman is that he is

resident of Old Kotma Village. He was working as Mining

Sirdar in Bhadra Colliery since past 16 years. That

chargeheet was issued to him alleging that he was absent

from duty without intimation. He was unauthorisely absent.

The production of the colliery was affected. Misconduct

as per Rule 26-34, 26.30 of standing order was alleged.

Workman had given reply to the chargesheet denying the

charges. The Enquiry Officer A.K.Sinha conducted

enquiry. Workman alleged that enquiry was not properly

conducted. He was not given intimation about the dates

of hearing of the Enquiry Proceedings. That other Enquiry

Officer Shri K.S.Arya was appointed. Though he was

present at Guest House on 8-2-97, no enquiry was

conducted against him on that day. The workman has

narrated detail. The enquiry conducted against him is

illegal. As the enquiry conducted against workman is

found legal by my predecessor as per order dated 28-7-02,

detailed narration of contention of workman in statement

of claim is avoided.

Workman submits that his name was taken on muster

roll. He couldnot contest municipal election at Kotma.

That he was suffering from illness. Intimation was given

to the management about his illness. His services were

terminated for unauthorised absence is not legal. As he

belong to SC, he is subjected to harassment. That he was

on duty for 2 days in 1993. Despite of it, he was shown

absent. On such contentions, workman is praying for his

reinstatement.

Management filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to

8/3. IInd party submits that the workman was absenting

from duty continuously from 16-5-93 till his dismissal.

Workman was holding statutory provision for his absence.

Work suffered as workman was absent without leave.

Chargesheet was issued to him on 16-10-96 under Clause

26.30 of Standing order. That enquiry was conducted

against workman. The Enquiry Officer found charges

proved against workman. Workman did not bring any

documents about his treatment. The contentions of

workman are false. He had not submitted any information

for his absence. IInd party submits that showcause notices

were issued to the workman before his dismissal. The

punishment of dismissal is legal.

Ist party has filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/5 denying

contentions in Written Statement filed by the management.

Workman has reiterated his contentions in Statement of

claim.

Enquiry conducted against workman is found legal

as per order dated 28-7-2010. Considering pleadings on

record and finding on preliminary issue, 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 charges against

In Affirmative

workman are proved from

evidence in Enquiry Proceedings?

(ii) Whether the punishment of

In Affirmative

dismissal from service of workman

is legal and proper?

(iii) If so, to what relief the workman

Relief prayed

is entitled?

by workman

is rejected.

REASONS

Enquiry conducted against workman is found legal

and proper. Question arises whether the charges against

workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry

Proceedings. As per document Exhibit W-5, the charges

against workman are that he was in habit of remaining

absent from duty without reasons (Clause-26/24). That

workman was remaining absent from duty without

sanctioned leave/period of sanctioned leave (Clause-

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2985

26/30). Management’s witness in his statement at Page

12/12 has stated that workman was unauthorisely absent

from duty from 16-5-93. Bonus register was produced .

that workman was present for 2 days in the month of May.

The workman in his further statement stated that he has

intimated that no statement is given by workman about

his illness. The statement of management’s representative

that workman was absent from duty from 16-5-93 is not

shattered in cross-examination. Workman has not

produced documents about intimation given of his illness

to management. Said document are not proved in Enquiry

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

in Affirmative.

Point No.2- the question arises whether the

punishment of dismissal from service against workman is

proper and legal. The punishment is imposed for

unauthorized absence of workman from 16-5-93. Learned

counsel for workman Shri R.C.Shrivastava argued that

there was no charge of habitual absenteeism against

workman. In chargesheet issued to workman allegation

narrated above relates to his absence from duty and

absence without prior sanctioned leave. The charges

against workman are not of habitual absence.

Copy of certified standing orders of SECL is made

available by learned counsel for management. Different

kinds of leave are provided. At the time of earlier day, the

argument was heard. The record of Enquiry Proceedings

was pointed out. The endorsement made by Chief General

Manager and Personal Officer were pointed out from Page

25 of the record of enquiry. It was submitted by learned

counsel for Ist party Shri R.C.Shrivastava that the order of

dismissal is not issued by the competent authority.

Learned counsel for IInd party Shri A.K.Shashi submits

that the dismissal of workman was approved by the

endorsement made by Chief General Manager and Personal

Officer. A copy of circular dated 9-12-91 is produced. Said

circular deals that competent authority in respect of areas

of SECL i.e. Chief General Managers, General Managers,

of the areas, Sub Area Manager, Departmental heads will

be the competent authority to exercise powers delegated

to them by CGM, GM for implementation taking appropriate

action such as situation of enquiry etc./disciplinary action.

The circular is clear that power to take final disciplinary

action will be vested with Chief General Manager/General

Manager. The copy of circular dated 31-3-08 is also

produced. Said order cannot be beneficially used as the

services of workman are dismissed on 14-11-97. The order

is signed by Sub Area Manager. As per circular dated

9-12-91, the Competent Authority provided have no power

to take final disciplinary action. Those disciplinary

authorities have only powers to issue chargesheet

constituting enquiry committees, disciplinary action etc.

under the provisions of Certified Standing Orders.

However the power to take final disciplinary action will be

vested with the CGM/GM.

In present case the record of enquiry Page 25 shows

notesheet was submitted by Dy.Personal Manager for

appropriate orders of enquiry. The note was approved by

Chief Manager. Further it finds remark of Personal Officer

for issuing appropriate order. The order of dismissal is

issued by Sub Area Manager.

10.

Learned counsel for IInd party Shri A.K.Shashi on

above point relies on ratio held in

“Case of A.P.Khadi and village Industries Board,

Hyderabad and others versus R. Radhakrishnamurthy

reported in 1997(3) Supreme Court Cases 230. Their

Lordship dealing with communication of order-

Competent Authority granting its approval in file

while formal order issued by a subordinate authority.

Validity of order single Judge of High Court declaring

respondent dismissal valid after perusing Note file

in which approval had been granted by competent

authority though formal order was issued by a

subordinate authority. The Single Judge remarked

as follows in his judgment.’’ A perusal of the records

shows that the entire proceedings were taken with

the approval of the Chirman commending from the

order of suspension to the date of the impugned

order. The Note File of the Board contains the

signature of the Chairman on 24-5-87 to 20-11-87 to

the effect that the impugned proceedings were

issued by the Chairman. Their Lordship held

direction of Division bench was not justified when

the single Judge had satisfied himself that

respondent was dismissed with the approval of the

Chairman.”

In present case Page 25 of Enquiry Proceedings finds

clear approval for dismissal from service of workman

on …….. the further direction by Personal Officer

are relating to issue of appropriate orders. The

reasons for dismissal order are given in the order.

Signed by Sub Area Manager. Considering ratio in

above cited case, the order approved by Chief

Manager cannot be said illegal.

11.

Learned counsel for Ist party Shri R.C.Shrivastava

submits that there was no charge of habitual absenteeism

and legal question can be raised at any time. Reliance is

placed on ratio held in

“Case of Chittoori Subbanna versus Kudappa

Subbana and others reported in AIR-1965-SC-1325.

Their Lordship of the Apex Court held pure question

of law not dependent on the determination of any

question of fact should be allowed to be raised for

the first time in the grounds of appeal by the first

appellate Court.”

Above principle is not disputed by learned counsel

for IInd party Mr. Shashi.

2986

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12.

