x`g ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2116-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

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

fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa] x`g ea=kky; ds

fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy; esa fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku j[kus okys

deZpkfj;ksa dh la[;k 80» ls vf/d gks tkus ds iQyLo:i

,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gS%

49oha okfguh] Hkkjr frCcr lhek iqfyl cy ftyk&osLV

fl;kax (v:.kkpy izns'k)

¹la- 12017@01@2012&fgUnhº

vo/s'k oqQekj feJ] funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2014

S.O. 2116.—In pursuance of sub- rule (4) of Rule

10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of

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

Government hereby notifies the following office of the

Ministry of Home Affairs, wherein the percentage of the

staff having working knowledge of Hindi has gone above

80% :

2949 GI/2014

(5503)

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- 31]

ubZ fnYyh, tqykbZ 27—vxLr 2] 2014] '[email protected] 5—Jko.k 11] 1936

No. 31]

NEW DELHI, JULY 27—AUGUST 2, 2014, SATURDAY/SRAVANA 5—SRAVANA 11, 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)

49th Battalion ITBP Distt-West Siang (Arunachal

Pradesh)

[No. 12017/1/2012-Hindi]

AVADHESH KUMAR MISHRA, Director (OL)

ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky;

(mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx)

(jktHkk"kk ;wfuV)

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2117-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e 4

vuqlj.k esa] ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky; (LowQy f'k{kk ,oa

lk{kjrk foHkkx) ds varxZr uoksn; fo|ky; lfefr] ubZ fnYyh ds

fuEufyf[kr 14 tokgj uoksn; fo|ky;ksa dks] ,sls dk;kZy;ksa ds :i

esa] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkjho`Un us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/

d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/lwfpr djrh gS%

1- tokgj uoksn; fo|ky;] xkao dkSyk] ftyk vEckyk&134003

gfj;k.kk

5504

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2- tokgj uoksn; fo|ky;] [kkjk [ksMh] iQrsgkckn&125048

gfj;k.kk

3- tokgj uoksn; fo|ky;] iQ:Z[kuxj] xqM+xkao&122506

gfj;k.kk

4- tokgj uoksn; fo|ky;] dyksbZ] >Ttj&124104 gfj;k.kk

5- tokgj uoksn; fo|ky;] ukSYFkk] ikuhir&132145 gfj;k.kk

6- tokgj uoksn; fo|ky;] f[kMokyh] jksgrd&124312 gfj;k.kk

7- tokgj uoksn; fo|ky;] efydiqj [kknj] HkwMdyka]

;equkuxj&135106 gfj;k.kk

8- tokgj uoksn; fo|ky;] ukUnyk] ulhjkckn] vtesj&305601

jktLFkku

9- tokgj uoksn; fo|ky;] cqMok] ckalokMk&izFke&327604]

jktLFkku

10- tokgj uoksn; fo|ky;] ckalokMk&n`forh;] jktLFkku

11- tokgj uoksn; fo|ky;] BkdjMk] Mwaxjiqj] jktLFkku

12- tokgj uoksn; fo|ky;] iYyw] guqekux<+] jktLFkku

13- tokgj uoksn; fo|ky;] tloariqjk] tkykSj&307515 jktLFkku

14- tokgj uoksn; fo|ky;] tVuaxyk] djkSyh&322236 jktLFkku

¹la- 11011&3@2014&jk-Hkk-,-º

vkj- ih- fllksfn;k] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

(O.L. UNIT)

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2014

S.O.

2117.—In pursuance of sub- rule (4) of rule

10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby

notifies the following 14 Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas of

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, New Delhi under the Ministry

of Human Resource Development, (Department of School

Education & Literacy) as offices, whose more than 80%

members of the staff have acquired working knowledge of

Hindi :

Jawahar Novodaya Vidyalaya, Village Kaulan,

Ambala - 134005 Haryana

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Khara Kheri,

Fatehabad - 125048 Haryana

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Farrukh Nagar,

Gurgaon - 122506 Haryana

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kaloi, Jhajjar - 124104

Haryana

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Naultha, Panipat-

132145 Haryana

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Khidwali, Rohtak -

124312 Haryana

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Malikpur Khaddar,

Bhudkalan, Yamunanagar- 135106 Haryana

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Nandla, Nasirabad-

Ajmer 305601 Rajasthan

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Budwa, Banswara

First -327604 Rajasthan

10.

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Banswara Second,

Rajasthan

11.

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Thakarda, Dungarpur,

Rajasthan

12.

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Pallu, Hanumangarh,

Rajasthan

13.

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Jaswant Pura, Jalore -

307515 Rajasthan

14.

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Jatnagla, Karauli -

322236 Rajasthan

[No. 11011-3/2014-O.L.U]

R.P. SISODIA, Jt. Secy.

okf.kT; vkSj m|ksx ea=kky;

(okf.kT; foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2118-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] fu;kZr (DokfyVh fu;a=k.k

vkSj fujh{k.k) fu;e] 1964 ds fu;e 12 ds lkFk ifBr] fu;kZr

(DokfyVh fu;a=k.k vkSj fujh{k.k) vf/fu;e] 1963 (1963 dk

22) dh /kjk 7 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] eSllZ ,lth,l bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM] ,e;w&33]

eèkqcu ekdsZV dkEiySDl] e/qcu ikjknhi&754142 (ftls blds

i'pkr~ vfHkdj.k ds :i esa fu£n"V fd;k x;k gS) dks bl vfèklwpuk

ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, Hkkjr ljdkj

ds okf.kT; ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk la[;kad dk-vk- 3975 rkjh[k

20 fnlEcj] 1965 ls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V [kfut vkSj

v;Ld lewg&1 vFkkZr~ ykSg v;Ld dk fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds

vèkhu jgrs gq,] mDr] [kfutksa vkSj v;Ldksa dk ikjknhi esa] fu;kZr

ls iwoZ fujh{k.k djus ds fy, ,d vfHkdj.k ds :i esa ekU;rk

iznku djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %

(i)

eSllZ ,lth,l bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM] ikjknhi] [kfut

vkSj v;Ld] lewg&I dk fu;kZr (fujh{k.k) fu;e] 1965

ds fu;e 4 ds v/hu fujh{k.k djus ds fy, muds }kjk

viukbZ xbZ fujh{k.k dh i¼fr dh tkap djus ds fy, bl

fufeRr fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn }kjk ukefu£n"V vf/dkfj;ksa

dks i;kZIr lqfo/k,a nsxh_ vkSj

(ii) eSllZ ,lth,l bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM] ikjknhi] bl

vf/lwpuk ds v/hu vius ÑR;ksa ds ikyu esa funs'kd

(fujh{k.k vkSj DokfyVh fu;a=k.k) }kjk le;≤ ij fyf[kr

esa fn, x, funs'kksa ls vkc¼ gksaxs A

¹iQk- la- 4@1@2014&fu;kZr fujh{k.kº

,- osQ- f=kikBh] la;qDr lfpo

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5505

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2014

S.O. 2118.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control

and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule

(2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)

Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognizes

M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd., MU-33, Madhuban Market

Complex, Madhuban Paradip-754142, (hereinafter referred

to as ‘the agency’) as an agency for a.period of three years

from the date of publication of this notification, for the

inspection of Minerals and Ores Group I, namely, Iron ore

as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of

the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce

number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th December 1965, prior to

export of the said Minerals and Ores at Paradip, subject to

the following conditions, namely :—

(i)

that M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd., Paradip, shall give

adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the

Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine

the method of inspection followed by them in carrying

out the inspection under rule 4 of the Export of

Minerals and Ores, Group-I (Inspection) Rules, 1965

and;

(ii)

that M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd., Paradip, in the

performance of their function under this notification

shall be bound by such directions as the Director

(Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection

Council, may give in writing under these rules from

time to time.

[F. No. 4/1/2014-Export Inspection]

A. K. TRIPATHY, Jt. Secy.

dks;yk ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2119-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS

fd blls mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa ls

dks;yk vfHkizkIr gksus dh laHkkouk gS;

vkSj mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ds {ks= esa varfoZ"V djus

okys C;kSjs dk js[kkad la[;kad vkjbZoh@06@2014] rkjh[k 25

Qjojh] 2014 dk fujh{k.k lsaVªy dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼Hkwfe

vkSj jktLo foHkkx½] njHkaxk gkml] jkaph& 834029 ¼>kj[kaM½ ds

dk;kZy; esa ;k egkizca/kd] lsaVªy dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] dqtw

{ks=] ftyk jkex<+ ¼>kj[k.M½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k mik;qDr]

ftyk jkex<+] >kj[k.M ds dk;kZy; esa ;k egkizca/kd ¼xos’k.kk

izHkkx½] vkjvkbZ&III, dsUnzh; [kku ;kstuk vkSj fMtkbu laLFkku]

xksaMokuk Iysl] dkads jksM] jkaph ¼>kj[k.M½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k

dks;yk fu;a=d] 1, dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001

ds dk;kZy; eas fd;k tk ldrk gSA

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj

fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds

i'pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk

¼1½ }kjk iznr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, iwoksZDr vuqlwph esa

of.kZr Hkwfe esa dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk

nsrh gSA

mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) dksbZ O;fDr &

(i)

mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds v/khu dh

xbZ dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ {kfr ;k laHkor% gksus okyh fdlh {kfr

ds fy, mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds

vèkhu izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk ; ;k

(ii)

mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu

iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds izHkkoghu gksus dh ckcr ;k mDr

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ ds v/khu [kuu

iV~Vs izHkkoghu gksus ds fy, izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk

vkSj mls mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh

mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼i½ ls [kaM ¼iv½ esa fofufnZ"V enksa ds

laca/k esa mixr O;; dks minf'kZr djus ds fy, iwoksZDr

Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr lHkh ekufp=ksa] pkVksZa vkSj vU; nLrkostksa

dks ifjnRr dj ldsxk A

jkti= esa bl vf/klwpuk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs

fnu dh vof/k ds Hkhrj egkizca/kd] lsaVªy dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM]

dqtw {ks=] ftyk jkex<+ ¼>kj[k.M½ ;k egkizca/kd] lsaVªy

dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] Hkwfe vkSj jktLo foHkkx] njHkaxk gkml]

jkaph& 834029 ¼>kj[k.M½ ds dk;kZy; dks HkstsaxsA

vuqlwph

nquh xos"k.kk CykWd

ftyk jkex<+] >kj[k.M

¼js[kkad la[;kad vkjbZoh@06@2014]

rkjh[k 25 Qjojh] 2014½

lHkh vf/kdkj%

Ø- xzke dk

Fkkuk

ftyk

{ks=

fVIif.k;ka

la-

uke

la[;k

,dM+

gsDVs;j

esa

nquh

ek.Mw

119

jkex<+

447-07

181-00

Hkkx

dqy% 447-07 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ ;k 181-00 gsDVs;j ¼yxHkx½

5506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

lhek dk o.kZu%

d&[k & js[kk fcUnq ^d* ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke nquh ds Hkkx ls

xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq ^[k* ij feyrh gSA

[k&x & js[kk fcUnq ^[k* pkSFkk unh ds lkFk xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq

^x* ij feyrh gSA

x&?k

& js[kk nquh xzke ds lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq ^?k* ij

feyrh gSA

?k&d

& js[kk xzke nquh ds Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq

^d* ij feyrh gSA

[Qk-la- 43015@4@2014&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]

nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 31^st July, 2014

S.O.

2119.—Whereas, it appears to the Central

Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land

in the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And, whereas, the plan bearing number Rev/06/2014,

dated the 25^thFebruary, 2014 containing details of the areas

of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at

the office of the Central Coalfields Limited (Land and

Revenue Department), Darbhanga House, Ranchi-834 029

(Jharkhand) or at the office of the General Manager, Central

Coalfields Limited, Kuju Area, District-Ramgarh (Jharkhand),

or at the office of the Deputy Commissioner, District

Ramgarh, Jharkhand or at the office of the General Manager

(Exploration Division), RI- III, Central Mine Planning and

Design Institute, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi

(Jharkhand) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council

House Street, Kolkata- 700 001.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development), Act, 1957 (20 of 1957),

(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect

for coal in land described in the aforesaid Schedule.

Any person interested in the land described in the

above mentioned Schedule may —

(i) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section

6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to

be caused by any action taken under sub-section (3)

of section 4 of the said Act; or

(ii)

claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section

13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting licence

ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of

section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to

have effect and deliver all maps, charts and other

documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the

expenditure incurred in respect of items specified in

clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of

the said Act, to the office of the General Manager,

Central Coalfields Limited, Kuju Area, District

Ramgarh (Jharkhand) or the General Manager, Central

Coalfields Limited, Land and Revenue Department,

Darbhanga House, Ranchi- 834029 (Jharkhand)

within a period of ninety days from the date of

publication of this notification.

SCHEDULE

Duni Exploration Block

District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand

(Plan bearing number Rev/06/2014, dated the 25^thFebruary,

2014 )

All Rights:

Sl.

Name of

Thana

District

Area in

Remarks

No.

Village

number

acres

hectares

Duni

Mandu

119

Ramgarh

447.07

181.00

Part

Total: 447.07 acres(approximately) or 181.00 hectares (approximately)

Boundary Description:

A-B Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes through part

of the village of Duni and meets at point ‘B’.

B-C

Line starts from ‘B’ and passes along with the river

Choutha Nadi and meets at point ‘C’.

C-D

Line passes through village boundary of Duni and

meets at point ‘D’.

D-A Line passes through part village of Duni and meets

at starting point ‘A’.

[F. No. 43015/ 04/2014-PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5507

ubZ fnYyh] 28 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2120-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd blls mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa dks;yk vfHkizkIr gksus

dh laHkkouk gS(

vkSj js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e@ih,yth@ySaM] rkjh[k 4 ekpZ] 2014 dk ftlesa mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr

Hkwfe {ks= ds C;kSjs vUrfoZ"V gS] dk fujh{k.k egkizca/kd ¼xos’k.k izHkkx½] lsaVªy ekbu Iykfuax ,.M fMtkbu bULVhV~;wV fyfeVsM]

xksanokuk Iysl] dkads jksM] jkaph ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkÅl LVªhV] dksydkrk & 700001 ds dk;kZy;

esa ;k ftyk dysDVj] ftyk “kgMksy] e/; izns”k ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gS A

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i”pkr~

mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] iwoksZDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe

esa dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk”k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS(

mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) dksbZ O;fDr &

¼i½

mDr vf/klwpuk dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds v/khu dh xbZ fdlh dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ ;k lEHkor% gksus okyh fdlh {kfr

ds fy;s mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk( ;k

¼ii½

mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds izHkkoghu gksus dh ckcr ;k mDr

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ ds v/khu [kuu iV~Vs izHkkoghu gksus ds fy;s izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk vkSj

mls mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼i½ ls [kaM ¼iv½ esa fofufnZ"V enksa dh Ckkcr mixr O;; dks

minf'kZr djus ds fy;s iwoksZDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr lHkh ekufp=ksa] pkVksZa vkSj vU; nLrkostksa dks ifjnRr dj ldsxkA

jkti= esa bl vf/klwpuk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu dh vof/k ds Hkhrj egkizca/kd ¼xos’k.k izHkkx½] lsaVªy ekbu Iykfuax

,.M fMtkbu bULVhV~;wV fyfeVsM] xksanokuk Iysl] dkads jksM] jkaph&834031¼>kj[kaM½ ds dk;kZy; dks Hkstsxsa A

vuqlwph

“kgMksy CykWd] lksgkxiqj dksyQhYM

ftyk&”kgMksy] e/; izns”k

¼ js[kakd la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e@ih,yth@ySaM] rkjh[k 4 ekpZ] 2014½

Ø-

ekStk@xzke

rglhy

iVokjh gYdk

cUnkscLr

ftyk

{ks= ,dM+

{ks= gsDVj

fVIif.k;ka

la-

la[;k

esa ¼yxHkx½

csygk

lksgkxiqj

747

“kgMksy

74-13

30-00

Hkkx

nsvksxok

Lksgkxiqj

456

“kgMksy

79-07

32-00

Hkkx

lksgkxiqj

1016

“kgMksy

2125-15

860-00

Hkkx

dksrek

lksgkxiqj

118

“kgMksy

308-89

125-00

Hkkx

cyiqjok

lksgkxiqj

662

“kgMksy

303-95

123-00

Hkkx

dksbykjh

lksgkxiqj

160

“kgMksy

49-92

20-00

Hkkx

dqy {ks= % 2940-61 ,dM+¼yxHkx½ ;k 1190-00 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½

lhek o.kZu%

d&[k

;g js[kk nsvksxok xzke ds fcUnq *d* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj lksgkxiqj xzke ls gksdj xqtjrh gqbZ csygk xzke ds fcUnq ^[k^

ij feyrh gS A js[kk ^d^&^[k^ bl CykWd dh mRrjh lhek dk Hkkx gSA

[k&x

;g js[kk xzke csygk ds fcUnq *[k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj dksVek xzke ds fcUnq *x* ij feyrh gSA js[kk ^[k^&x^ bl CykWd

ds mRrjh lhek dk Hkkx gSA

x&?k

;g js[kk xzke dksVek ds fcUnq *x* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke cyiqjok ds fcUnq *?k* ij feyrh gSA js[kk ^x^&^?k^ bl CykWd

ds iwohZ lhek dk Hkkx gSA

?k&M-

;g js[kk xzke cyiqjok ds fcUnq *?k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke lksgkxiqj ds nf{k.kh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ xzke dksbykjh ds

fcUnq *M-* ij feyrh gSA js[kk ^?k^&^M-^ bl CykWd ds nf{k.kh lhek dk Hkkx gSA

M-&p

;g js[kk xzke dksbykjh ds fcUnq *M-* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke lksgkxiqj ds if”peh lhek ls gksdj xqtjrh gqbZ nsvksxok

xzke ds fcUnq *p* ij feyrh gSA js[kk ^M-^&p^ bl CykWd dh if”peh lhek dk Hkkx gSA

5508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

p&d

;g js[kk xzke nsvksxok ds fcUnq *p* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj mlh xzke ds fcUnq *d* ij tkdj feyrh gSA js[kk ^p^&d^ bl

CykWd dh mRrjh lhek dk Hkkx gSA

[Qk- la- 43015@07@2014&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I ]

nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 28th July, 2014

S.O. 2120.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands

described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And, whereas, the plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM/PLG/LAND, dated the 4th March,2014 containing the

details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the General Manager (Exploration

Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi or at the office of the

Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata - 700001 or at the Office of the District Collector, District of Shahdol,

Madhya Pradesh.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government

hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule;

Any person interested in the land described in the above mentioned aforesaid Schedule may—

(i)

claim compensation under sub-section(1) of section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused

by any action taken under sub- section 3 of section 4 of the said Act; or

(ii)

claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting licence ceasing

to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to have effect and

deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the expenditure incurred in

respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act,

to the Office of the General Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited, Gondwana

Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi-834031 (Jharkhand) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification.

SCHEDULE

Shahdol Block Sohagpur Coalfield

District – Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh

(the plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM/PLG/LAND, dated the 4th March,2014)

Sl.

Mouja/Village

Tahsil

Patwari halka Bandobast

District

Area in acres

Area in hectares Remarks

No.

number

(approxi-mately)

Belha

Sohagpur

747

Shahdol

74.13

30.00

Part

Deogawa

Sohagpur

456

Shahdol

79.07

32.00

Part

Sohagpur

1016

Shahdol

2125.15

860.00

Part

Kotma

Sohagpur

118

Shahdol

308.89

125.00

Part

Balpurba

Sohagpur

662

Shahdol

303.95

123.00

Part

Koilari

Sohagpur

160

Shahdol

49.92

20.00

Part

Total area:

2940.61 acres

1190.00 hectares

(approxi-mately) (approxi-mately)

Boundary description:

A-B Line starts from point ‘A’ in Deogawa village and meets at point ‘B’ in Belha village passing through the Sohagpur

village. ‘A-B’ line forms the part of northern boundary of the block.

B-C

The line starts from point ‘B’ in Belha village and meets at point ‘C’ in Kotma village. ‘B-C’ lines also forms the part

of northern boundary of the block.

C-D

The line starts from point ‘C’ in Kotma village and meets at point ‘D’ in Balpurba village. ‘C-D’ line also forms the

eastern boundary of the block.

D-E

The line starts from point ‘D’ in Balpurba village and meets at point ‘E’ in Koilari village passing through the southern

boundary of Sohagpur village. ‘D-E’ line forms the southern boundary of the block.

E-F

The line starts from point ‘E’ in Koilari village and meets at point ‘F’ in Deogawa village passing through the western

boundary of Sohagpur village. ‘D-E’ line forms the part of western boundary of the block.

F-A

The line starts from point ‘F’ in Deogawa village and meets at point ‘A’ in same village. ‘F-A’ line also forms part of

northern boundary of the block.

[F. No. 43015/ 07 /2014-PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5509

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2121-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 66@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@318@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O.

2121.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 66/2006 of

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

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 21/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/318/2005-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 6th day of June, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 66/2006

Between:

The General Secretary,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Employees Council,

H. No. 18-3-90/3, Ganesh Nagar,

Markandeya Colony,

Karimnagar District,

Godavarikhani -505209

…..Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri – 504231.

….Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya

Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

By virtue of reference No. L-22012/318/2005-IR(CM-

II) dated 9.10.2006 Government of India, Ministry of Labour

and Employment, required this Tribunal to adjudicate the

dispute,

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, in terminating

the services of Sri Thogari Venkati with effect from

26.9.2001 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID

No.66/2006 on the file of this Tribunal and notices were

served on the parties concerned. Both the Petitioner and

Respondent appeared before the Tribunal and engaged

their respective counsels with the leave of each other and

the Tribunal. M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioner union and

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

The Petitioner filed his claim statement with the

averments in brief as follows :—

Sri Thogari Venkati (who will hereinafter be referred

as workman) has been appointed in the service of the

Respondent company as badli filler on 10.11.1987 and

later on he was confirmed as Coal Filler. During the year

2000, while he was working at KK-1 incline, he became

sick and was under treatment and faced other family

problems, due to which the workman could not be regular

to his duties. Treating his sickness as absenteeism, a

chargesheet dated 13.2.2001 was issued alleging that

during the year 2000 workman was habitually absent

without sufficient cause and that it amounts to misconduct

under company’s Standing Orders No.25.25. Thereafter a

routine and mechanical enquiry was conducted wherein

Petitioner was not given any valid opportunity. The

enquiry was a mere formality and the Enquiry Officer and

other authorities of the Respondent organization

proceeded with a preconceived notion as if the workman

has committed misconduct and Enquiry Officer has

submitted his report holding the charges as proved,

basing on which the impugned proceeding was issued

dismissing the Petitioner from service vide office order

dated 14.9.2001. The procedure of the enquiry was not

explained to the Petitioner though Petitioner is an illiterate.

Thus, Petitioner could not participate in the enquiry

effectively. The enquiry was conducted in the language

not known to the Petitioner which caused prejudice to the

Petitioner. Workman was given opportunity neither to

cross examine the management witnesses nor to produce

his defence witness. None of the documents relied upon

by the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the Petitioner.

The Enquiry Officer has not followed the basic principles

of law, leave about the principles of natural justice. During

5510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the enquiry Petitioner categorically pleaded that his

inability to perform the duties during the year 2000, was

only on account of his sickness and other family problems.

But, the same were not considered by the Enquiry Officer

while holding the charges as proved. While issuing the

impugned order the Disciplinary Authority also did not

consider the submissions made by the Petitioner.

Exclusively relied upon the findings of the Enquiry Officer

the impugned order was passed in a cryptic manner.

Petitioner is the only earning member of his family. As a

result of the impugned order he and his family members

are deprived of livelihood. Petitioner is not employed

elsewhere after the date of impugned order. Hence, the

petition.

Respondent filed his counter with the averments in

brief as follows:

The workman was initially appointed in the

Respondent’s company on 5.4.1997 as badli filler and

continued so till his dismissal. Earlier the workman was

appointed into the services of the company during 1987-

88. As he was not regular to duties he was disempanelled

vide letter dated 27.2.1993. Upon his representation and

assurance to be regular to duties he was again re-

empanelled as badli filler w.e.f. 11.11.1993. He failed to

correct himself and had put in 07, 045 and 042 musters

during the years 1993, 1994 and 1995 respectively. Hence,

he was disempanelled vide order dated 3.8.1996. Further,

he was given another opportunity considering his

representation and assurance by empanelling him as badli

coal filler afresh temporarily for a period of 3 months from

3.4.1997 and he reported at KK.1 incline on 5.4.1997.

During the calendar year 2000 Workman put only 74

musters as such the chargesheet was issued under

Standing No.25.25 which reads, “Habitual late attendance

or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause”.

Workman acknowledged the receipt of the chargesheet

and submitted his explanation to the chargesheet. There-

after the enquiry was conducted. Workman fully

participated in the enquiry. He was given fair and full

opportunity during the enquiry. Before commencing the

enquiry the Enquiry Officer explained the procedure of

the enquiry in Telugu to the Workman. Workman did not

opt to have defence assistant. The said proceedings

were conducted in Telugu and were explained to the

Workman in Telugu, the language to which Workman is

acquainted. He voluntarily admitted the charges levelled

against him and pleaded guilty of misconduct. Workman

did not prefer to cross examine the Management

witnesses. He did not submit any documents in support

of his statement. Basing on the evidence made available

the Enquiry Officer found the Workman guilty of the

charges levelled against him. The Respondent got a well

established chain of hospitals in all its areas to cater to the

health requirements of its employees. Further, Respondent

company has rules and regulations to refer the cases of

complicated diseases to the hospitals like Osmania General

Hospital, Gandhi Medical Hospital and Nizam’s Institute

of Medical Sciences. Workman is fully aware of the same

but he has not availed the facilities. His attendance

particulars from 1993 to 2001 are as under:

Year

Musters

1993

007

1994

045

1995

042

1996

NIL

1997

114

1998

104

1999

114

2000

074

2001

030

The contention of the Workman that the enquiry

was conducted as a formality and with predetermined

notion and that the contentions of the Workman were not

considered by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary

Authority are all incorrect. Workman did not produce any

documents to substantiate his sickness or death of his

mother. The punishment imposed is not disproportionate

to the charges levelled. Due to unauthorized absenteeism

the planned schedules of work as well as the production

results will be adversely affected. Hence, the Respondent

company is compelled to take severe action against the

unauthorised absentees like the Workman. Hence, the

claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the Workman filed a memo

stating that Workman is not disputing with the validity of

the domestic enquiry conducted in this case. There on by

virtue of order dated 16.12.13 this court held that the

domestic enquiry conducted in this case is valid.

Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments

are also filed for the Petitioner and the same are received

and considered.

The points arise for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in terminating

the services of Sri Thogari Venkati with effect from

26.9.2001 is legal and justified?

II.

To what relief the Workman is entitled for?

Point No.I:

It is an admitted fact that the Workman has been

absent from duty unauthorisedly during the chargesheeted

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5511

period. This can be said so since admittedly, he failed to

take any kind of leave or permission, while remaining

absent from duty. Standing Orders 25.25 of the Respondent

company provides that: “habitual late attendance or

habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause”

amounts to misconduct. Therefore, mere absence from

duty by itself does not become misconduct. It must be

without sufficient cause. Therefore, now it is to be verified

whether there is any sufficient cause for the absence of

the Workman from duty. It is his consistent plea that due

to his sickness and family problems he could not attend to

the duties.

As can be gathered from the material on record,

during the course of enquiry workman could not produce

any documentary evidence to substantiate his contentions

regarding sickness but, he consistently pleaded that his

mother expired in the year 2000 due to which he got mentally

disturbed and further that as he was sick and was taking

ayurvedic treatment during the relevant time, he was unable

to attend his duties regularly. It is elicited from him while

he was under cross examination during the domestic

enquiry that even on occasions when he attended to duties,

after booking muster without attending to the work he

was to leave the work place due to his incapacity to work.

No doubt he never reported sick in any of the company’s

hospitals and never sought for grant of any kind of leave

by his superiors. This is certainly a lapse on his part. But

the fact remains that Management is not disputing with

the correctness of the contention of the workman that

during the year 2000 his mother expired. Mother’s death

will certainly disturb the tranquillity of a person. Further,

Management is not actually disputing with the correctness

of the contention of the workman that he was unable to

attend to his duties owing to his sickness. It can be said

so since not even a suggestion is put to him while he was

under cross examination during the enquiry that his

contention that he was sick is not correct. Further more,

as already discussed above, it is the categorical statement

of the workman during the enquiry that even after

attending to the duties and booking the musters he was

constrained to leave the work place due to his incapacity

to work owing to the sickness. In the given circumstances

it can not be said that there is no sufficient cause for the

workman to be absent from duties at the relevant time.

Thus, he being absent from duty does not amount to

misconduct.

But, it is a lapse on the part of the workman in not

reporting sick and not seeking for permission/grant of leave

while remaining absent from duties. This certainly

resulted into prejudice to the Management since, there

would be disruption in the schedule of work due to the

workman remaining absent from duty without giving prior

information to concerned authorities. But, as already

discussed above as there is sufficient cause for the

workman to remain absent from duties, his absenteeism as

mentioned in the chargesheet does not amount to

misconduct as contemplated under the Respondent

company’s Standing Orders 25.25.

10.

It is the contention of the Respondents that it is the

habit of the workman to unauthorizedly absent from duties

as the Respondent company was compelled to disempanel

him twice while he was working as badli filler as he was

not regular to his duties and he was empanelled again

considering his representation and assurance that he

would be regular to his duties. But, the fact remains that

as far as the present circumstance is concerned there is

sufficient reason for the workman to be absent from his

duties. Therefore, it can not be said that his conduct in

absenting himself from duties during chargesheeted period

strictly comes under the purview of the Respondent

company’s Standing Orders No.25.25.

11.

But, as rightly pointed out for the Respondent the

workman remaining absent from duty without seeking for

any leave/permission certainly would have resulted into

substantial inconvenience and hardship to the

Respondent company due to disturbance in the schedule

of the work. This lapse on the part of the workman certainly

warrants punishment. But, removal from service is not

appropriate punishment for the said lapse, as it is grossly

disproportionate.

12.

In view of the fore gone discussion, it can safely be

held that the action of the Management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited in terminating the services of

the workman with effect from 26.9.2001 is neither legal nor

justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

13.

Point No. II:

In view of the finding given while answering Point

No.I above, the order of termination of services of the

workman with effect from 26.9.2001 passed by the

Management of the Respondent company is liable to be

set aside. Consequently, he is directed to be reinstated

into service as badli filler with effect from 26.9.2001.

14.

But, as discussed while deciding Point No.I above,

for the lapse of not reporting sick and not seeking for

permission/leave while remaining absent from duty on the

part of the workman warrants appropriate punishment. To

discourage the workman to repeat such conduct in future

and also considering the past conduct of the workman

which lead to his disempanellment, stoppage of atleast

three annual grade increments with cumulative effect is

appropriate punishment. Further, the workman is not

entitled for any back wages. But he is entitled for all other

attendant benefits.

This point is answered accordingly.

5512

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Result :

In the result, reference is answered as follows:

The action of the Management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited in terminating the services of

the workman Sri Thogari Venkati, the workman with effect

from 26.9.2001 is hereby held as neither legal nor justified

and the same is hereby set aside. The Workman shall be

reinstated into service as badli filler forthwith, with effect

from 26.9.2001. He is awarded with the punishment of

stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative

effect. He is not entitled for any back wages, but he is

entitled for all other attendant benefits.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 6th

day of June, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent :

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2122-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 67@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@317@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O. 2122.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/2006)

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

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 21/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/317/2005-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 16th day of June, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 67/2006

Between :

The General Secretary,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Employees Council,

H. No. 18-3-90/3, Ganesh Nagar,

Markandeya Colony,

Karimnagar District,

Godavarikhani -505209

…..Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri – 504231

….Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya

Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

By virtue of reference No. L-22012/317/2005-IR

(CM-II) dated 9.10.2006 Government of India, Ministry of

Labour and Employment, required this Tribunal to

adjudicate the dispute,

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, in terminating

the services of Sri Gaddala Posham with effect from

31.7.2001 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

is the workman entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID

No.67/2006 on the file of this Tribunal and notices were

served on the parties concerned. Both the Petitioner and

Respondent appeared before the Tribunal and engaged

their respective counsels with the leave of each other and

the Tribunal. M/s. A. Sarojana and K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioner union and

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma and Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5513

The Petitioner filed his claim statement with the

averments in brief as follows:

Sri Gaddala Posham (who will hereinafter be referred

as workman) has been appointed in the service of the

Respondent company as badli filler on 16.6.1981. During

the year 1999, while he was working at SMG-1 Incline, he

became sick and was under treatment and faced other

family problems, due to which the workman could not be

regular to his duties. Treating his sickness as absenteeism,

a chargesheet dated 24.1.2000 was issued alleging that

during the year 1999 workman was habitually absent

without sufficient cause and that it amounts to misconduct

under company’s Standing Orders No. 25.25. Thereafter a

routine and mechanical enquiry was conducted wherein

Petitioner was not given any valid opportunity. The

enquiry was a mere formality and the Enquiry Officer and

other authorities of the Respondent organization

proceeded with a preconceived notion as if the workman

has committed misconduct and Enquiry Officer has

submitted his report holding the charges as proved,

basing on which the impugned proceeding was issued

dismissing the Petitioner from service vide office order

dated 23.7.2001. The procedure of the enquiry was not

explained to the Petitioner though Petitioner is an illiterate.

Thus, Petitioner could not participate in the enquiry

effectively. The enquiry was conducted in the language

not known to the Petitioner which caused prejudice to the

Petitioner. Workman was given opportunity neither to

cross examine the management witnesses nor to produce

his defence witness. None of the documents relied upon

by the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the Petitioner.

The Enquiry Officer has not followed the basic principles

of law, leave about the principles of natural justice. During

the enquiry Petitioner categorically pleaded that his

inability to perform the duties during the year 1999 was

only on account of his sickness and other family problems.

But, the same were not considered by the Enquiry Officer

while holding the charges as proved. While issuing the

impugned order the Disciplinary Authority also did not

consider the submissions made by the Petitioner and

followed the perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer,

resulting in issuance of impugned order of removal from

service. Petitioner is the only earning member of his

family. As a result of the impugned order he and his family

members are deprived of livelihood. Petitioner is not

employed elsewhere after the date of impugned order.

Hence, the petition.

Respondent filed his counter with the averments in

brief as follows:

The workman was initially appointed in the

Respondent’s company on 8.6.1981 as badli filler and

was regularised as coal filler w.e.f. 1.1.1995. The workman

was working at SMG.1 Incline of Mandamarri Area. During

the calendar year 1999 Workman put in only 92 musters as

such the chargesheet was issued under Standing

No. 25.25 which reads, “Habitual late attendance or

habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause”. On

receipt of the chargesheet the workman submitted his

written explanation. There after the enquiry was

conducted. Workman fully participated in the enquiry.

He was given fair and full opportunity during the enquiry.

Before commencing the enquiry the Enquiry Officer

explained the procedure of the enquiry in Telugu to the

Workman. Workman did not opt to have defence assistant.

The said proceedings were conducted in Telugu and were

explained to the Workman in Telugu, the language to which

Workman is acquainted. He voluntarily admitted the

charges levelled against him and pleaded guilty of

misconduct. Workman did not prefer to cross examine

the Management witnesses. He did not submit any

documents in support of his statement. Basing on the

evidence made available the Enquiry Officer found the

Workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. The

Respondent got a well established chain of hospitals in all

its areas to cater to the health requirements of its

employees. Further, Respondent company has rules and

regulations to refer the cases of complicated diseases to

the hospitals like Osmania General Hospital, Gandhi

Medical Hospital and Nizam’s Institute of Medical

Sciences. Workman is fully aware of the same but he has

not availed the facilities. The workman had put in the

following musters during the years 1997 to 2000:-

Year

Actual Attendance

1997

146

1998

133

1999

092

2000

130

The contention of the Workman that the enquiry

was conducted as a formality and with predetermined

notion and that the contentions of the Workman were not

considered by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary

Authority are all incorrect. Workman did not produce any

documents to substantiate his sickness. The punishment

imposed is not disproportionate to the charges levelled.

Due to unauthorized absenteeism the planned schedules

of work as well as the production results will be adversely

affected. Hence, the Respondent company is compelled

to take severe action against the unauthorised absentees

like the Workman. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be

dismissed.

Learned counsel for the Workman filed a memo

stating that Workman is not disputing with the validity of

the domestic enquiry conducted in this case. There on by

virtue of order dated 16.12.13 this court held that the

domestic enquiry conducted in this case is valid.

Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments

are also filed for the Petitioner and the same are received

and considered.

5514

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The points arise for determination are:

I. Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited in

terminating the services of Shri Gaddala Posham

w.e.f. 31.7.2001 is legal and justified?

II. If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled for?

Point No. I:

It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner has been

absent from duty unauthorizedly during the

chargesheeted period. This can be said so since

admittedly, he failed to take any kind of leave or

permission, while remaining absent from duty. Standing

Orders 25.25 of the Respondent company provides that:

“habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty

without sufficient cause” amounts to misconduct.

Therefore, mere absence from duty by itself does not

become misconduct. It must be without sufficient cause.

Therefore, now it is to be verified whether there is any

sufficient cause for the absence of the Petitioner from

duty. It is his consistent plea that due to his sickness and

also family problems he could not attend to the duties.

He stated while making his statement during the

Departmental enquiry that for his ill-health he took

treatment from company’s hospital and also from private

hospitals. No doubt, he did not produce any medical

record. But he has not been subjected to any cross

examination for the management, regarding his claim

that he was sick during relevant time, which means

management has not chosen to contradict or dispute with

the correctness of the contentions of the Petitioner with

this regard. In the given circumstances it can not be said

that there is no sufficient cause for the absence of the

Petitioner from duty. The only lapse on his part is not

reporting sick and not informing his superiors before

remaining absent from duty.

But, as can be gathered from the material on record,

Petitioner has put in long service of 19 years in the

Respondent organization and only due to the above

referred cause he became irregular during the

chargesheeted period. Further more, he consistently

pleaded with the Disciplinary Authority as well as during

the enquiry that he realized his mistakes and that he would

be regular to duties hitherto.

It is not the contention of the Respondent that

Petitioner has been a habitual offender of misconduct of

this nature and that there were any previous occasions of

imposing punishment against him. This is the first and

only instance of misconduct which gave raise to cause

of action to conduct enquiry and award punishment to

the Petitioner. But, for the very first event of this nature,

the gravest possible punishment available in the Standing

Orders i.e., dismissal from service has been awarded to

the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority.

10.

It is the contention of the Management that the

musters put in by the Petitioner during the previous years

to the chargesheeted period have been taken note off while

awarding punishment. This is not proper and reasonable.

The past conduct which becomes relevant while awarding

punishment is the previous proven misconduct but not

the allegations which were merely made without giving

any opportunity to the workman to explain. In the present

case as already discussed above, there is no proven

previous misconduct. The allegation regarding putting

in less musters during the period prior to the chargesheeted

period is in the status of mere allegation only for the

reason that Petitioner has not been informed of the

exception taken by the Management regarding the said

conduct and his explanation has not been called for, to

know whether he is actually accepting the truth of the

said allegation. In the given circumstances the Disciplinary

Authority taking such alleged previous conduct into

consideration while awarding punishment is not at all

reasonable.

11.

In view of the fore gone discussion it can safely be

held that the very finding of the Enquiry Officer that

Petitioner is guilty of misconduct under Standing Orders

25.25 itself is not acceptable and further it is to be said

that the punishment awarded is grossly disproportionate

to the proven misconduct.Thus, the action of the

Respondent Management ie M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Limited in terminating the services of Shri

Gaddala Posham w.e.f. 31.7.2001 is held as neither legal

nor justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

12.

Point No. II:

No doubt, as per the finding given in Point No.I,

the impugned order whereunder Petitioner has been

dismissed from service is liable to be set aside. But the

fact remains that Petitioner remained absent from duty

though got sufficient reason for doing so but, there is

lapse on his part since he failed to inform his superiors

at any point of time before or during the period of his

absence from duty.

13.

It is an unauthorised absenteeism since he has not

taken any permission/leave from his higher-ups while

remaining absent from duty. Thus, Petitioner is to be

awarded with appropriate punishment for such lapse only.

But as already discussed above while deciding Point No.I,

awarding punishment of dismissal from service for the

very first event of misconduct which not even completely

proved, is not reasonable. Hence, withholding of one

annual grade increment without cumulative effect is

reasonable punishment to be awarded to the Petitioner for

the lapse of not informing his superiors regarding his

sickness and not taking permission to remain absent from

duty.

14.

In view of the fore gone discussion, Petitioner is to

be reinstated into service consequent to the declaration

that the impugned order No.P/MM/7/2/99/4424 dated

23.7.2001 w.e.f. 31.7.2001 as illegal and arbitrary and setting

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5515

aside the same. Instead Petitioner shall be awarded with

the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment

without cumulative effect. He is entitled for 50% of back

wages only as he is found to be liable for punishment,

though it is the lesser punishment than the one imposed

to him by virtue of impugned order. He is entitled for all

other attendant benefits.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result:

In the result, the reference is answered as follows:

The action of the Management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited in terminating the services of

Shri Gaddala Posham w.e.f. 31.7.2001 is declared as neither

legal nor justified and is hereby set aside. The Petitioner

shall be reinstated into service as Coal filler forthwith,

with effect from 31.7.2001. He is awarded with the

punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment

without cumulative effect. He is entitled for 50% of back

wages only, but he is entitled for all other attendant benefits.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 16th

day of June, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent :

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2123-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 68@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@314@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O. 2123.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 68/2006)

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

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 21/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/314/2005-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 16th day of June, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 68/2006

Between :

The General Secretary,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Employees Council,

H. No. 18-3-90/3, Ganesh Nagar,

Markandeya Colony,

Karimnagar District,

Godavarikhani -505209

…..Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri – 504231

….Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana and K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma and Vijaya

Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

By virtue of reference No. L-22012/314/2005-IR

(CM-II) dated 9.10.2006 Government of India, Ministry of

Labour and Employment, required this Tribunal to

adjudicate the dispute,

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, in terminating

the services of Sri Beesaboina Ramulu with effect

from 22.1.2002 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief is the workman entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID

No. 68 /2006 on the file of this Tribunal and notices were

served on the parties concerned. Both the Petitioner and

Respondent appeared before the Tribunal and engaged

their respective counsels with the leave of each other and

the Tribunal. M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioner union and

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

5516

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Petitioner filed his claim statement with the

averments in brief as follows:

Sri Beesaboina Ramulu (who will hereinafter be

referred as workman) has been appointed in the service of

the Respondent company as badli filler on 8.2.1986 and

later on he was confirmed as Coal Filler. During the year

2000, while he was working at MK-4 Incline, he became

sick and was under treatment and faced other family

problems, due to which the workman could not be regular

to his duties. Treating his sickness as absenteeism, a

chargesheet dated 3.3.2001 was issued alleging that during

the year 2000 workman was habitually absent without

sufficient cause and that it amounts to misconduct under

company’s Standing Orders No.25.25. Thereafter a routine

and mechanical enquiry was conducted wherein Petitioner

was not given any valid opportunity. The enquiry was a

mere formality and the Enquiry Officer and other authorities

of the Respondent organization proceeded with a

preconceived notion as if the workman has committed

misconduct and Enquiry Officer has submitted his report

holding the charges as proved, basing on which the

impugned proceeding was issued dismissing the Petitioner

from service vide office order dated 18.1.2002. The

procedure of the enquiry was not explained to the

Petitioner though Petitioner is an illiterate. Thus, Petitioner

could not participate in the enquiry effectively. The

enquiry was conducted in the language not known to the

Petitioner which caused prejudice to the Petitioner.

Workman was given opportunity neither to cross examine

the management witnesses nor to produce his defence

witness. None of the documents relied upon by the

Enquiry Officer was furnished to the Petitioner. The

Enquiry Officer has not followed the basic principles of

law, leave about the principles of natural justice. During

the enquiry Petitioner categorically pleaded that his

inability to perform the duties during the year 2000 was

only on account of his sickness and other family problems.

But, the same were not considered by the Enquiry Officer

while holding the charges as proved. While issuing the

impugned order the Disciplinary Authority also did not

consider the submissions made by the Petitioner and

followed the perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer,

resulting in issuance of impugned order of removal from

service. Petitioner is the only earning member of his

family. As a result of the impugned order he and his family

members are deprived of livelihood. Petitioner is not

employed elsewhere after the date of impugned order.

Hence, the petition.

Respondent filed his counter with the

averments in brief as follows:

The workman was initially appointed in the

Respondent’s company on 8.2.1986 as badli filler and

was regularised as coal filler. The workman was working

at MK-4 Incline of Mandamarri Area. During the calendar

year 2000 Workman put in only 90 musters as such the

chargesheet was issued under Standing No.25.25 which

reads, “Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from

duty without sufficient cause”. On receipt of the

chargesheet the workman has submitted his written

explanation. There after the enquiry was conducted.

Workman fully participated in the enquiry. He was given

fair and full opportunity during the enquiry. Before

commencing the enquiry the Enquiry Officer explained the

procedure of the enquiry in Telugu to the Workman.

Workman did not opt to have defence assistant. The

said proceedings were conducted in Telugu and were

explained to the Workman in Telugu, the language to which

Workman is acquainted. He voluntarily admitted the

charges levelled against him and pleaded guilty of

misconduct. Workman did not prefer to cross examine

the Management witnesses. He did not submit any

documents in support of his statement. Basing on the

evidence made available the Enquiry Officer found the

Workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. The

Respondent got a well established chain of hospitals in all

its areas to cater to the health requirements of its

employees. Further, Respondent company has rules and

regulations to refer the cases of complicated diseases to

the hospitals like Osmania General Hospital, Gandhi

Medical Hospital and Nizam’s Institute of Medical

Sciences. Workman is fully aware of the same but he has

not availed the facilities. The workman had put in 143,

148, 138, 156, 90 and 76 musters in the years 1996, 1997,

1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 respectively. The contention of

the Workman that the enquiry was conducted as a

formality and with predetermined notion and that the

contentions of the Workman were not considered by the

Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority are all incorrect.

Workman did not produce any documents to substantiate

his sickness. The punishment imposed is not

disproportionate to the charges levelled. Due to

unauthorized absenteeism the planned schedules of work

as well as the production results will be adversely affected.

Hence, the Respondent company is compelled to take

severe action against the unauthorised absentees like the

Workman. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be

dismissed.

Learned counsel for the Workman filed a memo

stating that Workman is not disputing with the validity of

the domestic enquiry conducted in this case. There on by

virtue of order dated 16.12.13 this court held that the

domestic enquiry conducted in this case is valid.

Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments

are also filed for the Petitioner and the same are received

and considered.

The points arise for determination are:

Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited in terminating

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5517

the services of Shri Beesaboina Ramulu w.e.f.

22.1.2002 is legal and justified?

II.

If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled for?

Point No.I:

It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner has been

absent from duty unauthorizedly during the

chargesheeted period. This can be said so since

admittedly, he failed to take any kind of leave or permission,

while remaining absent from duty. Standing Orders 25.25

of the Respondent company provides that: “habitual late

attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient

cause” amounts to misconduct. Therefore, mere absence

from duty by itself does not become misconduct. It must

be without sufficient cause. Therefore, now it is to be

verified whether there is any sufficient cause for the

absence of the Petitioner from duty. It is his consistent

plea that due to his sickness and also family problems he

could not attend to the duties. He stated while making his

statement during the Departmental enquiry that for his ill-

health he took ayurvedic treatment at his village. No

doubt, he did not produce any medical record. But he has

not been subjected to any cross examination for the

management, regarding his claim that he was sick during

relevant time, which means management has not chosen

to contradict or dispute with the correctness of the

contentions of the Petitioner with this regard. In the given

circumstances it can not be said that there is no sufficient

cause for the absence of the Petitioner from duty. The

only lapse on his part is not reporting sick and not informing

his superiors before remaining absent from duty.

But, as can be gathered from the material on record,

Petitioner has put in long service of 15 years in the

Respondent organization and only due to the above

referred cause he became irregular during the

chargesheeted period. Further more, he consistently

pleaded with the Disciplinary Authority as well as during

the enquiry that he realized his mistakes and that he would

be regular to duties hitherto.

It is not the contention of the Respondent that

Petitioner has been a habitual offender of misconduct of

this nature and that there were any previous occasions of

imposing punishment against him. This is the first and

only instance of misconduct which gave raise to cause of

action to conduct enquiry and award punishment to the

Petitioner. But, for the very first event of this nature, the

gravest possible punishment available in the Standing

Orders i.e., dismissal from service has been awarded to

the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority.

10.

It is the contention of the Management that the

musters put in by the Petitioner during the previous years

to the chargesheeted period have been taken note off while

awarding punishment. This is not proper and reasonable.

The past conduct which becomes relevant while awarding

punishment is the previous proven misconduct but not

the allegations which were merely made without giving

any opportunity to the workman to explain. In the present

case as already discussed above, there is no proven

previous misconduct. The allegation regarding putting

in less musters during the period prior to the chargesheeted

period is in the status of mere allegation only for the

reason that Petitioner has not been informed of the

exception taken by the Management regarding the said

conduct and his explanation has not been called for, to

know whether he is actually accepting the truth of the

said allegation. In the given circumstances the Disciplinary

Authority taking such alleged previous conduct into

consideration while awarding punishment is not at all

reasonable.

11.

In view of the fore gone discussion it can safely be

held that the very finding of the Enquiry Officer that

Petitioner is guilty of misconduct under Standing Orders

25.25 itself is not acceptable and further it is to be said that

the punishment awarded is grossly disproportionate to

the proven misconduct. Thus, the action of the

Respondent Management ie., M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Limited in terminating the services of Shri

Beesaboina Ramulu w.e.f. 22.1.2002 is held as neither

legal nor justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

12.

Point No. II:

No doubt, as per the finding given in Point No.I,

the impugned order whereunder Petitioner has been

dismissed from service is liable to be set aside. But the

fact remains that Petitioner remained absent from duty

though got sufficient reason for doing so but, there is

lapse on his part since he failed to inform his superiors

at any point of time before or during the period of his

absence from duty.

13.

It is an unauthorised absenteeism since he has not

taken any permission/ leave from his higher-ups while

remaining absent from duty. Thus, Petitioner is to be

awarded with appropriate punishment for such lapse only.

But as already discussed above while deciding Point No.I,

awarding punishment of dismissal from service for the

very first event of misconduct which not even completely

proved, is not reasonable. Hence, withholding of one

annual grade increment without cumulative effect is

reasonable punishment to be awarded to the Petitioner

for the lapse of not informing his superiors regarding

his sickness and not taking permission to remain absent

from duty.

14.

In view of the fore gone discussion, Petitioner is to

be reinstated into service consequent to the declaration

that the impugned order No. RKP/Per/R/016/253 dated

18.1.2002 as illegal and arbitrary and setting aside the same.

Instead Petitioner shall be awarded with the punishment

of stoppage of one annual grade increment without

cumulative effect. He is entitled for 50% of back wages

5518

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

only as he is found to be liable for punishment, though it

is the lesser punishment than the one imposed to him by

virtue of impugned order. He is entitled for all other

attendant benefits.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

In the result, the reference is answered as follows:

The action of the Management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited in terminating the services of

Shri Beesaboina Ramulu w.e.f. 22.1.2002 is declared as

neither legal nor justified and is hereby set aside. The

Petitioner shall be reinstated into service as Coal filler

forthwith, with effect from 22.1.2002. He is awarded with

the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment

without cumulative effect. He is entitled for 50% of back

wages only, but he is entitled for all other attendant benefits.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 16th

day of June, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent :

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2124-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 69@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@309@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O.

2124.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2006)

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

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 21/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/309/2005-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 17th day of June, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 69/2006

Between :

The General Secretary,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Employees Council,

H. No. 18-3-90/3, Ganesh Nagar,

Markandeya Colony,

Karimnagar District,

Godavarikhani -505209

…..Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri – 504231

….Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy,Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya

Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

By virtue of reference No. L-22012/309/2005-

IR(CM-II) dated 9.10.2006 Government of India,

Ministry of Labour and Employment, required this

Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute,

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, in

terminating the services of Sri K. Srinivas with

effect from 29.5.2001 is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID

No.69/2006 on the file of this Tribunal and notices were

served on the parties concerned. Both the Workman and

Respondent appeared before the Tribunal and engaged

their respective counsels with the leave of each other and

the Tribunal. M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioner union and

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5519

The Petitioner filed his claim statement with the

averments in brief as follows :

Sri K. Srinivas(who will hereinafter be referred as

workman) has been appointed in the service of the

Respondent company as filler on 11.1.1985 and later on

he was converted as Timberman on 24.1.1986. During the

year 2000, while he was working at SMG-3 Incline, he

became sick and was under treatment and faced other

family problems, due to which the workman could not be

regular to his duties. Treating his sickness as absenteeism,

a chargesheet dated 18.1.2000 was issued alleging that

during the year 2000 workman was habitually absent

without sufficient cause and that it amounts to misconduct

under company’s Standing Orders No.25.25. Thereafter a

routine and mechanical enquiry was conducted wherein

Workman was not given any valid opportunity. The

enquiry was a mere formality and the Enquiry Officer and

other authorities of the Respondent organization

proceeded with a preconceived notion as if the workman

has committed misconduct and Enquiry Officer has

submitted his report holding the charges as proved,

basing on which the impugned proceeding was issued

dismissing the Workman from service vide office order

dated 22.5.2001. The procedure of the enquiry was not

explained to the Workman though Workman is an illiterate.

Thus, Workman could not participate in the enquiry

effectively. The enquiry was conducted in the language

not known to the Workman which caused prejudice to the

Workman. Workman was given opportunity neither to

cross examine the management witnesses nor to produce

his defence witness. None of the documents relied upon

by the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the Workman.

The Enquiry Officer has not followed the basic principles

of law, leave about the principles of natural justice. During

the enquiry Workman categorically pleaded that his

inability to perform the duties during the year 2000 was

only on account of his sickness and other family problems.

But, the same were not considered by the Enquiry Officer

while holding the charges as proved. While issuing the

impugned order the Disciplinary Authority also did not

consider the submissions made by the Workman and

followed the perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer,

resulting in issuance of impugned order of removal from

service. Workman is the only earning member of his family.

As a result of the impugned order he and his family

members are deprived of livelihood. Workman is not

employed elsewhere after the date of impugned order.

Hence, the petition.

Respondent filed his counter with the averments in

brief as follows:

The workman was initially appointed in the

Respondent’s company on 11.1.1985 as filler and was

regularised as Timberman. The workman was working at

Smg.3 Incline of Mandamarri Area. During the calendar

year 1999 Workman put in only 73 musters as such the

chargesheet was issued under Standing No.25.25 which

reads, “Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from

duty without sufficient cause”. On receipt of the

chargesheet the workman did not submit his written

explanation. Thereafter the enquiry was conducted.

Workman fully participated in the enquiry. He was given

fair and full opportunity during the enquiry. Before

commencing the enquiry the Enquiry Officer explained the

procedure of the enquiry in Telugu to the Workman.

Workman did not opt to have defence assistant. The said

proceedings were conducted in Telugu and were explained

to the Workman in Telugu, the language to which Workman

is acquainted. He voluntarily admitted the charges levelled

against him and pleaded guilty of misconduct. Workman

did not prefer to cross examine the Management

witnesses. He did not submit any documents in support

of his statement. Basing on the evidence made available

the Enquiry Officer found the Workman guilty of the

charges levelled against him. The Respondent got a well

established chain of hospitals in all its areas to cater to the

health requirements of its employees. Further, Respondent

company has rules and regulations to refer the cases of

complicated diseases to the hospitals like Osmania General

Hospital, Gandhi Medical Hospital and Nizam’s Institute

of Medical Sciences. Workman is fully aware of the same

but he has not availed the facilities. The workman had

put in 069., 070, 083, 098, 073, 070 and 063 musters

respectively during the years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,

2000 and 2001 and failed to improve at all though sufficient

time was at his disposal. The contention of the Workman

that the enquiry was conducted as a formality and with

predetermined notion and that the contentions of the

Workman were not considered by the Enquiry Officer and

Disciplinary Authority are all incorrect. Workman did not

produce any documents to substantiate his sickness. The

punishment imposed is not disproportionate to the charges

levelled. Due to unauthorized absenteeism the planned

schedules of work as well as the production results will be

adversely affected. Hence, the Respondent company is

compelled to take severe action against the unauthorised

absentees like the Workman. Hence, the claim petition is

liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the Workman filed a memo

stating that Workman is not disputing with the validity of

the domestic enquiry conducted in this case. There on by

virtue of order dated 16.12.13 this court held that the

domestic enquiry conducted in this case is valid.

Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments

are also filed for the Workman and the same are received

and considered.

The points arise for determination are:

Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited in terminating

5520

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the services of Shri K. Srinivas w.e.f. 29.5.2001 is

legal and justified?

II.

If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled for?

Point No. I:

It is an admitted fact that the Workman has been

absent from duty unauthorizedly during the

chargesheeted period. This can be said so since

admittedly, he failed to take any kind of leave or permission,

while remaining absent from duty. Standing Orders 25.25

of the Respondent company provides that: “habitual late

attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient

cause” amounts to misconduct. Therefore, mere absence

from duty by itself does not become misconduct. It must

be without sufficient cause. Therefore, now it is to be

verified whether there is any sufficient cause for the

absence of the Workman from duty. It is his consistent

plea that due to his sickness and also family problems he

could not attend to the duties. He stated during the

Departmental enquiry that he was suffering from chest

pain and fever and he took treatment from company’s

hospital and reported sick for 167 days of absence. No

doubt, he has neither produced any medical record nor

reported sick on other days of absence from duty. But he

has not been subjected to any cross examination for the

management, regarding his claim that he was sick during

relevant time, which means management has not chosen

to contradict or dispute with the correctness of the

contentions of the Workman with this regard. In the given

circumstances it can not be said that there is no sufficient

cause for the absence of the Workman from duty. The

only lapse on his part is not reporting sick and not informing

his superiors before remaining absent from duty.

But, as can be gathered from the material on record,

Workman has put in long service of 15 years in the

Respondent organization and only due to the above

referred cause he became irregular during the

chargesheeted period. Further more, he consistently

pleaded with the Disciplinary Authority as well as during

the enquiry that he realized his mistakes and that he would

be regular to duties hitherto.

It is not the contention of the Respondent that

Workman has been a habitual offender of misconduct of

this nature and that there were any previous occasions of

imposing punishment against him. This is the first and

only instance of misconduct which gave raise to cause of

action to conduct enquiry and award punishment to the

Workman. But, for the very first event of this nature, the

gravest possible punishment available in the Standing

Orders i.e., dismissal from service has been awarded to

the Workman by the Disciplinary Authority.

10.

It is the contention of the Management that the

musters put in by the Workman during the previous years

to the chargesheeted period have been taken note off while

awarding punishment. This is not proper and reasonable.

The past conduct which becomes relevant while awarding

punishment is the previous proven misconduct but not

the allegations which were merely made without giving

any opportunity to the workman to explain. In the present

case as already discussed above, there is no proven

previous misconduct. The allegation regarding putting

in less musters during the period prior to the chargesheeted

period is in the status of mere allegation only for the

reason that Workman has not been informed of the

exception taken by the Management regarding the said

conduct and his explanation has not been called for, to

know whether he is actually accepting the truth of the

said allegation. In the given circumstances the Disciplinary

Authority taking such alleged previous conduct into

consideration while awarding punishment is not at all

reasonable.

11.

In view of the fore gone discussion it can safely be

held that the very finding of the Enquiry Officer that

Workman is guilty of misconduct under Standing Orders

25.25 itself is not acceptable and further it is to be said that

the punishment awarded is grossly disproportionate to

the proven misconduct. Thus, the action of the

Respondent Management i.e. M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Limited in terminating the services of Shri K.

Srinivas w.e.f. 29.5.2001 is held as neither legal nor

justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

12.

Point No. II :

No doubt, as per the finding given in Point No.I, the

impugned order whereunder Workman has been dismissed

from service is liable to be set aside. But the fact remains

that Workman remained absent from duty though got

sufficient reason for doing so but, there is lapse on his

part since he failed to inform his superiors at any point of

time before or during the period of his absence from duty.

13.

It is an unauthorised absenteeism since he has not

taken any permission/ leave from his higher-ups while

remaining absent from duty. Thus, Workman is to be

awarded with appropriate punishment for such lapse only.

But as already discussed above while deciding Point No.I,

awarding punishment of dismissal from service for the

very first event of misconduct which not even completely

proved, is not reasonable. Hence, withholding of one

annual grade increment without cumulative effect is

reasonable punishment to be awarded to the Workman for

the lapse of not informing his superiors regarding his

sickness and not taking permission to remain absent from

duty.

14.

In view of the fore gone discussion, Workman is to

be reinstated into service consequent to the declaration

that the impugned order No.P/MM/7/2/01/2353 dated

22.5.2001 with effect from 29.5.2001 as illegal and arbitrary

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5521

and setting aside the same. Instead Workman shall be

awarded with the punishment of stoppage of one annual

grade increment without cumulative effect. He is entitled

for 50% of back wages only as he is found to be liable for

punishment, though it is the lesser punishment than the

one imposed to him by virtue of impugned order. He is

entitled for all other attendant benefits.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

In the result, the reference is answered as follows:

The action of the Management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited in terminating the services of

Shri K. Srinivas w.e.f. 29.5.2001 is declared as neither legal

nor justified and is hereby set aside. The Workman shall

be reinstated into service as Timberman forthwith, with

effect from 29.5.2001. He is awarded with the punishment

of stoppage of one annual grade increment without

cumulative effect. He is entitled for 50% of back wages

only, but he is entitled for all other attendant benefits.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 17th

day of June, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent :

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2125-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 70@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@311@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O. 2125.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/2006)

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

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 21/07/2014

[No. L-22012/311/2005-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 16th day of June, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 70/2006

Between :

The General Secretary,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Employees Council,

H. No. 18-3-90/3, Ganesh Nagar,

Markandeya Colony,

Karimnagar District,

Godavarikhani -505209

…..Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri – 504231

….Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy,Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya

Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

By virtue of reference No. L-22012/311/2005-

IR(CM-II) dated 9.10.2006 Government of India,

Ministry of Labour and Employment, required this

Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute,

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, in

terminating the services of Sri Koppula Odelu with

effect from 11.10.2002 is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID

No. 70/2006 on the file of this Tribunal and notices were

served on the parties concerned. Both the Petitioner and

Respondent appeared before the Tribunal and engaged

their respective counsels with the leave of each other and

the Tribunal. M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioner union and

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

5522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Petitioner filed his claim statement with the

averments in brief as follows:

Sri Koppula Odelu (who will hereinafter be referred

as workman) has been appointed in the service of the

Respondent company as badli filler on 31.12.1991 and

later on he was confirmed as Coal Filler in 1995. During

the year 2000, while he was working at SMG-3 Incline, he

became sick and was under treatment and faced other

family problems, due to which the workman could not be

regular to his duties. Treating his sickness as absenteeism,

a chargesheet dated 4/9.10.2001 was issued alleging that

during the year 2000 workman was habitually absent

without sufficient cause and that it amounts to misconduct

under company’s Standing Orders No.25.25. Thereafter a

routine and mechanical enquiry was conducted wherein

Workman was not given any valid opportunity. The

enquiry was a mere formality and the Enquiry Officer and

other authorities of the Respondent organization

proceeded with a preconceived notion as if the workman

has committed misconduct and Enquiry Officer has

submitted his report holding the charges as proved,

basing on which the impugned proceeding was issued

dismissing the Workman from service vide office order

dated 30.9.2002 w.e.f. 11.10.2002. The procedure of the

enquiry was not explained to the Workman though

Workman is an illiterate. Thus, Workman could not

participate in the enquiry effectively. The enquiry was

conducted in the language not known to the Workman

which caused prejudice to the Workman. Workman was

given opportunity neither to cross examine the

management witnesses nor to produce his defence witness.

None of the documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer

was furnished to the Workman. The Enquiry Officer has

not followed the basic principles of law, leave about the

principles of natural justice. During the enquiry Workman

categorically pleaded that his inability to perform the duties

during the year 2000, was only on account of his sickness

and other family problems. But, the same were not

considered by the Enquiry Officer while holding the

charges as proved. While issuing the impugned order the

Disciplinary Authority also did not consider the

submissions made by the Workman and followed the

perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer, resulting in

issuance of impugned order of removal from service.

Workman is the only earning member of his family. As a

result of the impugned order he and his family members

are deprived of livelihood. Workman is not employed

elsewhere after the date of impugned order. Hence, the

petition.

Respondent filed his counter with the averments in

brief as follows:

The workman was initially appointed in the

Respondent’s company on 6.12.1991 as badli filler and

was regularised as coal filler. The workman was working

at Smg.3 Incline of Mandamarri Area. During the calendar

year 2000 Workman put in only 99 musters as such the

chargesheet was issued under Standing No.25.25 which

reads, “Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from

duty without sufficient cause”. On receipt of the

chargesheet the workman did not submit his written

explanation. Thereafter the enquiry was conducted.

Workman fully participated in the enquiry. He was given

fair and full opportunity during the enquiry. Before

commencing the enquiry the Enquiry Officer explained the

procedure of the enquiry in Telugu to the Workman.

Workman did not opt to have defence assistant. The said

proceedings were conducted in Telugu and were explained

to the Workman in Telugu, the language to which Workman

is acquainted. He voluntarily admitted the charges levelled

against him and pleaded guilty of misconduct. Workman

did not prefer to cross examine the Management

witnesses. He did not submit any documents in support

of his statement. Basing on the evidence made available

the Enquiry Officer found the Workman guilty of the

charges levelled against him. The Respondent got a well

established chain of hospitals in all its areas to cater to the

health requirements of its employees. Further, Respondent

company has rules and regulations to refer the cases of

complicated diseases to the hospitals like Osmania

General Hospital, Gandhi Medical Hospital and Nizam’s

Institute of Medical Sciences. Workman is fully aware of

the same but he has not availed the facilities. The

workman had put in the following musters during the

years 1997 to 2001:-

Year

Actual Attendance

1997

131 days

1998

095 days

1999

128 days

2000

099 days

2001

102 days

The contention of the Workman that the enquiry

was conducted as a formality and with predetermined

notion and that the contentions of the Workman were not

considered by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary

Authority are all incorrect. Workman did not produce any

documents to substantiate his sickness. The punishment

imposed is not disproportionate to the charges levelled.

Due to unauthorized absenteeism the planned schedules

of work as well as the production results will be adversely

affected. However, on the assurance of the workman to

put in 22 filling musters every month and fill two and

more tubs per muster, he was given three months time to

improve his attendance and filling performance w.e.f.

30.4.2002. But during the observation period of three

months from 1.5.2002 to 31.7.2002 out of 78 working days

workman had worked for 30 days only. Thus, he failed to

keep up his own assurances. Hence, the Respondent

company is compelled to take severe action against the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5523

unauthorised absentees like the Workman. Hence, the

claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the Workman filed a memo

stating that Workman is not disputing with the validity of

the domestic enquiry conducted in this case. There on by

virtue of order dated 16.12.13 this court held that the

domestic enquiry conducted in this case is valid.

Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments

are also filed for the Workman and the same are received

and considered.

The points arise for determination are:

Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited in terminating

the services of Shri Koppula Odelu w.e.f. 11.10.2002

is legal and justified?

II.

If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled for?

Point No. I :

It is an admitted fact that the Workman has been

absent from duty unauthorizedly during the

chargesheeted period. This can be said so since

admittedly, he failed to take any kind of leave or permission,

while remaining absent from duty. Standing Orders 25.25

of the Respondent company provides that: “habitual late

attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient

cause” amounts to misconduct. Therefore, mere absence

from duty by itself does not become misconduct. It must

be without sufficient cause. Thus, now it is to be verified

whether there is any sufficient cause for the absence of

the Workman from duty. It is his consistent plea that due

to his wife’s sickness who has been suffering from brain

tumor since 1996, he could not attend to the duties regularly

as he has to accompany her for treatment from time to

time. He stated during the Departmental enquiry that for

his wife’s ill-health treatment was taken from company’s

hospital and also from private hospitals. No doubt, he

did not produce any medical record. But he has not been

subjected to any cross examination for the management,

regarding his claim that his wife was seriously sick during

relevant time, which means management has not chosen

to contradict or dispute with the correctness of the

contentions of the Workman with this regard. In the given

circumstances it can not be said that there is no sufficient

cause for the absence of the Workman from duty. The

only lapse on his part is not informing his superiors before

remaining absent from duty.

But, as can be gathered from the material on record,

Workman has put in long service of 10 years in the

Respondent organization and only due to the above

referred cause he became irregular during the

chargesheeted period. Further more, he consistently

pleaded with the Disciplinary Authority as well as during

the enquiry that he realized his mistakes and that he would

be regular to duties hitherto.

It is not the contention of the Respondent that

Workman has been a habitual offender of misconduct of

this nature and that there were any previous occasions of

imposing punishment against him. This is the first and

only instance of misconduct which gave raise to cause of

action to conduct enquiry and award punishment to the

Workman. But, for the very first event of this nature, the

gravest possible punishment available in the Standing

Orders i.e., dismissal from service has been awarded to

the Workman by the Disciplinary Authority.

10.

It is the contention of the Management that the

musters put in by the workman during the previous years

to the chargesheeted period have been taken note off while

awarding punishment. This is not proper and reasonable.

The past conduct which becomes relevant while awarding

punishment is the previous proven misconduct but not

the allegations which were merely made without giving

any opportunity to the workman to explain. In the present

case as already discussed above, there is no proven

previous misconduct.

11.

As can be gathered from the impugned proceedings

workman has been given an opportunity to improve his

attendance and he was put in observation for three months

before passing final orders. Thereon, the Disciplinary

Authority observed that even during this period of three

months the attendance of the Petitioner was found to be

not satisfactory and proceeded with passing final order of

dismissal of the Petitioner from service. Evidently, before

passing such final order no opportunity has been afforded

to the Petitioner regarding his attendance during these

three months observation period. So there was no

opportunity for him to know about the truth or otherwise

of the allegation that his attendance during the said period

of three months was not satisfactory and to offer any

explanation regarding the same.

12.

The allegation regarding putting in less musters

during the period prior to the chargesheeted period is in

the status of mere allegation only for the reason that

Workman has not been informed of the exception taken

by the Management regarding the said conduct and his

explanation has not been called for, to know whether he is

actually accepting the truth of the said allegation. In the

given circumstances the Disciplinary Authority taking

such alleged previous conduct into consideration while

awarding punishment is not at all reasonable.

13.

In view of the fore gone discussion it can safely be

held that the very finding of the Enquiry Officer that

Workman is guilty of misconduct under Standing Orders

25.25 itself is not acceptable and further it is to be said that

the punishment awarded is grossly disproportionate to

the proven misconduct. Thus, the action of the

5524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Respondent Management i. e. M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Limited in terminating the services of Shri

Koppula Odelu w.e.f. 11.10.2002 is held as neither legal

nor justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

14.

Point No. II :

No doubt, as per the finding given in Point No.I,

the impugned order whereunder Workman has been

dismissed from service is liable to be set aside. But the

fact remains that Workman remained absent from duty

though got sufficient reason for doing so but, there is

lapse on his part since he failed to inform his superiors

at any point of time before or during the period of his

absence from duty.

15.

It is an unauthorised absenteeism since he has not

taken any permission/ leave from his higher-ups while

remaining absent from duty. Thus, Workman is to be

awarded with appropriate punishment for such lapse only.

But as already discussed above while deciding Point No.I,

awarding punishment of dismissal from service for the

very first event of misconduct which not even completely

proved, is not reasonable. Hence, withholding of one

annual grade increment without cumulative effect is

reasonable punishment to be awarded to the Workman

for the lapse of not informing his superiors regarding

his sickness and not taking permission to remain absent

from duty.

16.

In view of the fore gone discussion, Workman is

to be reinstated into service consequent to the declaration

that the impugned order No.MMR/PER/ D/072/4101

dated 11.10.2002 as illegal and arbitrary and setting aside

the same. Instead Workman shall be awarded with the

punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment

without cumulative effect. He is entitled for 50% of

back wages only as he is found to be liable for punishment,

though it is the lesser punishment than the one imposed

to him by virtue of impugned order. He is entitled for all

other attendant benefits.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

In the result, the reference is answered as follows:

The action of the Management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited in terminating the services

of Shri Koppula Odelu w.e.f. 11.10.2002 is declared as

neither legal nor justified and is hereby set aside. The

Workman shall be reinstated into service as Coal filler

forthwith, with effect from 11.10.2002. He is awarded

with the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade

increment without cumulative effect. He is entitled for

50% of back wages only, but he is entitled for all other

attendant benefits.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 16th

day of June, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Workman

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent :

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2126-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 71@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@20@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O. 2126.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/2006)

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

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 21/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/20/2006-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 17th day of June, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 71/2006

Between :

The General Secretary,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Employees Council,

H. No. 18-3-90/3, Ganesh Nagar,

Markandeya Colony,

Karimnagar District,

Godavarikhani -505209

…..Petitioner

And

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri – 504231

….Respondent

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5525

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy,Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya

Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

By virtue of reference No. L-22012/20/2006-IR (CM-

II) dated 23.10.2006 Government of India, Ministry of

Labour and Employment, required this Tribunal to

adjudicate the dispute,

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, in terminating

the services of Sri Kunsoth Shankar with effect

from 16.12.1998 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief is the workman entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID

No.71/2006 on the file of this Tribunal and notices were

served on the parties concerned. Both the Workman and

Respondent appeared before the Tribunal and engaged

their respective counsels with the leave of each other and

the Tribunal. M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioner union and

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

The Petitioner filed his claim statement with the

averments in brief as follows:

Sri Kunsoth Shankar (who will hereinafter be referred

as workman) has been appointed in the service of the

Respondent company as badli filler on 16.7.1991 and later

on he was confirmed as Coal Filler on 1.9.1995. During the

year 1996, while he was working at RK-1A Incline, he

became sick and was under treatment and faced other

family problems, due to which the workman could not

be regular to his duties. Treating his sickness as

absenteeism, a chargesheet dated 14.9.1998 was issued

alleging that during the year 1996 workman was habitually

absent without sufficient cause and that it amounts to

misconduct under company’s Standing Orders No.25.25.

Thereafter a routine and mechanical enquiry was

conducted wherein Workman was not given any valid

opportunity. The enquiry was a mere formality and the

Enquiry Officer and other authorities of the Respondent

organization proceeded with a preconceived notion as if

the workman has committed misconduct and Enquiry

Officer has submitted his report holding the charges as

proved, basing on which the impugned proceeding was

issued dismissing the Workman from service vide office

order dated 16.12.1998. The procedure of the enquiry was

not explained to the Workman though Workman is an

illiterate. Thus, Workman could not participate in the

enquiry effectively. The enquiry was conducted in the

language not known to the Workman which caused

prejudice to the Workman. Workman was given

opportunity neither to cross examine the management

witnesses nor to produce his defence witness. None of

the documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer was

furnished to the Workman. The Enquiry Officer has not

followed the basic principles of law, leave about the

principles of natural justice. During the enquiry Workman

categorically pleaded that his inability to perform the

duties during the year 1996, was only on account of his

sickness and other family problems. But, the same were

not considered by the Enquiry Officer while holding the

charges as proved. While issuing the impugned order the

Disciplinary Authority also did not consider the

submissions made by the Workman and followed the

perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer, resulting in

issuance of impugned order of removal from service.

Workman is the only earning member of his family. As a

result of the impugned order he and his family members

are deprived of livelihood. Workman is not employed

elsewhere after the date of impugned order. Hence, the

petition.

Respondent filed his counter with the

averments in brief as follows:

The workman was initially appointed in the

Respondent’s company on 16.7.1991 as badli filler and

was regularised as coal filler on 1.9.1995. The workman

was working at RK.1A Incline of Mandamarri Area. During

the calendar year 1996 Workman put in only 53 musters as

such the chargesheet was issued under Standing No.25.25

which reads, “Habitual late attendance or habitual absence

from duty without sufficient cause”. On receipt of the

chargesheet the workman has submitted his written

explanation. There after the enquiry was conducted.

Workman fully participated in the enquiry. He was given

fair and full opportunity during the enquiry. Before

commencing the enquiry the Enquiry Officer explained

the procedure of the enquiry in Telugu to the Workman.

Workman did not opt to have defence assistant. The

said proceedings were conducted in Telugu and were

explained to the Workman in Telugu, the language to which

Workman is acquainted. He voluntarily admitted the

charges levelled against him and pleaded guilty of

misconduct. Workman did not prefer to cross examine

the Management witnesses. He did not submit any

documents in support of his statement. Basing on the

evidence made available the Enquiry Officer found the

Workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. The

Respondent got a well established chain of hospitals in all

its areas to cater to the health requirements of its

employees. Further, Respondent company has rules and

regulations to refer the cases of complicated diseases to

the hospitals like Osmania General Hospital, Gandhi

Medical Hospital and Nizam’s Institute of Medical

Sciences. Workman is fully aware of the same but he has

not availed the facilities. The workman had put in 034,

053, 108 and 077 musters during the years 1995, 1996, 1997

5526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and 1998 respectively and failed to improve at all though

sufficient time was at his disposal. The contention of the

Workman that the enquiry was conducted as a formality

and with predetermined notion and that the contentions

of the Workman were not considered by the Enquiry Officer

and Disciplinary Authority are all incorrect. Workman did

not produce any documents to substantiate his sickness.

The punishment imposed is not disproportionate to the

charges levelled. Due to unauthorized absenteeism the

planned schedules of work as well as the production results

will be adversely affected. Hence, the Respondent

company is compelled to take severe action against the

unauthorised absentees like the Workman. Hence, the

claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the Workman filed a memo

stating that Workman is not disputing with the validity of

the domestic enquiry conducted in this case. There on by

virtue of order dated 16.12.2013 this court held that the

domestic enquiry conducted in this case is valid.

Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments

are also filed for the Workman and the same are received

and considered.

The points arise for determination are :

Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited in terminating

the services of Shri Kunsoth Shankar w.e.f.

16.12.1998 is legal and justified?

II.

If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled for?

Point No. I :

It is an admitted fact that the Workman has been

absent from duty unauthorizedly during the

chargesheeted period. This can be said so since

admittedly, he failed to take any kind of leave or

permission, while remaining absent from duty. Standing

Orders 25.25 of the Respondent company provides that:

“habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty

without sufficient cause” amounts to misconduct.

Therefore, mere absence from duty by itself does not

become misconduct. It must be without sufficient cause.

Therefore, now it is to be verified whether there is any

sufficient cause for the absence of the Workman from

duty. It is his consistent plea that due to his sickness and

also family problems he could not attend to the duties.

He stated while making his statement during the

Departmental enquiry that he suffered from Jaundice and

he took treatment at his native place Pulimadugu from

village RMP Doctor as such, he could not produce any

documents or treatment slips. No doubt, he did not

produce any medical record. But he has not been subjected

to any cross examination for the management, regarding

his claim that he was sick during relevant time, which means

management has not chosen to contradict or dispute with

the correctness of the contentions of the Workman with

this regard. In the given circumstances it can not be said

that there is no sufficient cause for the absence of the

Workman from duty. The only lapse on his part is not

reporting sick and not informing his superiors before

remaining absent from duty.