Learned counsel for Ist party Shri R.C. Shrivastava

further submitted that the reason are not given while

passing the dismissal order of workman. It indicates non-

application of mind by competent authority. In support of

his submissions, learned counsel relies on ratio held in

“Case of A.L. Kalra versus Project and Equipment

Corporation of India Ltd. Reported in AIR(SC)1984-

0-1361. In para-6 of the judgment their Lordship

observed salient feature which files into the face

about the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer

and the order made by the Disciplinary Authority as

well as the Appellate Authority is that none of them

made a reasoned order or speaking order and their

conclusions are mere ipse dixit unsupported by any

analysis of the evidence or reasons in support of

the conclusions.”

The conclusions are not supported by any analysis

of the evidence or reasons in support of conclusions.

The approval of note at Page 25 implies application

of mind. The detailed reasons for dismissal are stated

at Page 24, Page 23 also finds reasons for dismissal.

Therefore the ratio held in above cited case cannot

be beneficially applied to case at hand.

13.

The chargesheet was issued to workman on 16-10-

96 for unauthorized absence from 16-5-93 till dismissal.

The record of Enquiry Proceedings shows workman was

claiming inability to work underground asking for light

duties. His request was not accepted. Workman did not

resume duty and order of his termination dated 12-11-97.

Workman has not adduce evidence on other issues.

Documents about heart illness are not proved by the

workman. Therefore the order of dismissal of workman

does not call for interference. For above reasons, I record

my finding in Point No. 2 in Affirmative.

14.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Action of the management of Jamuna and Kotma

Colliery of SECL, Shahdol (MP) in dismissing

Shri Surendra Kumar Sharma, Mining Sirdar, w.e.f.

12-11-97 is legal.

(2)

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1162-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y

ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

291@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@03@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@102@1999&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2014

S.O.

1162.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 291/1999)

of the Central Government Industrial 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 26/03/2014.

[No. L-20012/102/1999-IR (C-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. 291 of 1999

PARTIES

The Mannan Mullick

Vice President, Rastriya Colliery

Mazdoor Sangh, Rajenmder

Path, Dhanbad

Vs.

The General Manager,

P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL,

Kusunda, Dhanbad

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

: Mr. R.S. Rana, Ld. Advocate

workman/Union

On behalf of the

: Mr. S.N. Ghosh, Ld.Advocate

Management

State

: Jharkhand

Industry

: Coal

Dhanbad, Dated the 11th February, 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

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/102/99-IR(C-I) dt 04.08.1999.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of

Goplichak Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not providing

employment to Shri Ram Kumar Paswan,

S/o Smt. Fulia Kamin, H.C. Stacker under Voluntary

Retirement Scheme of the Company is justified? If

not, to what relief Shri Ram Kumar Paswan is

entitled?”

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2987

On receipt of the Order No L-20012/102/99-IR(C-I)

dt 04.08.1999 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour,New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, the reference Case No.291 of

1999 was registered on 16^th August,1999 and accordingly

an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the Registered Post to the parties concerned, directing

them to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to file

their written statements along with the relevant documents.

In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered

Post were sent to the parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances personally

and through their Ld.Adovactes respectively filed their

pleadings and their documents concerned.

The case of sponsoring Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor

Sangh, Dhanbad, for petitioner Ram Kumar Paswan is that

Smt.Fulia Kamin was a permanent employee and a HC

Stacker at Gopalichak Colliery. She had made her application

dt.27.5.1995 for employment of her son Ram Kumar Paswan

under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (V.R.S.). The

Management of the Colliery accepted her application. As

per instruction of the managememt, she submitted to the

management all the relevant documents duly certified by

the Mukhiya/the BDO etc .The Management referred to

the Area Management which also referred to the

BCCL,H.Qr.,Koyla Bhawan for approval and needful in

1995 for her son’s appointment as early as

possible.Smt.Fulia Kamin and her son Ram Kumar Paswan

made outmost approaches to the BCCL Authorities, but

all ineffective .lastly, the Industrial Dispute through the

failure in conciliation due to restiveness of the O.P./

Management resulted in the reference for an adjudication.

Smt. Fulia Kamin in her rejoinder denied all the

allegations of the O.P./Management ,and stated that

admittedly she had submitted her relevant papers on

21.5.1995 about one year ago the V.R.S. (Female Scheme)

as per the G.M.(P)’s letter dt.5.9.1995 extending up to

30.06.1996,but the Project Officer of Gopalichak Colliery

closed her case as devoid of merits. Latches and delay

was on the part of the Management of BCCL so as to

superannuate her at her 60 years. The Management has

violated the provision of Articles 12 & 14 of the Indian

Constitution as well as the principle of natural justice. So

she is entitled to get the employment of her said son under

the said scheme.

Whereas categorically denying the allegations of

the workman, the pleaded case of the O.P./management is

that Smt.Fulia Kamin was appointed on 21.10.1997 and her

date of birth as recorded in form ‘B’, the Statutory register

the Colliery, was 23.5.1940. She had been working as

H.C.Stacker in Gopalichak Colliery. The Special Voluntary

Retirement Scheme for female employees as per the BCCL/

GM(P)(P.S.)/95/8188-288 dt.12.4.1995 came into force from

April,1995 for a period of six months. It was further

extended for one year from 01.07.1995 to 30.06.1996 as per

the Circular Letter No.BCCL/GM(P)SECY/95 dt.5.9.1995

which was applicable only to the female employees their

50 years age opting for their retirement.Smt.Fulia Kamin

had applied/submitted her application on 27.5.1995 for

Spl.Voluntary Retirement, and its forwarding to the H.Qr.

and putting up before the proper Authority on 6.10.95,it

was returned to the Area on 8.6…. for certain clarification,.

As per clauses 12 & 13 of the Spl.V.R.S., its scrutiny and

forwarding to the H.Qr. ought to have been within 3 days

and it finalization by the G.M.(P) within 15 days as per its

clause 14.According to the General Clause II of the S.V.R.S.

Circular, the day the nominee of the retiring employee gets

employment, the retiring employee ought to have

automatically ceased to work. But as per the records of

the managment, there was no communication to the

workwoman for retirement till 8.7.1999, as result she

continued to work till her age of 59 years and 2 months. So

as per clause III of the General Rule, it was the prenegative

of the Management to reject any application without

assigning any reason. Thus there was no wrong on the

part of the management in doing so under the Spl.V.R.S,.

for female employees. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief, as his mother worked in the colliery till the last date

of her employment.

Further stated in its rejoinder that the workwoman

in course of her continuous working simultaneously raised

So her claim for providing an employment to her son is

meritless, and as such the petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

FINDING WITH REASONS

In the instant case, WWI Fulia Kamin,the

workwoman herself, and WW2 Arjun Paswan,her son-in-

law for the Union concerned, and MWI Ram Chet Beldar,

the Munshi,for the O.P./management have been examined

respectively. The entire case is based on mere oral

statement of both them parties.

WWI Fulia Kamin,the workwoman herself, as per

her statement has stated to have firstly made an application

dt.27.5.1995 for employment of her son Ram Kumar Paswan

under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the Company

of M/s BCCL which was accepted with all relevant

documents by the management of Gopalichak Colliery, yet

neither her son could be employed nor any reasons was

assigned by the Management. Corroborating the

statement of his mother-in-law Fulia Kamin(WWI),WW2

Arjun Paswan has to say that the VRS Scheme under

which her mother-in-law had applied in the year for

employment of her son was applicable to the employees

completing their services up to 50 years of age, and his

mother-in-law had completed her service upto 55 years of

age; and even after application for V.R.S., she kept on

2988

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

working in the colliery, but she did not get any letter of the

appointment for her son in place of her V.R.S.