But, as can be gathered from the material on record,

Workman has put in long service of 7 years in the

Respondent organization and only due to the above

referred cause he became irregular during the

chargesheeted period. Further more, he consistently

pleaded with the Disciplinary Authority as well as during

the enquiry that he realized his mistakes and that he would

be regular to duties hitherto.

It is not the contention of the Respondent that

Workman has been a habitual offender of misconduct of

this nature and that there were any previous occasions of

imposing punishment against him. This is the first and

only instance of misconduct which gave raise to cause of

action to conduct enquiry and award punishment to the

Workman. But, for the very first event of this nature, the

gravest possible punishment available in the Standing

Orders i.e., dismissal from service has been awarded to

the Workman by the Disciplinary Authority.

10.

It is the contention of the Management that the

musters put in by the Workman during the previous years

to the chargesheeted period have been taken note off while

awarding punishment. This is not proper and reasonable.

The past conduct which becomes relevant while awarding

punishment is the previous proven misconduct but not

the allegations which were merely made without giving

any opportunity to the workman to explain. In the present

case as already discussed above, there is no proven

previous misconduct. The allegation regarding putting

in less musters during the period prior to the chargesheeted

period is in the status of mere allegation only for the

reason that Workman has not been informed of the

exception taken by the Management regarding the said

conduct and his explanation has not been called for, to

know whether he is actually accepting the truth of the

said allegation. In the given circumstances the Disciplinary

Authority taking such alleged previous conduct into

consideration while awarding punishment is not at all

reasonable.

11.

In view of the fore gone discussion it can safely be

held that the very finding of the Enquiry Officer that

Workman is guilty of misconduct under Standing Orders

25.25 itself is not acceptable and further it is to be said that

the punishment awarded is grossly disproportionate to

the proven misconduct. Thus, the action of the

Respondent Management i.e. M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Limited in terminating the services of Shri

Kunsoth Shankar w.e.f. 16.12.1998 is held as neither legal

nor justified.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5527

This point is answered accordingly.

12.

Point No. II :

No doubt, as per the finding given in Point No.I, the

impugned order whereunder Workman has been dismissed

from service is liable to be set aside. But the fact remains

that Workman remained absent from duty though got

sufficient reason for doing so but, there is lapse on his

part since he failed to inform his superiors at any point of

time before or during the period of his absence from duty.

13.

It is an unauthorised absenteeism since he has not

taken any permission/leave from his higher-ups while

remaining absent from duty. Thus, Workman is to be

awarded with appropriate punishment for such lapse only.

But as already discussed above while deciding Point No.I,

awarding punishment of dismissal from service for the

very first event of misconduct which not even completely

proved, is not reasonable. Hence, withholding of one

annual grade increment without cumulative effect is

reasonable punishment to be awarded to the Workman for

the lapse of not informing his superiors regarding his

sickness and not taking permission to remain absent from

duty.

14.

In view of the fore gone discussion, Workman is to

be reinstated into service consequent to the declaration

that the impugned order dated 16.12.1998 as illegal and

arbitrary and setting aside the same. Instead Workman

shall be awarded with the punishment of stoppage of one

annual grade increment without cumulative effect. He is

entitled for 50% of back wages only as he is found to be

liable for punishment, though it is the lesser punishment

than the one imposed to him by virtue of impugned order.

He is entitled for all other attendant benefits.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

In the result, the reference is answered as follows:

The action of the Management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited in terminating the services of

Shri Kunsoth Shankar w.e.f. 16.12.1998 is declared as

neither legal nor justified and is hereby set aside. The

Workman shall be reinstated into service as Coal filler

forthwith, with effect from 16.12.1998. He is awarded

with the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade

increment without cumulative effect. He is entitled for

50% of back wages only, but he is entitled for all other

attendant benefits.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 17th

day of June, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent :

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2127-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 72@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@18@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O. 2127.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/2006)

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

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 21/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/18/2006-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 18th day of June, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 72/2006

Between :

The General Secretary,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Employees Council,

H. No. 18-3-90/3, Ganesh Nagar,

Markandeya Colony,

Karimnagar District,

Godavarikhani -505209

…..Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri – 504231

….Respondent

5528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya

Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

By virtue of reference No. L-22012/18/2006-IR(CM-

II) dated 23.10.2006 Government of India, Ministry of

Labour and Employment, required this Tribunal to

adjudicate the dispute,

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, in terminating

the services of Sri Durgam Bheemaiah with effect

from 10.9.2001 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief is the workman entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID

No.72/2006 on the file of this Tribunal and notices were

served on the parties concerned. Both the Workman and

Respondent appeared before the Tribunal and engaged

their respective counsels with the leave of each other and

the Tribunal. M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioner union and

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

The Petitioner filed his claim statement with the

averments in brief as follows:

Sri Durgam Bheemaiah(who will hereinafter be

referred as workman) has been appointed in the service of

the Respondent company as badli filler on 12.5.1997.

During the year 2000, while he was working at KK-1 Incline,

he became sick and was under treatment and faced other

family problems, due to which the workman could not

be regular to his duties. Treating his sickness as

absenteeism, a chargesheet dated 13.2.2001 was issued

alleging that during the year 2000 workman was habitually

absent without sufficient cause and that it amounts to

misconduct under company’s Standing Orders No.25.25.

Thereafter a routine and mechanical enquiry was

conducted wherein Workman was not given any valid

opportunity. The enquiry was a mere formality and the

Enquiry Officer and other authorities of the Respondent

organization proceeded with a preconceived notion as if

the workman has committed misconduct and Enquiry

Officer has submitted his report holding the charges as

proved, basing on which the impugned proceeding was

issued dismissing the Workman from service vide office

order dated 25.8.2001. The procedure of the enquiry was

not explained to the Workman though Workman is an

illiterate. Thus, Workman could not participate in the

enquiry effectively. The enquiry was conducted in the

language not known to the Workman which caused

prejudice to the Workman. Workman was given

opportunity neither to cross examine the management

witnesses nor to produce his defence witness. None of

the documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer was

furnished to the Workman. The Enquiry Officer has not

followed the basic principles of law, leave about the

principles of natural justice. During the enquiry Workman

categorically pleaded that his inability to perform the

duties during the year 2000 was only on account of his

sickness and other family problems. But, the same were

not considered by the Enquiry Officer while holding the

charges as proved. While issuing the impugned order the

Disciplinary Authority also did not consider the

submissions made by the Workman and followed the

perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer, resulting in

issuance of impugned order of removal from service.

Workman is the only earning member of his family. As a

result of the impugned order he and his family members

are deprived of livelihood. Workman is not employed

elsewhere after the date of impugned order. Hence, the

petition.

Respondent filed his counter with the

averments in brief as follows:

The workman was initially appointed in the

Respondent’s company on 12.5.1997 as badli filler and

continued to be so till dismissal without getting

regularised as coal filler. The workman was working at

KK.1 Incline of Mandamarri Area. During the calendar

year 2000 Workman put in only 10 musters as such the

chargesheet was issued under Standing No.25.25 which

reads, “Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from

duty without sufficient cause”. On receipt of the

chargesheet the workman submitted his written

explanation. There after the enquiry was conducted.

Workman fully participated in the enquiry. He was given

fair and full opportunity during the enquiry. Before

commencing the enquiry the Enquiry Officer explained

the procedure of the enquiry in Telugu to the Workman.

Workman did not opt to have defence assistant. The

said proceedings were conducted in Telugu and were

explained to the Workman in Telugu, the language to which

Workman is acquainted. He voluntarily admitted the

charges levelled against him and pleaded guilty of

misconduct. Workman did not prefer to cross examine

the Management witnesses. He did not submit any

documents in support of his statement. Basing on the

evidence made available the Enquiry Officer found the

Workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. The

Respondent got a well established chain of hospitals in all

its areas to cater to the health requirements of its

employees. Further, Respondent company has rules and

regulations to refer the cases of complicated diseases to

the hospitals like Osmania General Hospital, Gandhi

Medical Hospital and Nizam’s Institute of Medical

Sciences. Workman is fully aware of the same but he has

not availed the facilities. The workman had put in the

following musters during the years from 1997 to 2001:-

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5529

Year

Actual Attendance

1997

100 days

1998

119 days

1999

134 days

2000

010 days

2001

015 days

The contention of the Workman that the enquiry

was conducted as a formality and with predetermined

notion and that the contentions of the Workman were not

considered by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary

Authority are all incorrect. Workman did not produce any

documents to substantiate his sickness. The punishment

imposed is not disproportionate to the charges levelled.

Due to unauthorized absenteeism the planned schedules

of work as well as the production results will be adversely

affected. Hence, the Respondent company is compelled

to take severe action against the unauthorised absentees

like the Workman. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be

dismissed.

Learned counsel for the Workman filed a memo

stating that Workman is not disputing with the validity of

the domestic enquiry conducted in this case. There on by

virtue of order dated 16.12.13 this court held that the

domestic enquiry conducted in this case is valid.

Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments

are also filed for the Workman and the same are received

and considered.

The points arise for determination are:

Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited in terminating

the services of Shri Durgam Bheemaiah w.e.f.

10.9.2001 is legal and justified?

II.

If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled for?

Point No. I :

It is an admitted fact that the Workman has been

absent from duty unauthorizedly during the

chargesheeted period. This can be said so since

admittedly, he failed to take any kind of leave or permission,

while remaining absent from duty. Standing Orders 25.25

of the Respondent company provides that: “habitual late

attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient

cause” amounts to misconduct. Therefore, mere absence

from duty by itself does not become misconduct. It must

be without sufficient cause. Therefore, now it is to be

verified whether there is any sufficient cause for the

absence of the Workman from duty. It is his consistent

plea that due to his sickness and he could not attend to

the duties. He stated while making his statement during

the Departmental enquiry that he was appointed as a

dependent of his father. He could not work on hard job of

coal filling due to his weak personality and he was attacked

by poison by his enemies and was provided treatment

under superstitious belief from village ayurvedic Doctor.

No doubt, he did not produce any medical record. But he

has not been subjected to any cross examination for the

management, regarding his claim that he was sick during

relevant time, which means management has not chosen

to contradict or dispute with the correctness of the

contentions of the Workman with this regard. In the given

circumstances it can not be said that there is no sufficient

cause for the absence of the Workman from duty. The

only lapse on his part is not reporting sick and not informing

his superiors before remaining absent from duty.

But, as can be gathered from the material on record,

Workman has put in a service of 3 years in the Respondent

organization and only due to the above referred cause he

became irregular during the chargesheeted period. Further

more, he consistently pleaded with the Disciplinary

Authority as well as during the enquiry that he realized

his mistakes and that he would be regular to duties hitherto.

It is not the contention of the Respondent that

Workman has been a habitual offender of misconduct of

this nature and that there were any previous occasions of

imposing punishment against him. This is the first and

only instance of misconduct which gave raise to cause of

action to conduct enquiry and award punishment to the

Workman. But, for the very first event of this nature, the

gravest possible punishment available in the Standing

Orders i.e., dismissal from service has been awarded to

the Workman by the Disciplinary Authority.

10.

It is the contention of the Management that the

musters put in by the Workman during the previous years

to the chargesheeted period have been taken note off while

awarding punishment. This is not proper and reasonable.

The past conduct which becomes relevant while awarding

punishment is the previous proven misconduct but not

the allegations which were merely made without giving

any opportunity to the workman to explain. In the present

case as already discussed above, there is no proven

previous misconduct. The allegation regarding putting

in less musters during the period prior to the chargesheeted

period is in the status of mere allegation only for the

reason that Workman has not been informed of the

exception taken by the Management regarding the said

conduct and his explanation has not been called for, to

know whether he is actually accepting the truth of the

said allegation. In the given circumstances the Disciplinary

Authority taking such alleged previous conduct into

consideration while awarding punishment is not at all

reasonable.

11.

In view of the fore gone discussion it can safely be

held that the very finding of the Enquiry Officer that

5530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Workman is guilty of misconduct under Standing Orders

25.25 itself is not acceptable and further it is to be said that

the punishment awarded is grossly disproportionate to

the proven misconduct. Thus, the action of the

Respondent Management ie M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Limited in terminating the services of Shri

Durgam Bheemaiah w.e.f. 10.9.2001 is held as neither

legal nor justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

12.

Point No.II:

No doubt, as per the finding given in Point No.I, the

impugned order whereunder Workman has been dismissed

from service is liable to be set aside. But the fact remains

that Workman remained absent from duty though got

sufficient reason for doing so but, there is lapse on his

part since he failed to inform his superiors at any point of

time before or during the period of his absence from duty.

13.

It is an unauthorised absenteeism since he has not

taken any permission/leave from his higher-ups while

remaining absent from duty. Thus, Workman is to be

awarded with appropriate punishment for such lapse only.

But as already discussed above while deciding Point No.I,

awarding punishment of dismissal from service for the

very first event of misconduct which not even completely

proved, is not reasonable. Hence, withholding of one

annual grade increment without cumulative effect is

reasonable punishment to be awarded to the Workman for

the lapse of not informing his superiors regarding his

sickness and not taking permission to remain absent from

duty.

14.

In view of the fore gone discussion, Workman is to

be reinstated into service consequent to the declaration

that the impugned order No.P/MM/7/2/01/4002 dated

25.8.2001 w.e.f. 10.9.2001 as illegal and arbitrary and setting

aside the same. Instead Workman shall be awarded with

the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment

without cumulative effect and further, he shall be denied

the back wages to discourage him in repeating such

conduct of remaining absent from duty without reporting

to the higher-ups/without taking permission that too at

the very earlier stages of his employment. He is entitled

for all other attendant benefits.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

In the result, the reference is answered as follows:

The action of the Management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited in terminating the services of

Shri Durgam Bheemaiah w.e.f. 10.9.2001 is declared as

neither legal nor justified and is hereby set aside. The

Workman shall be reinstated into service as Badli filler

forthwith, with effect from 10.9.2001. He is awarded with

the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment

without cumulative effect and further, he is not entitled for

any back wages, but he is entitled for all other attendant

benefits.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 18th

day of June, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent :

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2128-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 73@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@21@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O. 2128.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/2006)

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

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 21/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/21/2006-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 18th day of June, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 73/2006

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5531

Between :

The General Secretary,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Employees Council,

H. No. 18-3-90/3, Ganesh Nagar,

Markandeya Colony,

Karimnagar District,

Godavarikhani -505209

…..Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri – 504231

….Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya

Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

By virtue of reference No. L-22012/21/2006-IR(CM-

II) dated 23.10.2006 Government of India, Ministry of

Labour and Employment, required this Tribunal to

adjudicate the dispute,

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, in terminating

the services of Sri Durgam Ramulu with effect from

16.12.1998 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief is the workman entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID

No.73/2006 on the file of this Tribunal and notices were

served on the parties concerned. Both the Workman and

Respondent appeared before the Tribunal and engaged

their respective counsels with the leave of each other and

the Tribunal. M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioner union and

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

The Petitioner filed his claim statement with

the averments in brief as follows:

Sri Durgam Ramulu(who will hereinafter be

referred as workman) has been appointed in the service

of the Respondent company as badli filler on 11.11.1993

and later on he was confirmed as Coal Filler. During the

year 1997, while he was working at KK-5 Incline, he became

sick and was under treatment and faced other family

problems, due to which the workman could not be regular

to his duties. Treating his sickness as absenteeism, a

chargesheet dated 6.8.1998 was issued alleging that during

the year 1997 workman was habitually absent without

sufficient cause and that it amounts to misconduct under

company’s Standing Orders No.25.25. Thereafter a routine

and mechanical enquiry was conducted wherein Workman

was not given any valid opportunity. The enquiry was a

mere formality and the Enquiry Officer and other authorities

of the Respondent organization proceeded with a

preconceived notion as if the workman has committed

misconduct and Enquiry Officer has submitted his report

holding the charges as proved, basing on which the

impugned proceeding was issued dismissing the Workman

from service vide office order dated 11.12.1998 w.e.f.

16.12.1998. The procedure of the enquiry was not

explained to the Workman though Workman is an illiterate.

Thus, Workman could not participate in the enquiry

effectively. The enquiry was conducted in the language

not known to the Workman which caused prejudice to the

Workman. Workman was given opportunity neither to

cross examine the management witnesses nor to produce

his defence witness. None of the documents relied upon

by the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the Workman.

The Enquiry Officer has not followed the basic principles

of law, leave about the principles of natural justice. During

the enquiry Workman categorically pleaded that his

inability to perform the duties during the year 1997,

was only on account of his sickness and other family

problems. But, the same were not considered by the

Enquiry Officer while holding the charges as proved.

While issuing the impugned order the Disciplinary

Authority also did not consider the submissions made

by the Workman and followed the perverse findings of

the Enquiry Officer, resulting in issuance of impugned

order of removal from service. Workman is the only

earning member of his family. As a result of the

impugned order he and his family members are deprived

of livelihood. Workman is not employed elsewhere after

the date of impugned order. Hence, the petition.

Respondent filed his counter with the averments in

brief as follows:

The workman was initially appointed in the

Respondent’s company on 11.10.1993 as badli filler and

was regularised as coal filler w.e.f. 1.9.1995. The workman

was working at KK-5 Incline of Mandamarri Area. During

the calendar year 1997 Workman put in only 75 musters

as such the chargesheet was issued under Standing

No.25.25 which reads, “Habitual late attendance or

habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause”. On

receipt of the chargesheet the workman did not submit

his written explanation. There after the enquiry was

conducted. Workman fully participated in the enquiry.

He was given fair and full opportunity during the enquiry.

Before commencing the enquiry the Enquiry Officer

explained the procedure of the enquiry in Telugu to the

Workman. Workman did not opt to have defence assistant.

The said proceedings were conducted in Telugu and were

explained to the Workman in Telugu, the language to which

Workman is acquainted. He voluntarily admitted the

charges levelled against him and pleaded guilty of

5532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

misconduct. Workman did not prefer to cross examine

the Management witnesses. He did not submit any

documents in support of his statement. Basing on the

evidence made available the Enquiry Officer found the

Workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. The

Respondent got a well established chain of hospitals in all

its areas to cater to the health requirements of its

employees. Further, Respondent company has rules and

regulations to refer the cases of complicated diseases to

the hospitals like Osmania General Hospital, Gandhi

Medical Hospital and Nizam’s Institute of Medical

Sciences. Workman is fully aware of the same but he has

not availed the facilities. The workman had put in the

following musters during the years from 1995 to 1998:-

Year

Actual Attendance

1995

120 days

1996

90 days

1997

75 days

1998

004 days

The contention of the Workman that the enquiry

was conducted as a formality and with predetermined

notion and that the contentions of the Workman were not

considered by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary

Authority are all incorrect. Workman did not produce any

documents to substantiate his sickness. The punishment

imposed is not disproportionate to the charges levelled.

Due to unauthorized absenteeism the planned schedules

of work as well as the production results will be adversely

affected. Hence, the Respondent company is compelled

to take severe action against the unauthorised absentees

like the Workman. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be

dismissed.

Learned counsel for the Workman filed a memo

stating that Workman is not disputing with the validity of

the domestic enquiry conducted in this case. There on by

virtue of order dated 16.12.13 this court held that the

domestic enquiry conducted in this case is valid.

Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments

are also filed for the Workman and the same are received

and considered.

The points arise for determination are:

Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited in terminating

the services of Shri Durgam Ramulu w.e.f. 16.12.1998

is legal and justified?

II.

If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled for?

Point No. I :

It is an admitted fact that the Workman has been

absent from duty unauthorizedly during the chargesheeted

period. This can be said so since admittedly, he failed to

take any kind of leave or permission, while remaining

absent from duty. Standing Orders 25.25 of the Respondent

company provides that: “habitual late attendance or

habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause”

amounts to misconduct. Therefore, mere absence from

duty by itself does not become misconduct. It must be

without sufficient cause. Therefore, now it is to be verified

whether there is any sufficient cause for the absence of

the Workman from duty. It is his consistent plea that due

to his sickness and he could not attend to the duties. He

stated while making his statement during the Departmental

enquiry that he was suffering from back ache, legs pain

and fever and for his ill-health he took treatment from

company’s hospital as well as from private hospitals. No

doubt, he did not produce any medical record. But he has

not been subjected to any cross examination for the

management, regarding his claim that he was sick during

relevant time, which means management has not chosen

to contradict or dispute with the correctness of the

contentions of the Workman with this regard. In the given

circumstances it can not be said that there is no sufficient

cause for the absence of the Workman from duty. The

only lapse on his part is not reporting sick and not informing

his superiors before remaining absent from duty.

But, as can be gathered from the material on record,

Workman has put in long service of 6 years in the

Respondent organization and only due to the above

referred cause he became irregular during the

chargesheeted period. Further more, he consistently

pleaded with the Disciplinary Authority as well as during

the enquiry that he realized his mistakes and that he would

be regular to duties hitherto.

It is not the contention of the Respondent that

Workman has been a habitual offender of misconduct of

this nature and that there were any previous occasions of

imposing punishment against him. This is the first and

only instance of misconduct which gave raise to cause of

action to conduct enquiry and award punishment to the

Workman. But, for the very first event of this nature, the

gravest possible punishment available in the Standing

Orders i.e., dismissal from service has been awarded to

the Workman by the Disciplinary Authority.

10.

It is the contention of the Management that the

musters put in by the Workman during the previous years

to the chargesheeted period have been taken note off while

awarding punishment. This is not proper and reasonable.

The past conduct which becomes relevant while awarding

punishment is the previous proven misconduct but not

the allegations which were merely made without giving

any opportunity to the workman to explain. In the present

case as already discussed above, there is no proven

previous misconduct. The allegation regarding putting

in less musters during the period prior to the chargesheeted

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5533

period is in the status of mere allegation only for the

reason that Workman has not been informed of the

exception taken by the Management regarding the said

conduct and his explanation has not been called for, to

know whether he is actually accepting the truth of the

said allegation. In the given circumstances the Disciplinary

Authority taking such alleged previous conduct into

consideration while awarding punishment is not at all

reasonable.

11.

In view of the fore gone discussion it can safely be

held that the very finding of the Enquiry Officer that

Workman is guilty of misconduct under Standing Orders

25.25 itself is not acceptable and further it is to be said that

the punishment awarded is grossly disproportionate to

the proven misconduct. Thus, the action of the

Respondent Management i.e. M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Limited in terminating the services of Shri

Durgam Ramulu w.e.f. 16.12.1998 is held as neither legal

nor justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

12.

Point No. II :

No doubt, as per the finding given in Point No.I, the

impugned order whereunder Workman has been dismissed

from service is liable to be set aside. But the fact remains

that Workman remained absent from duty though got

sufficient reason for doing so but, there is lapse on his

part since he failed to inform his superiors at any point of

time before or during the period of his absence from duty.

13.

It is an unauthorised absenteeism since he has not

taken any permission/ leave from his higher-ups while

remaining absent from duty. Thus, Workman is to be

awarded with appropriate punishment for such lapse only.

But as already discussed above while deciding Point No.I,

awarding punishment of dismissal from service for the

very first event of misconduct which not even completely

proved, is not reasonable. Hence, withholding of one

annual grade increment without cumulative effect is

reasonable punishment to be awarded to the Workman for

the lapse of not informing his superiors regarding his

sickness and not taking permission to remain absent from

duty.

14.

In view of the fore gone discussion, Workman is to

be reinstated into service consequent to the declaration

that the impugned order No.P/RKP/16/98/641 dated

16.12.1998 as illegal and arbitrary and setting aside the

same. Instead Workman shall be awarded with the

punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment

without cumulative effect and further, he shall be denied

the back wages to discourage him in repeating such

conduct of remaining absent from duty without reporting

to the higher-ups/without taking permission. But he is

entitled for all other attendant benefits.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

In the result, the reference is answered as follows:

The action of the Management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited in terminating the services of

Shri Durgam Ramulu w.e.f. 16.12.1998 is declared as neither

legal nor justified and is hereby set aside. The Workman

shall be reinstated into service as Coal filler forthwith,

with effect from 16.12.1998. He is awarded with the

punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment

without cumulative effect and further, he is not entitled for

any back wages, but he is entitled for all other attendant

benefits.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 18th

day of June, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent :

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2129-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 74@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@47@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O. 2129.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.74/2006)

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

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 21/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/47/2006-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

5534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 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 18th day of June, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 74/2006

Between :

The General Secretary,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Employees Council,

H. No. 18-3-90/3, Ganesh Nagar,

Markandeya Colony,

Karimnagar District,

Godavarikhani -505209

…..Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri – 504231

….Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya

Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

By virtue of reference No. L-22012/47/2006-IR

(CM-II) dated 23.10.2006 Government of India, Ministry

of Labour and Employment, required this Tribunal to

adjudicate the dispute,

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, in

terminating the services of Sri Sandra Chandraiah

with effect from 9.3.1999 is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID

No.74/2006 on the file of this Tribunal and notices were

served on the parties concerned. Both the Workman and

Respondent appeared before the Tribunal and engaged

their respective counsels with the leave of each other and

the Tribunal. M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioner union and

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

The Petitioner filed his claim statement with the

averments in brief as follows:

Sri Sandra Chandraiah(who will hereinafter be

referred as workman) has been appointed in the service of

the Respondent company as badli filler on 31.10.1982 and

later on he was confirmed as Coal Filler. During the year

1997, while he was working at KK-3 Incline, he became

sick and was under treatment and faced other family

problems, due to which the workman could not be regular

to his duties. Treating his sickness as absenteeism, a

chargesheet dated 15.5/13.7.99 was issued alleging that

during the year 1997 workman was habitually absent

without sufficient cause and that it amounts to misconduct

under company’s Standing Orders No.25.25. Thereafter a

routine and mechanical enquiry was conducted wherein

Workman was not given any valid opportunity. The

enquiry was a mere formality and the Enquiry Officer and

other authorities of the Respondent organization

proceeded with a preconceived notion as if the workman

has committed misconduct and Enquiry Officer has

submitted his report holding the charges as proved,

basing on which the impugned proceeding was issued

dismissing the Workman from service vide office order

dated 2.3.1999. The procedure of the enquiry was not

explained to the Workman though Workman is an illiterate.

Thus, Workman could not participate in the enquiry

effectively. The enquiry was conducted in the language

not known to the Workman which caused prejudice to the

Workman. Workman was given opportunity neither to

cross examine the management witnesses nor to produce

his defence witness. None of the documents relied upon

by the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the Workman.

The Enquiry Officer has not followed the basic principles

of law, leave about the principles of natural justice. During

the enquiry Workman categorically pleaded that his

inability to perform the duties during the year 1997, was

only on account of his sickness and other family problems.

But, the same were not considered by the Enquiry Officer

while holding the charges as proved. While issuing the

impugned order the Disciplinary Authority also did not

consider the submissions made by the Workman and

followed the perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer,

resulting in issuance of impugned order of removal from

service. Workman is the only earning member of his family.

As a result of the impugned order he and his family

members are deprived of livelihood. Workman is not

employed elsewhere after the date of impugned order.

Hence, the petition.

Respondent filed his counter with the averments in

brief as follows:

The workman was initially appointed in the

Respondent’s company on 31.10.1982 as badli filler and

continued so till his dismissal without getting regularised

as coal filler coal filler. The workman was working at KK.5A

Incline of Mandamarri Area. During the calendar year

1997 Workman put in only 75 musters as such the

chargesheet was issued under Standing No.25.25 which

reads, “Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from

duty without sufficient cause”. On receipt of the

chargesheet the workman submitted his written

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5535

explanation. There after the enquiry was conducted.

Workman fully participated in the enquiry. He was given

fair and full opportunity during the enquiry. Before

commencing the enquiry the Enquiry Officer explained the

procedure of the enquiry in Telugu to the Workman.

Workman did not opt to have defence assistant. The said

proceedings were conducted in Telugu and were explained

to the Workman in Telugu, the language to which

Workman is acquainted. He voluntarily admitted the

charges levelled against him and pleaded guilty of

misconduct. Workman did not prefer to cross examine

the Management witnesses. He did not submit any

documents in support of his statement. Basing on the

evidence made available the Enquiry Officer found the

Workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. The

Respondent got a well established chain of hospitals in all

its areas to cater to the health requirements of its

employees. Further, Respondent company has rules and

regulations to refer the cases of complicated diseases to

the hospitals like Osmania General Hospital, Gandhi

Medical Hospital and Nizam’s Institute of Medical

Sciences. Workman is fully aware of the same but he has

not availed the facilities. The following are the attendance

particulars of the workman during the years 1995 to 1999:

Year

Actual Attendance

1995

089 days

1996

046 days

1997

075 days

1998

011 days

1999

Nil upto 9.3.1999

The contention of the Workman that the enquiry

was conducted as a formality and with predetermined

notion and that the contentions of the Workman were not

considered by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary

Authority are all incorrect. Workman did not produce any

documents to substantiate his sickness. The punishment

imposed is not disproportionate to the charges levelled.

Due to unauthorized absenteeism the planned schedules

of work as well as the production results will be adversely

affected. Hence, the Respondent company is compelled

to take severe action against the unauthorised absentees

like the Workman. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be

dismissed.

Learned counsel for the Workman filed a memo

stating that Workman is not disputing with the validity of

the domestic enquiry conducted in this case. There on by

virtue of order dated 16.12.13 this court held that the

domestic enquiry conducted in this case is valid.

Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments

are also filed for the Workman and the same are received

and considered.

The points arise for determination are:

Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited in terminating

the services of Shri Sandra Chandraiah w.e.f. 9.3.1999

is legal and justified?

II.

If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled for?

Point No. I :

It is an admitted fact that the Workman has been

absent from duty unauthorizedly during the

chargesheeted period. This can be said so since

admittedly, he failed to take any kind of leave or permission,

while remaining absent from duty. Standing Orders 25.25

of the Respondent company provides that: “habitual late

attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient

cause” amounts to misconduct. Therefore, mere absence

from duty by itself does not become misconduct. It must

be without sufficient cause. Therefore, now it is to be

verified whether there is any sufficient cause for the

absence of the Workman from duty. It is his consistent

plea that due to his sickness he could not attend to the

duties. He stated while making his statement during the

Departmental enquiry that he was appointed in the

company in 1982 and got disempanelled from service in

July, 1996 at SMG.3 incline and got reempanelled from

November, 1996 at KK.5A incline. He further stated that

due to the injury to his back bone which was caused in

Mine Accident in SMG-3 incline in 1983 he could not work

regularly and that for his ill-health he took treatment in

company’s hospital and also from private hospitals. No

doubt, he did not produce any medical record. But he has

not been subjected to any cross examination for the

management, regarding his claim that he was sick during

relevant time, which means management has not chosen

to contradict or dispute with the correctness of the

contentions of the Workman with this regard. In the given

circumstances it can not be said that there is no sufficient

cause for the absence of the Workman from duty. The

only lapse on his part is not reporting sick and not informing

his superiors before remaining absent from duty.

But, as can be gathered from the material on record,

Workman has put in long service of 15 years in the

Respondent organization and only due to the above

referred cause he became irregular during the

chargesheeted period. Further more, he consistently

pleaded with the Disciplinary Authority as well as during

the enquiry that he realized his mistakes and that he would

be regular to duties hitherto.

It is not the contention of the Respondent that

Workman has been a habitual offender of misconduct of

this nature and that there were any previous occasions of

imposing punishment against him. This is the first and

only instance of misconduct which gave raise to cause of

action to conduct enquiry and award punishment to the

5536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Workman. But, for the very first event of this nature, the

gravest possible punishment available in the Standing

Orders i.e., dismissal from service has been awarded to

the Workman by the Disciplinary Authority.

10.

It is the contention of the Management that the

musters put in by the Workman during the previous years

to the chargesheeted period have been taken note off while

awarding punishment. This is not proper and reasonable.

The past conduct which becomes relevant while awarding

punishment is the previous proven misconduct but not

the allegations which were merely made without giving

any opportunity to the workman to explain. In the present

case as already discussed above, there is no proven

previous misconduct. The allegation regarding putting

in less musters during the period prior to the chargesheeted

period is in the status of mere allegation only for the

reason that Workman has not been informed of the

exception taken by the Management regarding the said

conduct and his explanation has not been called for, to

know whether he is actually accepting the truth of the

said allegation. In the given circumstances the Disciplinary

Authority taking such alleged previous conduct into

consideration while awarding punishment is not at all

reasonable.

11.

In view of the fore gone discussion it can safely be

held that the very finding of the Enquiry Officer that

Workman is guilty of misconduct under Standing Orders

25.25 itself is not acceptable and further it is to be said that

the punishment awarded is grossly disproportionate to

the proven misconduct. Thus, the action of the

Respondent Management ie M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Limited in terminating the services of Shri Sandra

Chandraiah w.e.f. 9.3.1999 is held as neither legal nor

justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

12.

Point No.II:

No doubt, as per the finding given in Point No.I, the

impugned order whereunder Workman has been dismissed

from service is liable to be set aside. But the fact remains

that Workman remained absent from duty though got

sufficient reason for doing so but, there is lapse on his

part since he failed to inform his superiors at any point of

time before or during the period of his absence from duty.

13. It is an unauthorised absenteeism since he has not

taken any permission/ leave from his higher-ups while

remaining absent from duty. Thus, Workman is to be

awarded with appropriate punishment for such lapse only.

But as already discussed above while deciding Point No.I,

awarding punishment of dismissal from service for the

very first event of misconduct which not even completely

proved, is not reasonable. Hence, withholding of one

annual grade increment without cumulative effect is

reasonable punishment to be awarded to the Workman for

the lapse of not informing his superiors regarding his

sickness and not taking permission to remain absent from

duty.

14.

In view of the fore gone discussion, Workman is to

be reinstated into service consequent to the declaration

that the impugned order No.P/MM/7/2/99/744 dated

2.3.1999 as illegal and arbitrary and setting aside the

same. Instead Workman shall be awarded with the

punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment

without cumulative effect. He is entitled for 50% of

back wages only as he is found to be liable for punishment,

though it is the lesser punishment than the one imposed

to him by virtue of impugned order. He is entitled for all

other attendant benefits.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

In the result, the reference is answered as follows:

The action of the Management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited in terminating the services

of Shri Sandra Chandraiah w.e.f. 9.3.1999 is declared as

neither legal nor justified and is hereby set aside. The

Workman shall be reinstated into service as Badli filler

forthwith, with effect from 9.3.1999. He is awarded

with the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade

increment without cumulative effect. He is entitled for

50% of back wages only, but he is entitled for all other

attendant benefits.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 18th

day of June, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent :

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2130-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 75@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@46@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5537

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O. 2130.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 75/2006)

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

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 21/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/46/2006-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

Present : SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 4th day of June, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 75/2006

Between :

The General Secretary,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Employees Council,

H. No. 18-3-90/3, Ganesh Nagar,

Markandeya Colony,

Karimnagar District,

Godavarikhani -505209

…..Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri – 504231

Adilabad District.

….Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya

Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

By virtue of reference No. L-22012/46/2006-IR(CM-

II) dated 23.10.2006 Government of India, Ministry of

Labour and Employment, required this Tribunal to

adjudicate the dispute,

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, in terminating

the services of Sri Gajula Shankar with effect from

10.2.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

is the workman entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID

No.75/2006 on the file of this Tribunal and notices were

served on the parties concerned. Both the Petitioner and

Respondent appeared before the Tribunal and engaged

their respective counsels with the leave of each other and

the Tribunal. M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioner union and

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

The Petitioner filed his claim statement with the

averments in brief as follows:

Sri Gajula Shankar (who will hereinafter be referred

as workman) has been appointed in the service of the

Respondent company as badli filler on 17.12.1988 and

later on he was confirmed as Coal Filler. During the year

1997, while he was working at KK-5 Incline, he became

sick and was under treatment and faced other family

problems, due to which the workman could not be regular

to his duties. Treating his sickness as absenteeism, a

chargesheet dated 21.8.1998 was issued alleging that

during the year 1997 workman was habitually absent

without sufficient cause and that it amounts to misconduct

under company’s Standing Orders No.25.25. Thereafter a

routine and mechanical enquiry was conducted wherein

Petitioner was not given any valid opportunity. The

enquiry was a mere formality and the Enquiry Officer and

other authorities of the Respondent organization

proceeded with a preconceived notion as if the workman

has committed misconduct and Enquiry Officer has

submitted his report holding the charges as proved,

basing on which the impugned proceeding was issued

dismissing the Petitioner from service vide office order

dated 4.2.1999. The procedure of the enquiry was not

explained to the Petitioner though Petitioner is an illiterate.

Thus, Petitioner could not participate in the enquiry

effectively. The enquiry was conducted in the language

not known to the Petitioner which caused prejudice to the

Petitioner. Workman was given opportunity neither to

cross examine the management witnesses nor to produce

his defence witness. None of the documents relied upon

by the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the Petitioner.

The Enquiry Officer has not followed the basic principles

of law, leave about the principles of natural justice. During

the enquiry Petitioner categorically pleaded that his

inability to perform the duties during the year 1997, was

only on account of his sickness and other family problems.

But, the same were not considered by the Enquiry Officer

while holding the charges as proved. While issuing the

impugned order the Disciplinary Authority also did not

consider the submissions made by the Petitioner and

followed the perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer,

resulting in issuance of impugned order of removal from

service. Petitioner is the only earning member of his

family. As a result of the impugned order he and his family

members are deprived of livelihood. Petitioner is not

5538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

employed elsewhere after the date of impugned order.

Hence, the petition.

Respondent filed his counter with the averments in

brief as follows:

The workman was initially appointed in the

Respondent’s company on 28.8.1994 as badli filler and

continued so till his dismissal without getting regularized

as coal filler. The workman was working at KK.5 Incline of

Mandamarri Area. During the calendar year 1997 Workman

put in only one muster as such the chargesheet was issued

under Standing No.25.25 which reads, “Habitual late

attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient

cause”. On receipt of the chargesheet the workman

submited his written explanation dated 24.8.1998. There

after the enquiry was conducted. Workman fully

participated in the enquiry. He was given fair and full

opportunity during the enquiry. Before commencing the

enquiry the Enquiry Officer explained the procedure of

the enquiry in Telugu to the Workman. Workman did not

opt to have defence assistant. The said proceedings

were conducted in Telugu and were explained to the

Workman in Telugu, the language to which Workman is

acquainted. He voluntarily admitted the charges levelled

against him and pleaded guilty of misconduct. Workman

did not prefer to cross examine the Management

witnesses. He has submitted that during enquiry that he

suffered from serious ill health i.e., chest problem, swelling

in the chest and lungs, water was removed from the lungs;

got jaundice and also stomache swelling and gastric

trouble; that he got unidentified disease; that he was

treated at MGM Hospital, Warangal from 5.1.1997 to

16.9.1997 as in-patient and as out patient from Dr. B. Mohan

Rao, Civil Asst. Surgeon but he did not submit any

documents in support of his statement. Basing on the

evidence made available the Enquiry Officer found the

Workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. The

Respondent got a well established chain of hospitals in all

its areas to cater to the health requirements of its

employees. Further, Respondent company has rules and

regulations to refer the cases of complicated diseases to

the hospitals like Osmania General Hospital, Gandhi

Medical Hospital and Nizam’s Institute of Medical

Sciences. Workman is fully aware of the same but he has

not availed the facilities. The workman had put in 1 muster

only in the year 1997. The contention of the Workman

that the enquiry was conducted as a formality and with

predetermined notion and that the contentions of the

Workman were not considered by the Enquiry Officer and

Disciplinary Authority are all incorrect. Workman did not

produce any documents to substantiate his sickness. The

punishment imposed is not disproportionate to the charges

levelled. Due to unauthorized absenteeism the planned

schedules of work as well as the production results will be

adversely affected. Hence, the Respondent company is

compelled to take severe action against the unauthorised

absentees like the Workman. Hence, the claim petition is

liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the Workman filed a memo

stating that Workman is not disputing with the validity of

the domestic enquiry conducted in this case. There on by

virtue of order dated 16.12.13 this court held that the

domestic enquiry conducted in this case is valid.

Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments

are also filed for the Petitioner and the same are received

and considered.