Whereas the statement of MWI Ram Chet Beldar,the

Munshi of the Gopalichak Colliery is that Fulia Kamin,the

permanent Hard Coke Stacker at the colliery whose date

of birth recorded as 23^rd May,1940, had though applied

on27.5.1995 under the V.R.S(female) without the requisite

documents, yet the same not filed at the relevant time

within the extended period of the Scheme from 1.7.1995 to

30.06.1996, meanwhile she finally retired on 28^th July,1999

keeping on working; so her application was rejected by

the Management.

Mr.R.S.N..Singh, the Learned Counsel for the Union/

workwoman has to submit that though the applicant

(workwoman) had applied within time for the employment

of her son Ram Kumar Paswan under the Spl.VRS (Female),

no employment could be given to him without any

plausible reason. Just contrary to it, the contention of

Mr.S.N.Ghosh,the Learned Advocate for the O.P./

Management is that the petitioner workwoman could not

file her complete application under the Spl.V.R.S.(Female)

at the relevant time for employment of her said son;

moreover, the said scheme provides for the discretionary

power of the management over the aforesaid matter; so

the action of the management of the said colliery in not

providing an employment to Shri Ram Kumar Paswan S/O

Smt.Fulia Kamin under the V.R.S. is right,porper and legal,

and the claimant is not entitled to any relief.

On the consideration of overall matters as orally

brought on the case record, I find that the claimant’s case

in lack of the proof of her application to have applied with

full documents is unsustainable ,as she kept on working,

and retired from her service on her superannuation .In

resut,it is hereby responded and accordingly.

ORDERED

The action of the Management of Gopalichak Colliery

of M/s BCCL in not providing an employment to Shri Ram

Kumar Paswan S/o Smt.Fulia Kamin,H.C.Stacker,under the

Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the Company is quite

justified.Therefore,Shri Ram Kumar Paswan is not entitled

to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1163-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y

ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1 /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

46@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@03@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@249@2002&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2014

S.O.

1163.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 46/2003) of

the Central Government Industrial 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 26/03/2014.

[No. L-20012/249/2002-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

Reference: No. 46/2003

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act. 1947.

Employer in relation to the management of

Sijua.Area M/S BCCL

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.

Dated : 11-2-2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/249/ 2002 /IR (C-I) dated

13.06.2003, 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 promotion of Smt Ruth Ekka and 14

others nursing staff ( as per list) from Tech. Gr.”C”

to Tech Gr. “B” by the management of BCCL ,

Regional Hospital, Loyabad w.e.f. from 01.01.1994

was legal and justified?’

(ii)

Whether the revision of date of above promotions

from 01.01.1994 to 01.01.1995 by subsequent orders

of the management was justified?”

(iii)

Whether fixation of wages of the above workmen

upon promotion with one annual increase was fair ,

legal and justified?’ and

(iv)

Whether the action of the management in affecting

recoveries on account of excess wage paid upon

promotion and wage fixation as above, from the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2989

salaries of the above workmen is just, fair and

legal ? If not, what orders are necessary in this

regard?’

Annexure (List of workmen)

Mrs. Fulgencia Xess

Mrs. Jharna Chakerbarty

Mrs. Ruby Hassa

Mrs Pitricia Tudu

Shanti Kumari Dutta

Mr. S.N. Mishra

Mr. Madhusudhan Singh

Mr. B.N. Jha

K.N. Singh

10.

Mrs. Esther Murmu

11.

Mr. Shiv Chandra Bhakta

12.

Mrs. Komilina Hmbram

13.

Mr. Surendra Pd.Singh

14.

Mrs. Dayamani Hans

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

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1164-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bf.M;u ,vj

ykbZul ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

25@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@03@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@08@2003&vkbZvkj (lh ,e&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2014

S.O.

1164.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 25/2007) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Indian

Airlines and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 26/03/2014.

[No. L-11012/08/2003-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. I , KARKARDOOMA COURTS

COMPLEX DELHI

I.D. No. 25/2007

Shri Jaipal,

Through the General Secretary,

Airport Employees Union,

3, V.P. House, Rafi Marg,

New Delhi - 110001.

.....Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

M/s. Indian Airlines,

IGI Terminal-I, Palam,

New Delhi.

M/s. Aroon Enterprises,

H.No.423, Village &

Post Office Kapashera,

New Delhi.

M/s. Sunshine Enterprises,

A-60, Nirmal Puri,

Lajpat Nagar-IV,

New Delhi-110024.

.....Managements

AWARD

Erstwhile M/s Indian Airlines (in short the Airlines)

awarded contract for annual maintenance of cleaning of

Aircrafts A 300 and A 320 on night halt at Indira Gandhi

International Airport, New Delhi to M/s Aroon Enterprises.

Writ petitions No.3823 of 98, and 2300 of 99 were filed by

employees of the contractor for regularization of their

services with the Airlines. Interim order was passed by

High Court of Delhi on 10.08.1998 in writ petition No.3823

of 98, directing the Airlines not to dispense with the

services of petitioners, till disposal of the petition. Contract

of M/s Aroon Enterprises came to an end and fresh

contract was awarded to M/s Sunshine Enterprises. In

compliance of the interim order passed by High Court of

Delhi, the Airlines wrote to the Contractor to absorb the

petitioners, numbering six, in their employment. Writ

petition was dismissed by the High Court in the year 2001.

Services of the claimant were dispensed with by the

contractor on 01.01.2002. The claimant approached the

Airport Employees’ Union (Regd.) (in short the Union) for

redressal of his grievances. The union raised an industrial

dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since the claim

was contested by the Airlines as well as the contractor,

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-11012/8/2003-IR(CM-I), New Delhi dated 21.02.2007,

with following terms:

2990

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether demand of Airport Employees Union to

reinstate Shri Jaipal, ex-Cleaner with full back wages

in the services of M/s Sunshine Enterprises or

M/s. Indian Airlines, is legal and justified? If so, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

The Airlines assailed the reference order before the

High Court of Delhi by way of writ petition No.WP(C)

8309 of 2007. The petition was dismissed by the High

Court vide its order dated 26.02.2013, wherein this Tribunal

was called upon to determine whether contract between

the contractor, namely, M/s. Sunshine Enterprises and the

Airlines is a genuine contract or sham and nominal one.

After determination of the said proposition, the Tribunal

was required to deal the issues referred for adjudication

by the appropriate Government. Parties were directed by

the High Court to co-operate in the proceedings and not

to seek undue adjournments in the matter.

During pendancy of the writ petition No.WP(C) 8309

of 2007, claimant filed his claim statement before the

Tribunal. It was pleaded therein that the claimant was

engaged by the Airlines through M/s. Aroon Enterprises

and M/s. Sunshine Enterprises with effect from 22.10.1996.

The Airlines was his principal employer. His wages were

Rs. 2592.00 per month. Claimant worked as cleaner of

aircrafts with the Airlines. Vide letter No.456 dated

29.05.2001, services of the claimant were transferred to

M/s. Sunshine Enterprises since the earlier contractor,

namely, Aroon Enterprises had changed. Claimant had

been continuously serving under M/s. Sunshine

Enterprises. He used to do external and internal cleaning

of A 320 aircrafts and internal cleaning of A 300 aircrafts

at Terminal 1A, Indira Gandhi International Airport,

New Delhi.

He was informed by the principal employer that on

change of the contractor, his services have been transfered

to a new contractor, who would engage him as per

conditions laid down in the agreement between the Airlines

and the new contractor. His services were illegally

terminated by the contractor on 01.01.2002, while he was

working under direct control of the Airlines. Work

performed by him was perennial in nature. At the time of

termination of his service, neither one month’s notice nor

pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was

paid to him. Since the contract agreement was sham and

nominal, he was an employee of the Airlines. His services

are liable to be regularized by the principal employer. He

claims that an award may be passed holding termination

of his services as illegal and unjustified and reinstating

him in the service of the Airlines with continuity and full

back wages.

Written statement was filed by Aroon Enterprises

pleading therein that the claimant was employed by them

to discharge their contractual obligations with the Airlines.

Their contract came to an end on 29.05.2001. Contract was

awarded to M/s. Sunshine Enterprises with a stipulation

therein that the new contractor shall employ the claimant

and others in its services. It has been projected that

since the contract has come to an end, the answering

respondent has no responsibility of any sort relating to

the services of the claimant.

The Airlines filed written statement pleading therein

that the claimant was engaged by the contractor, to whom

contract for annual maintenance of aircrafts at Indira

Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, was awarded.

He used to clean aircraft A 300 and A 320 at night halts at

Indira Gandhi International Airport, to discharge

contractual obligation of his employer. Work of annual

maintenance of cleaning aircrafts has not been prohibited

under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act,

1970. Contract awarded to the contractor was a contract

for services and not of services. Claimant never worked

under control and supervision of the Airlines. He was an

employee of M/s. Sunshine Enterprises, the contractor.

The claimant worked under supervision and control of his

employer. Relationship of employer and employee never

existed between the claimant and the Airlines.

Writ petitions bearing No.3823 of 1998 and 2300 of

1999 were filed by the employee of the contractor, claiming

regularization of their services with the Airlines. Claimant

was one of the parties to these writ petitions, which were

dismissed as withdrawn. During pendancy of writ petition

No.3823 of 1998, interim order was passed by the High

Court of Delhi on 10.08.1998. In compliance of the said

interim order, the Airlines wrote letter dated 29.05.2013 to

the contactor asking him to engage services of the claimant.

Subsequently, the said writ petition was dismissed in the

year 2001. Therefore, writing of that letter nowhere projects

that the claimant was engaged by the contractor as an

agent of the Airlines. As per his own admission, services

of the claimant were dispensed with by the contractor, his

employer. Contract entered into between the Airlines and

the contractor was genuine. Claimant was paid his wages

by the contractor, under whose supervision and control

he worked. Under these circumstances, no case has been

made out in favour of the claimant to project that he is

entitled for reinstatement in service of the Airlines. Claim

projected has no substance, hence it merits dismissal,

pleads the Airlines.

On receipt of instructions from High Court of Delhi,

pursuant to order dated 26.02.2013, notice was sent to the

claimant by registered post on 08.03.2013 calling upon

him to participate in the proceedings on 20.03.2013. Notice

was sent to the claimant through Airport Employees Union

(Regd.), 3 Vithal Bhai Patel House, Rafi Marg, New Delhi,

the address provided by the appropriate Government in

the reference order. Another notice was sent to the

claimant by registered post on 23.08.2013 calling upon

him to join the proceedings on 27.09.2013. Notice was

sent to the claimant by registered post on 30.09.2013 calling

upon him to join the proceedings on 29.10.2013. Last notice

was sent to the claimant on 28.11.2013 calling upon him to

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2991

join the proceedings on 16.12.2013, which notice was

received back with the report that the claimant had left the

given address, many years ago. Efforts were made by the

Tribunal to call the claimant to join the proceedings, which

efforts proved futile, since the claimant had left the address

for good and no other address was available with the

Tribunal for calling the claimant to join the proceedings

and prove his case.

Despite notice referred above, claimant opted not to

participate in the proceedings. No evidence was adduced

on his behalf to substantiate his claim. Since the claimant

abandoned the proceedings hence the Tribunal was

constrained to proceed with the matter under rule 22 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and evidence of

the claimant was closed. Airlines also opted not to adduce

any evidence in the matter. Arguments were heard at the

bar. None came forward on behalf of the claimant to

advance arguments. Shri Ravi Gopal, authorised

representative, presented facts on behalf of the Airlines.

None raised submissions on behalf of M/s. Aroon

Enterprises as well as M/s. Sunshine Enterprises. I have

given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced

at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings

on the issues involved in the controversy are as follows:-

10.

Terminology of the reference order puts onus on

the claimant to establish that his demand for reinstatement

in service with full back wages by M/s Sunshine

Enterprises or the Airlines is legal and justified. To establish

his claim for reinstatement in service, it was incumbent

upon the claimant to put forth his case that he rendered

continuous service of 240 days, as contemplated by

provisions of section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947(in short the Act), in preceding 12 months from the

date of termination of his services. When he succeeds in

establishing that he rendered continuous service of 240

days, as contemplated by section 25B of the Act, then he

has to establish that action of his employer in terminating

his services falls within the ambit for retrenchment, as

defined by section 2(oo) of the Act. He had also to

discharge onus that retrenchment was violative of

provisions of section 25F of the Act.

11.

The claimant is under an obligation to bring cogent

evidence to establish that he rendered continuous service

of 240 days and his services were dispensed with in

violation of provisions of section 25F of the Act. He has

to establish that one month’s notice or wages in lieu

thereof, besides retrenchment compensation was not

given to him. As projected above, claimant had adduced

no evidence at all. Onus is there on the claimant to

establish that termination of his services amounts to

retrenchment, which was violative of provisions of section

25F of the Act. In the absence of any evidence over the

record, it cannot be concluded that order dispensing with

the services of the claimant amounts to retrenchment and

that too the same is violative of provisions of section 25F

of the Act. Under these circumstances, it is announced

that no case has been established by the claimant to hold

that termination of his service is retrenchment and that

too violative of the provisions of section 25F of the Act.

Resultantly, it cannot be concluded that the claimant has

been able to establish that his demand for reinstatement

in service of M/s. Sunshine Enterprises is legal and

justified.

12.

Claimant was under an obligation to establish that

the contract entered into between the contractor and the

Airlines was sham and bogus. In order to discharge his

onus, he had to establish that though he was an employee

of the contractor yet element of control and supervision

in respect of detail of work was with the Airlines. He had

to probablise that the Airlines retained power not only to

direct what work is to be done but also of controlling the

manner of doing the work. Control of the Airlines was not

directed towards providing or dictating the nature of work

to be done, but reference to other incidents having bearing

on the process of work, which he used to carry out. In that

regard, it was for the claimant to establish that he was

under the administrative and financial control as well as

supervision of the Airlines. He was to establish that

disciplinary control was exercised over him by the Airlines

by way of codifying rules of conduct for him. There is

conspicuous absence of evidence, ocular or documentary,

in that regard. No evidence at all is brought over the

record to project that the contract left administrative,

managerial, financial and disciplinary control in the hands

of the Airlines. Thus, it is evident that the claimant has

miserably failed to project that the contract entered into

between the Airlines and the contractor was sham and

nominal. Under these circumstances, it cannot be

concluded that the claimant would be deemed to be an

employee of the Airlines and termination of services by

the contractor was uncalled for.