The points arise for determination are:

Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited in terminating

the services of Shri Gajula Shankar w.e.f. 10.2.1999

is legal and justified?

II.

If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled for?

Point No. I :

It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner has been

absent from duty unauthorizedly during the

chargesheeted period. This can be said so since

admittedly, he failed to take any kind of leave or permission,

while remaining absent from duty. Standing Orders 25.25

of the Respondent company provides that: “habitual late

attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient

cause” amounts to misconduct. Therefore, mere absence

from duty by itself does not become misconduct. It must

be without sufficient cause. Therefore, now it is to be

verified whether there is any sufficient cause for the

absence of the Petitioner from duty. It is his consistent

plea that due to his sickness and also family problems he

could not attend to the duties. He stated while making his

statement during the Departmental enquiry that for his ill-

health he took treatment from Osmania General Hospital,

Hyderabad,

Government

Hospital-Warangal,

Respondent’s company hospitals and also from private

hospitals. He produced medical record also. According

to him he suffered from chest problem, swelling in the

chest and lungs and water was removed from the lungs

and that he got jaundice and stomache swelling and gastric

trouble and also suffered from unidentified disease. He

has been subjected to cross examination for the

management, regarding his claim that he was sick during

relevant time. But, as can be seen from the tenor of the

cross examination, management has not been in a position

to contradict or dispute with the correctness of the

contentions of the Petitioner with this regard. Nothing

prevents them to seek information from their company

hospitals to verify the correctness of the claim of the

workman that he took treatment from the said hospital.

Like wise, nothing prevents the management to refer the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5539

workman to a medical expert to verify the correctness or

otherwise of his statement regarding the ailments he

suffered and the treatment taken by him. But they have

not done so. In the given circumstances it can not be said

that there is no sufficient cause for the absence of the

Petitioner from duty. The only lapse on his part is not

reporting sick and not informing his superiors before

remaining absent from duty.

But, as can be gathered from the material on record,

Petitioner has put in service of 3 years in the Respondent

organization and only due to the above referred cause he

became irregular during the chargesheeted period. Further

more, he consistently pleaded with the Disciplinary

Authority as well as during the enquiry that he realized

his mistakes and that he would be regular to duties hitherto.

It is not the contention of the Respondent that

Petitioner has been a habitual offender of misconduct of

this nature and that there were any previous occasions of

imposing punishment against him. This is the first and

only instance of misconduct which gave raise to cause of

action to conduct enquiry and award punishment to the

Petitioner. But, for the very first event of this nature, the

gravest possible punishment available in the Standing

Orders i.e., dismissal from service has been awarded to

the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority.

10.

It is the contention of the Management that the

musters put in by the Petitioner during the previous years

to the chargesheeted period have been taken note off while

awarding punishment. This is not proper and reasonable.

The past conduct which becomes relevant while awarding

punishment is the previous proven misconduct but not

the allegations which were merely made without giving

any opportunity to the workman to explain. In the present

case as already discussed above, there is no proven

previous misconduct. The allegation regarding putting

in less musters during the period prior to the chargesheeted

period is in the status of mere allegation only for the

reason that Petitioner has not been informed of the

exception taken by the Management regarding the said

conduct and his explanation has not been called for, to

know whether he is actually accepting the truth of the

said allegation. In the given circumstances the Disciplinary

Authority taking such alleged previous conduct into

consideration while awarding punishment is not at all

reasonable.

11.

In view of the fore gone discussion it can safely be

held that the very finding of the Enquiry Officer that

Petitioner is guilty of misconduct under Standing Orders

25.25 itself is not acceptable and further it is to be said that

the punishment awarded is grossly disproportionate to

the proven misconduct. Thus, the action of the

Respondent Management i.e. M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Limited in terminating the services of Shri Gajula

Shankar w.e.f. 10.2.1999 vide order dated 4.2.1999 is held

as neither legal nor justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

12.

Point No. II :

No doubt, as per the finding given in Point No.I, the

impugned order whereunder Petitioner has been dismissed

from service is liable to be set aside. But the fact remains

that Petitioner remained absent from duty though got

sufficient reason for doing so but, there is lapse on his

part since he failed to inform his superiors at any point of

time before or during the period of his absence from duty.

13.

It is an unauthorised absenteeism since he has not

taken any permission/ leave from his higher-ups while

remaining absent from duty. But, the record shows that

he made efforts to attend the duty even while taking

treatment as out patient but evidently he could not be

regular to his duty due to the ailment spoken off by him

while making his statement during the Departmental

enquiry. Inspite of it and as already discussed above

while deciding Point No.I, punishment of dismissal from

service for the very first event of misconduct which is not

even completely proved, has been awarded to him is not

reasonable. Considering the circumstances of the case

and since workman who was seriously sick and therefore

was unable to attend to his duty was thrown out of service

and he remained in the said state till now, he deserves no

punishment for the lapse of not informing his superiors

regarding his sickness and not taking permission to remain

absent from duty.

14.

In view of the fore gone discussion, Petitioner is to

be reinstated into service consequent to the declaration

that the impugned order No.P/MM/7/2/99/370 dated

4.2.1999 as illegal and arbitrary and setting aside the same.

He is entitled for full back wages and all other attendant

benefits.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result:

In the result, the reference is answered as follows:

The action of the Management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited in terminating the services of

Shri Gajula Shankar w.e.f. 10.2.1999 is declared as neither

legal nor justified and is hereby set aside. The Petitioner

shall be reinstated into service as Badli filler forthwith,

with effect from 10.2.1999. He is entitled for full back

wages and all other attendant benefits.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 4th

day of June, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

5540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent :

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2131-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 76@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@49@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O. 2131.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.76/2006)

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

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 21/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/49/2006-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 16th day of June, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 76/2006

Between :

The General Secretary,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Employees Council,

H. No. 18-3-90/3, Ganesh Nagar,

Markandeya Colony,

Karimnagar District,

Godavarikhani -505209

…Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri – 504231

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya

Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

By virtue of reference No. L-22012/49/2006-IR(CM-

II) dated 23.10.2006 Government of India, Ministry of

Labour and Employment, required this Tribunal to

adjudicate the dispute,

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, in terminating

the services of Sri Md. Allauddin w.e.f. 24.7.1998 is

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

workman entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID

No.76/2006 on the file of this Tribunal and notices were

served on the parties concerned. Both the Petitioner and

Respondent appeared before the Tribunal and engaged

their respective counsels with the leave of each other

and the Tribunal. M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioner union and

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

The Petitioner filed his claim statement with

the averments in brief as follows:

Sri Md. Allauddin (who will hereinafter be referred

as workman) has been appointed in the service of the

Respondent company as Badli Filler on 7.12.1988 and

later on he was confirmed as Coal Filler. During the year

1997, while he was working at KK-5A incline, he became

sick and was under treatment and faced other family

problems, due to which the workman could not be regular

to his duties. Treating his sickness as absenteeism, a

charge-sheet dated 26.2.1998 was issued alleging that

during the year 1997 workman was habitually absent

without sufficient cause and that it amounts to misconduct

under company’s Standing Orders No.25.25. Thereafter

a routine and mechanical enquiry was conducted wherein

Petitioner was not given any valid opportunity. The

enquiry was a mere formality and the Enquiry Officer and

other authorities of the Respondent organization

proceeded with a preconceived notion as if the workman

has committed misconduct and Enquiry Officer has

submitted his report holding the charges as proved,

basing on which the impugned proceeding was issued

dismissing the Petitioner from service vide office order

dated 15.7.1998. The procedure of the enquiry was not

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5541

explained to the Petitioner though Petitioner is an illiterate.

Thus, Petitioner could not participate in the enquiry

effectively. The enquiry was conducted in the language

not known to the Petitioner which caused prejudice to the

Petitioner. Workman was given opportunity neither to

cross- examine the management witnesses nor to produce

his defence witness. None of the documents relied upon

by the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the Petitioner.

The Enquiry Officer has not followed the basic principles

of law, leave about the principles of natural justice. During

the enquiry Petitioner categorically pleaded that his

inability to perform the duties during the year 1997, was

only on account of his sickness and other family problems.

But, the same were not considered by the Enquiry Officer

while holding the charges as proved. While issuing the

impugned order the Disciplinary Authority also did not

consider the submissions made by the Petitioner.

Exclusively relied upon the findings of the Enquiry Officer

the impugned order was passed in a cryptic manner.

Petitioner is the only earning member of his family. As a

result of the impugned order he and his family members

are deprived of livelihood. Petitioner is not employed

elsewhere after the date of impugned order. Hence, the

petition.

Respondent filed his counter with the averments in

brief as follows:

The workman was initially appointed in the

Respondent’s company on 17.12.1988 as badli filler and

continued so till his dismissal without getting regularized

as coal filler, which shows that he was not regular to duties.

During the calendar year 1997 Workman has put in only

016 musters as such the charge-sheet was issued under

Standing No.25.25 which reads, “Habitual late attendance

or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause”.

Workman acknowledged the receipt of the chargesheet

and submitted his explanation to the chargesheet. There

after the enquiry was conducted. Workman fully

participated in the enquiry. He was given fair and full

opportunity during the enquiry. Before commencing the

enquiry the Enquiry Officer explained the procedure of

the enquiry in Telugu to the Workman. Workman did not

opt to have defence assistant. The said proceedings

were conducted in Telugu and were explained to the

Workman in Telugu, the language to which Workman is

acquainted. He voluntarily admitted the charges levelled

against him and pleaded guilty of misconduct. Workman

did not prefer to cross-examine the Management

witnesses. He did not submit any documents in support

of his statement. Basing on the evidence made available

the Enquiry Officer found the Workman guilty of the

charges levelled against him. The Respondent got a well

established chain of hospitals in all its areas to cater to the

health requirements of its employees. Further, Respondent

company has rules and regulations to refer the cases of

complicated diseases to the hospitals like Osmania General

Hospital, Gandhi Medical Hospital and Nizam’s Institute

of Medical Sciences. Workman is fully aware of the same

but he has not availed the facilities. His attendance

particulars from 1995 to 1998 are as under:

Year

Musters

1995

068

1996

049

1997

016

1998

025 (upto 20.7.1998)

The contention of the Workman that the enquiry

was conducted as a formality and with predetermined

notion and that the contentions of the Workman were not

considered by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary

Authority are all incorrect. Workman did not produce any

documents to substantiate his sickness or death of his

mother. The punishment imposed is not disproportionate

to the charges levelled. Due to unauthorized absenteeism

the planned schedules of work as well as the production

results will be adversely affected. Hence, the Respondent

company is compelled to take severe action against the

unauthorised absentees like the Workman. Hence, the

claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the Workman filed a memo

stating that Workman is not disputing with the validity of

the domestic enquiry conducted in this case. There on by

virtue of order dated 16.12.13 this court held that the

domestic enquiry conducted in this case is valid.

Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments

are also filed for the Petitioner and the same are received

and considered.

The points arise for determination are :

Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in terminating

the services of Sri Md. Allauddin with effect from

15.7.1998 is legal and justified?

II.

To what relief the Workman is entitled for?

Point No. I :

It is an admitted fact that the Workman has been

absent from duty unauthorisedly during the

charge-sheeted period. This can be said so since

admittedly, he failed to take any kind of leave or permission,

while remaining absent from duty. Standing Orders 25.25

of the Respondent company provides that: “habitual late

attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient

cause” amounts to misconduct. Therefore, mere absence

from duty by itself does not become misconduct. It must

be without sufficient cause. Therefore, now it is to be

verified whether there is any sufficient cause for the

absence of the Workman from duty. It is his consistent

5542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

plea that due to his sickness and family problems he could

not attend to the duties.

As can be gathered from the material on record,

during the course of enquiry workman could not produce

any documentary evidence to substantiate his contentions

regarding sickness but, he consistently pleaded that his

father expired in the year 1997 due to which he got mentally

disturbed and further that as he was suffering from

stomache ache, chest ache and mental disorder and was

taking ayurvedic treatment as well as treatment in private

clinics during the relevant time, he was unable to attend

his duties regularly. No doubt he never reported sick in

any of the company’s hospitals and never sought for grant

of any kind of leave by his superiors. This is certainly a

lapse on his part. But the fact remains that Management

is not disputing with the correctness of the contention of

the workman that during the year 1997 his father expired.

Father’s death will certainly disturb the tranquillity of a

person. Further, Management is not actually disputing

with the correctness of the contention of the workman

that he was unable to attend to his duties owing to his

sickness. It can be said so since not even a suggestion is

put to him while he was under cross-examination during

the enquiry that his contention that he was sick is not

correct. In the given circumstances it can not be said that

there is no sufficient cause for the workman to be absent

from duties at the relevant time. Thus, he being absent

from duty does not amount to misconduct.

But, it is a lapse on the part of the workman in not

reporting sick and not seeking for permission/grant of leave

while remaining absent from duties. This certainly

resulted into prejudice to the Management since, there

would be disruption in the schedule of work due to the

workman remaining absent from duty without giving prior

information to concerned authorities. But, as already

discussed above as there is sufficient cause for the

workman to remain absent from duties, his absenteeism as

mentioned in the chargesheet does not amount to

misconduct as contemplated under the Respondent

company’s Standing Orders 25.25.

10.

It is the contention of the Respondents that it is

the habit of the workman to be unauthorizedly absent

from duties as the Respondent company was compelled

to disempanel him while he was working as badli filler

as he was not regular to his duties and he was empanelled

again considering his representation and assurance that

he would be regular to his duties. But, the fact remains

that as far as the present circumstance is concerned there

is sufficient reason for the workman to be absent from

his duties. Therefore, it can not be said that his conduct

in absenting himself from duties during chargesheeted

period strictly comes under the purview of the Respondent

company’s Standing Orders No. 25.25.

11.

But, as rightly pointed out for the Respondent the

workman remaining absent from duty without seeking for

any leave/permission certainly would have resulted into

substantial inconvenience and hardship to the

Respondent company due to disturbance in the schedule

of the work. This lapse on the part of the workman certainly

warrants punishment. But, removal from service is not

appropriate punishment for the said lapse, as it is grossly

disproportionate.

12.

In view of the fore gone discussion, it can safely be

held that the action of the Management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited in terminating the services of

the workman with effect from 24.7.1998 is neither legal

nor justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

13.

Point No. II :

In view of the finding given while answering Point

No.I above, the order of termination of services of the

workman with effect from 24.7.1998 passed by the

Management of the Respondent company is liable to be

set aside. Consequently, he is directed to be reinstated

into service as badli filler with effect from 24.7.1998.

14.

But, as discussed while deciding Point No.I above,

for the lapse of not reporting sick and not seeking for

permission/leave while remaining absent from duty on the

part of the workman warrants appropriate punishment. To

discourage the workman to repeat such conduct in future

and also considering the past conduct of the workman

which lead to his disempanellment, stoppage of atleast

one annual grade increment with cumulative effect is

appropriate punishment. Further, the workman is not

entitled for any back wages. But he is entitled for all other

attendant benefits.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

In the result, reference is answered as follows:

The action of the Management of M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Limited in terminating the services of the

workman Sri Md. Allauddin, the workman with effect from

24.7.1998 is hereby held as neither legal nor justified and

the same is hereby set aside. The Workman shall be

reinstated into service as badli filler forthwith, with effect

from 24.7.1998. He is awarded with the punishment of

stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative

effect. He is not entitled for any back wages, but he is

entitled for all other attendant benefits.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 16th

day of June, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent :

NIL

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5543

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2132-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 77@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@12@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O. 2132.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 77/2006)

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

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 21/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/12/2006-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 30th day of May, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 77/2006

Between :

The General Secretary,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Employees Council,

H. No. 18-3-90/3, Ganesh Nagar,

Markandeya Colony,

Karimnagar District,

Godavarikhani -505209

...Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri – 504231

...Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya

Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

By virtue of reference No. L-22012/12/2006-IR(CM-

II) dated 23.10.2006 Government of India, Ministry of

Labour and Employment, required this Tribunal to

adjudicate the dispute,

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, in terminating

the services of Sri Bhukya Pantulu with effect from

18.2.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

is the workman entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID

No.77/2006 on the file of this Tribunal and notices were

served on the parties concerned. Both the Petitioner and

Respondent appeared before the Tribunal and engaged

their respective counsels with the leave of each other

and the Tribunal. M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioner union and

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

The Petitioner filed his claim statement with the

averments in brief as follows:

Sri Bhukya Pantulu (who will hereinafter be referred

as workman) has been appointed in the service of the

Respondent company as badli filler on 3.12.1974 and later

on he was confirmed as Coal Filler. During the year 1997,

while he was working at KK-1 incline, he became sick and

was under treatment and faced other family problems, due

to which the workman could not be regular to his duties.

Treating his sickness as absenteeism, a chargesheet dated

9.2.1998 was issued alleging that during the year 2000

workman was habitually absent without sufficient cause

and that it amounts to misconduct under company’s

Standing Orders No.25.25. Thereafter a routine and

mechanical enquiry was conducted wherein Petitioner

was not given any valid opportunity. The enquiry was a

mere formality and the Enquiry Officer and other

authorities of the Respondent organization proceeded

with a preconceived notion as if the workman has

committed misconduct and Enquiry Officer has

submitted his report holding the charges as proved, basing

on which the impugned proceeding was issued dismissing

the Petitioner from service vide office order dated

18.2.1999. The procedure of the enquiry was not explained

to the Petitioner though Petitioner is an illiterate. Thus,

Petitioner could not participate in the enquiry effectively.

The enquiry was conducted in the language not known to

the Petitioner which caused prejudice to the Petitioner.

Workman was given opportunity neither to cross examine

the management witnesses nor to produce his defence

witness. None of the documents relied upon by the

Enquiry Officer was furnished to the Petitioner. The

5544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Enquiry Officer has not followed the basic principles of

law, leave about the principles of natural justice. During

the enquiry Petitioner categorically pleaded that his

inability to perform the duties during the year 1997, was

only on account of his sickness and other family problems.

But, the same were not considered by the Enquiry Officer

while holding the charges as proved. While issuing the

impugned order the Disciplinary Authority also did not

consider the submissions made by the Petitioner and

followed the perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer,

resulting in issuance of impugned order of removal from

service. Petitioner is the only earning member of his

family. As a result of the impugned order he and his family

members are deprived of livelihood. Petitioner is not

employed elsewhere after the date of impugned order.

Hence, the petition.

Respondent filed his counter with the averments in

brief as follows:

The workman was initially appointed in the

Respondent’s company on 30.12.1974 as badli filler and

was regularised as coal filler. The workman was working

at RK.1 incline but not at KK.1 incline, the unit which was

closed long back as averred by him in the claim statement.

During the calendar year 1997 Workman put only

74 musters as such the chargesheet was issued under

Standing No.25.25 which reads, “Habitual late attendance

or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause”.

Workman acknowledged the receipt of the chargesheet

but did not submit his explanation to the chargesheet.

Thereafter the enquiry was conducted. Workman fully

participated in the enquiry. He was given fair and full

opportunity during the enquiry. Before commencing the

enquiry the Enquiry Officer explained the procedure of

the enquiry in Telugu to the Workman. Workman did not

opt to have defence assistant. The said proceedings

were conducted in Telugu and were explained to the

Workman in Telugu, the language to which Workman is

acquainted. He voluntarily admitted the charges levelled

against him and pleaded guilty of misconduct. Workman

did not prefer to cross examine the Management

witnesses. He did not submit any documents in support

of his statement. Basing on the evidence made available

the Enquiry Officer found the Workman guilty of the

charges levelled against him. The Respondent got a well

established chain of hospitals in all its areas to cater to the

health requirements of its employees. Further, Respondent

company has rules and regulations to refer the cases of

complicated diseases to the hospitals like Osmania General

Hospital, Gandhi Medical Hospital and Nizam’s Institute

of Medical Sciences. Workman is fully aware of the same

but he has not availed the facilities. His attendance

particulars from 1995 to 1998 are as under :

Year

Actual Attendance

1995

107 days

1996

132 days

1997

074 days

1998

097 days

The contention of the Workman that the enquiry

was conducted as a formality and with predetermined

notion and that the contentions of the Workman were not

considered by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary

Authority are all incorrect. Workman did not produce any

documents to substantiate his sickness or death of his

mother. The punishment imposed is not disproportionate

to the charges levelled. Due to unauthorized absenteeism

the planned schedules of work as well as the production

results will be adversely affected. Hence, the Respondent

company is compelled to take severe action against the

unauthorised absentees like the Workman. Hence, the

claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the Workman filed a memo

stating that Workman is not disputing with the validity of

the domestic enquiry conducted in this case. There on by

virtue of order dated 16.12.13 this court held that the

domestic enquiry conducted in this case is valid.

Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments

are also filed for the Petitioner and the same are received

and considered.

The points arise for determination are:

Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited in terminating the

services of Shri Bhukya Pantulu w.e.f. 18.2.1999 is legal

and justified?

II.

If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled for?

Point No. I:

It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner has been

absent from duty unauthorizedly during the

chargesheeted period. This can be said so since

admittedly, he failed to take any kind of leave or permission,

while remaining absent from duty. Standing Orders 25.25

of the Respondent company provides that: “habitual late

attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient

cause” amounts to misconduct. Therefore, mere absent

from duty by itself does not become misconduct. It must

be without sufficient cause. Therefore, now it is to be

verified whether there is any sufficient cause for the

absence of the Petitioner from duty. It is his consistent

plea that due to his sickness and also family problems he

could not attend to the duties. He stated while making his

statement during the Departmental enquiry that for his ill-

health and suffering from back ache, he took treatment

from private hospitals. No doubt, he did not produce any

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5545

medical record. Apart from it, the Petitioner elaborated his

ill-health and suffering from back ache due to which he

could not attend to the duty during the chargesheeted

period. Inspite of it he has not been subjected to any

cross examination for the management, which means

management has not chosen to contradict or dispute with

the correctness of the contentions of the Petitioner with

this regard. In the given circumstances it can not be said

that there is no sufficient cause for the absence of the

Petitioner from duty. The only lapse on his part is not

reporting sick and not informing his superiors before

remaining absent from duty.

But, as can be gathered from the material on record,

Petitioner has put in long service of 22 years in the

Respondent organization and only due to the above

referred cause he became irregular during the

chargesheeted period. Further more, he consistently

pleaded with the Disciplinary Authority as well as during

the enquiry that he realized his mistakes and that he would

be regular to duties hitherto.

It is not the contention of the Respondent that

Petitioner has been a habitual offender of misconduct of

this nature and that there were any previous occasions of

imposing punishment against him. This is the first and

only instance of misconduct which gave raise to cause of

action to conduct enquiry and award punishment to the

Petitioner. But, for the very first event of this nature, the

gravest possible punishment available in the Standing

Orders i.e., dismissal from service has been awarded to

the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority.

10.

It is the contention of the Management that the

musters put in by the Petitioner during the previous years

to the chargesheeted period have been taken note off while

awarding punishment. This is not proper and reasonable.

The past conduct which becomes relevant while awarding

punishment is the previous proven misconduct but not

the allegations which were merely made without giving

any opportunity to the workman to explain. In the present

case as already discussed above, there is no proven

misconduct. The allegation regarding putting in less

musters during the period prior to the chargesheeted period

is in the status of mere allegation only for the reason that

Petitioner has not been informed of the exception taken

by the Management regarding the said conduct and his

explanation has not been called for, to know whether he is

actually accepting the truth of the said allegation. In the

given circumstances the Disciplinary Authority taking

such alleged previous conduct into consideration while

awarding punishment is not at all reasonable.

11.

In view of the fore gone discussion it can safely be

held that the very finding of the Enquiry Officer that

Petitioner is guilty of misconduct under Standing

Orders 25.25 itself is not acceptable and further it is to be

said that the punishment awarded is grossly

disproportionate to the proven misconduct. Thus, the

action of the Respondent Management ie M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited in terminating the services of

Shri Bhukya Pantulu w.e.f. 18.2.1999 is neither legal nor

justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

12.

Point No. II :

No doubt, as per the finding given in Point No.I, the

impugned order whereunder Petitioner has been dismissed

from service is liable to be set aside. But the fact remains

that Petitioner remained absent from duty though got

sufficient reason for doing so but, there is lapse on his

part since he failed to inform his superiors at any point of

time before or during the period of his absence from duty.

13.

It is an unauthorised absenteeism since he has not

taken any permission/ leave from his higher-ups while

remaining absent from duty. Thus, Petitioner is to be

awarded with appropriate punishment for such lapse only.

But as already discussed above while deciding Point No. I,

awarding punishment of dismissal from service for the

very first event of misconduct which not even completely

proved, is not reasonable. Hence, withholding of one

annual grade increment without cumulative effect is

reasonable punishment to be awarded to the Petitioner.

14.

In view of the fore gone discussion, Petitioner is to

be reinstated into service consequent to the declaration

that the impugned order No. P/RKP/16/99/431 dated

18.2.1999 as illegal and arbitrary and setting aside the same.

Instead Petitioner shall be awarded with the punishment

of stoppage of one annual grade increment without

cumulative effect. He is entitled for 50% of back wages

only as he is found to be liable for punishment, though it

is the lesser punishment than the one imposed to him by

virtue of impugned order. He is entitled for all other

attendant benefits.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

In the result, the reference is answered as follows:

The action of the Management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited in terminating the services of

Shri Bhukya Pantulu w.e.f. 18.2.1999 is declared as neither

legal nor justified and is hereby set aside. The Petitioner

is reinstated into service as Coal filler forthwith, with

effect from 18.2.1999. He shall be awarded with the

punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without

cumulative effect. He is entitled for 50% of back wages

only, but he is entitled for all other attendant benefits.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

5546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the

30th day of May, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent :

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2133-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 78@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@11@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O. 2133.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 78/2006 of

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

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 21/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/11/2006-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 30th day of May, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 78/2006

Between :

The General Secretary,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Employees Council,

H. No. 18-3-90/3, Ganesh Nagar,

Markandeya Colony,

Karimnagar District,

Godavarikhani -505209

…..Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri – 504231

….Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya

Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

By virtue of reference No. L-22012/11/2006-IR

(CM-II) dated 23.10.2006 Government of India, Ministry

of Labour and Employment, required this Tribunal to

adjudicate the dispute,

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, in terminating

the services of Sri Pannala Iylaiah with effect from

28.2.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

is the workman entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID

No.78/2006 on the file of this Tribunal and notices were

served on the parties concerned. Both the Petitioner and

Respondent appeared before the Tribunal and engaged

their respective counsels with the leave of each other and

the Tribunal. M/s. A. Sarojana and K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioner union and

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

The Petitioner filed his claim statement with the

averments in brief as follows:

Sri Pannala Iylaiah (who will hereinafter be referred

as workman) has been appointed in the service of the

Respondent company as badli filler on 3.11.1986 and later

on he was confirmed as Coal Filler on 1.1.1995. During the

year 1998, while he was working at Kasipet Mine, he

became sick and was under treatment and faced other

family problems, due to which the workman could not be

regular to his duties. Treating his sickness as absenteeism,

a chargesheet dated 28.2.1999 was issued alleging that

during the year 1998 workman was habitually absent

without sufficient cause and that it amounts to misconduct

under company’s Standing Orders No. 25.25. Thereafter

a routine and mechanical enquiry was conducted wherein

Petitioner was not given any valid opportunity. The

enquiry was a mere formality and the Enquiry Officer and

other authorities of the Respondent organization

proceeded with a preconceived notion as if the workman

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5547

has committed misconduct and Enquiry Officer has

submitted his report holding the charges as proved,

basing on which the impugned proceeding was issued

dismissing the Petitioner from service vide office order

dated 20.2.2000. The procedure of the enquiry was not

explained to the Petitioner though Petitioner is an illiterate.

Thus, Petitioner could not participate in the enquiry

effectively. The enquiry was conducted in the language

not known to the Petitioner which caused prejudice to the

Petitioner. Workman was given opportunity neither to

cross-examine the management witnesses nor to produce

his defence witness. None of the documents relied upon

by the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the Petitioner.

The Enquiry Officer has not followed the basic principles

of law, leave about the principles of natural justice. During

the enquiry Petitioner categorically pleaded that his

inability to perform the duties during the year 1998, was

only on account of his sickness and other family problems.

But, the same were not considered by the Enquiry Officer

while holding the charges as proved. While issuing the

impugned order the Disciplinary Authority also did not

consider the submissions made by the Petitioner and

followed the perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer,

resulting in issuance of impugned order of removal from

service. Petitioner is the only earning member of his

family. As a result of the impugned order he and his family

members are deprived of livelihood. Petitioner is not

employed elsewhere after the date of impugned order.

Hence, the petition.

Respondent filed his counter with the averments in

brief as follows:

The workman was initially appointed in the

Respondent’s company on 3.11.1986 as badli filler and

was regularised as coal filler from 1.1.1995. The workman

was working at Kasipet Mine of Mandamarri Area. During

the calendar year 1997 Workman put in only 74 musters as

such the chargesheet was issued under Standing No. 25.25

which reads, “Habitual late attendance or habitual absence

from duty without sufficient cause”. Workman

acknowledged the receipt of the chargesheet and had

submitted his written explanation dated 10.3.1999. There

after the enquiry was conducted. Workman fully

participated in the enquiry. He was given fair and full

opportunity during the enquiry. Before commencing the

enquiry the Enquiry Officer explained the procedure of

the enquiry in Telugu to the Workman. Workman did not

opt to have defence assistant. The said proceedings were

conducted in Telugu and were explained to the Workman

in Telugu, the language to which Workman is acquainted.

He voluntarily admitted the charges levelled against him

and pleaded guilty of misconduct. Workman did not prefer

to cross-examine the Management witnesses. He did not

submit any documents in support of his statement. Basing

on the evidence made available the Enquiry Officer found

the Workman guilty of the charges levelled against him.

The Respondent got a well established chain of hospitals

in all its areas to cater to the health requirements of its

employees. Further, Respondent company has rules and

regulations to refer the cases of complicated diseases to

the hospitals like Osmania General Hospital, Gandhi

Medical Hospital and Nizam’s Institute of Medical

Sciences. Workman is fully aware of the same but he has

not availed the facilities. His attendance particulars from

1996 to 2000 are as under:

Year

Actual Attendance

1996

129 days

1997

101 days

1998

047 days

1999

013 days

2000

Nil

The contention of the Workman that the enquiry

was conducted as a formality and with predetermined

notion and that the contentions of the Workman were not

considered by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary

Authority are all incorrect. Workman did not produce any

documents to substantiate his sickness. The punishment

imposed is not disproportionate to the charges levelled.

Due to unauthorized absenteeism the planned schedules

of work as well as the production results will be adversely

affected. Hence, the Respondent company is compelled

to take severe action against the unauthorised absentees

like the Workman. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be

dismissed.

Learned counsel for the Workman filed a memo

stating that Workman is not disputing with the validity of

the domestic enquiry conducted in this case. There on by

virtue of order dated 16.12.13 this court held that the

domestic enquiry conducted in this case is valid.

Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments

are also filed for the Petitioner and the same are received

and considered.

The points arise for determination are:

Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited in terminating

the services of Shri Pannala Iyaliah w.e.f. 28.2.2000

is legal and justified?

II.

If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled for?

Point No. I :

It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner has been

absent from duty unauthorizedly during the

chargesheeted period. This can be said so since

admittedly, he failed to take any kind of leave or permission,

while remaining absent from duty. Standing Orders 25.25

of the Respondent company provides that: “habitual late

attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient

cause” amounts to misconduct. Therefore, mere absence

from duty by itself does not become misconduct. It must

5548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

be without sufficient cause. Therefore, now it is to be

verified whether there is any sufficient cause for the

absence of the Petitioner from duty. It is his consistent

plea that due to his sickness and also family problems he

could not attend to the duties. He stated while making his

statement during the Departmental enquiry that for his ill-

health he took treatment from private hospitals. No doubt,

he did not produce any medical record. But he has not

been subjected to any cross-examination for the

management, regarding his claim that he was sick during

relevant time, which means management has not chosen

to contradict or dispute with the correctness of the

contentions of the Petitioner with this regard. In the given

circumstances it cannot be said that there is no sufficient

cause for the absence of the Petitioner from duty. The

only lapse on his part is not reporting sick and not informing

his superiors before remaining absent from duty.

But, as can be gathered from the material on record,

Petitioner has put in long service of 14 years in the

Respondent organization and only due to the above

referred cause, he became irregular during the

chargesheeted period. Further more, he consistently

pleaded with the Disciplinary Authority as well as during

the enquiry that he realized his mistakes and that he would

be regular to duties hitherto.

It is not the contention of the Respondent that

Petitioner has been a habitual offender of misconduct of

this nature and that there were any previous occasions of

imposing punishment against him. This is the first and

only instance of misconduct which gave raise to cause of

action to conduct enquiry and award punishment to the

Petitioner. But, for the very first event of this nature, the

gravest possible punishment available in the Standing

Orders i.e., dismissal from service has been awarded to

the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority.

10.

It is the contention of the Management that the

musters put in by the Petitioner during the previous years

to the chargesheeted period have been taken note off

while awarding punishment. This is not proper and

reasonable. The past conduct which becomes relevant

while awarding punishment is the previous proven

misconduct, but not the allegations which were merely

made without giving any opportunity to the workman to

explain. In the present case as already discussed above,

there is no proven previous misconduct. The allegation

regarding putting in less musters during the period prior

to the chargesheeted period is in the status of mere

allegation only for the reason that Petitioner has not been

informed of the exception taken by the Management

regarding the said conduct and his explanation has not

been called for, to know whether he is actually accepting

the truth of the said allegation. In the given circumstances

the Disciplinary Authority taking such alleged previous

conduct into consideration while awarding punishment is

not at all reasonable.

11.

In view of the fore gone discussion it can safely be

held that the very finding of the Enquiry Officer that

Petitioner is guilty of misconduct under Standing Orders

25.25 itself is not acceptable and further it is to be said that

the punishment awarded is grossly disproportionate to

the proven misconduct. Thus, the action of the

Respondent Management i.e. M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Limited in terminating the services of

Shri Pannala Iylaiah w.e.f. 28.2.2000 is held as neither

legal nor justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

12.

Point No.II:

No doubt, as per the finding given in Point No.I, the

impugned order whereunder Petitioner has been dismissed

from service is liable to be set aside. But the fact remains

that Petitioner remained absent from duty though got

sufficient reason for doing so but, there is lapse on his

part since he failed to inform his superiors at any point of

time before or during the period of his absence from duty.

13.

It is an unauthorised absenteeism since he has not

taken any permission/ leave from his higher-ups while

remaining absent from duty. Thus, Petitioner is to be

awarded with appropriate punishment for such lapse only.

But as already discussed above while deciding Point No.I,

awarding punishment of dismissal from service for the

very first event of misconduct which not even completely

proved, is not reasonable. Hence, withholding of one

annual grade increment without cumulative effect is

reasonable punishment to be awarded to the Petitioner for

the lapse of not informing his superiors regarding his

sickness and not taking permission to remain absent from

duty.

14.

In view of the fore gone discussion, Petitioner is to

be reinstated into service consequent to the declaration

that the impugned order No.P/MM/7/2/00/802 dated

20.2.2000 w.e.f. 28.2.2000 as illegal and arbitrary and setting

aside the same. Instead Petitioner shall be awarded with

the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment

without cumulative effect. He is entitled for 50% of back

wages only as he is found to be liable for punishment,

though it is the lesser punishment than the one imposed

to him by virtue of impugned order. He is entitled for all

other attendant benefits.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result:

In the result, the reference is answered as follows:

The action of the Management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited in terminating the services of

Shri Pannala Iylaiah w.e.f. 28.2.2000 is declared as neither

legal nor justified and is hereby set aside. The Petitioner

shall be reinstated into service as Coal filler forthwith,

with effect from 28.2.2000. He is awarded with the

punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5549

cumulative effect. He is entitled for 50% of back wages

only, but he is entitled for all other attendant benefits.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 30th

day of May, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent :

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2134-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 79@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@13@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O. 2134.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.79/2006

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

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 21/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/13/2006-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 3rd day of June, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 79/2006

Between :

The General Secretary,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Employees Council,

H. No. 18-3-90/3, Ganesh Nagar,

Markandeya Colony,

Karimnagar District,

Godavarikhani -505209

... Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri – 504231

... Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya

Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

By virtue of reference No. L-22012/13/2006-

IR(CM-II) dated 23.10.2006 Government of India,

Ministry of Labour and Employment, required this

Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute,

“Whether the action of the Management of

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, in

terminating the services of Sri Bukya Balya with

effect from 26.2.1998 is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID

No.79/2006 on the file of this Tribunal and notices were

served on the parties concerned. Both the Petitioner and

Respondent appeared before the Tribunal and engaged

their respective counsels with the leave of each other

and the Tribunal. M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioner union and

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

The Petitioner filed his claim statement with

the averments in brief as follows:

Sri Bukya Balya (who will hereinafter be referred as

workman) has been appointed in the service of the

Respondent company as badli filler on 8.2.1986 and later

on he was confirmed as Coal Filler. During the year 1998,

while he was working at KK-3 Incline, he became sick and

was under treatment and faced other family problems, due

to which the workman could not be regular to his duties.

Treating his sickness as absenteeism, a chargesheet dated

12.6.1997 was issued alleging that during the year 1996

workman was habitually absent without sufficient cause

and that it amounts to misconduct under company’s

Standing Orders No. 25.25. Thereafter a routine and

mechanical enquiry was conducted wherein Petitioner was

not given any valid opportunity. The enquiry was a mere

formality and the Enquiry Officer and other authorities of

5550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Respondent organization proceeded with a

preconceived notion as if the workman has committed

misconduct and Enquiry Officer has submitted his report

holding the charges as proved, basing on which the

impugned proceeding was issued dismissing the Petitioner

from service vide office order dated 26.2.1998. The

procedure of the enquiry was not explained to the

Petitioner though Petitioner is an illiterate. Thus, Petitioner

could not participate in the enquiry effectively. The

enquiry was conducted in the language not known to the

Petitioner which caused prejudice to the Petitioner.

Workman was given opportunity neither to cross-examine

the management witnesses nor to produce his defence

witness. None of the documents relied upon by the

Enquiry Officer was furnished to the Petitioner. The

Enquiry Officer has not followed the basic principles of

law, leave about the principles of natural justice. During

the enquiry Petitioner categorically pleaded that his

inability to perform the duties during the year 1996, was

only on account of his sickness and other family problems.

But, the same were not considered by the Enquiry Officer

while holding the charges as proved. While issuing the

impugned order the Disciplinary Authority also did not

consider the submissions made by the Petitioner and

followed the perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer,

resulting in issuance of impugned order of removal from

service. Petitioner is the only earning member of his

family. As a result of the impugned order he and his family

members are deprived of livelihood. Petitioner is not

employed elsewhere after the date of impugned order.

Hence, the petition.

Respondent filed his counter with the averments in

brief as follows:

The workman was initially appointed in the

Respondent’s company on 8.2.1986 as badli filler and

was regularised as coal filler. The workman was working

at RK.3 Incline of Mandamarri Area. During the calendar

year 1996 Workman put in only 48 musters as such the

chargesheet was issued under Standing No. 25.25 which

reads, “Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from

duty without sufficient cause”. On receipt of the

chargesheet the workman did not submit his written

explanation. There after the enquiry was conducted.

Workman fully participated in the enquiry. He was given

fair and full opportunity during the enquiry. Before

commencing the enquiry the Enquiry Officer explained the

procedure of the enquiry in Telugu to the Workman.