13.

In view of the above facts, it is crystal clear that the

claimant could not project a case for reinstatement in

service of the contractor, not to talk of reinstatement in

service of the Airlines. His claim has no substance. He is

not entitled to any relief. His claim is, accordingly, brushed

aside. An award is passed in favour of the Airlines and

against the claimant. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dated : 4-3-2014

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1165-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

88@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@03@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@65@2012&vkbZvkj (lh ,e&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

2992

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2014

S.O.

1165.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 88/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial 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 26/03/2014.

[No. L-20012/65/2012-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. 88 of 2012

PARTIES

:The Area President, BCKU,

Bassuria Colliery Branch,

Kusunda, Dhanbad

Vs.

: The General Manager,

Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL,

Kusunda, Dhanbad.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

: None

workman/Union

On behalf of the

: Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate

Management

State

: Jharkhand

Industry

: Coal

Dhanbad, Dated, the 11^th Feb., 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

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No.L-20012/65/2012-IR(CM-I) dt. 22.11.2012.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Bassuria

Colliery of BCCL in not regularizing Sri Raj Kumar

Kanoujia in the post of Leave Clerk is fair and

justified? To what relief is the workman concerned

entitled?”

Neither Union Representative for Bihar Colliery

Kamgar Union, Bassuria Colliery, Kusunda, Dhanbad nor

workman Raj Kumar Kanoujia appeared nor any written

statement with any document filed on his behalf despite

three Regd. notices on the address of the Union

Representative. But Mr. D. K. Verma, the Ld. Advocate for

the O.P./Management is present. The Union Representative

and the workman by their conducts clearly appear to be

uninterested to contest the case which is related to an

issue of regularization of the workman in the post of

Leave Clerk.

Under these circumstances, the case is closed as

‘No Industrial Dispute’ existent; accordingly it is passed

an order to that effect.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1166-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Vh ,l ,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 7@2007) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@101@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2014

S.O.

1166.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 7/2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Tata

Steel Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 26/03/2014.

[No. L-20012/101/2006-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

Reference: No. 7of 2007

In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D.Act. 1947.

Employer in relation to the management of Sijua Group

of Collieries M/s. Tisco

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 : 13/2/2014

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2993

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/101/2006-IR (CM-I) dated

02/04-02-2007, 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

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Sijua

Colliery of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd., in dismissing

Shri Kali Charan Mahato from Service w.e.f.

11.07.2002 justified &legal? If not to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled?”

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

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1167-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vj bf.M;k

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 90@2012)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@17@2012&vkbZvkj (lh ,e&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2014

S.O.

1167.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 90/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour

Court, Chennai, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Air India, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 26/03/2014.

[No. L-11012/17/2012-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 21^st February, 2014

PRESENT : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 90/2012

(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 National Aviation Company of India

Ltd. and their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri S. Saran

: 1^st Party/

Petitioner

AND

The Chairman &

: 2nd Party/

Managing Director

1st Respondent

M/s National Aviation Company

of India Ltd., Air India Building,

Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021

The Executive Director

: 2^nd Party/

(Operation & Trang)

2^nd Respondent

M/s National Aviation

Company of India Ltd.

Central Training Establishment

Hyderabad

APPEARANCE:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

: M/s. R. Prabhakaran,

M. Yuvaraja, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/1^st &

: M/s. N.G.R. Prasad,

2^nd Respondents

N. Stalin, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-11012/17/2012-IR (CM-

I) dated 16.11.201 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of Air India,

represented by the Chairman & Managing Director,

Mumbai & Executive, (O&T) Hyderabad, in

terminating the services of Sri S. Saran, an ex-pilot is

legal and justified? To what relief is the workman

concerned entitled?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 90/2012 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through their counsel

and filed their Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

The averments in the Claim Statement in brief are

these :

The petitioner had joined under the Respondents

as Trainee Pilot. After completion of the training, the

petitioner had obtained necessary endorsement and

instrument rating, and the petitioner was appointed as the

Second Officer. He was entitled to be appointed as First

2994

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Officer on completion of 3 release checks. He had furnished

the required Bank Guarantee. While so, on 5/16//12/2008

the Second Respondent issued a Show Cause Notice to

the petitioner alleging that he had obtained Staff on Duty

(SoD) ticket for ATPL Examination and used one of those

tickets for travel by another and that the petitioner had

suppressed completion of his course in Dentistry. The

petitioner has submitted explanation for this. However,

the Second Respondent terminated the service of the

petitioner by order 16/19/.2.2009. The petitioner had

preferred an appeal before the First Respondent against

this order. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner then

preferred a Writ Petition before the High Court of Madras

to quash the termination order. The Hon’ble Court set

aside the order directing the First Respondent who is the

appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits and

pass appropriate orders. The Second Respondent again

confirmed the order of termination on 19.02.2009. The

petitioner preferred Writ Petition before the High Court

of Madras against this order. In the Writ Petition the

Respondents took the stand that the relief sought by the

petitioner is not sustainable since he is a workman coming

within the purview of Section-2(S) of the Industrial

Disputes Act and the forum to decide the issue is the one

under the Industrial Disputes Act. So the petitioner had

withdrawn the Writ Petition and the Hon’ble Court had

permitted the petitioner to approach the Labour Court.

The matter has thereafter been raised before the Asstt.

Labour Commissioner. On failure of conciliation the case

has been referred to this Tribunal by the Government. The

petitioner has not committed any misconduct as alleged.

Only one ticket was issued to the petitioner for going to

Delhi. The other ticket allegedly used by the petitioner

was an invalid ticket and was issued some months ago.

The petitioner himself could not have travelled on this

invalid ticket. The ticket was not valid after July 21, 2008.

The incident had taken place on 27.07.2008, after the

validity period of the ticket. The petitioner had expired

tickets with him and one such ticket had got mixed up with

the ticket of Shanmugaiah accidently due to inadvertence.

Shanmugaiah had a valid ticket on the relevant date. So

there was no necessity for Shanmugaiah to utilize the

invalid ticket for his travel. These facts were not considered

while terminating the service of the petitioner. The

termination of the petitioner from service is without any

legal sanction. An order may be passed directing the

Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with

back wages and attendant benefits.

The Respondents have filed Counter Statement

contending as follows :

The petitioner was enrolled as a Trainee Pilot with

the Respondent. The petitioner had to undergo training

and assessment as a Trainee Pilot at the Central Training

Establishment, Secunderabad and also at the station of

his posting, on successful completion of the training. After

completion of the training he would be appointed as

Second Officer on a fixed pay. Therefore he would be

subjected to release checks on the aircraft and on

successful completion of such release checks, he would

be appointed as First Officer in the regular pay scale. Only

on appointment as First Officer he would be treated as

regular and permanent employee of the Company.

Placement of the petitioner as Second Officer was the last

phase of his training before being appointed on regular

rolls as a First Officer. He was not entitled to be treated as

an employee of the Company until he was placed on regular

rolls in the applicable pay scale on being appointed as

First Officer. When the petitioner was required to travel to

Delhi for undergoing release checks and before being

appointed as First Officer he had obtained Air Tickets

from Hyderabad Office for his travel for the sector

Hyderabad-Chennai-Delhi and also another ticket from

Chennai Office for the sector Chennai-Delhi. After

travelling from Hyderabad to Chennai by utilizing the

first coupon from the ticket issued at Hyderabad, he had

fraudulently utilized both the tickets which were in his

possession i.e. the one issued at Hyderabad and another

one issued at Chennai and had obtained two boarding

passes in his name for travelling from Chennai to Delhi.

He had given one of the boarding passes to one Mr.

Shanmugaiah who was later revealed to be a fried of his

father, for travelling from Chennai to Delhi by

impersonating his name. The petitioner was caught red-

handed while he was boarding the flight alongwith

Shanmugaiah, on 27.07.2007. He was detained by the

Officers of Indian Airlines Ltd. and Mr. Shanmugaiah had

given a statement regarding the incident. The act of the

petitioner was impersonation. After issuing a Show Cause

Notice to the petitioner giving opportunity to him to give

explanation the Executive Director of the Central Training

Establishment had terminated the appointment of the

petitioner as Trainee Pilot. As per the letter of enrolment

for training issued to the petitioner the training and

appointment program is liable to be terminated without

any notice for reasons including unsatisfactory progress

or behavior or any act of omission on the part of the

petitioner which amounts to misconduct. The act of

impersonation committed by the petitioner by allowing

another person to travel under the ticket issued in his

name amounts to grave misconduct. The petitioner is not

entitled to any relief.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of MWs 1 to 5 and documents marked as Ex.M1 to Ex.M39.

The petitioner did not adduce any oral evidence nor mark

any documents, though documents are seen produced on

his side.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the management in terminating

the services of the petitioner is legal and justified?

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2995

(ii)

What is the relief, if any, to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

The facts of the case are not much in dispute. The

petitioner had been enrolled as Trainee Pilot by the National

Aviation Company of India Ltd. under Air India by order

dated 14.02.2007 on the basis of his application, on

12.02.2007. He had furnished the necessary bank guarantee

which was to be invoked in case of any breach of

conditions of letter of enrolment as Trainee Pilot.

According to the petitioner he has completed his training

and was posted as Second Officer. It is admitted by the

Respondents also that he was posted as a Second Officer.

But according to them the posting as Second Officer was

only the last phase of the training. According to them,

only after he has completed the necessary release checks

and is appointed as First Officer, he would become a regular

employee.

On 27.07.2008 the petitioner was to travel by IC 802

from Chennai to Delhi. On the same day his father as well

as a friend of his father had been travelling from Chennai

to Delhi. The petitioner is the one who had obtained flight

tickets for these two persons. It seems the petitioner had

obtained two boarding passes in his own name, one using

the ticket issued to him on 27.07.2008 and another one

using the supernumerary ticket issued to him on an earlier

date from Hyderabad. While his father and father’s friend

Shanmugaiah were at the gate for boarding the flight it

was found out that Shanmugaiah is having the boarding

pass in the name of the petitioner. He was offloaded

consequently. The father of the petitioner also did not go

by the flight as his friend was offloaded. The petitioner

who had already boarded the flight was allowed to go by

the flight. Subsequently, Show Cause Notice seems to

have been issued to the petitioner. An explanation was

given by him under what circumstances a second boarding

pass happened to be issued in his own name rather than

in the name of Shanmugaiah in whose name is the ticket.

The Respondents rejected the explanation submitted by

him and terminated the petitioner from service.

The petitioner has approached the High Court of

Madras challenging the termination order. There the stand

taken by the Respondents was that the petitioner is a

workman coming under the purview of ID Act and therefore

he is not entitled to any relief from the Hon’ble High Court.

Consequent to this contention, the High Court had granted

him permission to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty

to raise the Industrial Dispute. I have referred to this aspect

for the reason that there is a contention for the

Respondents in their Counter Statement that the petitioner

being only a trainee has not become a regular employee

and could not be called a workman coming under the

purview of ID Act. The Respondents certainly could not

blow hot and cold. The very Counter Statement filed before

the High Court in the Writ Petition would amount to

admission that the petitioner is a workman coming under

the purview of ID Act. In fact not much argument has

been advanced by the counsel for the Respondents on

this aspect also.

10.

The petitioner was terminated from service, or from

his position as Trainee Pilot whatever is it, but it was

without any departmental enquiry. The statements of some

of the employees were recorded and on the basis of this a

termination order was issued. The petitioner was not given

any opportunity to defend his case. The petitioner has

contended before this Court that his termination without

a proper enquiry is not valid in law. Accepting this

contention of the petitioner, this Tribunal had granted

opportunity to the Respondents to prove the case of

misconduct against the petitioner. It is in their attempt to

substantiate the allegation of misconduct made against

the petitioner, the Respondents had examined 5 witnesses

and marked the documents.

11.

MWs 1 to 4 are employees of the Respondents who

were on duty at the airport on 27.07.2008, the date of the

alleged incident. MW5 is the one who had preferred a

report on the incident on the basis of the enquiry said to

have been conducted by him.

12.

What actually transpired on the day is revealed from

the affidavits filed by the witnesses and their version

during their cross-examination. MW1 is working in the

capacity as Assistant Manager under the Respondents.

The documents are marked through this witness. This

witness has stated in the affidavit that the petitioner was

required to travel to Delhi for undergoing release checks

before being appointed as First Officer, he had resorted to

obtaining tickets from Hyderabad office for travel for the

sector Hyderabad-Chennai-Delhi and had also obtained

another ticket from Chennai office for the sector Chennai-

New Delhi. Ext.M3 is the letter given by the petitioner on

21.04.2008 for passage flight ticket and Ext.M4 is the ticket.

On 27.07.2008 he was issued Ext.M5 passage ticket at

Chennai. Ext.M6 and Ext.M7 are copies of tickets purchased

by the petitioner on 27.07.2008 itself for his father and

father’s friend respectively for travelling from Chennai to

Delhi by Flight No. IC-802. According to MW1, the

petitioner had utilized the ticket issued to him from

Hyderabad and also from Chennai and had obtained two

boarding passes in his name i.e. S. Sharan for travelling

from Chennai to Delhi. He had given one of the boarding

passes in his name to Shanmugaiah who was later revealed

to be the friend of his father. It is further stated by MW1

that the petitioner, while boarding the flight alongwith

Shanmugaiah was caught red-handed by the Traffic Officer

on duty. He was detained by the Officers. Shanmugaiah is

said to have given a statement regarding the incident and

this is marked as Ext.M9. However, this statement could

not be referred to or relied upon since the Respondents

2996

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

have not chosen to examine the said Shanmugaiah. MW1

has stated that the report filed by Vigilance Department

would show that the petitioner had committed the act of

impersonation by allowing Shanmugaiah to travel by the

Boarding Pass in his name.

13.

MW2 was working as Senior Traffic Assistant at

the time of the incident. The statement of this witness is

marked as Ext.M13. He has stated that he stands by his

statement. As seen from his statement, on the day in

question, he was given the duty of base coordination.

According to him, immediately after 1’O clock, a casual

employee from the Operations Department had approached

him with an e-ticket issued in the name of the petitioner.

He had contacted the flight dispatch and had come to

know that the petitioner is travelling as Supernumerary

(SNY). Accordingly, he had written SNY on the e-ticket

and handed it over to the employee. However, later the

Deputy Manager had contacted him and had told him that

he should hold on the SNY advice for the petitioner. Later

the Deputy Manager had informed him that the petitioner

would be travelling as SoD (Staff on Duty) and not as

SNY. He had removed the SNY remarks from the system.