Workman did not opt to have defence assistant. The

said proceedings were conducted in Telugu and were

explained to the Workman in Telugu, the language to which

Workman is acquainted. He voluntarily admitted the

charges levelled against him and pleaded guilty of

misconduct. Workman did not prefer to cross examine

the Management witnesses. He did not submit any

documents in support of his statement. Basing on the

evidence made available the Enquiry Officer found the

Workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. The

Respondent got a well established chain of hospitals in all

its areas to cater to the health requirements of its

employees. Further, Respondent company has rules and

regulations to refer the cases of complicated diseases to

the hospitals like Osmania General Hospital, Gandhi

Medical Hospital and Nizam’s Institute of Medical

Sciences. Workman is fully aware of the same but he has

not availed the facilities. The workman had put in 48

musters in 1996 and 31 musters only in the year 1997. The

contention of the Workman that the enquiry was conducted

as a formality and with predetermined notion and that

the contentions of the Workman were not considered by

the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority are all

incorrect. Workman did not produce any documents to

substantiate his sickness. The punishment imposed is not

disproportionate to the charges levelled. Due to

unauthorized absenteeism the planned schedules of work

as well as the production results will be adversely affected.

Hence, the Respondent company is compelled to take

severe action against the unauthorised absentees like the

Workman. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be

dismissed.

Learned counsel for the Workman filed a memo

stating that Workman is not disputing with the validity of

the domestic enquiry conducted in this case. There on by

virtue of order dated 16.12.13 this court held that the

domestic enquiry conducted in this case is valid.

Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments

are also filed for the Petitioner and the same are received

and considered.

The points arise for determination are:

Whether the action of the Management of

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited in

terminating the services of Shri Bukya Balya w.e.f.

26.2.1998 is legal and justified?

II.

If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled for?

Point No. I :

It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner has been

absent from duty unauthorizedly during the

chargesheeted period. This can be said so since

admittedly, he failed to take any kind of leave or permission,

while remaining absent from duty. Standing Orders 25.25

of the Respondent company provides that: “Habitual late

attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient

cause” amounts to misconduct. Therefore, mere absence

from duty by itself does not become misconduct. It must

be without sufficient cause. Therefore, now it is to be

verified whether there is any sufficient cause for the

absence of the Petitioner from duty. It is his consistent

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5551

plea that due to his sickness and also family problems he

could not attend to the duties. He stated while making his

statement during the Departmental enquiry that for his ill-

health i.e., stomach pain he took treatment from private

hospitals and also area hospital. No doubt, he did not

produce any medical record. But he has not been subjected

to any cross examination for the management, regarding

his claim that he was sick during relevant time, which means

management has not chosen to contradict or dispute with

the correctness of the contentions of the Petitioner with

this regard. In the given circumstances it can not be said

that there is no sufficient cause for the absence of the

Petitioner from duty. The only lapse on his part is not

reporting sick and not informing his superiors before

remaining absent from duty.

But, as can be gathered from the material on record,

Petitioner has put in long service of 12 years in the

Respondent organization and only due to the above

referred cause he became irregular during the

chargesheeted period. Further more, he consistently

pleaded with the Disciplinary Authority as well as during

the enquiry that he realized his mistakes and that he would

be regular to duties hitherto.

It is not the contention of the Respondent that

Petitioner has been a habitual offender of misconduct of

this nature and that there were any previous occasions of

imposing punishment against him. This is the first and

only instance of misconduct which gave raise to cause of

action to conduct enquiry and award punishment to the

Petitioner. But, for the very first event of this nature, the

gravest possible punishment available in the Standing

Orders i.e., dismissal from service has been awarded to

the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority.

10.

It is the contention of the Management that the

musters put in by the Petitioner during the previous years

to the chargesheeted period have been taken note off while

awarding punishment. This is not proper and reasonable.

The past conduct which becomes relevant while awarding

punishment is the previous proven misconduct but not

the allegations which were merely made without giving

any opportunity to the workman to explain. In the present

case as already discussed above, there is no proven

previous misconduct. The allegation regarding putting

in less musters during the period prior to the chargesheeted

period is in the status of mere allegation only for the

reason that Petitioner has not been informed of the

exception taken by the Management regarding the said

conduct and his explanation has not been called for, to

know whether he is actually accepting the truth of the

said allegation. In the given circumstances the Disciplinary

Authority taking such alleged previous conduct into

consideration while awarding punishment is not at all

reasonable.

11.

In view of the fore gone discussion it can safely be

held that the very finding of the Enquiry Officer that

Petitioner is guilty of misconduct under Standing Orders

25.25 itself is not acceptable and further it is to be said that

the punishment awarded is grossly disproportionate to

the proven misconduct. Thus, the action of the

Respondent Management i.e. M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Limited in terminating the services of Shri Bukya

Balya w.e.f. 26.2.1998 is held as neither legal nor justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

12.

Point No. II :

No doubt, as per the finding given in Point No.I, the

impugned order whereunder Petitioner has been dismissed

from service is liable to be set aside. But the fact remains

that Petitioner remained absent from duty though got

sufficient reason for doing so but, there is lapse on his

part since he failed to inform his superiors at any point of

time before or during the period of his absence from duty.

13.

It is an unauthorised absenteeism since he has not

taken any permission/ leave from his higher-ups while

remaining absent from duty. Thus, Petitioner is to be

awarded with appropriate punishment for such lapse only.

But as already discussed above while deciding Point No.I,

awarding punishment of dismissal from service for the

very first event of misconduct which not even completely

proved, is not reasonable. Hence, withholding of one

annual grade increment without cumulative effect is

reasonable punishment to be awarded to the Petitioner for

the lapse of not informing his superiors regarding his

sickness and not taking permission to remain absent from

duty.

14.

In view of the fore gone discussion, Petitioner is to

be reinstated into service consequent to the declaration

that the impugned order No.P/RKP/16/98/641 dated

26.2.1998 as illegal and arbitrary and setting aside the same.

Instead Petitioner shall be awarded with the punishment

of stoppage of one annual grade increment without

cumulative effect. He is entitled for 50% of back wages

only as he is found to be liable for punishment, though it

is the lesser punishment than the one imposed to him by

virtue of impugned order. He is entitled for all other

attendant benefits.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

In the result, the reference is answered as follows:

The action of the Management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited in terminating the services of

Shri Bukya Balya w.e.f. 26.2.1998 is declared as neither

legal nor justified and is hereby set aside. The Petitioner

shall be reinstated into service as Coal filler forthwith,

with effect from 26.2.1998. He is awarded with the

5552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without

cumulative effect. He is entitled for 50% of back wages

only, but he is entitled for all other attendant benefits.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 3rd

day of June, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent :

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2135-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 80@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@10@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O. 2135.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 80/2006)

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

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 21/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/10/2006-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 16th day of June, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 80/2006

Between :

The General Secretary,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Employees Council,

H. No. 18-3-90/3, Ganesh Nagar,

Markandeya Colony,

Karimnagar District,

Godavarikhani -505209

…..Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri – 504231

….Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. M.V. Hanumantha Rao &

K. Seetharama Rao, Advocates

AWARD

By virtue of reference No. L-22012/10/2006-IR(CM-II)

dated 23.10.2006 Government of India, Ministry of Labour

and Employment, required this Tribunal to adjudicate the

dispute,

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, in terminating

the services of Sri Madoti Raju with effect from

9.10.1998 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

is the workman entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID

No. 80/2006 on the file of this Tribunal and notices were

served on the parties concerned. Both the Petitioner and

Respondent appeared before the Tribunal and engaged

their respective counsels with the leave of each other

and the Tribunal. M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioner union and

M/s. M.V. Hanumantha Rao & K. Seetharama Rao,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

The Petitioner filed his claim statement with the

averments in brief as follows:

Sri Madoti Raju (who will hereinafter be referred as

workman) has been appointed in the service of the

Respondent company as badli filler on 11.12.1982 and

later on he was confirmed as Coal Filler. During the year

1997, while he was working at KK-5A Incline, he became

sick and was under treatment and faced other family

problems, due to which the workman could not be regular

to his duties. Treating his sickness as absenteeism, a

chargesheet dated 6.4.1998 was issued alleging that during

the year 1997 workman was habitually absent without

sufficient cause and that it amounts to misconduct under

company’s Standing Orders No. 25.25. Thereafter a routine

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5553

and mechanical enquiry was conducted wherein Workman

was not given any valid opportunity. The enquiry was a

mere formality and the Enquiry Officer and other authorities

of the Respondent organization proceeded with a

preconceived notion as if the workman has committed

misconduct and Enquiry Officer has submitted his report

holding the charges as proved, basing on which the

impugned proceeding was issued dismissing the Workman

from service vide office order dated 3.10.1998. The

procedure of the enquiry was not explained to the

Workman though Workman is an illiterate. Thus, Workman

could not participate in the enquiry effectively. The

enquiry was conducted in the language not known to the

Workman which caused prejudice to the Workman.

Workman was given opportunity neither to cross examine

the management witnesses nor to produce his defence

witness. None of the documents relied upon by the

Enquiry Officer was furnished to the Workman. The

Enquiry Officer has not followed the basic principles of

law, leave about the principles of natural justice. During

the enquiry Workman categorically pleaded that his

inability to perform the duties during the year 1997, was

only on account of his sickness and other family

problems. But, the same were not considered by the

Enquiry Officer while holding the charges as proved.

While issuing the impugned order the Disciplinary

Authority also did not consider the submissions made

by the Workman and followed the perverse findings of

the Enquiry Officer, resulting in issuance of impugned

order of removal from service. Workman is the only

earning member of his family. As a result of the

impugned order he and his family members are deprived

of livelihood. Workman is not employed elsewhere after

the date of impugned order. Hence, the petition.

Respondent filed his counter with the averments in

brief as follows:

The workman was initially appointed in the

Respondent’s company on 11.12.1982 as badli filler and

continued to be so without regularization till dismissal.

The workman was working at Smg.3 Incline and for his

poor attendance and chronic absenteeism he was

disempanelled on 9.8.1996. Upon his representation and

assurance to be regular to duties he was again re-

empanelled as badli filler w.e.f. 18.11.1996. He failed to

correct himself and had put in 16 musters during the year

1997, as such the chargesheet was issued under Standing

No.25.25 which reads, “Habitual late attendance or habitual

absence from duty without sufficient cause”. Workman

acknowledged the receipt of the chargesheet and

submitted his explanation to the chargesheet. There

after the enquiry was conducted. Workman fully

participated in the enquiry. He was given fair and full

opportunity during the enquiry. Before commencing the

enquiry the Enquiry Officer explained the procedure of

the enquiry in Telugu to the Workman. Workman did not

opt to have defence assistant. The said proceedings were

conducted in Telugu and were explained to the Workman

in Telugu, the language to which Workman is acquainted.

He voluntarily admitted the charges levelled against him

and pleaded guilty of misconduct. Workman did not prefer

to cross examine the Management witnesses. He did not

submit any documents in support of his statement. Basing

on the evidence made available the Enquiry Officer found

the Workman guilty of the charges levelled against him.

The Respondent got a well established chain of hospitals

in all its areas to cater to the health requirements of its

employees. Further, Respondent company has rules and

regulations to refer the cases of complicated diseases to

the hospitals like Osmania General Hospital, Gandhi

Medical Hospital and Nizam’s Institute of Medical

Sciences. Workman is fully aware of the same but he has

not availed the facilities. His attendance particulars from

1993 to 1998 are as under:

Year

Musters

1993

104 days

1994

108 days

1995

051 days

1996

045 days

1997

016 days

1998

009 days

The contention of the Workman that the enquiry

was conducted as a formality and with predetermined

notion and that the contentions of the Workman were not

considered by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary

Authority are all incorrect. Workman did not produce any

documents to substantiate his sickness. The punishment

imposed is not disproportionate to the charges levelled.

Due to unauthorized absenteeism the planned schedules

of work as well as the production results will be adversely

affected. Hence, the Respondent company is compelled

to take severe action against the unauthorised absentees

like the Workman. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be

dismissed.

Learned counsel for the Workman filed a memo

stating that Workman is not disputing with the validity of

the domestic enquiry conducted in this case. There on by

virtue of order dated 16.12.13 this court held that the

domestic enquiry conducted in this case is valid.

Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments

are also filed for the Petitioner and the same are received

and considered.

The points arise for determination are :

Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in terminating

the services of Sri Madoti Raju with effect from

9.10.1998 is legal and justified?

5554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

II.

To what relief the Workman is entitled for?

Point No. I :

It is an admitted fact that the Workman has been

absent from duty unauthorisedly during the

chargesheeted period. This can be said so since

admittedly, he failed to take any kind of leave or permission,

while remaining absent from duty. Standing Orders 25.25

of the Respondent company provides that: “habitual late

attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient

cause” amounts to misconduct. Therefore, mere absence

from duty by itself does not become misconduct. It must

be without sufficient cause. Therefore, now it is to be

verified whether there is any sufficient cause for the

absence of the Workman from duty. It is his consistent

plea that due to his sickness and family problems he could

not attend to the duties.

As can be gathered from the material on record,

during the course of enquiry workman could not produce

any documentary evidence to substantiate his contentions

regarding sickness but, he consistently pleaded that he

suffered from slow fever, stomach pain and chest pain and

he was unable to attend his duties regularly. He has stated

during the domestic enquiry that he suffered from chest

pain, back pain etc., and was taking ayurvedic treatment

during the relevant time. According to him as his residence

is far away from company’s hospital he could not take

treatment from company’s hospital. He explained his

inability to produce any medical record stating that he

was unable to do so since he took treatment from private

ayurvedic doctor. No doubt he never reported sick in any

of the company’s hospitals and never sought for grant of

any kind of leave by his superiors. This is certainly a

lapse on his part. But the fact remains that Management

is not disputing with the correctness of the contention of

the workman that during the year 1997 he was sick.

Further, in his statement Petitioner has stated that he met

with an accident while working in Smg.3 incline and a

wooden object fell on his back about 6 years prior to the

date of the enquiry, which resulted into his inability to

carry basket on his shoulder at KK. 5A incline and that his

ill-health got increased and he became very weak. Inspite

of making this categorical statement he has not been

subjected to any cross examination with this regard. It

means the management is not disputing with the

correctness of the statement. Further, Management is

not actually disputing with the correctness of the

contention of the workman that he was unable to attend

to his duties owing to his sickness. It can be said so since

not even a suggestion is put to him while he was under

cross examination during the enquiry that his contention

that he was sick is not correct. In the given circumstances

it can not be said that there is no sufficient cause for the

workman to be absent from duties at the relevant time.

Thus, he being absent from duty does not amount to

misconduct.

But, it is a lapse on the part of the workman in not

reporting sick and not seeking for permission/grant of leave

while remaining absent from duties. This certainly resulted

into prejudice to the Management since, there would be

disruption in the schedule of work due to the workman

remaining absent from duty without giving prior

information to concerned authorities. But, as already

discussed above as there is sufficient cause for the

workman to remain absent from duties, his absenteeism as

mentioned in the chargesheet does not amount to

misconduct as contemplated under the Respondent

company’s Standing Orders 25.25.

10.

It is the contention of the Respondents that it is the

habit of the workman to unauthorizedly absent from duties

as the Respondent company was compelled to disempanel

him once while he was working as badli filler as he was

not regular to his duties and he was empanelled again

considering his representation and assurance that he

would be regular to his duties. But, the fact remains that

as far as the present circumstance is concerned there is

sufficient reason for the workman to be absent from his

duties. Therefore, it can not be said that his conduct in

absenting himself from duties during chargesheeted period

strictly comes under the purview of the Respondent

company’s Standing Orders No. 25.25.

11.

But, as rightly pointed out for the Respondent the

workman remaining absent from duty without seeking for

any leave/permission certainly would have resulted into

substantial inconvenience and hardship to the

Respondent company due to disturbance in the schedule

of the work. This lapse on the part of the workman certainly

warrants punishment. But, removal from service is not

appropriate punishment for the said lapse, as it is grossly

disproportionate.

12.

In view of the fore gone discussion, it can safely

be held that the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited in terminating the

services of the workman with effect from 9.10.1998 is

neither legal nor justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

13.

Point No. II :

In view of the finding given while answering Point

No.I above, the order of termination of services of the

workman with effect from 9.10.1998 passed by the

Management of the Respondent company is liable to be

set aside. Consequently, he is directed to be reinstated

into service as badli filler with effect from 9.10.1998.

14.

But, as discussed while deciding Point No.I above,

for the lapse of not reporting sick and not seeking for

permission/leave while remaining absent from duty on the

part of the workman warrants appropriate punishment. To

discourage the workman to repeat such conduct in future

and also considering the past conduct of the workman

which lead to his disempanellment, stoppage of atleast

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5555

one annual grade increment with cumulative effect is

appropriate punishment. Further, the workman is not

entitled for any back wages. But he is entitled for all other

attendant benefits.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

In the result, reference is answered as follows:

The action of the Management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited in terminating the services of

the workman Sri Madoti Raju, the workman with effect

from 9.10.1998 is hereby held as neither legal nor justified

and the same is hereby set aside. The Workman shall be

reinstated into service as badli filler forthwith, with effect

from 9.10.1998. He is awarded with the punishment of

stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative

effect. He is not entitled for any back wages, but he is

entitled for all other attendant benefits.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 16th

day of June, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent :

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2136-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 81@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@14@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O. 2136.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 81/2006)

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

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 21/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/14/2006-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 19th day of June, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 81/2006

Between :

The General Secretary,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Employees Council,

H. No. 18-3-90/3, Ganesh Nagar,

Markandeya Colony,

Karimnagar District,

Godavarikhani -505209

…..Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri – 504231

….Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. M.V. Hanumantha Rao &

K. Seetharama Rao, Advocates

AWARD

By virtue of reference No. L-22012/14/2006-IR

(CM-II) dated 23.10.2006 Government of India, Ministry

of Labour and Employment, required this Tribunal to

adjudicate the dispute.

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, in terminating

the services of Sri Dasari Srinivas with effect from

28.2.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

is the workman entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID

No.81/2006 on the file of this Tribunal and notices were

served on the parties concerned. Both the Workman and

Respondent appeared before the Tribunal and engaged

their respective counsels with the leave of each other and

the Tribunal. M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioner union and

M/s. M.V. Hanumantha Rao & K. Seetharama Rao,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

The Petitioner filed his claim statement with the

averments in brief as follows:

Sri Dasari Srinivas (who will hereinafter be referred

as workman) has been appointed in the service of the

5556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Respondent company as badli filler on 17.5.1997. During

the year 1998, while he was working at SMG-3 Incline, he

became sick and was under treatment and faced other

family problems, due to which the workman could not be

regular to his duties. Treating his sickness as absenteeism,

a chargesheet dated 20.2.1999 was issued alleging that

during the year 1998 workman was habitually absent

without sufficient cause and that it amounts to misconduct

under company’s Standing Orders No.25.25. Thereafter a

routine and mechanical enquiry was conducted wherein

Workman was not given any valid opportunity. The

enquiry was a mere formality and the Enquiry Officer and

other authorities of the Respondent organization

proceeded with a preconceived notion as if the workman

has committed misconduct and Enquiry Officer has

submitted his report holding the charges as proved,

basing on which the impugned proceeding was issued

dismissing the Workman from service vide office order

dated 20.2.2000. The procedure of the enquiry was not

explained to the Workman though Workman is an illiterate.

Thus, Workman could not participate in the enquiry

effectively. The enquiry was conducted in the language

not known to the Workman which caused prejudice to the

Workman. Workman was given opportunity neither to

cross examine the management witnesses nor to produce

his defence witness. None of the documents relied upon

by the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the Workman.

The Enquiry Officer has not followed the basic principles

of law, leave about the principles of natural justice. During

the enquiry Workman categorically pleaded that his

inability to perform the duties during the year 1998,

was only on account of his sickness and other family

problems. But, the same were not considered by the

Enquiry Officer while holding the charges as proved.

While issuing the impugned order the Disciplinary

Authority also did not consider the submissions made

by the Workman and followed the perverse findings of

the Enquiry Officer, resulting in issuance of impugned order

of removal from service. Workman is the only earning

member of his family. As a result of the impugned order he

and his family members are deprived of livelihood.

Workman is not employed elsewhere after the date of

impugned order. Hence, the petition.

Respondent filed his counter with the averments in

brief as follows:

The workman was initially appointed in the

Respondent’s company on 17.5.1997 as badli filler. He

was an underground employee and was expected to put in

190 musters per calendar year. The workman was working

at SMG.3 Incline of Mandamarri Area. During the calendar

year 1998 Workman put in only 58 musters as such the

chargesheet was issued under Standing No.25.25 which

reads, “Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from

duty without sufficient cause”. On receipt of the

chargesheet the workman submitted his written

explanation which was found not satisfactory. Since the

workman remained absent continuously, the notice of

enquiry was published in Telugu daily Andhra Jyothi dated

2.9.1999 advising him to attend for an enquiry on 10.9.1999.

But he did not attend the enquiry. Hence, the Enquiry

Officer was left with no option than to hold ex-parte

proceedings on 10.9.1999. Basing on the evidence made

available the Enquiry Officer found the Workman guilty of

the charges levelled against him. Copy of the enquiry

proceeding and enquiry report were served to the workman

and also published a notice in Telugu daily Vaartha dated

15.1.2000 advising the workman to approach the office the

General Manager, Mandamarri Area to collect the copy of

the enquiry proceeding and enquiry report to submit his

representation if any against the findings of the Enquiry

Officer. But he did not respond. The Respondent got a

well established chain of hospitals in all its areas to cater

to the health requirements of its employees. Further,

Respondent company has rules and regulations to refer

the cases of complicated diseases to the hospitals like

Osmania General Hospital, Gandhi Medical Hospital and

Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences. Workman is fully

aware of the same but he has not availed the facilities.

The workman had put in 80 musters in 1997, 52 musters in

1998, 2 musters in 1999 and nil musters upto 28.2.2000.

The contention of the Workman that the ex-parte enquiry

was conducted as a formality and with predetermined

notion and that the contentions of the Workman were not

considered by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary

Authority are all incorrect. Workman did not produce any

documents to substantiate his sickness. The punishment

imposed is not disproportionate to the charges levelled.

Due to unauthorized absenteeism the planned schedules

of work as well as the production results will be adversely

affected. Hence, the Respondent company is compelled

to take severe action against the unauthorised absentees

like the Workman. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be

dismissed.

Learned counsel for the Workman filed a memo

stating that Workman is not disputing with the validity of

the domestic enquiry conducted in this case. There on by

virtue of order dated 16.12.13 this court held that the

domestic enquiry conducted in this case is valid.

Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments

are also filed for the Workman and the same are received

and considered.

The points arise for determination are:

Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited in terminating

the services of Shri Dasari Srinivas w.e.f. 28.2.2000

is legal and justified?

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5557

II.

If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled for?

Point No. I :

As can be gathered from the claim statement filed

for the Petitioner he is not disputing with the correctness

of the contentions of the Respondent and the imputations

in the chargesheet levelled against him that he has been

absent from duties without obtaining any kind of leave/

permission during the chargesheeted period. Thus, it

amounts to unauthorized absence from duty. no doubt,

as per Respondent company’s Standing Orders 25.25

which reads as under:

“Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from

duty without sufficient cause”.

Mere absence from duty without any kind of leave/

permission by itself will not be a misconduct. Such

absence from duty must be without sufficient cause/

reason to become misconduct. It is the contention of

the Petitioner that there is sufficient reason for him to

be absent from duties i.e., that he was sick at the relevant

time. But as can be gathered from the material on record

he never pleaded any such sickness and never

substantiated the same during the Departmental enquiry.

The material on record reveals that when the

Departmental enquiry was ordered and an Enquiry Officer

was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority to go into

the allegations in the chargesheet laid against the workman

and to submit a report, the Enquiry Officer has made every

possible effort to serve notice of the enquiry on the

workman personally, but in vain. There on, he was

constrained to get the notice published in ‘Andhra Jyothi’

daily. Inspite of it, workman did not attend the enquiry. In

the circumstances the Departmental enquiry was

constrained to be conducted ex-parte. After examination

of the Management witnesses by the Presenting Officer

and all the documents relied upon by the Management

were placed before the Enquiry Officer and on due

consideration of the entire evidence the Enquiry Officer

has submitted his report finding the workman guilty of the

charges levelled against him. The record further reveals

that the Disciplinary Authority has gone through the said

report and made an effort to serve copy of the enquiry

proceeding and the report on the workman vide letter dated

17.11.1999 to enable him to make his written representation

if any against the findings of the enquiry officer. But, the

same could not be served on the Petitioner personally as

he was not available. Thereon the Management got

published a notice in Telugu daily ‘Vaartha’ on 15.1.2001

calling for the workman to approach the office of the

General Manager, Mandamarri area to collect copy of

enquiry proceedings and report and to submit his

representation if any against the findings of the Enquiry

Officer. But, this action on the part of the Management

also was in vain since the workman has not chosen to

collect the enquiry proceedings and report. He never filed

any written representation. In the given circumstances,

and considering the enquiry proceedings and the findings

in the report of the Enquiry Officer the Disciplinary

Authority proceeded with issuing the impugned order

imposing punishment of disposal of the workman from

service.

Thus, it is very much clear that on his volition the

workman has chosen not to participate in the Departmental

enquiry and not to say anything about the enquiry

proceedings and findings before the Disciplinary

Authority. Therefore, now he is not in a position to say

anything against the said proceedings. But surprisingly

in his claim statement Petitioner has chosen to make several

allegations against the enquiry proceedings. As can be

gathered from the said claim statement the Petitioner has

expressed grievance that conducting the enquiry

proceedings in English language which is not known to

the workman resulted into prejudice to him. It is also

stated that signatures of the workman were obtained

without even explaining the contents of the enquiry

proceedings in Telugu and that believing the Respondents

the workman has appended his signatures. This is all a

deliberate false claim made by the Petitioner. It can be said

so since, the workman never attended the enquiry at all

and in such case question of Respondents obtaining his

signatures on the enquiry proceedings never arose.

10.

Further more, in his claim statement Petitioner

claimed that the Enquiry Officer has not provided any

opportunity to the workman either to cross examine the

Management witnesses or to produce defence evidence

after completion of the evidence of Management

witnesses. When the workman never attended the enquiry

inspite of the Enquiry Officer making every effort to serve

notice of enquiry on him and finally gave a notice by way

of publication in daily news paper which got wide publicity,

making allegation of this nature is certainly unwarranted.

11.

As can be gathered from the material on record the

workman never made any representation to the Disciplinary

Authority and never placed any defence before the

Enquiry Officer. Inspite of it, it is stated in the claim

statement that during the enquiry the workman

categorically pleaded that during the year 1998 he was

under treatment on account of his recurrent sickness. This

is certainly a false plea. It can be said so since he never

participated in the enquiry at all and thus, question of his

making of any defence never arose.

12.

The above discussed material on record clearly

shows that Petitioner never approached this forum with

clean hands. Not even knowing the true state of affairs in

connection with the case of the workman herein i.e.,

Sri Dasari Srinivas, Petitioner union filed the claim

statement in a mechanical manner. Thus, the claim herein

is not sustainable. The impugned order is not liable to be

interfered with in any manner.

5558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

This point is answered accordingly.

13.

Point No. II :

In view of the finding given in Point No.I, the

workman is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in

the claim statement.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

In the result, reference is answered as follows:

The action of the Management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited, in terminating the services of

Sri Dasari Srinivas with effect from 28.2.2000 is legal and

justified and thus, the said workman is not entitled for any

relief.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 19th

day of June, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner :

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

: NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2137-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 82@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@15@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O. 2137.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 82/2006)

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

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 21/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/15/2006-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

Present : SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 4th day of June, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 82/2006

Between :

The General Secretary,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Employees Council,

H. No. 18-3-90/3, Ganesh Nagar,

Markandeya Colony,

Karimnagar District,

Godavarikhani -505209

…..Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri – 504231

….Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. M.V. Hanumantha Rao &

K. Seetharama Rao, Advocates

AWARD

By virtue of reference No. L-22012/15/2006-IR

(CM-II) dated 23.10.2006 Government of India, Ministry

of Labour and Employment, required this Tribunal to

adjudicate the dispute.

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, in terminating

the services of Sri Baneni Suryanarayana with effect

from 27.9.2002 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief is the workman entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID

No.82/2006 on the file of this Tribunal and notices were

served on the parties concerned. Both the Petitioner and

Respondent appeared before the Tribunal and engaged

their respective counsels with the leave of each other and

the Tribunal. M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioner union and

M/s. M.V. Hanumantha Rao & K. Seetarama Rao,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

The Petitioner filed his claim statement with the

averments in brief as follows:

Sri Baneni Suryanarayana (who will hereinafter be

referred as workman) has been appointed in the service of

the Respondent company as badli filler on 9.11.1986 and

later on he was confirmed as Coal Filler on 30.9.1989.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5559

During the year 2001, while he was working at RK-1A

Incline, he became sick and was under treatment and faced

other family problems, due to which the workman could

not be regular to his duties. Treating his sickness as

absenteeism, a chargesheet dated 7.2.2002 was issued

alleging that during the year 2001 workman was habitually

absent without sufficient cause and that it amounts to

misconduct under company’s Standing Orders No.25.25.

Thereafter a routine and mechanical enquiry was

conducted wherein Petitioner was not given any valid

opportunity. The enquiry was a mere formality and the

Enquiry Officer and other authorities of the Respondent

organization proceeded with a preconceived notion as if

the workman has committed misconduct and Enquiry

Officer has submitted his report holding the charges as

proved, basing on which the impugned proceeding was

issued dismissing the Petitioner from service vide office

order dated 24.9.2002. The procedure of the enquiry was

not explained to the Petitioner though Petitioner is an

illiterate. Thus, Petitioner could not participate in the

enquiry effectively. The enquiry was conducted in the

language not known to the Petitioner which caused

prejudice to the Petitioner. Workman was given

opportunity neither to cross examine the management

witnesses nor to produce his defence witness. None of

the documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer was

furnished to the Petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has not

followed the basic principles of law, leave about the

principles of natural justice. During the enquiry Petitioner

categorically pleaded that his inability to perform the duties

during the year 2001, was only on account of his sickness

and other family problems. But, the same were not

considered by the Enquiry Officer while holding the

charges as proved. While issuing the impugned order the

Disciplinary Authority also did not consider the

submissions made by the Petitioner and followed the

perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer, resulting in

issuance of impugned order of removal from service.

Petitioner is the only earning member of his family. As a

result of the impugned order he and his family members

are deprived of livelihood. Petitioner is not employed

elsewhere after the date of impugned order. Hence, the

petition.

Respondent filed his counter with the averments in

brief as follows:

The workman was initially appointed in the Respondent’s

company on 9.11.1986 as badli filler and was regularised

as coal filler w.e.f. 30.09.1989. The workman was working

at RK-1A Incline of Mandamarri Area. During the calendar

year 2001 Workman put in only 100 musters as such the

chargesheet was issued under Standing No.25.25 which

reads, “Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from

duty without sufficient cause”. On receipt of the

chargesheet the workman did not submit his written

explanation. Thereafter the enquiry was conducted.

Workman fully participated in the enquiry. He was given

fair and full opportunity during the enquiry. Before

commencing the enquiry the Enquiry Officer explained the

procedure of the enquiry in Telugu to the Workman.

Workman did not opt to have defence assistant. The

said proceedings were conducted in Telugu and were

explained to the Workman in Telugu, the language to which

Workman is acquainted. He voluntarily admitted the

charges levelled against him and pleaded guilty of

misconduct. Workman did not prefer to cross examine

the Management witnesses. He did not submit any

documents in support of his statement. Basing on the

evidence made available the Enquiry Officer found the

Workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. The

Respondent got a well established chain of hospitals in all

its areas to cater to the health requirements of its

employees. Further, Respondent company has rules and

regulations to refer the cases of complicated diseases to

the hospitals like Osmania General Hospital, Gandhi

Medical Hospital and Nizam’s Institute of Medical

Sciences. Workman is fully aware of the same but he has

not availed the facilities. The workman had put in the

following musters from the year 1997 to 2002:-

YEAR

ACTUAL ATTENDANCE

1997

159 days

1998

121 days

1999

142 days

2000

110 days

2001

100 days

2002

036 days

The contention of the Workman that the enquiry

was conducted as a formality and with predetermined

notion and that the contentions of the Workman were not

considered by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary

Authority are all incorrect. Workman did not produce any

documents to substantiate his sickness. The punishment

imposed is not disproportionate to the charges levelled.

Due to unauthorized absenteeism the planned schedules

of work as well as the production results will be adversely

affected. Hence, the Respondent company is compelled

to take severe action against the unauthorised absentees

like the Workman. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be

dismissed.

Learned counsel for the Workman filed a memo

stating that Workman is not disputing with the validity of

the domestic enquiry conducted in this case. There on by

virtue of order dated 16.12.13 this court held that the

domestic enquiry conducted in this case is valid.

Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments

5560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

are also filed for the Petitioner and the same are received

and considered.

The points arise for determination are :

Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited in terminating

the services of Shri Baneni Suryanarayana w.e.f.

27.9.2002 is legal and justified?

II.

If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled for?

Point No. I :

It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner has been

absent from duty unauthorizedly during the

chargesheeted period. This can be said so since

admittedly, he failed to take any kind of leave or permission,

while remaining absent from duty. Standing Orders 25.25

of the Respondent company provides that: “habitual late

attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient

cause” amounts to misconduct. Therefore, mere absence

from duty by itself does not become misconduct. It must

be without sufficient cause. Therefore, now it is to be

verified whether there is any sufficient cause for the

absence of the Petitioner from duty. It is his consistent

plea that due to his sickness and also family problems he

could not attend to the duties. He stated while making his

statement during the Departmental enquiry that for his ill-

health he took treatment from private hospitals. No doubt,

he did not produce any medical record. But he has not

been subjected to any cross examination for the

management, regarding his claim that he was sick during

relevant time, which means management has not chosen

to contradict or dispute with the correctness of the

contentions of the Petitioner with this regard. In the given

circumstances it can not be said that there is no sufficient

cause for the absence of the Petitioner from duty. The

only lapse on his part is not reporting sick and not informing

his superiors before remaining absent from duty.

But, as can be gathered from the material on record,

Petitioner has put in long service of 12 years in the

Respondent organization and only due to the above

referred cause he became irregular during the

chargesheeted period. Further more, he consistently

pleaded with the Disciplinary Authority as well as during

the enquiry that he realized his mistakes and that he would

be regular to duties hitherto.

It is not the contention of the Respondent that

Petitioner has been a habitual offender of misconduct of

this nature and that there were any previous occasions of

imposing punishment against him. This is the first and

only instance of misconduct which gave raise to cause of

action to conduct enquiry and award punishment to the

Petitioner. But, for the very first event of this nature, the

gravest possible punishment available in the Standing

Orders i.e., dismissal from service has been awarded to

the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority.

10.

It is the contention of the Management that the

musters put in by the Petitioner during the previous years

to the chargesheeted period have been taken note off while

awarding punishment. This is not proper and reasonable.

The past conduct which becomes relevant while awarding

punishment is the previous proven misconduct but not

the allegations which were merely made without giving

any opportunity to the workman to explain. In the present

case as already discussed above, there is no proven

previous misconduct. The allegation regarding putting

in less musters during the period prior to the chargesheeted

period is in the status of mere allegation only for the

reason that Petitioner has not been informed of the

exception taken by the Management regarding the said

conduct and his explanation has not been called for, to

know whether he is actually accepting the truth of the

said allegation. In the given circumstances the Disciplinary

Authority taking such alleged previous conduct into

consideration while awarding punishment is not at all

reasonable.

11.

In view of the foregone discussion it can safely be

held that the very finding of the Enquiry Officer that

Petitioner is guilty of misconduct under Standing Orders

25.25 itself is not acceptable and further it is to be said that

the punishment awarded is grossly disproportionate to

the proven misconduct. Thus, the action of the

Respondent Management i.e. M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Limited in terminating the services of Shri Baneni

Suryanarana w.e.f. 27.9.2002 vide order dated 24.9.2002 is

held as neither legal nor justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

12.

Point No. II :

No doubt, as per the finding given in Point No.I, the

impugned order whereunder Petitioner has been dismissed

from service is liable to be set aside. But the fact remains

that Petitioner remained absent from duty though got

sufficient reason for doing so but, there is lapse on his

part since he failed to inform his superiors at any point of

time before or during the period of his absence from duty.

13.

It is an unauthorised absenteeism since he has not

taken any permission/ leave from his higher-ups while

remaining absent from duty. Thus, Petitioner is to be

awarded with appropriate punishment for such lapse only.

But as already discussed above while deciding Point No.I,

awarding punishment of dismissal from service for the

very first event of misconduct which not even completely

proved, is not reasonable. Hence, withholding of one

annual grade increment without cumulative effect is

reasonable punishment to be awarded to the Petitioner for

the lapse of not informing his superiors regarding his

sickness and not taking permission to remain absent from

duty.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5561

14.

In view of the foregone discussion, Petitioner is to

be reinstated into service consequent to the declaration

that the impugned order No. RKP/PER/R/008/5373 dated

24.9.2002 as illegal and arbitrary and setting aside the same.

Instead Petitioner shall be awarded with the punishment

of stoppage of one annual grade increment without

cumulative effect. He is entitled for 50% of back wages

only as he is found to be liable for punishment, though it

is the lesser punishment than the one imposed to him by

virtue of impugned order. He is entitled for all other

attendant benefits.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

In the result, the reference is answered as follows:

The action of the Management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited in terminating the services of

Shri Baneni Suryanarayana vide order dated 24.9.2002

with effect from 27.9.2002 is declared as neither legal nor

justified and is hereby set aside. The Petitioner shall be

reinstated into service as Coal filler forthwith, with effect

from 27.9.2002. He is awarded with the punishment of

stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative

effect. He is entitled for 50% of back wages only, but he

is entitled for all other attendant benefits.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 4th

day of June, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent :

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2138-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 83@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@16@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O. 2138.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83/2006)

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

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 21/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/16/2006-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 30th day of May, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 83/2006

Between :

The General Secretary,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Employees Council,

H. No. 18-3-90/3, Ganesh Nagar,

Markandeya Colony,

Karimnagar District,

Godavarikhani -505209

…..Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri – 504231

….Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. M.V. Hanumantha Rao &

K. Seetharama Rao, Advocates

AWARD

By virtue of reference No. L-22012/16/2006-IR(CM-

II) dated 23.10.2006 Government of India, Ministry of

Labour and Employment, required this Tribunal to

adjudicate the dispute,

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, in terminating

the services of Sri Sandra Rajam with effect from

16.4.1998 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

is the workman entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID

No.83/2006 on the file of this Tribunal and notices were

5562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

served on the parties concerned. Both the Petitioner and

Respondent appeared before the Tribunal and engaged

their respective counsels with the leave of each other and

the Tribunal. M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioner union and

M/s. M.V. Hanumantha Rao & K. Seetharama Rao,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

The Petitioner filed his claim statement with the

averments in brief as follows:

Sri Sandra Rajam (who will hereinafter be referred

as workman) has been appointed in the service of the

Respondent company as badli filler on 31.10.1982 and

later on he was confirmed as Coal Filler on 1.1.1987. During

the year 1996, while he was working at RK-1A incline, he

became sick and was under treatment and faced other

family problems, due to which the workman could not be

regular to his duties. Treating his sickness as absenteeism,

a chargesheet dated 5.12.1997 was issued alleging that

during the year 1996 workman was habitually absent

without sufficient cause and that it amounts to misconduct

under company’s Standing Orders No.25.25. Thereafter a

routine and mechanical enquiry was conducted wherein

Petitioner was not given any valid opportunity. The

enquiry was a mere formality and the Enquiry Officer and

other authorities of the Respondent organization

proceeded with a preconceived notion as if the workman

has committed misconduct and Enquiry Officer has

submitted his report holding the charges as proved,

basing on which the impugned proceeding was issued

dismissing the Petitioner from service vide office order

dated 16.4.1998. The procedure of the enquiry was not

explained to the Petitioner though Petitioner is an illiterate.

Thus, Petitioner could not participate in the enquiry

effectively. The enquiry was conducted in the language

not known to the Petitioner which caused prejudice to the

Petitioner. Workman was given opportunity neither to

cross examine the management witnesses nor to produce

his defence witness. None of the documents relied upon

by the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the Petitioner.

The Enquiry Officer has not followed the basic principles

of law, leave about the principles of natural justice. During

the enquiry Petitioner categorically pleaded that his

inability to perform the duties during the year 1996, was

only on account of his sickness and other family problems.

But, the same were not considered by the Enquiry Officer

while holding the charges as proved. While issuing the

impugned order the Disciplinary Authority also did not

consider the submissions made by the Petitioner and

followed the perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer,

resulting in issuance of impugned order of removal from

service. Petitioner is the only earning member of his

family. As a result of the impugned order he and his family

members are deprived of livelihood. Petitioner is not

employed elsewhere after the date of impugned order.

Hence, the petition.

Respondent filed his counter with the averments in

brief as follows:

The workman was initially appointed in the

Respondent’s company on 31.10.1982 as badli filler and

was regularised as coal filler. The workman was working

at RK.1A incline. During the calendar year 1996, Workman

absented to duties for 234 days, as such the chargesheet

was issued under Standing No.25.25 which reads,

“Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty

without sufficient cause”. Workman acknowledged the

receipt of the chargesheet but did not submit his

explanation to the chargesheet. Thereafter the enquiry

was conducted. Workman fully participated in the enquiry.

He was given fair and full opportunity during the enquiry.

Before commencing the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer

explained the procedure of the enquiry in Telugu to the

Workman. Workman did not opt to have defence assistant.

The said proceedings were conducted in Telugu and were

explained to the Workman in Telugu, the language to which

Workman is acquainted. He voluntarily admitted the

charges levelled against him and pleaded guilty of

misconduct. Workman did not prefer to cross examine

the Management witnesses. He did not submit any

documents in support of his statement. Basing on the

evidence made available the Enquiry Officer found the

Workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. The

Respondent got a well established chain of hospitals in all

its areas to cater to the health requirements of its

employees. Further, Respondent company has rules and

regulations to refer the cases of complicated diseases to

the hospitals like Osmania General Hospital, Gandhi

Medical Hospital and Nizam’s Institute of Medical

Sciences. Workman is fully aware of the same but he has

not availed the facilities. The contention of the Workman

that the enquiry was conducted as a formality and with

predetermined notion and that the contentions of the

Workman were not considered by the Enquiry Officer and

Disciplinary Authority are all incorrect. As the workman

was not attending to duties, the copy of enquiry report

and enquiry proceedings was sent to his last known

address which was returned undelivered. Hence, a notice

advising the workman to approach the Respondent to

collect the copy of enquiry report and submit his

representation, if any against the findings of the enquiry

report, was published in Telugu daily Andhra Jyothi dated

2.4.1998. But he did not respond to the notice. Workman

did not produce any documents to substantiate his

sickness. The punishment imposed is not disproportionate

to the charges levelled. Due to unauthorized absenteeism

the planned schedules of work as well as the production

results will be adversely affected. Hence, the Respondent

company is compelled to take severe action against the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5563

unauthorised absentees like the Workman. Hence, the

claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the Workman filed a memo

stating that Workman is not disputing with the validity of

the domestic enquiry conducted in this case. There on by

virtue of order dated 16.12.13 this court held that the

domestic enquiry conducted in this case is valid.

Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments

are also filed for the Petitioner and the same are received

and considered.

The points arise for determination are:

Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited in terminating

the services of Sri Sandra Rajam w.e.f. 16.4.1998 is

legal and justified?

II.

If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled for?

Point No. I :

It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner has been

absent from duty unauthorizedly during the

chargesheeted period. This can be said so since

admittedly, he failed to take any kind of leave or permission,

while remaining absent from duty. Standing Orders 25.25

of the Respondent company provides that: “habitual late

attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient

cause” amounts to misconduct. Therefore, mere absence

from duty by itself does not become misconduct. It must

be without sufficient cause. Therefore, now it is to be

verified whether there is any sufficient cause for the

absence of the Petitioner from duty. It is his consistent

plea that due to his ill-health he could not attend to the

duties. He stated while making his statement during the

Departmental enquiry that for his ill-health and nervous

weakness, he took treatment from private hospitals. No

doubt, he did not produce any medical record. But, the

Petitioner elaborated his ill-health as suffering from

nervous weakness stating that due to the same he became

unable to attend to the duty during the chargesheeted

period. Inspite of it he has not been subjected to any

cross examination for the management, which means

management has not chosen to contradict or dispute with

the correctness of the contentions of the Petitioner with

this regard. In the given circumstances it can not be said

that there is no sufficient cause for the absence of the

Petitioner from duty. The only lapse on his part is not

reporting sick and not informing his superiors before

remaining absent from duty.

But, as can be gathered from the material on record,

Petitioner has put in long service of 16 years in the

Respondent organization and only due to the above

referred cause he became irregular during the

chargesheeted period. Further more, he consistently

pleaded with the Disciplinary Authority as well as during

the enquiry that he realized his mistakes and that he would

be regular to duties hitherto.

It is not the contention of the Respondent that

Petitioner has been a habitual offender of misconduct of

this nature and that there were any previous occasions of

imposing punishment against him. This is the first and

only instance of misconduct which gave raise to cause of

action to conduct enquiry and award punishment to the

Petitioner. But, for the very first event of this nature, the

gravest possible punishment available in the Standing

Orders i.e., dismissal from service has been awarded to

the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority.

10.

It is the contention of the Management that the

musters put in by the Petitioner during the previous years

to the chargesheeted period have been taken note off while

awarding punishment. This is not proper and reasonable.

The past conduct which becomes relevant while awarding

punishment is the previous proven misconduct but not

the allegations which were merely made without giving

any opportunity to the workman to explain. In the present

case, as already discussed above, there is no proven

previous misconduct. The allegation regarding putting

in less musters during the period prior to the chargesheeted

period is in the status of mere allegation only for the

reason that Petitioner has not been informed of the

exception taken by the Management regarding the said

conduct and his explanation has not been called for, to

know whether he is actually accepting the truth of the

said allegation. In the given circumstances the Disciplinary

Authority taking such alleged previous conduct into

consideration while awarding punishment is not at all

reasonable.

11.

In view of the fore gone discussion it can safely be

held that the very finding of the Enquiry Officer that

Petitioner is guilty of misconduct under Standing Orders

25.25 itself is not acceptable and further it is to be said that

the punishment awarded is grossly disproportionate to

the proven misconduct. Thus, the action of the

Respondent Management ie M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Limited in terminating the services of Shri Sandra

Rajam w.e.f. 16.4.1998 is held as neither legal nor justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

12.

Point No. II :

No doubt, as per the finding given in Point No.I, the

impugned order whereunder Petitioner has been dismissed

from service is liable to be set aside. But the fact remains

that Petitioner remained absent from duty though got

sufficient reason for doing so but, there is lapse on his

part since he failed to inform his superiors at any point of

time before or during the period of his absence from duty.

5564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

It is an unauthorised absenteeism since he has not

taken any permission/ leave from his higher-ups while

remaining absent from duty. Thus, Petitioner is to be

awarded with appropriate punishment for such lapse only.

But as already discussed above while deciding Point No.I,

awarding punishment of dismissal from service for the

very first event of misconduct which not even completely

proved, is not reasonable. Hence, withholding of one

annual grade increment without cumulative effect is

reasonable punishment to be awarded to the Petitioner for

the lapse of not informing his superiors regarding his

sickness and not taking permission to remain absent from

duty.

14.

In view of the fore gone discussion, Petitioner is to

be reinstated into service consequent to the declaration

that the impugned order No.P/RKP/16/98/1040 dated

16.4.1998 as illegal and arbitrary and setting aside the

same. Instead Petitioner shall be awarded with the

punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment

without cumulative effect. He is entitled for 50% of back

wages only as he is found to be liable for punishment,

though it is the lesser punishment than the one imposed

to him by virtue of impugned order. He is entitled for all

other attendant benefits.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

In the result, the reference is answered as follows:

The action of the Management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited in terminating the services of

Shri Sandra Rajam w.e.f. 16.4.1998 is declared as neither

legal nor justified and is hereby set aside. The Petitioner

shall be reinstated into service as Coal filler forthwith,

with effect from 16.4.1998. He is awarded with the

punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment

without cumulative effect. He is entitled for 50% of back

wages only, but he is entitled for all other attendant benefits.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 30th

day of May, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent :

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2139-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948

(1948 dk 34) dh /kjk&1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 vxLr] 2014 dks

ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k;&4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk&76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSº ds micaèk

dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

fr:ouarriqje ftyk ds usÕ;kfVudjk rkywd esa e:fdy

¹la- ,l&38013@55@2014&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2014

S.O. 2139.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

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

hereby appoints the 1^stAugust, 2014 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Kerala namely :—

Revenue village of Marukil in Neyyattinkara Taluk,

Thiruvananthapuram Dist.

[No. S-38013/55/2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2140-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948

(1948 dk 34) dh /kjk&1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 vxLr] 2014 dks

ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k;&4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk&76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSº ds micaèk

rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

dsUnz

dks;Ecrwj ftyk ds lwywj rkyqd esa

dks;Ecrwj o fr:Iiwj

1- lqYrkuisV

ftyk lwywj ,oa iYyMe

2- oMEipsjh

rkyqd lqYrkuisV {ks=k

3- ojiV~Vh

4- iqfYk;EiV~Vh fr:Iiwj ftyk ds

iYyMe rkyqd esa

5- lsyDdjpy

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5565

6- deuk;dsUiky;e ds varxZr vkus

okys jktLo xk¡o

¹la- ,l&38013@54@2014&,l-,l- 1º

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2014

S.O. 2140.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

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

hereby appoints the 1st August, 2014 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and

Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought

into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the

following areas in the State of Tamil-Nadu namely :—

Centre

Areas comprising the revenue

villages of

Sultanpet area

1. Sultanpet

Sulur & Palladam

2. Vadampacheri

Taluk Coimbatore

3. Varapatti

& Tirupur District

4. Puliampatti

In Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore

District

5. Selakkarachal

6. Kamanaickenpalayam

In Paladam Taluk Tirupur

District

[No. S-38013/54/2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2141-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948

(1948 dk 34) dh /kjk&1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 vxLr] 2014 dks

ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k;&4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk&76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk&77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSº ds mica/

dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

dksYye ftyk ds iquywj rkyqd esa fradydkfjDde

¹la- ,l&38013@51@2014&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2014

S.O. 2141.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

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

hereby appoints the 1st August, 2014 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Kerala namely: -

Revenue village of Thinkalkarikkom in Punalur Taluk,

Kollam Dist.

[No. S-38013/51/2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2142-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ-lh-,y- ds

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

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; vlulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 44@2004) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@309@2003&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2014

S.O. 2142.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/2004)

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

Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Chora Colliery, Kenda

Area of M/s. E.C.L., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 24/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/309/2003-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT KANYAPUR,

PO:- R.K. MISSION, ASANSOL, DIST.-BURDWAN,

PIN-713305, (W.B.)

PRESENT :

Sri PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 44 OF 2004

PARTIES : The management of Chora Colliery, Kenda

Area, ECL.

Vs.

Sri Pannalal Bouri

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management

: Shri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman) : Shri Rakesh Kumar, General

Secretary, KMC

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

5566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dated – 25.06.2014

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter NO. L-22012/

309/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 30.06.2004 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Chora

Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited in dismissing Sri Pannalal Bouri, Timber

Mazdoor form service w.e.f. 14.6.1994 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief is the workman

entitled?”

Having received the Order NO. L-22012/309/2003-

IR(CM-II) dated 30.06.2004 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 44 of

2004 was registered on 12.07.2004 and accordingly an order

to that effect was passed to issue notices through the

registered post to the parties concerned directing them to

appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents and a list

of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of

the said order notices by the registered post were sent to

the parties concerned.

On perusal of the record I find that the case is

remarked as “No Dispute Award” passed by my

predecessor as the workman has already superannuated

from service. Having heard both the parties and on their

prayer I came to the conclusion that the case may be closed

and a “No Dispute Award” may be passed as the workman

has already been superannuated and no dispute exists

between the parties. Hence the case is closed and

accordingly it is hereby ordered:

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and same is passed as no dispute

existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.

The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2143-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ-lh-,y- ds

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

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; vlulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 74@1999) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@346@1998&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2014

S.O. 2143.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 74/1999)

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

Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Adhabpur Colliery,

Kajora Area of M/s. E.C.L., and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 24/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/346/1998-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT :

Sri PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 74 OF 1999

PARTIES

: The management of Madhabpur Colliery,

Kajora Area, ECL.

Vs.

Sri Paresh Nath Mondal

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management

: Shri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman) : Sri. S.K. Pandey, General

Secretary of Colliery Mazdoor

Congress (HMS)

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

Dated – 24.06.2014

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter NO. L-22012/

346/98/IR (CM-II) dated 07.07.1999 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of

Madhabpur Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. ECL

in not regularising Sh. Paresh Nath Mondal, Gen.

Mazdoor, Cat.I as Magazine Clerk w.e.f. 10.09.92 is

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

workman entitled?”

Having received the Order NO. L-22012/346/98/IR

(CM-II) dated 07.07.1999 of the above said reference from

the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 74 of

1999 was registered on 23.07.1999 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 and a list

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5567

of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of

the said order notices by the registered post were sent to

the parties concerned.

On perusal of the record I find that the case is

remarked as “No Dispute Award” passed by my

predecessor as the workman has already superannuated

from service. Having heard both the parties and on their

prayer I came to the conclusion that the case may be closed

and a “No Dispute Award” may be passed as the workman

has already been superannuated and no dispute exists

between the parties. Hence the case is closed and

accordingly it is hereby ordered:

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and same is passed as no dispute

existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.

The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2144-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ-lh-,y- ds

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

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 52@2005) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@325@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2014

S.O. 2144.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/2005)

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

Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 24/07/2014

[No. L-22012/325/2004-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT KANYAPUR,

PO:- R.K.MISSION, ASANSOL, DIST.-BURDWAN,

PIN-713305, (W.B.)

PRESENT :

Sri PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 52 OF 2005

PARTIES

: The management of Nimcha Colliery,

Satgram Area, ECL.

Vs.

Sri Ganesh Bhuiya

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management

: Shri P. K. Goswami, Ld.

Advocate

For the union (Workman): Shri Rakesh Kumar, General

Secretary, KMC

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

Dated – 25.06.2014

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/

325/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 21.07.2005 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Nimcha

Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sh. Ganesh Bhuiya,

U.G. Loader form service w.e.f. 05.12.2003 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief Sh. Ganesh Bhuiya

is entitled?”

Having received the Order NO. L-22012/325/2004-

IR(CM-II) dated 21.07.2005 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 52 of

2005 was registered on 17.08.2005 and accordingly an order

to that effect was passed to issue notices through the

registered post to the parties concerned directing them to

appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents and a list

of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of

the said order notices by the registered post were sent to

the parties concerned.

On perusal of the record I find that the case is

remarked as “No Dispute Award” passed by my

predecessor as the workman has already superannuated

from service. Having heard both the parties and on their

prayer I came to the conclusion that the case may be closed

and a “No Dispute Award” may be passed as the workman

has already been superannuated and no dispute exists

between the parties. Hence the case is closed and

accordingly it is hereby ordered:

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and same is passed as no dispute

existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.

The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

5568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2145-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ-lh-vkbZ- ds

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

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 5@2010) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22011@31@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2014

S.O. 2145.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2010)

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

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Food Corporation of

India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 24/07/2014.

[No. L-22011/31/2009-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

–CUM- LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 05/2010

Ref. No. L-22011/31/2009 – IR(CM-II) dated: 25.03.2010

BETWEEN

Sri Ram Pal, Labour Mate

556/8, IIIrd lane

Sujanpura, Alambagh

Lucknow

AND

The General Manager (UP)

Food Corporation of India,

TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand

Gomti Nagar

Lucknow

The Executive Director (North)

Food Corporation of India

Plot No. 2A, 2B

Sector 24, Gautam Bugh Nagar

Noida (UP)

The Managing Director

Food Corporation of India

16-20, Barakhamba Lane

New Delhi – 110001

The Area Manager

Food Corporation of India

Shajahanpur

AWARD

By order No. L-22011/31/2009 – IR(CM-II) dated:

25.03.2010 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)

referred this industrial dispute between Sri Ram Pal, Labour

Mate, 556/8, IIIrd lane, Sujanpura, Alambagh, Lucknow

and the General Manager (UP), Food Corporation of India,

TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow & the

Executive Director (North), Food Corporation of India, Plot

No. 2A, 2B, Sector 24, Gautam Bugh Nagar, Noida (UP) &

the Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, 16-20,

Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi & the Area Manager, Food

Corporation of India, Shajahanpur for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“(I) WHETHER THE DEMAND OF SHRI RAM PAL

& 249 OTHERS (AS PER LIST ENCLOSED) FOR

DECLARING THEM AS DEPARTMENTAL

WORKERS OF THE MANAGEMENT OF FCI IS

LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? TO WHAT RELIEF ARE

THE WORKMEN ENTITLED FOR?

(II) WHETHER THE DEMAND OF SHRI RAM PAL

& 249 OTHERS (AS PER LIST ENCLOSED) FOR

PAYMENT OF MINIMUM GUARANTEED WAGES

FROM 01.01.1994 TO 20.11.2008 AND FOR BONUS

FROM 1975-76 TO 2007-08 ARE LEGAL AND

JUSTIFIED? TO WHAT RELIEF ARE THE

CLAIMANT WORKMEN ENTITLED TO?

(III) WHETHER THE DEMAND OF SHRI RAM PAL

& 249 OTHERS (AS PER LIST ENCLOSED) FOR

PAYMENT OF RS. 50/- PER MONTH INTERIM

RELIEF IN ACCORDANCE WITH NIT AWARD IS

LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? TO WHAT RELIEF ARE

THE CLAIMANT WORKMEN ENTITLED?”

The case of the workmen, in brief, is that the

workmen, Ram Pal & 249 others are employees of the Food

Corporation of India, working for more than 20 years. It is

submitted by the workmen that the management by the

means of letter dated 06.02.75 introduced the direct

payment system in 8 depots, including Shahjahanpur, and

the opposite party No. 4 was directed to pay bonus to the

labours of the depot for the year 1973-74 onwards; but the

management failed to do so. In this regard is it specifically

submitted that the management has not paid bonus for

1973-74 to 2007-08. It is further submitted that the opposite

party vide circular dated 26.02.2008 agreed upon to pay

minimum wages to the laboures from 01.01.94 but failed to

pay the same to any of the workmen. It is also alleged by

the workmen that the management is paying interim relief

of Rs. 50/- per day to the workmen w.ef. 01.12.2003 as

allowed by Hon’ble National Industrial Tribunal Mumbai.

The workmen has also stated that since they are working

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5569

for more than 20 years they are entitled for regularization

and to be declared as departmental labours. Accordingly,

the workmen have prayed that the management of FCI be

directed to declare the workmen as departmental workers

of FCI and pay them minimum guaranteed wages from

01.01.94 to 30.11.2008 and make them payment of interim

relief of Rs. 50/- per day as well as make payment of bonus

from 1975-76 to 2007-2008 along with interest @ 18 % from

the date it was due.

The management of the Food Corporation of India

has disputed the claim of the workmen and stated that

direct payment system has never been implemented as

FSD, Rouserkothi depot and contract labour system is

prevalent at Rourserkothi depot since its inception. In

this regard it has been specifically submitted that

Government of India has issued a notification of selected

depots on 23.04.2010 in which name of FSD, Rouserkothi

was not included. It is also submitted by the management

of FCI that the workmen are not their employees rather

they are engaged by some contractor, therefore they

cannot raise any dispute against the FCI as the Food

Corporation of India is not the employer of contract

labours. The management has also raised objection against

the manner of representation of the workmen by an

unregistered union. Accordingly, the management of FCI

has prayed that the claim of the workmen be rejected being

devoid of any merit.

The workmen have filed its rejoinder wherein it has

submitted that an unregistered union too can raise

industrial dispute. It is also submitted that the services of

the workmen of Shahjahanpur were utilized at Rouser Kothi

and Roza and Railhead as and when needed. Labours of

the depot were sent for the purpose of loading and

unloading when needed. Hence, the applicants are the

employee of FCI, Shahjahanpur and not any contractor.

The parties have filed photocopy of documentary

evidence in support of their respective claim. The workmen

have filed evidence of Pati Ram S/o Late Anokhe Lal, Yashim

Khan, Pati Ram S/o Late Sarju and Ram Pal whereas the

management has filed evidence of Shri Malik Rehan Pasha,

Area Manager in support of their case. The parties cross-

examined the witnesses of each other and argued their

case.

Heard authorized representatives of the parties and

perused entire evidence available on record.

The case of the workmen is that they are working

with the management of FCI for more than 20 years and

the management is treating them as contractual workmen

and making payment accordingly. It is also the case of the

workman that the contract labour system has been

abolished by the Government of India vide notification

dated 23.04.2010, prohibiting works of loading, unloading,

stacking, destacking, restacking, standardization,

weitghment, sweeping and cleaning in the godowns and

depots of the FCI. The name of Shahjahanpur Roza Depot

finds its reference in the schedule attached to it. It is also

submitted by the workmen’s representative that direct

payment system had already been introduced in many

depots of FCI, including Shahjahanpur depot of U.P.

Region vide letter dated 06.02.75, therefore, after abolition

of contract labour system the labourers may be deemed to

be the employees of the FCI and may be paid at least

minimum wages, bonus and other benefits.

In rebuttal, the management has contended that the

applicants are contractor’s worker and they are not the

employee of the FCI. Moreover, it is also argued that the

notification dated 23.04.2010, prohibiting contract labour

practice in Shahjahanpur Depot, has been challenged

before Hon’ble High Court and the writ is pending,

therefore, the statement of claim has no merit. Further, it

has also been contended by the management that the

Direct payment system is not applicable in Rosa Depot,

where the workmen discharge their duties.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival contentions of the parties.

10.

The management of the FCI has come forward with

the contention that the applicants under dispute are not

their workmen rather they are workmen of the contracting

agency and in this regard they have filed copy of license

issued to various Contractors, viz. Vikas Agarwal dated

06.05.2010 for doing work of Handling and Transporting

in establishment of Area Manager, FCI, Shahjanpur; and

to M/s Gupta Forwarding Agency dated 05.1.2012 for doing

work of loading and unloading of food grains in

Rausarkothi FSD; and to M/s Gupta Forwarding Agency

dated 02.11.2010 for doing work of loading and unloading

of food grains in Rausarkothi Depot. In rebuttal, the

workmen’s case is that the practice of contract labour has

been abolished in FCI depot vide notification dated

23.04.2010 and the name of Shahjahanpur depot finds its

reference at serial No. 01, therefore, all the workmen alleged

to be the workers of the Contactor be treated/deemded to

be workmen of FCI. Though the management has

contended that the said notification dated 23.04.2010,

abolishing contract labour system has been challenged in

a Writ Petition. Here it is necessary to mention that there

is no order, on the record, staying the above notification

dated 23.04.2010; neither is there any stay order by the

Hon’ble High Court on the proceedings before this

Tribunal. It is also noteworthy to mention that the

notification dated 23.04.2010 has been issued by the

Competent Government with in wake of the powers

conferred upon it vide Section 10 (1) of the Contract Labour

(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the above

provision of the Act has not been declared void or ultra

virus by the Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, the

notification issued in pursuance to the provision contained

in the Act prevails good.

5570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Hon’ble Apex Court in Air India’s case (1997 AIR

SCW 430) has observed as under:

“In this behalf, it is necessary to recapitulate that

on abolition of the contract labour system, by

necessary implication, the principal employer is

under statutory obligation to absorb the contract

labour. The linkage between the contractor and the

employee stood snapped and direct relationship

stood restored between principal employer and the

contract labour as its employees. Considered from

this perspective, all the workmen in the respective

services working on contract labour are required to

be absorbed in the establishment of the appellant.”

Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of

the case it is apparent that the workmen who are serving

the FCI, the principal employer, since long through

contracting agencies become departmental workmen on

abolition of contract labour system in FCI vide notification

dated 23.04.2010. Accordingly, on becoming departmental

workers of FCI, the workmen become eligible for payment

of wages and other benefits at par with other regular

workmen of FCI w.e.f. 23.04.2010.

11.

As regard payment of minimum guaranteed wages

from 01.01.1994 to 20.11.2008 and for bonus from 1975-76

to 2007-2008, it is settled position of law that the

Government and its instrumentalities are required to make

minimum wages to its employees. In the present case, it is

admitted that the workmen were engaged by the FCI to

carryout loading and unloading work in its Shajahanpur

depot, initially through contractor and on abolition of

contract labour system, they become employees of the

FCI. Hence, they become entitled for payment of minimum

wages from their date of engagement till 22.04.2010 from

the contractor and thereafter from 23.04.2010 from the FCI

as modified form time to time.

The workmen have also come forward with the

demand that they be granted bonus from 1975-76 to 2007-

2008; but has not filed any documentary evidence in form

of any office memorandum or circular regarding the

admissibility of bonus to them. They have also not given

their working detail in relevant period of time i.e. from

1975-76 to 2007-2008 either in their pleadings or in their

evidence. The workmen who come forward with their oral

evidence and faced the cross-examination did not give

any details of working neither filed any documentary

evidence to prove the length of services claimed by them

or basis for entitlement for the adhoc or productivity linked

bonus. Hence, in absence of any evidence on this point

i.e. regarding entitlement of bonus. Therefore, it is not

possible to draw a finding that the workmen are entitled

for grant of bonus from 1975-76 to 2007-2008.

12.

Lastly, the workmen have also demanded for grant

of payment of Rs. 50/- per month interim relief in accordance

with NIT Award. In this regard the workmen have filed

circular No. 3/2008 dated 26.02.2008 regarding ‘revision

of the Piece Rate for calculating ASOR% and the Minimum

Guaranteed daily wage w.e.f. 01.01.2008 in respect of Direct

Payment System (DPS) workers working in the depots’;

wherein the revised minimum guaranteed wages paid to

the Direct Payment System (DPS) workers has been

circulated. The FCI while circulating the revised rates has

mentioned regarding the continuance of interim relief of

Rs. 50/- as under:

“In addition to the above, the eligible DPS worker

would continue to get the interim relief of Rs. 50/-,

as allowed by the National Industrial Tribunal,

Mumbai in Reference No. NTB-1/2003 – Food

Corporation of India and their workmen.”

Thus, it is clear from above provision that the eligible

DPS worker would continue to get the interim relief of Rs.

50/- as the award of National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai

and from pleadings of the workmen Direct Payment System

(PDS) has been introduced in their depot; therefore, they

are entitled for payment of interim relief along with minimum

wages from the management of FCI from the date they are

held to be the employee of the FCI i.e. 23.04.2010.

13.

Hence, my award is as under:

(i)

The demand of Shri Ram Pal & 249 others for

declaring them as Departmental Workers of the

management of FCI is legal and justified; and

accordingly, they shall be treated as employees of

the FCI on abolition of contract labour system w.e.f.

23.04.2010. Accordingly, the workmen shall be

treated as employees of the FCI and shall be entitled

for wages and other benefits at par with other regular

employees of the FCI.

(ii)

The workmen Shri Ram Pal & 249 others shall also

be entitled for minimum wages from the date they

shall be treated as employees of the FCI; as regards

admissibility of bonus from 1975-76 to 2007-08, the

same shall be not be payable to the workmen in

absence of any proof from workmen.

(iii)

Also, the workmen, Shri Ram Pal & 249 others shall

be entitled for interim relief of Rs. 50/- per month in

accordance with award of National Industrial

Tribunal, Mumbai w.e.f. 23.04.2010.

14.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

Lucknow

16th July, 2014.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5571

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2146-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-bZ-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 43@97)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22016@106@1996&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2014

S.O. 2146.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/97)

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

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of South Eastern Coalfieds

Limited and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 24/07/2014.

[No. L-22016/106/1996-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/43/97

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE

Secretary,

Sanyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),

Manikpur Colliery,

Post Korba Colliery,

Distt. Bilaspur (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

Sub Area Manager,

SECL, Manikpur Colliery,

Post Manikpurcolliery,

Distt. Bilaspur (MP)

...Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 20th day of May, 2014)

As per letter dated 24-2-97 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-22016/

106/1996-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of M/S SECL

Manikpur Colliery, Bilaspur in reducing the Basic

Pay of Shri V.K.Verma, fixed on promotion from Drill

Operator to clerk Grade III and thereby denying him

the benefit of pay protection on promotion is just

and legal? If not, to what relief is he entitled?”

Present reference is received. Statement of claim is

filed by Ist party Union. IInd party filed Written Statement

in the matter. The parties arrived at settlement after

evidence was partly recorded. The settlement is accepted.

In view of settlement, the amount is paid to the widow of

deceased workman Shri V.K.Verma. The award is passed

in terms of settlement between parties.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2147-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-bZ-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 69@89)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@148@1989&Mh- 4 (ch)º

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

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2014

S.O. 2147.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/89)

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

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 24/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/148/1989-D-4(B)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/69/89

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE

General Secretary,

M.P.K.K.M.P. (HMS),

Post Junnardeo,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

5572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Manager,

Rawanwara Khas Colliery, WCL,

Post Dighawani,

Distt. Chhindwara

...Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 17th day of April, 2014)

As per letter dated 14-3-89 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/

148/1989-D-4(B). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of

Rawanwara Khas Colliery of WCL, PO Dighawani

via Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara in stopping from duty

S/Shri Satyanarayan S/o Behari, Jagdish Prasad S/o

Salikram, Shivkumar S/o Motilal, Bhaglal S/o Poonu,

Mohammad S/o Ahmed, Sewak S/o Kamal, Kewal

S/o Mehtab, Ramdas S/o Mangal, Dhanlal S/o

Laxman and Ashok Kumar w.e.f. 1-10-85 and not

paying the wages as Tindal Cat-IV as per NCWA is

justified? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned

are entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party Secretary of MPKKMP (HMS) Union

submitted statement of claim at Page 3/1 to 3/2. Case of

Union is that workmen Satyanarayan S/o Behari, Jagdish

Prasad S/o Salikram, Shivkumar S/o Motilal, Bhaglal S/o

Poonu, Mohammad S/o Ahmed, Sewak S/o Kamal, Kewal

S/o Mehtab, Ramdas S/o Mangal, Dhanlal S/o Laxman

and Ashok Kumar were working is Tyndal mazdoors with

IINd party Rawanwara Khas colliery from 1974. That they

were working for mining jobs. They were directly paid by

the management, their attendance was marked daily at

Rawanwara, their wages were paid directly by colliery

office. It is further pleaded that those workers were

transferred place to place for mining jobs. They were under

direct control of the Manager who directed Asstt. Store

Keeper of Colliery. It is submitted that those workers were

sometimes working under fitters of Rawanwara Khas and

C.T.Mistry of Pench East colliery for mining jobs. That

they were paid as piece rated workman but wages were

made in name of one workman then paid by the

management on the basis of attendance of each worker

and on job done by him. Union further submits that those

workers were doing loading unloading work of mine goods,

materials from truck, dumpers of the management from

store of colliery to Central Main Store Chandametta. That

they were not regularized despite of working as tyndal

gang of Category IV for 10 years. They put their attendance

as required by management but their services were not

regularized.

It is submitted that the management was disturbed

by accident of concerned workman on 13-8-85. One of

the co-worker Dhanlal was injured on duty at Pench East

colliery while they were unloading diesel drum. Said

Dhanlal was admitted in Barkui Hospital of the company

in wrong name of his father. All concerned workmen

agitated about the action of the management therefore all

the workmen were discontinued from 1-10-85. Union

submits that the management deprived workman of

benefits under NCWA saying that they were the contractor.

As per rules under Contract Labour Abolition Act,

contractors cannot be engaged for permanent mining job.

Workmen were direct responsible to the management. On

such grounds, Union prays for reinstatement of those

workmen as Tyndal Category IV with back wages.

IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page 2/1

to 2/3. Management of IInd party opposed the relief claimed

by Union. Management submits that reference is not

tenable as their existed no employer employee relationship

between parties. employees are not covered as workman

defined under I.D.Act, they are not members of the Union.

Therefore reference is not tenable. Satnarayan and others

were individually employed by the management of

Coalfields. They never worked in mines, their names were

not entered in form B & E Register. It is further submitted

that around 1984, some work for supplying hangers was

given to one Shri Jagdish. Work order was for Rs. 5629/-

for supply of hangers. For discharging said work, Jagdish

had engaged some persons and took work from them of

casual nature like digging of holes, loading/unloading of

material etc. Those persons were not employed by the

management. Rather they were engaged by Shri Jagdish

for execution of work ordered to him. The details of

working days of those persons are shown in para-5. The

claim of Union for payment of wages as Tyndal Category

IV is not tenable. IInd party submits that those persons

are not entitled to get wages of tyndals as they were

never appointed in said category. The reference is

mechanically without application of mind. On such ground,

IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

Union secretary submitted rejoinder at Page 5/3 to

5/5. In its rejoinder, Ist party submitted the reference made

by Central Govt. is proper. Workmen are member of the

Union. They are also covered as workman under I.D.Act,

they are working since 1974. List of working days obtained

from colliery office of the respect workmen. They were

working under direct control and supervision of

management as tyndal Category IV which failed to deprive

benefit of NCWA. Their names were not covered in Form

B & E Registers. It is denied that Jagdish was issued work

order of Rs. 5629/-. It is denied that said Jagdish had

engaged those persons for execution of work. Said

contention of management is misguiding. The plea that

Jagdish was contractor and others are his mazdoors is

incorrect. On each and every day, management was

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5573

changing names of workman as contractor. On 13-8-85,

management indented 1200 litres of Diesel in 6 drums from

Sethai colliery to Pench East Colliery in the name of Shiv

Kumar. Though the management in its statement agreed

to say them its employees, but for short duration. The

management shown chart of their attendance for the year

1983 to 85 only. The chart is wrong. It is emphasized that

those persons were working as tyndals since 1974, they

are entitled to be regularized as tyndals Category IV. The

job done by those persons is of permanent nature. After

injury suffered in accident by Dhanlal, those persons

were discontinued.

Management submitted rejoinder at Page 6/1 to 6/2

reiterating its contentions in statement of claim. There is

no employer employee relationship. It is denied that those

persons were not regularized denying benefits of NCWA.

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 manage-

In Negative

ment of Rawanwara Khas Colliery

of WCL, PO Dighawani via Parasia,

Distt. Chhindwara in stopping from

duty S/Shri Satyanarayan S/o Behari,

Jagdish Prasad S/o Salikram, Shiv-

kumar S/o Motilal, Bhaglal S/o Poonu,

Mohammad S/o Ahmed, Sewak S/o

Kamal, Kewal S/o Mehtab, Ramdas

S/o Mangal, Dhanlal S/o Laxman and

Ashok Kumar w.e.f. 1-10-85 and not

paying the wages as Tindal Cat-IV as

per NCWA is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per

entitled to?”

final orders.

REASONS

Union is challenging action of the management in

stopping Shri Satyanarayan and others from work and

not paying wages of Tyndal Category IV to them. In

support of its claim, evidence of Jagdish Prasad,

Satyanarayan, Dhanlal is adduced by Union. Jagdish

Prasad in his evidence says that 10 persons were working

in IInd party. Their wages were paid by the office they

were working from 1980 to 1985 with IInd party. They

were discontinued from 1985 without assigning reasons.

He was working in the stores loading unloading gun

powder, carrying the boxes, carrying other goods of the

colliery to different places. Their wages were paid

obtaining signatures. The entries were taken in the register.

Witness Satyanarayan in his evidence says that he was

also working with IInd party from 1980 to 1985 at

Rawanwara Khas store as tyndal mazdoor. One Kailash

was preparing vouchers. Manager Tiwari was making

payments. However the payment was made from counter

as per work done. Dhanlal witness No.3 also says that he

was working with IInd party as Tyndal mazdoor from 1980

to 85. He was doing work of loading diesel drums. He had

suffered injury to his leg. He was admitted in Burkui

hospital in name of his father-in-law. He was not paid any

compensation. The regular work done by regular

employees of the colliery, same work was done by him.

In cross-examination of Shri Jagdish, he says that

he was member of HMS Union, he did not recollect the

amount of contribution. He has not produced receipt

amount payment of contribution. He was paid wages for

the period of actual work. He was engaged by Store Keeper

who was acquainted with him. He did not work

underground. His name was not called for recruitment. He

was not interviewed. Appointment letter was not given to

him. For taking leave, he was asking to the store keeper.

Application of leave was not submitted by him. His

signature was obtained in payment register. His attendance

was not marked in the muster roll. Entire cross-examination

of Shri Jagdish, there is no suggestion that he was assigned

any work on contract basis and he had engaged all those

persons.

10.

Shri Satyanarayan in his cross-examination says his

age was 26 years. When he was engaged, his age was

about 17-18 years. He studied till 11th standard. He was

member of Union and paid membership amount Rs. 40/-.

The Store keeper engaged him. Appointment letter was

not given to him. Amount of wages was paid as per work

done. Said amount was distributed between them. He had

worked from 1980 to 85. He was unable to tell number of

working days. Dhanlal in his cross-examination says his

age was 28 years. In 1980, his age was about 20-22 years

when he was engaged in the mine. Store keeper Deendayal

had engaged him on work. He claims ignorance about

Employment Exchange Office. His name was not sponsored

through said office. The wages were paid by Shri Kailash

Babu. Weekly payment was made to him. Name of his

father in law was Sadu. He was admitted in hospital in

name of his father-in-law. The evidence of all 3 witnesses

is not shattered in cross-examination that they were

working in store of IInd Party.

11.

Evidence of management’s witness Shri H.K.Singh

is on the point that those workers were not members of

the Union. Union has no locus-standi. That those 10

persons were engaged by Shri Jagdish for executing the

work awarded to him. The details of working days are

given in para-8 of his affidavit during the period 1983 to

1985. That casual nature of work was awarded to petty

contractors. The petty contractors were engaging local

labours for execution of the work. The quotation Exhibit

M-1 to M-13 given to different persons are stated. The

vouchers about payment of wages are referred in the

Affidavit M-14 to M-68. The witness of the management

could not be cross-examined. The written notes of

5574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

argument are submitted by IInd party giving details of the

pleading in Written Statement and the evidence in cross-

examination of the witnesses of the Ist party. It is

emphasized that the workman did not work more than 240

days therefore they are entitled to protection under I.D.Act.

12.

The evidence of all three witnesses of the union is

not shattered that they were working in stores and also

doing work of loading unloading and several petty works.

Document Exhibit W-1 shows working days of all those

10 persons are shown. Document Exhibit W-2 was

application submitted by Dhanlal to the management. The

zerox copies of the entries in payment register are produced

by IInd party but no pain is taken to get those entries

proved by adducing any evidence. The management has

also produced documents with list but no evidence is

adduced to prove those vouchers. Considering

unshattered evidence of witness 1 to 3 of the Union, it is

clear that all 10 persons were continuing work with IInd

party and doing work of tyndal mazdoor from 1980 to

1-10-1985. The evidence is consistent about their

continuous working and during the above period. The

record is with the management about their working days

and payment of wages. The management failed to produce

such record and prove the same. Management has not

adduced evidence from record that all those workmen have

not completed 240 days preceding their discontinuation

from 1-10-1985. Therefore all those workmen are covered

under Section 25(B) of I.D.Act. they were discontinued

without issuing notice or paying retrenchment

compensation, therefore discontinuation from work is in

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

For above reasons, I record Point No.1 in Negative.

13.

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

discontinuation of all those 10 workmen were illegal for

violation of section 25-F of I.D.Act, question arises

whether workmen are entitled for reinstatement with back

wages. The evidence of witness No.1 to 3 for Ist party

union is that all those workmen were working during 1980

to 1985 about 5 years, their names were not sponsored

through Employment Exchange, no recruitment process

was followed for engaging them. They were engaged by

Store Keeper because of acquaintance with him.

Considering short period of working of those workmen

and they were not recruited following procedure, therefore

they cannot be reinstated on the work.

14.