Later the Traffic Officer i.e. MW1 had contacted him and

told him that two passengers with seat numbers 12F and

16F were yet to board the flight IC-802. He checked with

the system and found that the ticket holder of Seat no.

16F was the petitioner who was travelling on SoD. On

contacting the petitioner he was confirmed that the

petitioner was already on board. However, by this time the

two passengers had reported for boarding the flight, one

with SoD boarding pass of the petitioner.

14.

MW3 was working as Traffic Superintendent at the

time of incident. Her statement is marked as Ext.M12. In

her statement, she had stated that at around 1500 hrs. a

casual employee had approached her for getting boarding

pass for the petitioner and she had issued manual boarding

pass, as seat number is not allotted to SNY boarding pass.

She has further stated that at 1945 hrs. a person in uniform

had approached her counter with two tickets, one paid

ticket and an SoD ticket for checking on flight IC-802. She

had issued boarding pass for the ticket in the name of

Subramanian and also for the SoD ticket in the name of the

petitioner.

15.

MW4 was working as Sr. Accounts Superintendent

during the period in question. Ext.M19 is his statement. It

is stated in his statement that on 27.07.2008 by 1340 hrs. a

pilot in uniform had been to the office and had enquired

about the availability of highest and lowest fares for the

sector Chennai-Delhi on flight IC-539 or IC-802. He had

given the details and had issued the cheapest fare ticket

in the name of Subramanian and a full fare economy class

ticket in the name of Shanmugaiah. He has also stated

that the Officer had gathered information regarding the

refund on tickets also.

16.

MW5 is the Chief Manager (Vigilance) and was the

Investigation Officer of the Vigilance Department regarding

the incident. Ext.M10 is the preliminary report submitted

by him and Ext.M23 is the final report.

17.

An analysis of the evidence would reveal a lot of

contradictions. In the statement marked as Ext.M11, MW1

has stated that before announcing boarding he had

observed a Trainee Pilot passing through Gate No. 2 in

uniform with SNY Boarding Pass and the Traffic Officer

Srikumar has confirmed his name as Saran, the petitioner.

During his cross-examination what he has stated is that

he came to know about the name of the petitioner by

overhearing a conversation in the walkie-talkie and that at

that time he did not even knew that it is petitioner who

passed through the Gate. Only later he knew the name of

the person. What he has stated in the Affidavit is that

when the petitioner alongwith Shanmugaiah was boarding

the flight he was caught red-handed by the Traffic Officer

on duty at the boarding point. From this statement what is

to be understood is that Shanmugaiah and the petitioner

were together moving to the boarding point. However, the

evidence reveal that the petitioner had already boarded

the aircraft and that his father and Shanmugaiah were those

remained. Of course the evidence given is that the two

persons who were issued boarding pass remained to board

the flight having been Saran and Subramanian, their names

were repeatedly announced. However, it was not the case

of the petitioner and the other two going together to board

the flight.

18.

As pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner

Shanmugaiah who was alongwith the father of the

petitioner never tried to conceal his name. He had given

his actual name though the Boarding Pass showed the

name of Saran. This gives some justification to the case of

the petitioner that there was never any deliberate attempt

on his part to use the expired ticket but it was only by

inadvertence a Boarding Pass happened to be issued on

an expired ticket in his name.

19.

It could be seen from the statement given by MW2

marked as Ext.M13 that initially a SNY ticket has been

issued to the petitioner. Subsequently, the Deputy

Manager contacted him and told him to hold on the SNY

advice for the petitioner and informed him that the

petitioner would be travelling by SoD ticket.

20.

The statement of MW3 is marked as Ext.M12. She is

the one who had issued Boarding Pass on an expired ticket.

She has stated in her statement that normally the validity

period of the tickets will be verified. But according to her,

in the case of SoD ticket the name and ticket number will

be checked and Boarding Pass will be issued. According

to her, she had issued Boarding Pass in the name of the

petitioner on the strength of SoD status, though it was a

lapsed one. From the statement one could not ascertain

whether she had intended that she had even then noticed

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2997

the ticket to be a lapsed one and yet issued the Boarding

Pass or whether it was done without noticing it. During

cross-examination this witness has stated that even if the

passenger is in uniform she will have to check the Identity

Card. In fact it could be seen that had MW3 been more

vigilant the entire incident could have been avoided. She

is the one who is to issue Boarding Pass on the basis of

the ticket. She is entitled to issue Boarding Pass only if

the ticket is valid. It is for her to verify and assure herself

that she is issuing the Boarding Pass on a proper ticket

only.

21.

It has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner

that the ticket having been an expired one, the petitioner

could not have even expected to get a Boarding Pass based

on the ticket. If that is so, there is no possibility of his

knowingly handing over an invalid ticket to her for issuing

Boarding Pass. It is to be borne in mind that the same

Officer has issued the SNY ticket in the same name also.

What is to be understood from her own statement is that

she had some difficulty in making entry in the system in

respect of the Boarding Pass for the expired ticket, but yet

she was not vigilant enough to make further verification.

In spite of this lapse on the part of MW3 not even a memo

is seen issued to her.

22.

MW4 had issued the tickets. This witness has been

examined to show that the petitioner, while obtaining the

tickets, had enquired about the cheapest fare available

along with that the refundability of the full fare ticket also.

This aspect has been much projected on behalf of the

Respondent to show that even at that time the petitioner

had intention to get Boarding Pass on the expired ticket

and retain the ticket purchased by him to get a refund later

as if it was not used. However, it is revealed from the

version during cross-examination that it is his duty to

inform passengers about the fare and other details. He

has stated that generally passengers used to enquire about

the fare, cancellation charges, re-scheduling charges, etc.

He also stated that before issuing the tickets he will

brief the passengers regarding cancellation, change of date,

refund, etc. and that it is normal for a passenger to enquire

about cancelling, re-scheduling and refund charges. So

there was nothing unusual in the petitioner making such

enquiries. During cross-examination he has stated that he

does not remember if the person in uniform who purchased

the tickets had enquired about other flights. However, his

statement reveal that the petitioner was enquiring about

availability of other flight also and not IC-802 only.

23.

MW5, the Vigilance Officer had stated that Boarding

Pass cannot be issued on expired ticket. The preliminary

report given by this witness and marked as Ext.M10 states

that when at the boarding point it was found that

passenger Shanmugaiah was holding a Boarding Pass

issued in the name of the petitioner whereas the petitioner

had boarded the aircraft based on a SNY Boarding Pass,

the father of the petitioner had contacted him and he had

immediately sent the ticket in the name of the petitioner

through the Duty Officer. The report also shows that the

petitioner was allowed to travel on his SoD ticket by the

same flight in spite of the incident.

24.

The main argument that is advanced against the

petitioner is that he had obtained the open ticket in the

name of Shanmugaiah while he had obtained a cheaper

one for his father and this was with the intention of getting

a refund producing the ticket later. The explanation of the

petitioner seems to be that the journey of Shanmugaiah

was not certain while his father was certain to travel and

that is why an open ticket was obtained. According to

him, he had obtained the tickets much earlier, even before

he was deputed for duty by the said flight. It is revealed

from the evidence that even after all the passengers had

boarded the flight Shanmugaiah and the father of the

petitioner had not reached the boarding gate and

announcement of the names of the passengers had to be

made. This probably would show that the two passengers

had reached the airport only much later, probably because

Shanmugaiah reached later. It has been pointed out on

behalf of the petitioner that if it was an intentional attempt

of deception it was not necessary for him to obtain tickets

for himself and also for other two passengers from the

same counter i.e from the counter of MW3 when several

other counters were also available for the flight from where

Boarding Pass could have been obtained.

25.

It has been alleged by the Respondent that the

petitioner had obtained two tickets for the same

examination, had been retaining one of them and had been

trying to misuse it. It has been pointed out based on

documents that this could not be correct at all. Ex.M3 is

the copy of the letter written by the petitioner to the

Executive Director stating that he is to attend ATPL

examination for the April session and he may be allowed

to travel SNY from Chennai to Delhi to attend the

examination. Ext.M4 is the ticket that was issued to him for

this purpose from Hyderabad to travel by Hyderabad-

Chennai-Delhi sector. The allegation made against the

petitioner is that he obtained one more ticket from Chennai

for the same purpose and misused it. On the other hand

there is no evidence to show that he had obtained another

ticket from Chennai also for the same purpose. Ext.M5 is

the SoD ticket issued to him on 27.07.2008, the date of the

incident for his SO3 check as seen from Ext.M23, Page 53.

So there is absolutely no basis for the contention that two

tickets were issued for the same purpose.

26.

Though it is Shanmugaiah who had been at the

Boarding Gate with the boarding pass in the name of the

petitioner, he has not been brought to the witness box. A

statement said to be his has been marked. However, this

could not be considered in the absence of his examination.

It is pointed out by the petitioner that the very case that

the statement of Shanmugaiah has been taken could not

2998

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2014/CHAITRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

be believed. The date of the statement is shown as

27.07.2008 at 2330 hrs. On the other hand, what MW1 has

stated is that after Shanmugaiah was off-loaded, the

petitioner, his father and Shanmugaiah left the place. MW1

himself came to know about it by 0930 PM. In that case

there was no possibility of statement of Shanmugaiah being

recorded at 2330 hrs.

27.

How can the petitioner expect that a boarding pass

will be issued in his name based on an expired ticket? It is

clear that he had not taken Shanmugaiah to faith even if

he had the mal-intention. This is clear from the fact that

Shanmugaiah, immediately on asking, had given his name.

A person who is travelling by flight is expected to travel

by his Identity Card. This will be checked before he is

allowed to board the flight. How can the petitioner expect

that Shanmugaiah will pass through the gate and enter

the flight without any such checking? When these aspects

are taken into account it is more than probable that the

petitioner who was having an expired ticket in his bag

handed it over to MW3 for getting boarding pass and she

inadvertently issued the boarding pass on the expired

ticket. If the act of MW3 was treated as an inadvertence

why not that of the petitioner? The petitioner was in a

hurry to get the boarding pass for his father and his friend

and also to board the flight himself. It is probable that in

his hurry, rather than the right ticket he picked up the

invalid ticket and handed it over to MW3. When such a

possibility is also there it will not be proper to hold that

the petitioner had deliberately and intentionally had been

trying to misuse the invalid ticket for his own gain. When

such an interpretation in favour of the petitioner is possible,

it is not proper to nail him with the alleged misconduct. He

should be entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Apex Court

has held that when misconduct amounting to the nature

of a criminal offence is attributed, there is a duty cast

upon the management to prove it beyond doubt in the

departmental enquiry. I find that the management has not

clinchingly established the charge alleged against the

petitioner. He is therefore entitled to be reinstated in

service.

28.

The petitioner has claimed back wages and other

benefits on reinstatement. Considering the circumstances,

I am not inclined to allow back wages.

In view of my discussion above, an order is passed

as follows :

“The Respondents shall reinstate the petitioner in

service within one month with continuity of service”.

The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 21st February, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/

: None

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

: MW1, Sri M. Arvind

Management

MW2, Sri V. Saravana

Balasubramanian

MW3, Ms. R. Vijayalakshmi

MW4, Sri S. Maruthachalam

MW5, Sri T. R. Rajagopalan

Documents Marked

On the side of the Petitioner

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the side of the Management

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

12.02.2007

Application of petitioner for

Trainee Pilot

Ex.M2

14.02.2007

Recruitment order issued to

petitioner as Trainee Pilot

Ex.M3

21.04.2008

Petitioner letter to the Respondent

for passage Flight Ticket

Ex.M4

Flight ticket issued to petitioner

Hyderabad/Chennai/Delhi at

Hyderabad

Ex.M5

27.07.2008

Authority for issue of (staff on

duty) passage obtained by

Petitioner at Chennai

Ex.M6

27.07.2008

Ticket purchased in the name of

petitioner’s father (IC-802)

Ex.M7

27.07.2008

Ticket purchased in the name of

petitioner’s father’s friend/uncle

(open ticket)

Ex.M8

Boarding passes obtained by the

petitioner

Ex.M9

27.07.2008

Statement of P. Shanmugaiah

(Petitioner’s father’s friend)

Ex.M10 28.07.2008

Preliminary report of Vigilance

Department

Ex.M11 29.07.2008

Statement of M. Arvind, Traffic

Officer

Ex.M12 29.07.2008

Statement of Vijayalakshmi, Sr.

Traffic Assistant

Ex.M13 30.07.2008

Statement of V.

Saravana

Balasubramanian, Sr. Traffic

Assistant

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 5] 2014@pS=k 15] 1936

2999

Ex.M14 30.07.2008

Statement of C.P. Arun Kumar,

Assistant Manager

Ex.M15 30.07.2008

Statement of Sreekumar, Traffic

Officer

Ex.M16 01.08.2008

Statement of G. Harikrishnan,

Casual

Ex.M17 01.08.2008

Statement of S. Saran

Ex.M18 02.08.2008

Statement of S. Saran

Ex.M19 02.08.2008

Statement of S. Marudhachalam, Sr.

Accounts Supdt.

Ex.M20 21.08.2008

Statement of V. Gunaseelan,

Manager (FO)

Ex.M21 22.08.2008

Statement of V. Gunaseelan,

Manager (FO)

Ex.M22 07.09.2008

Statement of Saju Menon, Sr.

Operations Assistant

Ex.M23 10.09.2008

Vigilance Report

Ex.M24 05/16.12.2008Show Cause Notice issued to

petitioner

Ex.M25 23.12.2008

Petitioner letter seeking documents

Ex.M26 25.12.2008

Explanation of petitioner

Ex.M27 16.01.2009

Respondent letter enclosing

documents

Ex.M28 27.01.2009

Petitioner request for extension of

time to submit reply

Ex.M29 05.02.2009

Additional explanation submitted

by petitioner

Ex.M30 19.02.2009

Termination order issued to

petitioner

Ex.M31 25.02.2009

Appeal filed by the petitioner

Ex.M32 July 2009

Affidavit in WP No. 14449 of 2009

Ex.M33 03.09.2009

Counter Affidavit of Respondent in

WP No. 14449 of 2009

Ex.M34 14.10.2009

Order in WP No. 14449 of 2009

Ex.M35 20.07.2010

Order of Appellate Authority

Ex.M36 August 2010 Affidavit in WP No. 19763 of 2010

Ex.M37 10.08.2010

Counter Affidavit in WP No. 19763

of 2010

Ex.M38 28.07.2011

Petitioner letter to respondent to

accept his resignation without

prejudice to WP No. 19763 of 2010

Ex.M39 03.01.2012

Order in WP No. 19763 of 2010

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.