Learned counsel for IInd party has submitted notes

of argument alongwith certain citations. In case of Haryana

Urban Development Authority versus Om Pal reported in

2007(5) Supreme Court Cases 742, their Lordship held relief

of reinstatement with back wages should not be granted

automatically only because it would be lawful to do so.

Grant of relief would depend on fact situation obtaining in

each case, factors to be considered. Their Lordship

considering respondent having worked for a very short

period, Labour Court committed a serious illegality in

directing reinstatement with full back wages.

The ratio held in case of Sima Dutta versus coal

India Ltd and others reported in 2002(3) Bank CLR 327

(Calcutta) is on different point. Hon’ble High Court had

directed that workman be given preference over others on

basis of experience , if any vacancy is advertised. It was

also directed that as she has crossed her age of recruitment

during her service, she will be entitled to relaxation in age.

This ratio cannot be applied to present case.

In case of Punjab State Electricity Board versus

Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another reported in

1996-I-LLJ 373. His Lordship dealing with Section 25-F

and 25(B) held period of 240 days in order to be treated as

continuous service for one year is to be counted in a period

of 12 months preceding the date of termination.

15.

Considering evidence on record and ratio held in

Case No.2007(5) Supreme Court Cases 742, all those

workmen are not entitled for reinstatement with back wages.

Considering the facts, compensation Rs.75,000/- would

meet the ends of justice. Accordingly I record my finding

at Point No. 2.

16.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Rawanwara Khas

Colliery of WCL, PO Dighawani via Parasia, Distt.

Chhindwara in stopping from duty S/Shri

Satyanarayan S/o Behari, Jagdish Prasad S/o

Salikram, Shivkumar S/o Motilal, Bhaglal S/o Poonu,

Mohammad S/o Ahmed, Sewak S/o Kamal, Kewal

S/o Mehtab, Ramdas S/o Mangal, Dhanlal S/o

Laxman and Ashok Kumar w.e.f. 1-10-85 and not

paying the wages as Tindal Cat-IV as per NCWA is

illegal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.75,000

to each of the 10 workmen.

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] 24 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2148-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ-lh-vkbZ-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

69@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@07@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@15@2002&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5575

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2014

S.O. 2148.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2002)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.

2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of National Metallurgical

Laboratory and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 24/07/2014.

[No. L-42012/15/2002-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk 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. 69 OF 2002

PARTIES : Shri Lal Mohan Mukhiyar,

Vill : Shankarpur Mahato Toli,

PO: Sarjamda, Singhbhum

(East), Jharkhand

Vs.

Director,

National Metallurgical Laboratory,

Burma Mines, Jamshedpur

Ministry’s Order No. L-42012/15/2002-IR (CM-II)

dt. 20.08.2002

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

: Mr. D. Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate

Workman/Union

On behalf of the

: Mr. Vinod Kumar, Management

Management

Representative

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Science & Technology

Dhanbad, Dated, the 12th June, 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-42012/15/2002-IR (CM-II) dt. 20.08.2002.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of National

Metallurgical Laboratory, Jamshedpur in not

regularizing the services of Sri Lal Mohan Mukhiyar

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

concerned workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-42012/15/2002-IR(CM-

II) dt. 20.08.2002 of the above mentioned reference from

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,

the Reference Case No. 69-2002 of was registered on

02.09.2002 and accordingly an order to that effect was

passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts 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 Posts were sent to the

parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their

Representatives and the Joint Legal Adviser appeared in,

and contested the case, respectively.

The case of the workman Lal Mohan Mukhiyar as

per his own written statement is that he had been working

in the job of permanent nature against permanent vacancy

by putting in 240 days attendance in each calendar year

since long. But the Management exploited him and denied

his legal facility as per the order showing him as not

permanent workman. On his several times representations

to the Management for his regularisation,wages and other

benefits equal to permanent workman, the management

began to harass him in various ways. In course of his

employment, he had got the injury in his right hand fingers,

for which he had also demanded for compensation, but

the management unreasonably terminated him by stopping

from his service on 16.02.2001 without complying the

mandatory provision of law. Finally, the dispute was raised

by the workman himself before the ALC © for his

reinstatement and regularization, but due to its failure in

conciliation, it has been referred for an adjudication. The

action of the Management of the National Metallurgical

Laboratory in not regularizing him is vindictive, illegal and

anti-labour policy.

The workman in his rejoinder has specifically denied

all the allegations of the O.P/Management as false and

frivolous.

Whereas categorically denying the allegations of

the workman, the case of the O.P./Management is that the

reference is unmaintainable in law or facts; the National

Metallurgical Laboratory (NML), Jamshedpur, is the part

and parcel of the Council of Scientific and Industrial

Research (CSIR) under the Government of India,

Annusdandhan Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-1. The

Management is an autonomous body and a society

registered under the Societies Registration Act as per its

Memorandum of Association and its Rules Regularization

(Annexure-1 and 2 respectively). The Management directly

comes under the Admn. Control of the Ministry of Science

and Technology. As per Bye laws, the Prime Minister of

5576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

India is the ex-officio President of the Society and the

Minister In- charge of Science & Technology is the ex-

officio Vice President of the Society. As per the Department

of the Commerce of Government of India’s Resolution dt.

April, 27, 1940 and Feb.1, 1941, a Board of Scientific and

Industrial Research and an Industrial Research Utility

Committee were constituted. As per the another Resolution

dt. Sept., 26, 1962 of the Department of Commerce of

Government of India, the Council of Scientific and Industrial

Research (CSIR) was constituted as a body for co-

ordinations and Administrative Control over the work of

the said Organization, in addition to implement a resolution

passed by the Legislative Assembly on 14.11.1941 for

recommendation to the Governor General-in-Council to

constitute the Industrial Research Fund for industrial

development in the country. Accordingly as per provision

the Fund was allotted Rupees Ten Lacks in the Annual

Budget for a period of five years. The overall promotions,

guidance and coordination of the Scientific and Industrial

Research to special institutions including their existing

one for scientific study of problems affecting particular

industries and trade, the establishment maintenance and

management of Laborarties, Workshops, Institute and

Organization to further scientific and industrial researches,

their utilization for experiment or otherwise any discovery

are the other objects of the councils as per the objects of

the Resolution. The council set up a chain of National

Laboratories and Research Institutes all over the country

in its pursuit make the nation self sufficient in scientific

and industrial sphere. Along with other research agencies,

these institutions also provide the practical base for

implementation of policy decisions at the National Levels.

The CSIR which controls all these activities, institutions,

laboratories is headed by a Director General. The Council

has its Governing body with the Prime Minister as its

President. The council undertakes the research through

the six types of Institutions: Autonomous Organization

as Societies including the O.P. /Management, the Special

Depart/Commissions under eminent scientist, Institutions

under Ministries including Depart of Science and

Technology, Industrial R & D Establishment, Co-operative

Research Association with 50% financial support of

Government, and Private Institution with facility of tax

exemption.

The Planning Commission formulates policies and

sets the objectives/targets for the purpose of the research

also for the O.P./Management. It takes initiatives for

promoting research in the specific area by requisitioning

the research Institutes including the O.P./Management.

The Central Government from time to time appoints

committees to review its work and progress, to hold

enquiries into the affairs of it, and to report thereon. Upon

receipt of such report, the Government of India takes

actions and issue directions necessary for concerned

matters for furtherance of the object of the institute, the

O.P./Management has to comply with such directions

under its rules in order to ensure proper functioning. The

CSIR is one of the agencies and institutions contemplated

under Entry 65 of the Union List in the 7th Schedule to the

Constitution of India. The entry relates to union agencies

and institutions for professional, vocational or technical

training. So, the CSIR cannot be called an “Industry “under

Section 2(J) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The National

Metallurgical Laboratory, Jamshedpur as a part of the CSIR

is a state within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution

of India. Only the research work in respect of the

Metallurgical minerals is being done in their institution. It

is not a Mine, so the reference is not valid and proper, as

the Central Government is not the Appropriate

Government u/s 2(a) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The Management

has to sometime engage workers in exigencies of work in

different projects on job contract for a time period till the

duration of the six months till the completion of the work,

whichever earlier. He had been engaged on various

projects from time to time under different spells under

different project. Lal Mohan Mukhiyar is an official, but

not a workman u/s 2(5) of the I.D. Act. He was not an

employee, temporary otherwise, of the Management, as

he was engaged only on job contract basis as a technician/

Project Assistant under a sponsored project in NML,

Jamshedpur w.e.f. 12.04.1996 for an initial period of six

months. He was intermittently again engaged on contract

basis for six monthly periods under different projects as

per the need. The Job contract at last expired on 25.08.2001.

His engagement was purely on job contract as per its term

of his service termination on the expiry of the contract

period. There was no sanction post, as each project has

work as per its necessity. The last contractual engagement

of Lal Mohan Mukhiyar started on 26.02.2001 and expired

on 25.08.2001, as his engagement was no longer required

at the completion of the project. It has been urged for a

decision over the preliminary issue on behalf of the

employer prior entering into the merit of the case.

The O.P./Management in its rejoinder has

categorically denied and responded to all the allegations

of the workman.

FINDING WITH REASON

In the instant reference, WWI Lal Mohan Mukhiyar,

the workman for his own sake, and MWI Dr. Ajoy Kumar

Roy, the Scientist Gr. in M.S.T. Division for the O.P./

Management have been examined respectively.

Mr. D. Mukherjee, Learned Counsel for the workman

as per his written argument has to submit that workman

Lal Mohan Mukhiyar was appointed as a permanent

Technician on 12.4.1996 against permanent vacancy, after

his interview (Ext.W.1) as also he had got his Identity

Card and Certificate (Extt.W. 2 and 3 respectively) so the

statement of the workman regarding continuous service

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5577

and illegal stoppage remained unchallenged. It is also

submitted on his behalf that the evidence and documents

as brought on by the MWI establish his (workman)

appointment after his interview for the permanent post,

there is no document of the agreement filed to show his

appointment based on a contract and the termination of

his service illegally. To Mr. Mukherjee, the Department is

an “Industry” and as per law the workman is a workman as

per the I.D. Act as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court (C.B.)

in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board

Vs. Rajappa, S.C.L.J.Vol 15 at page 121 but the ruling not

filed by the Learned Advocate for perusal.

Further the emphatic argument advanced by

Mr. Mukherjee, Learned Counsel for the workman is that

the ‘the confidential circular directing the officer that

workman like the appellant should not be engaged

continuous but should as far as possible, be offered work

on rotation basis and the case that the appellant as a badli

worker, have to be characterized as unfair labour practice

by the bank as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

of H. D. Singh Vs. Reserve Bank of India, AIR 1986 (SC)

132 and lastly, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the

case of workmen employed by Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs

Hindustan Lever Ltd. reported in A.I.R. 1984 (SC) 1683 to

confirm an employee in acting position in regularization.

The later ruling relates to ‘failure of the employer to carry

out the statutory obligation in terms of the conditions of

service would enable the workmen to question his action

which will bring into existence a dispute and the expression

terms and conditions of employment would on directly

include not only the contractual terms and conditions but

those terms which are understood and applied by the

parties in practice or habitual or by common consent

without ever being incorporated in the contract (Para 7 &

11 respectively)’.

Whereas Mr.Vinod Kumar, the Administrative Officer

as the Representative for the O.P./Management has to

submit that the Management by oral and documentary

evidences of MWI Dr. Ajoy Kumar Roy has crystal clearly

proved that National Metallurgical Limited, Jamshedpur

used to run projects and each project has a different project

work as per necessity and the workman concerned was

always engaged on contract base job for six months period

intermittently (Ext. M. 2 series) and his last contract for

Project work started on 22.06.2001 and expired on

28.08.2001, so the engagement of workman was no longer

required after the completion of Project. It stands clear

that the workman was never engaged in the job of

permanent nature; moreover the administration of CSIR is

controlled by the Ministry of Science & Technology, so it

is an autonomous body registered under the Societies

Act. The statement of Lal Mohan Mukhiyar, the workman

(WWI), in his cross examination affirms the copy of the

offer letter for his engagement dt.15/18.2.2000 (Ext. M-1)

as Project Asstt. on job contract basis just as copies of

the offer letter to the workman accordingly in the year

1996 to 1999 (Ext. M-2 series). The workman appears to

have admitted no paper/documents for his working for

more than 240 days in a year. It is evident that the workman

never performed the job of the Project Asstt. on contract

basis continuously for 240 days during the period 12

calendar months preceding the date with the instant

reference as required under Sec. 25 B of I.D. Act. He was

out and out a contractual worker .

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that it is settled

principle of law as held in the case of Secy. State of

Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006)(3) SCC (L & S)753 that a

contractual appointment comes to an end at the end of the

contract. An appointment on daily wage or casual basis

comes to an end when it discontinued and a temporary

appointment comes to an end on the expiry of its term, no

employees so appointed, can claim to be made permanent

on the expiry of their appointment (Paras 3, 4, 12 & 43).

As such, none of the two rulings as relied upon by

Mr. Mukherjee, the Counsel for the workman, appears to

be applicable to the case under adjudication.

In result it is hereby responded and accordingly

awarded in the term of reference that action of the

Management of National Metallurgical Laboratory,

Jamshedpur, in not regularizing the services of Lal Mohan

Mukhiyar is quite legal and justified. Hence, the concerned

workman is not entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2149-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ- th- jk"V-

oh- ,- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 25@2005)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@157@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2014

S.O. 2149.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2005)

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

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Indira Gandhi

Rashtriya Van Academy (FRI), and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 24/07/2014.

[No. L-42012/157/2004-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

5578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 25/2005

Ref. No. L-42012/157/2004-IR(CM-II) dated: 24.06.2005

BETWEEN

Shri Matambar Singh Bisth,

S/o Shri Prem Singh Bisth,

LIG/11, MDDA Colony,

Ajabpur Kalan,

Dehradun

AND

The Joint Director (Admn.),

Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Van Academy (FRI),

Dehradun

AWARD

By order No. L-42012/157/2004-IR(CM-II) dated:

24.06.2005, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred

this industrial dispute between Shri Matambar Singh Bisth,

S/o Shri Prem Singh Bisth, LIG/11, MDDA Colony, Ajabpur

Kalan, Dehradun and the Joint Director (Admn.), Indira

Gandhi Rashtriya Van Academi (FRI), Dehradun for

adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE JOINT

DIRECTOR (ADMN) INDIRA GANDHI

RASHTRIYA FOREST ACADEMY, DEHRADUN IN

TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF SH.

MATAMBAR SINGH BISTH S/O SH. PREM SINGH

BISTH W.E.F. 06.01.2004 FROM THE POST OF

DRIVER IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO

WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED?”

The case of the workman, Matambar Singh Bisth, in

brief, is that he was engaged/appointed as Driver for

performing regular and perennial nature of work by the

opposite party. It is submitted by the workman that he

had been paid salary on monthly basis, initially @ Rs. 71

per day and later @ Rs. 92 per day. The workman has

stated that while driving the Academy Bus on 19.06.2002

he met with an accident; whereby a motorcycle collided

with the bus causing death of the motorcyclist. Since the

bus was not insured, therefore, the Academy had to pay

death compensation of Rs. 2,95,875 awarded by the

Additional District Judge, Dehradun. It is also submitted

that the workman filed an Original Application No. 1530/

2003 before CAT, Principal Bench, N. Delhi for

regularization of his service. CAT disposed of the above

original application vide order dated 18.09.2003; whereby

the CAT directed the respondents to consider his

regularization in accordance with DoPT’s scheme dated

07.06.1988 subject to eligibility and in accordance with

law. It is alleged by the workman that the management

terminated his services vide order dated 06.01.2004 with

immediate effect mentioning his ineligibility and monetary

loss that occurred to the Academy due to accident. The

workman has submitted that he has worked for more than

05 years continuously with the opposite party and the

management terminated his services without any notice

or notice pay in contravention to the provisions contained

in Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Accordingly, it has

been prayed by the workman that the order dated 06.01.2004

be set aside and he be reinstated with consequential

benefits, including full back wages; and also that his

services be regularized.

The management of the Indira Gandhi National Forest

Academy has filed its written statement wherein it has

denied the claim of the workman and has submitted that

the workman was neither selected nor appointed as a

Driver against any regular and sanctioned post, as per

provisions of any rules and Regulations stipulated for rhe

regular recruitment; rather he was engaged only as a daily

labourer on daily wages basis as per requirement of work.

It is also submitted by the management that the workman

was not paid any salary; but was paid only for the days he

worked with the management at daily wage basis. The

management has submitted that the workman caused death

of a person due to negligent driving; also, causing

pecuniary loss to the Management amounting to Rs. 2,95,875;

hence, though his case was considered by the committee

as per directions of the CAT for regularization; but he was

not found suitable for regularization vide order dated

06.01.2004. As regards termination of the services of the

workman, the management has submitted that the workman

was engaged as casual labourers as per need, therefore,

no termination was at all required as per Rules. The

management has also submitted that the Academy is an

education and training Institution under the Ministry and

Environment and Forests, Government of India, imparting

training to the All India Service Officer, especially to Indian

Forest Service. Thus, being an educational and training

institution, the management of Academy does not fall

within the definition of ‘industry’. Therefore, the

management has prayed that the claim of the workman is

liable to be rejected being devoid of merit.

The workman has field its rejoinder wherein apart

from reiterating the statements already submitted in the

statement of claim he has submitted that the Indira Gandhi

National Forest Academy comes within the definition of

Section 2 (j) of the Act.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5579

The parties have filed documentary proof in support

of their respective cases. The workman has examined

himself whereas the management examined Shri S.K.

Awasthi, Additional Professor in support of their

respective stands. The parties availed opportunity to cross-

examine the each other’s witnesses apart from forwarding

oral arguments.

Heard authorized representatives of the parties and

gone through evidence available on record as well as

respective pleadings of the parties.

The authorized representative of the workman has

submitted that the workman had been appointed on the

post of Driver on 19.04.1999 and his services has been

terminated w.e.f. 06.01.2004 without assigning reason or

any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof in violation to the

provisions contained in Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947.

It is also argued by the workman that the management did

not consider his case for regularization, as per directions

of the CAT, on contrary has terminated his services without

affording him any opportunity of personal hearing or

conducting any formal departmental inquiry.

In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the

management has contended that the workman was never

appointed against any sanctioned post; rather he was

engaged as casual labourer as and when required; hence

there is no question of terminating his services at any

point of time or compliance of any of provisions of the

Act. It has also argued that the workman’s case for

regularization, as per directions of the CAT, was

considered by the committee so formed for the purpose;

but he was not found suitable for regularization and he

was well informed of the decision of the committee vide

order dated 06.01.2004.

10.

I have scanned the entire evidence, in the light of

the rival submissions of the parties.

11.

The management has come up with the preliminary

objection that the opposite party is not an industry within

the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947 as it is indulged in imparting

education to the Indian Forest Officers of All India

Services. In rebuttal, the workman has pleaded that the

nature of work discharged by the Academy is similar to

the work performed by various universities, prevailing in

government as well as private sector. In this regard the

workman has relied on verdict of Hon’ble Apex Court in

Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. vs. A

Rajappa & others case; wherein it has been observed that

“absence of profit motive or gainful objective is

irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint, private

or other sector.”

Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed that

“Where (i) systematic activity (ii) organized by co-

operation between employer and employee (the direct

and substantial element is commercial (iii) for the

production and/or distribution of goods and services

calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not

spiritual or religions but inclusive of material things

or services geared to celestial bliss i.e. making on a

large scale Prasad or food) prima facie, there is an

industry in that enterprise.”

The management has come up with the case that the

Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Van Academy is an educational

and training institute, engaged in imparting education to

the Indian Forest Service’s officers and it does not qualifies

the various tests which may put its activities as an

‘Industry’. In rebuttal, the workman has pleaded that the

Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Van Academy is an institute which

is indulge in activities similar to other training institute

and universities, which are well covered within the

definition of ‘industry’ as pronounced by Hon’ble Apex

Court in its number of judgments.

The term ‘industry’ under the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 has been subjected to various judicial

interpretations. The first part of definition of industry

defines it from the stand point of the employer and the

other from the stand point of employees. The decision of

the Apex Court in Banglore Water Supply and Sewerage

Board had given a wider coverage to the definition of the

term industry. The Court ruled that absence of profit motive

or gainful objective is irrelevant to the venture in the public,

joint, private or in other sector. The true focus is functional

and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with

special emphasis on the employer-employee relations; with

the result, the following would fall within the ambit of

‘industry’, if they fulfill the triple tests (a) professions; (b)

clubs; (c) educational institutions; (d) co-operatives; (e)

research institutions; and (f) charitable institutions. The

Apex Court also observed that the departments discharging

purely sovereign functions or legal functions are not

‘industry’.

It is not the case of management that it is indulged

in discharging and sovereign function; moreover from the

pleadings of the management itself it is evident that it is

an educational institute, imparting education, therefore,

in view of facts and circumstances of the case and above

legal prepositions, I am of considered opinion that the

opposite party management i.e. Indira Gandhi Rashtriya

Van Academy qualifies the triple test formulated by the

Hon’ble Apex Court; and as is not discharging any

sovereign function of the State; and accordingly, I come

to the conclusion that the opposite party is an ‘industry’

within the provisions of Section 2 (j) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

12.

Coming to the merit of the case, admittedly no

appointment letter was issued to the workman; but there

is ample evidence available on record that the services of

the workman have been availed as daily rated/casual driver

by the opposite party w.e.f. 19.04.1999. The workman has

come up with the case that he worked for above duration

5580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

continuously; whereas the management has pleaded that

his engagement was with intermittent breaks. Also, the

management witness stated that evidence of continuous

working of the workman is available in records. In this

respect, the workman has field photocopy of muster roll

and sanction order for the period from 19.04.1999 to

06.0.2004, furnished to him in response to an RTI

application.

13.

The workman has alleged that the management did

not consider his claim for regularization, in spite of specific

directs by the CAT and terminated his services without

giving him notice or notice pay or any retrenchment

compensation, in violation to the provisions contained in

Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In this

regard the management has relied on order dated

06.01.2004; wherein it has been mentioned that the claim

of the workman for regularization has been considered by

the committee constituted by the management in view of

directions of the CAT. It is specifically mentioned in the

order that matter has been considered in terms of DoPT’s

office memorandum dated 07.06.1988 and the workman was

not found fit for regularization keeping in view his

negligence while driving the Academy bus on 19.06.2002

which caused an accident and resultantly death of a

person. The management also discontinued the services

of the workman with effect from issuance of said office

order dated 06.01.2004.

In this regard the management has also relied on the

order of the ADJ, Dehradun in case No. MAC-164/2002;

wherein it has been held by the learned ADJ, Dehradun as

under:

“gaari bus san. U.P. 07H-7259 ke chaalak dwara teji

aur laaparvaahi se chalai jaane ke kaaran hui. Yaachi

ke ladke ke ghor laaparvahi ke kaaran nahi.”

The observation made by the learned ADJ goes to

show that the real cause of accident and cause of death of

the deceased was ‘gross negligence’ on the part of the

driver of the bus i.e. the workman; therefore the

management rightly rejected his claim for regularization as

driver keeping in view the negligence shown by the

workman in discharge of his duties as driver.

14.

In Surenderanagar Panchayat and another v.

Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) Hon’ble

Apex Court came to the conclusion that the workman could

be entitled for the protection of Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provided he is successful in

establishing the fact that he had been in employment with

the employer for a period of 240 days uninterruptedly. It

was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in such cases,

the scope of the enquiry before the Labour Court was

confined only to 12 months preceding the date of

termination to decide the question of the continuous

service for the purpose of Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The workman has alleged that the

management has terminated his services without

complying with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act

i.e. without serving any notice or notice pay or

retrenchment compensation. In view of the law laid down

by the Hon’ble Apex Court this Tribunal has to see as to

whether the workman has worked for 240 days in the twelve

calendar months preceding the date of alleged termination.

In this regard, it is admitted fact that the workman

worked with the management of the Indira Gandhi

Rashtriya Van Academy from 19.04.1999 to 06.01.2004 and

he worked for more than 240 days in the twelve calendar

months, preceding the date of alleged termination i.e.

06.01.2004 . This fact finds support from the documentary

evidence relied upon by the workman as well as the

statement of the management witness before this Tribunal,

therefore, it was incumbent upon the management to

comply with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947; but the management utterly failed to

do so, thus, it is established that the management of Indira

Gandhi Rashtriya Van Academy, illegally terminated the

services of the workman without complying with the

provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947.

15.

Hence, in view of non-compliance of mandatory

provisions of the Section 25 F; now, it is to be considered

as to whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement.

From the evidence produced by the workman it is not

proved that his appointment was as a regular worker.

Moreover, from the pleadings of the workman himself it is

evident that he was engaged as daily wager and was paid

accordingly. Admittedly, the services of the workman were

terminated on 06.01.2004. In between Haryana Roadways

vs. Rudhan Singh (2005) 5 SCC 591; 2005 SCC (L&S) 716

Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the question

regarding award of back wages has observed:

“There is no rule of thumb that in every case where

the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the

termination of service was in violation of Section

25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded

………………………………….. However, where the

total length of service rendered by a workman is

very small, the award of back wages for the complete

period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of

the award, which our experience shows is often quite

large, would be wholly inappropriate. Another

important factor, which required to be taken into

consideration, is the nature of employment. A regular

service of permanent character cannot be compared

to short or intermittent daily wage employment

though it may be for 240 days in a calander year.”

16.

In Deepak Ganpat Tari vs. N.E. Theater Pvt. Ltd.

2008 (119) FLR 877 Hon’ble Bombay High Court relying

on the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment in A P V K

Brahmandandam 2008 (117) FLR 1086 (SC) Telephone DM

vs. Keshab Deb 2008 (118) FLR 376 (SC) JDA vs. Ram

Sahai 2006. (111) FLR 1178 (SC), while awarding

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5581

compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the concerned workman

considering his daily wages as Rs. 45/- in view of the fact

that the workman had put in about 3 years of service, has

observed as under:

“It is apparent that termination of services of a daily

wager does not amount to retrenchment and for

violation of Section 25 F in such circumstances, the

employee cannot be given benefit of reinstatement

with continuity and back wages. Hon’ble Apex Court

has hold that in such circumstance employee is

entitled to benefit of compensation only.”

17.

Also, in Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture

Mktg. Board (2009) 15 SCC 327 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 545:

Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v.

Santosh Kumar Seal and Others (2010) 2 SSC (L&S) 309

Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:

“However, in recent past, there has been a shift in

the legal position and in a long line of cases, this

Court has consistently taken the view that relief by

way of reinstatement with back wages is not

automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given

fact situation even though the termination of an

employee is in contravention of the prescribed

procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement

has been held to meet the ends of justice.

The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a

case where the workman has completed 240 days of work

in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly,

daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this

Court and instead compensation has been awarded.”

18.

In the light of principle laid down in aforementioned

case laws, it would not be just and proper to direct that the

workman be reinstated in service. The ends of justice

would meet by paying compensation to the workman

instead in place of relief of reinstatement in service.

19.

Having regards to these facts that the workman has

worked as daily wager only from 19.04.1999 to 06.01.2004

i.e. approximately for four years; and he was getting Rs.

92/- per day at the time of his alleged termination and

keeping in view the entire facts of the case and the law, the

interest of justice would be subserved, if, management is

directed to pay lump sum amount of compensation only.

20.

Accordingly, the management is directed to pay a

sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty thousand

only) to the workman as compensation for termination of

his services in violation of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act.

The said amount shall be paid to the workman within 08

weeks of publication of the award, failing which; the same

shall carry interest @ 6% per annum.

21.

The reference is answered accordingly.

LUCKNOW

6th June, 2014.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2150-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,e ,l

vkbZ ,u th oS'; cSad fy- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 126@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

02@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@206@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2014

S.O. 2150.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 126/

2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. ING Vysya Bank

Ltd, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 02/07/2014.

[No. L-12012/206/2004-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

Present : SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 3rd day of June, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 126/2004

Between :

Sri Y. S. Gangadhar,

C/o Sri V.V. Janardhana Rao,

Flat No.511, B.N. Reddy Colony,

Vanasthalipuram,

Hyderabad

……..Petitioner

AND

The Vice President & Dy. Head (HR),

Corporate Office, M/s. ING Vysya Bank Ltd.,

No.22, M.G. Road,

Bangalore -560 001.

The Branch Manager,

M/s. ING Vysya Bank Ltd.,

Stadium Road, Innispet,

Rajahmundry.

….Respondents

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. G. Vidya Sagar, K. Udaya Sri

& P. Sudheer Rao, Advocates

5582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the Respondent : M/s. C. Niranjan Rao &

M. Subramanya Sastry,

Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

their letter in reference No. L-12012/206/2004-[IR( B-I)]

dated 20.9.2004 required this Industrial Tribunal to

adjudicate the dispute,

“Whether termination of services of Sri Y.S.

Gangadhar, Ex.Sub-Staff, Danavaipeta, Extension

counter, Rajahmundry(East Godavari District) by way

of compulsory retirement with effect from 3.1.2004

by the Management of M/s. ING Vysya Bank Ltd., is

legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned

workman is entitled?”

The said reference is numbered on the file of this

Tribunal as I.D. No. 126/2004 and notices were issued to

the parties concerned. Sri. Y.S. Gangadhar appeared before

the court and engaged the assistance of Sri G. Vidya Sagar,

Advocate and the Management of M/s. ING Vysya Bank

Limited also appeared and engaged the assistance of Sri

C. Niranjan Rao Advocate with the consent of the parties

and the leave of the Tribunal.

Sri Y. S. Gangadhar who will hereinafter be

referred to as workman filed his claim statement with

the averments in brief as follows :

The workman joined the services of the respondent

bank in the month of May, 1996 as sub-staff at Rajahmundry

branch. During his service he worked in various branches

of the said bank to the satisfaction of his superiors. His

last drawn pay was Rs.5000/- per month. One Smt. K.

Venkata Laxmi, is a customer of the bank, she raised deposit

loan of Rs.40000/- and given to one Mr. Appa Rao,

Advocate who happened to be the maternal uncle of the

workman. While the workman was working as sub-staff in

Danavaipet Extension branch, Rajahmudry which was

attached to Rajahmundry branch, on 8.5.2001 said Mr.

Apparao, Advocate gave Rs.10000/- to the workman with

a request to credit the same to the loan account of Smt. K.

Venkata Laxmi. Workman prepared a challan for Rs.10000/

- and waited for the cashier. In the mean time Smt. K.

Venkata Laxmi, came to the branch and enquired with the

workman about the remittance of Rs.10000/-. In anticipation

of the remittance of money the workman himself has signed

on the counter foil and initialed at the place of Manager

and Cashier and issued the same to her. He made a credit

entry in the loan ledger also. Five or ten minutes later Mr.

Apparao, Advocate came there along with Smt. K. Venkata

Laxmi and took back of Rs.10000/- from the workman stating

that Smt. Venkata Laxmi agreed for payment of loan amount

of Rs.40000/- in one installment in future. Since no actual

bank transaction took place the workman returned the

amount to Sri Appa Rao, Advocate and deleted the credit

entry which he has already registered in deposit loan

account of Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi. However, he has

forgotten to take back the counter foil and it remained

with Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi. Taking advantage of the same

she alleged to have made a complaint on 27.8.2001 stating

that the workman has committed fraud by not depositing

Rs.10000/- into the account of her children and that only

he has given receipt dated 8.5.2001 for Rs.10000/- the said

complaint was given only since the amount was not paid

by Mr. Appa Rao within reasonable time. On coming to

know of the said complaint, Sri Appa Rao rushed to the

bank and repaid the entire amount on 28.8.2001. Thereafter,

Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi has withdrawn her complaint on

the same day. However, the complaint reached the

Chairman of the ING Vysya Bank on 29.8.2001. No action

has been taken for five months. Thereafter preliminary

enquiry officer has made investigation to the alleged

complaint though it was withdrawn. The workman has

stated during the preliminary enquiry that there is no loss

to the bank and that the complaint has been withdrawn.

However, the preliminary enquiry officer has submitted

his report dated 16.1.2002 without considering the pleas

of the workman. The said preliminary enquiry report was

not furnished to the workman. Basing on the findings

therein charge sheet dated 22.2.2002 has been issued as if

the workman has misappropriated Rs.10000/-,

unauthorizedly prepared counter foil for Rs.10000/-,

initialing it on behalf of the clerk and cashier without

authority and delivered fraudulent counter foil to Smt. K.

Venkata Laxmi without remitting the funds to the bank and

also attempted for meddling and falsification of bank

records by making an unauthorized entry for Rs.10000/- in

deposit loan ledger and thereafter resorted to its

cancellation without any authority and knowledge of the

EC Manager and thereby he resorted to dishonest and

questionable acts and suppression of fraudulent act. The

workman has submitted his explanation on 23.2.2002,

denying the charges and explaining the true circumstances

but the same were not considered and the Departmental

enquiry was ordered and it was conducted. During the

said enquiry neither Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi nor Sri Appa

Rao were examined as witnesses. The Management

witnesses have stated that no financial loss occurred to

the bank and that the workman has been having good

relations with the customers and his colleagues in the

bank and has been discharging his duties honestly and

that in case of emergencies he was discharging high

responsibilities also. Inspite of it, the enquiry officer has

held the charges as proved. Basing on such report show

cause notice dated 165.2003 proposing to impose

punishment of compulsory retirement has been issued to

the workman calling for his explanation. He submitted his

explanation stating that the proposed punishment is not

appropriate punishment. However, by virtue of

proceedings dated 3.1.2004 punishment of compulsory

retirement was imposed against him. It is illegal, arbitrary

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5583

and unjust. Workman challenged the same in an appeal

dated 29.1.2004. But without considering the grounds of

the appeal, the Appellate Authority rejected the same on

29.3.2004. Thereon the workman approached the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (C) at Visakhapatnam for

conciliation. Since conciliation failed and report has been

made to Government of India the present reference has

been made. The findings of the enquiry officer and

Disciplinary Authority are perverse. They failed to see

that in spite of making a request orally by the workman to

examine Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi and Sri Appa Rao as

witnesses during enquiry, they were not examined. The

Disciplinary Authority ought to have seen that the

complaint was withdrawn as on the date of issuance of

the charge sheet. The evidence on record indicates that

only under bona fide impression and in order to avoid

inconvenience to the customers the workman has taken

the responsibility for making initial on behalf of the clerk

and cashier on the counter foil. The complainant herself

has stated in her letter dated 28.8.2001 that there is no

lapse on the part of the workman. After the amount was

taken back by Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi the entry has been

deleted from the deposit loan ledger. Thus, there is no

mala fide intention or misappropriation of Rs.10000/-. The

charges are trivial in nature. Punishment of compulsory

retirement is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of

the charges. There is no past record of this nature for the

workman. The impugned order is liable to be set aside

consequently directing the respondent bank to reinstate

the workman into service with continuity of service full

back wages and all consequential benefits.

Respondents filed their counter with the averments

in brief as follows:

The respondent bank has received a written

complaint dated 27.8.2001 against the workman from one

Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi a customer of Dananvaipet

Extension counter, attached to Rajahmundry branch of

the respondent bank reporting that the workman who is

working as sub-staff there has not deposited the amount

of Rs.10000/- but gave receipt dated 8.5.2001 and that he

committed fraud. A detailed investigation was conducted

into the said complaint. On receipt of the report

Disciplinary Authority found that there was prima facie

case against the workman and issued articles of charge

framing definite and distinct accompanies of statement of

imputations. The workman has submitted his explanation

dated 23.3.2003 to the charge sheet admitting the mistake

committed by him. After considering the said written

statement filed by the workman in reply to the articles of

charge, the Disciplinary Authority decided to order for a

domestic enquiry in order to give a fair and reasonable

opportunity to the workman. Thus, regular Departmental

enquiry was ordered into the charges levelled against the

workman appointing an enquiry officer and Management

representative. The then Vice-President for Administration

was appointed as enquiry officer. The enquiry was held.

During enquiry the workman has denied the charges

levelled against him. he engaged the services of the Vice-

President of All Indian Vysya Bank Employees union to

defend him during the enquiry. He was furnished with the

list of documents and list of witnesses to be relied upon

by the Management supplying copies of documents to

him. Copy of investigation report also was furnished to

the workman as an additional document on 26.9.2002. The

enquiry was proceeded with. Management witnesses No.1

and 2 were examined and 14 documents were marked for

the Management. In addition to the cross examination of

the witnesses the workman has given his own evidence.

His defence representative submitted his written brief vide

letter dated 31.12.2002. After considering the entire material

on record the enquiry officer has given his report finding

that the charges levelled against the workman are proved

and finding him guilty of the same. A copy of the report

was forwarded to the workman by the Disciplinary

Authority. The workman has submitted his reply. But he

has not made out any ground for not accepting the

findings of the enquiry officer. Disciplinary Authority

after considering the views of the workman on the findings

of the enquiry, has issued second show-cause notice dated

16.5.2003 proposing the punishment of compulsory

retirement. In this connection the workman has been given

a personal hearing on the proposed punishment in addition

to submitting his written explanation which he submitted

on 20.6.2003. After considering all these representations

as there was no ground made out for not imposing the

proposed punishment the Disciplinary Authority

proceeded with issuance of the impugned proceedings

dated 31.1.2004 imposing the punishment of compulsory

retirement against the workman. Since there were no cogent

reasons to modify the punishment of compulsory retirement

made out in the grounds of appeal, the Appellate Authority

confirmed the said punishment in the order rendered in

the appeal preferred by the workman. There is strict

compliance of principles of natural justice. The very

averments in the claim statement of the workman to the

effect that in anticipation of remittance of the cash he

himself put the sign on the counter foil and initial at the

place of the Manager and cashier and issued the same to

Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi and made an entry in the loan

ledger clearly demonstrate his dishonesty and

misappropriation of the amount. The workman who was

working as a sub-staff is not authorized to issue counter

foils by affixing his initials at the columns provided in the

counter foil which is meant for cashier and Manager/

accountant to affix their initials. The initials on the counter

foil are distinctly different with each other. Which exhibits

the intention of the workman to make the remitter to believe

that the remittance made has been duly accounted for in

the books of the branch. Further, the contention of the

workman that he made entry in the loan ledger discloses

his dishonest intention to misappropriate the amount as

5584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

he made the entry in the loan ledger of the Smt. K. Venkata

Laxmi without routing the transaction in the normal course

which would take place only after getting reflected in the

cashier scroll and only after due authorization of the

manager/ officer concerned. The contention of the

Petitioner that he returned the amount of Rs.10000 to the

advocate and he requested for the same coming there

together with Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi, since no bank

transaction has actually taken place is, not correct and it

is made to mislead the court. His contention that the he

has forgotten to take back the counter foil is another

falsehood. His further contention that Smt. K. Venkata

Laxmi has given the complaint as the advocate has failed

to pay the amount as promised by him is also incorrect.

This is a wholly unbelievable version given by the

workman. Mr. Appa Rao has paid away the entire amount

and that the complaint has been withdrawn on 28.8.2001

has no nexus to the charges. The complaint has been

withdrawn since there was a compromise. The letter given

by the complainant subsequently withdrawing the

complaint does not disclose that the complaint given by

her earlier is a false complaint. It is not made known as to

how the workman got prejudiced due to the delay of five

months in taking action on the complaint. The contention

that there is no loss to the bank, got no substance.

Misconduct need not be followed by loss to the bank.

The workman has cross-examined the author of the

investigation report and copy of the report was supplied

to him. As the misdeeds are wholly dependent on the

documentary evidence and neither Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi

nor Mr. Appa Rao, Advocate is connected to these

misdeeds of the workman those persons were not

examined. All the misdeeds are admitted by the workman.

The only thing remained to be considered is, whether the

said acts of the workman constitutes to misconduct. To

ascertain and find out the same full-fledged Departmental

enquiry has been conducted and during the enquiry the

charges were found to be proved. Nothing prevented he

workman to examine the above said persons as his defence

witnesses. The punishment of compulsory retirement is

preceded by a full fledged Departmental enquiry and based

on sound and reasonable findings of the enquiry officer

supported by oral and documentary evidence which came

on record during the course of enquiry. The said decision

of the respondent bank is fully justifiable, legal and just

and it is not arbitrary. Withdrawing of complaint does not

vouch for the honesty of the workman but on the other

hand it confirms the misconduct on his part as regards

meddling with the branch records and his consequential

unethical lapse. He is not authorized either to make or

delete entries in the ledgers of the bank. He has not

brought to the knowledge of the EC manager the entire

transaction, till it came to light through the complaint of

Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi. On the other hand he has resorted

to unethical practice of striking the entry which was

originally made in the loan ledger in order to concede his

act of falsification of bank records. There are no

circumstances which in any way reduce or mitigate the

gravity of the misconduct proved against the workman.

The impugned order is not liable to be interfered with.

After hearing both parties this Tribunal has held

that the domestic enquiry conducted in this case is valid,

by virtue of the detailed order dated 23.7.2009.

Heard the arguments of either party, under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They both submitted

their respective written arguments also and the same are

considered.

The points that arise for determination are:

Whether termination of services of Sri Y.S.

Gangadhar, Ex.Sub-Staff, Danavaipeta, Extension

counter, Rajahmundry(East Godavari District) by way

of compulsory retirement with effect from 3.1.2004

by the Management of M/s. ING Vysya Bank Limited

is legal and justified?

II.

To what relief the workman is entitled?

Point No. I :

The admitted facts of the case are as follows:

The workman has been working as a sub-staff in the

Danavaipet Extension counter of Rajahmundry branch of

the respondent bank at the relevant time of the present

dispute. On 8.5.2001 he received Rs.10000/- from his

maternal uncle Mr. Appa Rao, advocate for crediting the

same into the loan account of one Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi

who was a client of the said advocate. The workman

himself prepared a challan and he himself signed on the

counter foil of the said challan and also put initials at the

places meant for the initials of Manager and the Cashier

and issued the said counter foil to Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi,

the loan account holder. He also made a credit entry in

the loan ledger. Later on he struck off the said entry in the

loan ledger. The amount of Rs.10000/- was never credited

into the loan account of Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi. Smt. K.

Venkata Laxmi gave a report to the bank against this event

claiming that though counter foil has been issued to her,

the amount was not credited into her loan account. It is

also an admitted fact that soon thereafter the entire loan

amount was paid away by Mr. Appa Rao, Advocate and

Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi has given a letter on the even date

withdrawing her complaint. It is an uncontradictory fact

that no where in the said letter she claimed that the

complaint gave by her is a false complaint. Ex.W1 is copy

of the said letter produced by the workman himself before

this Tribunal.

In consideration of the above events and the

complaint, preliminary enquiry was conducted and later

on regular Departmental enquiry was conducted giving

full and fair opportunity to the workman to defend himself.

As already observed above, after hearing both parties,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5585

this Tribunal found that the said Departmental enquiry is

valid. In the said Departmental enquiry it was found that

the workman is guilty of the charges levelled against him.

The said charges are as follows:

(a)

That workman has dishonestly misappropriated

Rs.10,000 accepted from one Sri Appa Rao on

8.5.2001 meant for remitting to Deposit Loan Account

NO.LF 279/2 standing in the name of Smt. K. Venkata

Laxmi.

(b)

That workman has unauthorizedly prepared

counterfoil for Rs.10,000 in the name of Smt. K.

Venkata Laxmi, mentioning the date as 8.5.2000,

affixed round rubber stamp of the branch, initialed

on behalf of clerk and cashier without authority and

delivered fraudulent counterfoil to Smt. K. Venkata

Laxmi without remitting the funds to the Bank and

thus resorted to dishonest and questionable acts.

(c)

That workman had attempted for meddling and for

falsification of Bank records by making an

unauthorized credit entry for Rs.10,000 in the Deposit

Loan ledger No.LF 279/2 and thereafter resorted to

its cancellation without authority and knowledge of

the EC Manager and thereby resorted to its

cancellation without authority and knowledge of the

EC Manager and thereby resorted to suppression

of fraudulent act. Now, it is to be verified whether

finding of guilt of the workman for the above said

charges and the punishment imposed against him

by the Disciplinary Authority are just, reasonable

and proper.

It can be fully agreed that just because the complaint

has been withdrawn by the complainant in the present

case, i.e., Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi, it can not be said that the

workman is exonerated from the charges. Admittedly, he

who was only a sub-staff has received cash for remittance

into the loan account of the said lady but failed to remit

the same. He himself has prepared the challan and apart

from it signed it and also initialed it in the places meant for

the initials of the Manager and cashier. The explanation

being given by the workman for this conduct on his part is

that he waited for the cashier, who was not there, for some

time and then singed it by himself to avoid inconvenience

to the customers. This is a far fetched explanation which

is not at all acceptable. It is not contention of the workman

that the cashier, Manager, as well as the clerical staff of

the bank were all absent at the given time. Further more,

evidently he did not bring this event to the notice of any

of his superiors at any point of time prior to this event

came to light through the complaint of Smt. K. Venkata

Laxmi. Thus, the contention of the respondent bank that

it is an unauthorized act on the part of the workman is to

be accepted, on all counts. He made an entry in the loan

ledger. As rightly pointed out for the respondent making

such entry in the loan ledger above is not as per the

procedure of the bank. The corresponding entries are to

be made in the cash scroll etc.. The same are not made.

Conveniently, the workman had struck off the entry made

by him in the loan ledger. Either for making the said entry

or for striking off the same, he has not secured permission

/authority from any of his superiors. It is not his case that

he has been maintaining the records of the bank. He was

only a sub staff.

10.

Admittedly, Mr. Appa Rao, the advocate is the

maternal uncle of the workman and the said advocate got

some financial dealings with the customer of the bank by

name Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi who was also his client. The

entire event appears to have been managed to be taken

place by the said advocate with the help of the workman

to defraud the said lady. To facilitate the said advocate

who is the maternal uncle of the workman, the workman

has committed all these unauthorized acts which are all

misdeeds. Just because the bank did not suffer any

financial loss owing to the fact that immediately after the

misdeeds came to the light through the complaint of

Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi, Mr. Appa Rao, the advocate has

rushed to the bank and paid away the entire amount due

to the bank into the loan account of Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi,

it can not be said that there is rectification of the misdeeds

and unauthorized acts committed by the workman to

facilitate his maternal uncle. This conduct on the part of

the workman is certainly grave misconduct. For such grave

misconduct appropriate punishment is certainly warranted.

11.

For misappropriation of the public funds removal of

the person concerned from service is most reasonable

punishment, as being claimed by the respondent bank

basing on several legal pronouncements touching this

area.

12.

In the present case, the counter foil challan issued

to the complainant Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi and the entry

made in the loan ledger clearly indicate that an amount of

Rs.10000 was paid into the bank but it was not actually

credited to the loan account of Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi. As

per the records, Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi is the customer of

the bank who took loan and who gave the amount for

crediting the same into her loan account. She was issued

with the counter foil challan indicating the said payment.

But, said amount was not credited into her loan account.

On the other hand, the workman who issued the said

counter foil and who made the credit entry in the loan

ledger has chosen to strike off the entry in the loan ledger.

Thus, it is very much clear from these events, prima facie,

that the workman who received Rs.10000 for crediting the

same into the loan account of Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi failed

to do so, but created record as if the amount was credited

to and meddled with the bank records with this regard

unauthorizedly. He claimed that he did not misappropriate

5586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the said amount at all and that he returned the said amount

to Mr. Appa Rao, Advocate when he came to him together

with Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi. But, the complaint of Smt. K.

Venkata Laxmi though it was withdrawn later does not

indicate such event.

13.

Considering all these circumstances, as far as the

bank is concerned, it is to be held that they are right in

contending that the workman has misappropriated the

amount of Rs.10000/- paid to him for crediting the same

into the loan account of Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi. He is also

guilty of committing unauthorized acts, misdeeds and also

meddling with the bank records, for the reason that he

unauthorizedly issued the counter foil challan to Smt. K.

Venkata Laxmi that too signing and initialing it in the places

meant for Manager and cashier and also making entry in

the loan ledger unauthorizedly and also striking it off

unauthorizedly. Thus, he is rightly found to be guilty of

grave misconduct. He was in the service of the bank

since substantial period prior to the present event. Thus,

he must be having sufficient knowledge of the bank

procedure and the consequences of the acts committed

by him.

14.

In the cases of this nature, the past conduct is

certainly irrelevant as rightly contended for the

respondent. The respondent bank which is a financial

institution dealing with public funds, shall always be

vigilant and careful while selecting, engaging and

continuing the personnel to deal with their activities. The

faith of the public is the foundation for running such

financial institutions. The Management of the said

institution also can not repose faith in the employee who

committed such acts and continue him in their service.

Thus, the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed

against the workman by the Disciplinary Authority is

certainly just and reasonable. Considering the gravity of

the proven charges against the workman, it can not be

said, at any stretch of imagination that, the punishment

imposed is disproportionate. Since, the Departmental

enquiry has been validly conducted giving every

opportunity to the workman to defend himself and well

reasoned report has been made and after giving due

opportunity to the workman the Disciplinary Authority

concurred with the said findings and even there after

giving due opportunity to the workman awarded the

punishment which is found to be proportionate to the

proven charges, it can safely be held that the impugned

order is just, reasonable, legal and not at all arbitrary.

This point is answered accordingly.

15.

Point No. II :

In view of the finding given in Point No.I above, the

workman is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

This point is answered accordingly.

RESULT:

In the result, reference is answered as follows:

Termination of services of Sri Y.S. Gangadhar, Ex.Sub-

Staff, Danavaipeta, Extension counter, Rajahmundry (East

Godavari District), the workman by way of compulsory

retirement with effect from 3.1.2004 by the Management of

M/s. ING Vysya Bank Limited is legal and justified. He is

not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for by him in his

claim statement.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 3rd

day of June, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

for the Petitioner

for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photostat copy of lr. from Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi

withdrawing the complaint dt. 28.8.2001

Ex.W2:

Photostat copy of extract of deposit loan

account ledger showing closure of loan account

of Smt. K. Venkata Laxmi dt.28.8.2001

Ex.W3:

Photostat copy of explanation to charge sheet

dt. 23.3.2002

Ex.W4:

Office copy of written brief submitted by

workman dt. 30.12.2002

Ex.W5:

Photostat copy of removal order dt.3.1.2004

Ex.W6:

Office copy of appeal filed by the workman dt.

29.1.2004

Ex.W7:

Photostat copy of appeal rejection order dt.

29.3.2004

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Office copy of charge sheet dt. 22/25.2.2002

Ex.M2:

Explanation to the charge sheet by workman dt.

23.3.2002

Ex.M3:

Enquiry order vide lr.100-01-ER-38 dt.

9/11.4.2002

Ex.M4:

Order No.100-01-ER-367 dt. 20.6.2002

Ex.M5:

Enquiry notice No. ENQ/GDJ/16/02/376 dt.

20/21.6.2002

Ex.M6:

Representation from workman dt. 2.7.2002

Ex.M7:

Photostat copy of enquiry notice dt. 3.9.2002

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5587

Ex.M8:

Request representation of Vice President of

AIVBE Union for adjournment of enquiry date,

dt.3.10.2002

Ex.M9:

Notice dt. 8.11.2002 reg. enquiry

Ex.M10:

Notice of Enquiry Officer dt.17.10.2002 to the

workman

Ex.M11:

Notice of adjournment of enquiry to the

workman dt.12.9.2002

Ex.M12:

List of documents etc., submitted during enquiry

by the management representative dt. 12.9.2002

Ex.M13:

Photostat copy of lr. enclosing copies of

proceeding dt.12.9.2002

Ex.M14:

Proceedings of Enquiry dt.26.9.2002

Ex.M15:

Proceedings of Enquiry dt. 5.10.2002

Ex.M16:

Proceedings of Enquiry dt. 30.10.2002

Ex.M17:

Proceedings of Enquiry dt. 25.11.2002

Ex.M18:

Exhibits marked during domestic enquiry

Ex.M19:

Letter enclosing written brief of Enquiry Officer

dt.16.12.2002

Ex.M20:

Written brief of the DR of workman in reply to

Ex.M19 dt.30.12.2002

Ex.M21:

Photostat copy of lr. enclosing enquiry report

to the workman dt.8.3.2003

Ex.M22:

Reply of workman to Ex.M21

Ex.M23:

Office copy of show cause notice dt.16.5.2003

to the workman

Ex.M24:

Office copy of lr. giving opportunity to workman

on Ex.M23

Ex.M25:

Reply submitted by workman to Ex.M23

dt.20.6.2003

Ex.M26:

Proceedings of personal hearing dt. 20.6.2003

Ex.M27:

Office copy of order imposing punishment of

compulsory retirement on workman dt.3.1.2004

Ex.M28:

Grounds of appeal by workman dt.29.1.2004

Ex.M29:

Office copy of rejection order in appeal dt.

29.3.2004.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2151-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 41@2007)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@41@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2014

S.O. 2151.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2007)

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

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of North Eastern Railway,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 15/07/2014

[No. L-41012/41/2007-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 41/2007

Ref. No. L-41012/41/2007-IR(B-I) dated: 06.09.2007

BETWEEN

The Member Executive

Purottar Railway Shramik Sangh

C/o D.P. Awasthi, 49, Tilak Nagar

Lucknow – 226004.

(Espousing casue of Shri Deen Dayal)

AND

The Addl. Divisional Railway Manager

North Eastern Railway

Ashok Marg, Lucknow

The Sr. Divisional Engineer (C)

North Eastern Railway

Ashok Marg, Lucknow

AWARD

By order No. L-41012/41/2007-IR (B-I) dated:

06.09.2007 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred

this industrial dispute between the Member Executive,

Purottar Railway Shramik Sangh, C/o D.P. Awasthi, 49, Tilak

Nagar, Lucknow – 226004 and the Addl. Divisional Railway,

Manager, North Eastern Railway, Ashok Marg, Lucknow

& the Sr. Divisional Engineer (C), North Eastern Railway,

Ashok Marg, Lucknow for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER

THE

ACTION

THE

MANAGEMENT OF NORTHERN EASTERN

RAILWAY, LUCKNOW OVER GIVING

PUNISHMENT OF DOWNGRADING THE PAY-

SCALE OF SHRI DEEN DAYAL, CARPENDER FOR

5588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4 MONTHS PERIOD, WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT,

IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO WHAT

RELIEF THE CONCERNED WORKMAN IS

ENTITLED?”

It is admitted case of the parties that the workman,

Deen Dayal was placed under suspension; and

subsequently, was issued a major penalty charge sheet

dated 07.11.2003 for alleged gross misconduct. Initially

Shri Saheb Singh, Asstt. Divisional Engineer (East)

Lucknow was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who submitted

his enquiry report dated 08.09.2004 before the disciplinary

authority with finding that the charges leveled against the

workman were found proved. The Disciplinary Authority,

on the basis of findings of the Enquiry Officer, issued

punishment order dated 17.01.2005 whereby the workman

was punished of downgrading the pay scale.

It has been alleged by the workman’s union that the

Inquiry Officer in its inquiry report has concluded that the

workman may be issued minor penalty charge sheet; but

the Disciplinary Authority, without mentioning the reasons

for disagreement to the Inquiry Officer, passed the

punishment order dated 17.01.2005 without serving show

cause notice to the workman. Accordingly, the workman’s

union has prayed that the Departmental proceedings

which were conducted in violation to the principles of

natural justice is liable to be set aside.

The management of the Bank in its written statement

has denied the allegations of the workman’s union and

has defended its domestic proceedings with submission

that the workman had been afforded all opportunity given

under rules the principles of natural justice were fully

complied with; hence, there is no anomaly with it; and

accordingly, has prayed that domestic enquiry

proceedings conducted by it may be upheld and the action

of the railway vide order dated 17.01.2005 be declared just,

fair and legal without any benefit to the workman

concerned.

The workman’s union has filed rejoinder reiterating

the averments made in the statement of claim.

The parties filed documents in support of their

respective case. Following preliminary issues were framed

in the presence of the parties vide order dated 08.02.2011:

(i)

Whether the domestic inquiry held by the Inquiry

officer is fair and proper? If so, its effect.

(ii)

Whether the findings of inquiry officer are perverse?

If so its effect.

After framing of preliminary issues the workman was

called upon to adduce its evidence.

The workman filed its affidavit in support of his

pleadings; but the management did not turn up for cross-

examination in spite of several opportunities being

afforded, which led to closing the opportunity of the

management to cross-examine the workman’s witness and

next date was fixed for management’s evidence. The

management did not produced any evidence and the next

date was fixed for arguments. The parties once again

refrained from argument; accordingly, the case was

reserved for orders.

Following orders were passed on preliminary issues

vide order dated 06.11.2013.

“The disciplinary enquiry was conducted in

accordance with the principles of natural justice and

the workman was afforded all reasonable opportunity

to defend himself; and also, the findings of the

Enquiry Officer do not appear to be perverse. As

such, both the issues are decided in favour of the

management. The parties are called upon to forward

their argument regarding quantum of punishment

vide impugned order dated 17.01.2005.”

10.

Accordingly, 16.01.2014 was fixed for arguments on

the point of quantum of punishment under Section 11 A of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The parties again

remained reluctant to forward their case on several dates

and almost a year passed waiting for parties to argue their

case and finally the case was reserved for award, keeping

in view the reluctance of parties to contest their case and

long pendency of the case since 2007.

11.

The workman’s union has come up with the case

that he was served upon a major penalty charge sheet for

alleged occupation of railway quarter without allotment.

It has been pleaded that the Inquiry Officer, finding the

charges to be proved, concluded with the report that a

minor penalty charge may be issued to the workman; but

the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the report of

the Inquiry Officer and without issuing a show cause

notice inflicted punishment upon the workman, which was

in flagrant denial of the principles of natural justice.

12.

The management, in rebuttal, has defended the

departmental inquiry conducted by it and has pleaded

that the same was conducted in accordance with the norms

laid down under Rules and all reasonable opportunity to

defend himself was afforded to the workman.

13.

I have scanned entire evidence on record, in the

light of rival pleadings of the parties.

14.

The workman has proved it’s pleading by filing its

affidavit; but the management did not turn up for cross-

examination of the workman’s witness in spite of several

opportunities being afforded, which led to closing the

opportunity of the management to cross-examine the

workman’s witness. Hence, the evidence of the workman

remained unrebutted and has to be relied on. But from

perusal of the affidavit filed by the workman it comes out

that the workman has made an admission to the matter

under contention i.e. regarding occupation of the railway

quarter.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5589

15.

Entering into the merits of the case, admittedly the

workman was issued a major penalty charge sheet with

allegation that he occupied the Government

accommodation without any formal allotment. The

workman has denied this allegation. But on going through

the para 02 of the affidavit filed by the workman, in support

of his pleadings goes to show that the workman was

actually in occupation of the alleged accommodation. The

para 02 of the affidavit, filed by the workman is as under:

2. That the deponent had occupied the said Railway

quarter on the basis of verbal order of the Asstt.

Engineer (West) Shri V.K. Srivastava the then

controlling authority of the deponent.”

This goes to show that the workman actually

occupied the government accommodation without any

formal/written orders, which were necessary to make held

him responsible for the allotment, deductions from his

salary etc. There is no rule of verbal allotment of the

government accommodation to any official nor the

workman could lead to the evidence to the effect before

the Inquiry Officer that the said verbal allotment was valid

one in eye of the law. In fact, the workman could not rely

upon any rule, before this Tribunal also, as to under which

Rule the said accommodation was allotted to him verbally

and it was valid one.

16.

Now it comes to the question whether court can

exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, which empower the Labour Court to

interfere with the punishment imposed upon the workman.

Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of India,

(1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about the scope of

judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as

under:

“The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the

power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute

its own conclusion on penalty and impose some

other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the

disciplinary authority or the appellate authority

shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal,

it would appropriately mould the relief, either

directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to

reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the

litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases,

imposed appropriate punishment with cogent

reasons in support thereof.”

In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon’ble

Apex Court has observed that:

“6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by

a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by

the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate

cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that

the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly

disproportionate, after examining all the relevant

factors including the nature of charges proved

against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier,

the nature of duties assigned having due regard to

their sensitiveness, exactness expected of an

discipline required to be maintained, and the

department/establishment which the delinquent

person concerned works.”

17.

Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

reads as under:

“11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunal and

National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case

of discharge or dismissal of workmen. – Where an

industrial dispute relating to the discharge or

dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour

Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication

and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings,

the Labour Court, Tribunal of National Tribunal, as

the case may be, is satisfied that the order of

discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, be

its award, set aside the order of discharge or

dismissal and direct re-instatement of the workman

on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit,

or give such other relief to the workman including

the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of

discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the

case may require:

Provided that in any proceeding under this section

the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the

case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and

shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter.”

A bare reading of the section makes it clear that

Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act has been

enacted to empower the Labour Court to interfere with

that management’s decision to dismiss, discharge or

terminate the services of a workman in such cases. In

respect of other punishments, it has been observed and

consistently held by the Courts that the tribunal does not

have power to substitute its own judgment for that of the

management. Hon’ble Apex Court in South Indian Cashew

Factories Workers’’ Union vs. Kerala State Cashew

Development Corpn. Ltd (2006) 5 SCC 201 made the

following observations:

“Section 11-A of the Act gives ample power to the

Labour Court to re-appraise the evidence adduced

in the enquiry and also sit in appeal over the decision

of the employer in imposing punishment. Section

11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is only applicable

in the case of dismissal or discharge of a workman

as clearly mentioned in the section itself.”

18.

Whether similar power can be exercised by the

Labour Court where the punishment award is neither

dismissal, punishment or retrenchment? This issue has

been considered by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in

5590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Allahabad Bank vs. Presiding Officer, Central Govt.

Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Kanpur & others

2012 (133) FLR 1098; where it has been observed that:

“Section 11-A empowers the Labour Court to re-

appreciate the evidence and correct the judgment,

in case of discharge, dismissal and termination, while

in case of other punishments, no such power is

vested with the Labour Court”.

19.

It is established that the workman actually committed

the misconduct for which he was charge sheeted and

accordingly he was imposed a minor penalty. There is no

reliable material for recording findings that the alleged

action of the management of railway in imposing minor

penalty upon the workman vide order dated 17.01.2005

was or the same was excessively harsh or disproportionate

one.

20.

Accordingly, in view of the above decision of

Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of opinion that the

punishment order 17.01.2005 need not to be interfered by

this Tribunal. Hence, the reference is adjudicated against

the workman’s union; and as such, I come to the

conclusion that the workman, Deen Dayal is not entitled

to the relief claimed.

21.

Award as above.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

LUCKNOW.

14th July, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2152-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 28@2007)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@36@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2014

S.O. 2152.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2007)

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

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of North East Railway,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 15/07/2014

[No. L-41012/36/2007-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 28/2007

Ref. No. L-41012/36/2007-IR (B-I) dated: 03.07.2007

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary

All India Station Masters Association

C/o 107/76, Jawahar Nagar

Kanpur (U.P.)

(Espousing cause of Shri Ranbechan)

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager

North East Railway, Ashok Marg

Lucknow.

AWARD

By order No. L-41012/36/2007-IR (B-I) dated:

03.07.2007 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred

this industrial dispute between the General Secretary, All

India Station Masters Association, C/o 107/76, Jawahar

Nagar, Kanpur (U.P.) and the Divisional Railway Manager,

North East Railway, Ashok Marg, Lucknow for

adjudication to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER

THE

ACTION

THE

MANAGEMENT OF NORTH EAST RAILWAY,

LUCKNOW IN NOT GIVING OVERTIME

ALLOWANCE FOR DOING EXTRA DUTY ON

25.05.2003 TO 30.11.2005 TO SHRI RAMBECHAN

S/O BHAGIRATHI, CABINMAN, IS JUSTIFIED?

IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF THE CONCERNED

WORKMAN IS ENTITLED?

The case of the workman’s union, in brief is that the

workman, Rambechan was appointed as Gateman in the

railways in 1966 and was further made Cabin Man in 1980.

It is submitted that the workman was transferred from

Jarwal Road Cabin to Rawatpur Railway Station on

10.05.2003 and accordingly, he joined Rawatpur railway

station under NER division on 25.05.2003. It is further

submitted that at Jarwal Road Cabin the workman used to

perform 8 hours’ duty whereas on joining Rawatpur

railway station he was put to discharge 12 hours’ duty.

The workman complained before Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central) on 18.09.2003 against this unfair

practice. The Regional Labour Commissioner after inquiry

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5591

referred the matter to NER, Lucknow Division and required

it to curtail the working hours to 8 hours. The DRM office

vide dated 14.11.2005 admitted before Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central), Kanpur that the working hours

were in excess; but denied to pay over time. The workman’s

union has submitted that the workman was put to 12 hours’

duty each day from 25.05.2003 to 30.11.2005; and

accordingly the workman’s union has prayed that the

workman be held entitled for grant of overtime allowance

w.e.f. 25.05.2003 to 30.11.2005.

The management of the North Eastern Railway has

filed its written statement; wherein it has disputed the

claim of the workman’s union. It has submitted that the

‘duty roster’ of a Cabin Man at Jarwal Road Station was

for 8 hours whereas the duty roster of Cabin Man at

Rawatpur Station was for 12 hours; accordingly, the

workman was put to duty for 12 hours. It is specially

submitted that the workman from 25.05.2003 to 30.11.2005

was posted at E.I. Roster where there is a provision for 12

hours’ duty without any overtime allowance, accordingly,

no overtime is payable to the workman. Therefore, the

management has prayed that the workman is not entitled

for grant of overtime allowance and the claim of the

workman’s union is liable to be rejected being devoid of

any merit.

The workman’s union has filed its rejoinder; wherein

it has apart from reiterating the averments already made in

the statement of claim and has submitted that overtime

allowance is payable only when the duty roster for 12

hours.

The Parties have filed documentary evidence in

support of their case. The workman’s union examined the

workman in evidence who was cross-examined by the

authorized representative of the management. But the

management has not forwarded any evidence, in spite of

ample opportunities being forward to it, and accordingly

the management’s opportunity to lead evidence was

closed and the case was fixed for arguments. The parties

forwarded its oral argument in support of their respective

cases.

Heard representatives of the parties and perused

entire evidence on record and gone through respective

pleadings of the parties.

The authorized representative of the workman’s

union has argued that the workman was put to 8 hours’

duty at Jarwal Road Station; but when he joined Rawatpur

he was put to 12 hours duty, therefore, the workman is

entitled for over time allowance for the period he worked

at Rawatpur Station i.e. from 25.05.2003 to 30.11.2005.

Per contra, the authorized representative of the

management has argued that the duty roster at Jarwal Road

Station was for 8 hours; whereas the duty roster at

Rawatpur Station was for 12 hours, therefore, the workman

is not entitled for any over time allowance.

10.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival submissions of the authorized representatives of the

parties their pleadings and entire evidence available on

record.

11.

The workman’s union has come forward with a case

that the workman was put to 12 hours duty which was in

excess to 8 hours’ normal duty period, therefore, the

workman should be granted overtime allowance for the

period he was put to 12 hours’ duty. The management has

denied the claim of the workman’s union with contention

that the duty roster at the place of posting of the workman

was for 12 hours, therefore, he cannot be allowed any

overtime allowance.

12.

The workman’s union has pleaded that the workman

as made to work for 12 hours; and accordingly, he was

liable to be paid over time for excess period he worked;

but the management has taken plea that the duty roster at

the place of posting was for 12 hours, therefore, the

workman cannot be paid any overtime allowance.

The workman has filed photocopy of numerous

documents which include applications/representations

made to the railway administration for payment of overtime

allowance and complaint made before Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central), Kanpur for alleged unfair practice

adopted by the workman; but has not filed any rule or any

document which may provide that the duty roster followed

at Rawatput Station was for 8 hours; but he was put to 12

hours’ of duty, which was in excess to the duty roster

followed at Rawatpur; and this might held him entitle for

over time allowance. On the contrary, the management

has filed photocopy of duty roster vide list dated 28.03.2011

in respect of Cabin Man at Rawatput Station, paper No.

15/4, which provides that hours of duty at Rawatpur Station

in respect of Cabin Man was 12 hours; and thereby has

proved that actually the duty roster that was followed for

Cabin Mans at Rawatpur was for 12 hours and accordingly

the workman was put to 12 hours duty, therefore, he was

rightly denied of overtime allowance.

13.

Thus, from the discussions made hereinabove, it is

clear that the workman’s union failed to discharge the

burden that lied upon it and failed to prove its pleadings

by cogent documentary evidence regarding entitlement

of the workman for overtime allowance, therefore, I come

to the conclusion that action of the management of North

Eastern Railway, Lucknow in not giving overtime allowance

to the workman is neither illegal nor unjustified.

Accordingly, the workman concerned is not entitled for

any relief.

18.

The reference is answered accordingly.

LUCKNOW

15th July, 2014

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

5592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2153-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 53@2009)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@69@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2014

S.O. 2153.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2009)

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

Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Western Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

16/07/2014.

[No. L-41011/69/2008-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K. B. KATAKE, B.A.LL.M, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. CGIT-2/53 of 2009

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF WESTERN RAILWAY

The Divisional Railway Manager (E)

Western Railway

Mumbai Division

Mumbai Central

Mumbai-400008.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The Secretary

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad

33, Moti Bhuvan, 2nd floor

Dr. D’Silva Road

Dadar (W)

Mumbai 400 028.

APPEARANCES :

For The Employer

: Mr. Abhay Kulkarni, Advocate.

For The Workmen

: Mr. M. B. Anchan, Advocate.

Mumbai, the 9th June, 2014

AWARD PART-I

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-41011/ 69 /2008-IR (B-I)

dated 11.06.2009 in exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred

the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Western

Railway Administration, Mumbai by terminating the

services of Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav, Bungalow

Peon, is justified? If not, to what relief is the

workman?”

After receipt of the reference, notices were issued

to both the parties. In response to the notice, the second

party union filed their statement of claim at Ex-6. According

to them workman Ashok Kumar Yadav was appointed as

Bungalow Peon since 26/12/2005 at the Bungalow of

Ms. Rita Raj, Divisional Commercial Manager, Western

Railway at Baroda. After completing 120 days he was

granted temporary status from 6/1/2006. In May 2007,

Ms. Rita Raj was transferred from Baroda to Mumbai. On

her application her Bungalow Peon i.e. Workman, Ashok

Kumar Yadav was also transferred to Mumbai and he was

working at her Bungalow. He worked there from

03/09/2007 to 14/09/2007. On 14.9.2007 workman had been

to the Bungalow of Ms. Rita Raj to resume his duty.

However she did not allow him to resume his duty.

Therefore on the next day workman made representation

to Ms. Rita Raj. In spite of that she did not allow him to

join his duties. The workman therefore made complaint to

President of their union and also filed complaint with Police

and sent representation to Divisional Manager, Western

Railway with a request to allow him to join his duties.

However he did not get any reply. Therefore he used

banner with a request to DRM to allow him to join his

duty. Ms. Rita Raj called RPF Personnel and they assaulted

and beat the workman. Therefore he was admitted in the

hospital. The workman was never absent. On the other

hand he was not allowed to join his duties by Ms. Rita Raj.

The workman was charge-sheeted that he had made

STD calls from the residential telephone of Ms. Rita Raj.

Another charge leveled was that he was unauthorisedly

absent from duty from 14/09/2007. The workman was not

given opportunity for his explanation in respect of the

charges of making STD calls from the residential telephone

of Ms. Rita Raj with her permission. He had also paid the

charges thereof. He was never absent from duty. On the

other hand Ms. Rita Raj did not allow him to resume his

duties. In the inquiry proceeding Ms. Rita Raj was

important witness. However neither she was examined

nor was made available for cross examination. In spite of

that Inquiry Officer held him guilty and his services were

terminated. The workman was not given sufficient

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5593

opportunity to defend himself. The Inquiry Officer had

violated the Principles of Natural Justice. Therefore the

workman has raised industrial dispute. As conciliation

failed, on the report of ALC (C) the Central Labour Ministry

has sent the reference to this Tribunal. The union therefore

prays that the order of termination be set aside and the

workman be reinstated in service with full back wages

with continuity of service.

The first party management resisted the statement

of claim vide its written statement Ex-14. According to

them while working as a Bungalow Peon at Vadodara in

the absence of Ms. Rita Raj the workman used to make

STD calls from her residential telephone without her

permission and warning notice was issued to him in that

respect of 18/08/2006. In reply thereto the workman

admitted the facts and had apologized in writing. After

transfer of Ms. Rita Raj to Mumbai, the workman was also

transferred to Mumbai. However he remained

unauthorisedly absent from 14/09/2007. Due to which Ms.

Rita Raj suffered great difficulties. Though he was absent

from duty, he used to visit office of DRM, BCT. He also

requested Mr. Haridas G. to issue him sick memo. He

advised him to report his duty as he was not sick.

Competent Authority issued charge sheet dt.9/10/2007 to

the workman for the aforesaid STD calls as well as for

unauthorized absence. Initially workman refused to accept

the charge sheet as it was in English and required it in

Hindi. Subsequently he accepted the charge-sheet. The

Inquiry Officer was appointed and departmental inquiry

was initiated against the workman. The Inquiry Officer

conducted the inquiry as per the rules. He recorded the

evidence of the management. Opportunity was given to

the workman to cross examine the management witnesses.

The workman was also given an opportunity to lead his

evidence. After completion of the hearing the Inquiry

Officer held the workman guilty. Accordingly he sent his

report to the disciplinary authority. Disciplinary Authority

sent the copy of the report to the workman with show-

cause notice. After giving him hearing the disciplinary

authority terminated the services of the workman. The

inquiry was fair and proper and findings of the Inquiry

Officer are in consonance with the evidence on record.

The punishment of termination is the appropriate

punishment. Therefore management submits that it needs

no interference. Therefore they pray that the reference be

rejected with cost.

Following are the preliminary issues for my

determination in this part-I award. I record my findings

thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sr. No.

Issues

Findings

Whether the inquiry is fair and proper?

Whether the findings of I.O. are perverse?

Yes

REASONS

Issues No. 1 & 2 :-

In the case at hand in respect of the first charge of

making STD calls, workman has not denied that he made

STD calls as his mother was ill. According to him those

STD calls were made by him with permission of Ms. Rita

Raj. It is further contended on behalf of the workman that,

he has paid the charges of STD calls. Therefore according

to him Ms. Rita Raj is the most relevant and essential

witness in this regard. It is also contended on behalf of

the workman that since 14/9/2007 every day he has

reported to the Bungalow of Ms. Rita Raj and she did not

allow him to resume his duty. This allegation is also denied

by the first party. In the circumstances according to the

second party Ms. Rita Raj was the concerned and only

witness in respect of both the charges leveled against the

workman. According to the second party workman the

main and most important witness, Ms. Rita Raj was not at

all examined and she was not made available for cross

examination. Therefore according to the ld. adv. for the

second party it amounts to violation of Principles of

Natural Justice. In support of his argument the ld. adv. for

the second party resorted to the ruling of Central

Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench in C.C.S. Dwiwedi

V/s. Union of India 1989 (4) (CAT) 892. In that case the

applicant therein was charged that he has taken money

and given a chit to passenger to travel and did not credit

the money. In that case neither the chit was produced nor

the passenger was examined as witness. In the

circumstances the Tribunal quashed the order of

disciplinary authority by observing that;

“Non-examination of such witness was denial of

reasonable opportunity to the workman.”

In the case at hand the facts are not disputed that

Ms. Rita Raj was the sole officer who has made complaint

about using her residential telephone by the workman to

make STD calls. According to the workman he had used

the said telephone with permission of Ms. Rita Raj and he

also paid the charges thereof. Furthermore the said charge

was of the year 2006. The management witness has

admitted in his cross at Ex-27 that the charges of the calls

made by the workman were recovered from his salary. In

the circumstances whether the STD calls were made with

permission of Ms. Rita Raj or without her permission is

the only question for which Ms. Rita Raj was the important

and relevant witness. So also in respect of the charge of

absent from duty. According to the workman he was

reporting to the Bungalow of Ms. Rita Raj and she did not

allow him to resume his duty. Therefore he made complaint

to Union, General Manager as well as to Police. In this

respect also Ms. Rita Raj was the relevant and important

witness. Both the charges were framed on the workman

as per the complaint of Ms. Rita Raj. The Inquiry Officer

has not examined her and has not made her available for

5594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

cross examination. In the light of above decision of CAT it

amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to the

workman to defend himself. No doubt it is violation of

Principles of Natural Justice. In the circumstances I hold

that inquiry is not fair and proper. Consequently I also

hold that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse

as he has not given fair and proper opportunity to the

workman to defend himself. Accordingly I decide this

issue no.1 in the negative that the inquiry is not fair and

proper and issue no.2 in the affirmative that the findings

of the Inquiry Officer are perverse. Thus I proceed to pass

the following order.

ORDER

(i)

The inquiry is found not fair and proper.

(ii)

The findings of the Inquiry Officer are declared

perverse.

(iii)

Opportunity is given to the first party management

to prove the charges by leading evidence. Parties to

remain present on the next date of hearing.

Date: 09/06/2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2154-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 91@2001) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@251@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2014

S.O. 2154.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 91/2001)

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

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Central Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

16/07/2014.

[No. L-41012/251/2000-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/91/2001

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE

Divisional Secretary,

Rail Mazdoor Union,

C/o Shri Triloki Prasad,

Pointman, Office; Chief Yard Master,

Central Railway, Satna

.....Workman/Union

Versus

Divisional Railway Manager,

Central Railway,

Jabalpur

.....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of June, 2014

As per letter dated 14-5-2001 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-41012/

251/2000/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Central

Railway, Jabalpur reverting Shri Triloki Prasad from

the post of Train clerk to his original post w.e.f.

15-8-93 while he has worked 30-7-87 to 6-5-88 and

again from 21-8-88 to 14-8-93 is justified? If not,

what relief the workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman filed Statement of Claim at page 3/1

to 3/3. Case of workman is that he was appointed as Station

Porter on 25-2-85 in Pay Scale Rs.750-950. He was

discharging his duties satisfactorily. That workman was

discharging duties of clerk from 30-7-88 and again from

21-8-88 to 14-8-93 in two spells of 9 months and 5 years

respectively. However workman was not paid salary of

the post of train clerk. He was paid salary of station porter.

From 15-8-93, workman was discontinued from work as

train clerk instead of repeated representations. His status

of train clerk was not restored. He was not paid allowance

for discharging duties of higher post i.e. train clerk.

Workman further submits that since 1990, he was working

in post of train clerk. The memorandum/charge was issued

against him. He denoted his designation as train clerk.

That his representations were not replied by management.

That he had worked for more than maximum period

prescribed in DR rules. As train clerk. On such ground

workman is praying that his reversion is illegal.

Management be directed to pay difference of salary.

IInd party raised preliminary objection that workman

was never appointed as train clerk. There was no question

of his reversion. The Govt has committed error while making

reference. The reference is liable to be rejected. Workman

has claimed promotion for the post of clerk from 12-8-93.

The dispute is raised in 2001 highly belated as not tenable.

Dispute is raised by Union. Union is not existing in

establishment of IInd party therefore reference is not

tenable. Workman was initially appointed as station porter.

He worked as train clerk. That 50 % post was filled by

direct recruitment and 50 % by Selection against OPTG

staff. Workman was not promoted. On 23-8-00, workman

was promoted on the post equal to the grade of TNC. All

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5595

other adverse contentions of workman are denied.

Workman has not produced documents in support of claim

as per required rules. 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 Central Railway,

Jabalpur reverting Shri Triloki

Prasad from the post of Train

clerk to his original post w.e.f.

15-8-93 while he has worked

30-7-87 to 6-5-88 and again from

21-8-88 to 14-8-93 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

Workman is not

is entitled to?”

entitled to any

relief as claimed

by him.

REASONS

Workman is claiming that he was working as train

clerk in two blocks of time. He was not paid salary of train

clerk. Workman not filed evidence in support of his claim.

Evidence of workman is closed on 27-10-2010.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness

Shri Gyananand Shukla supporting contentions of IInd

party in Written Statement. His evidence remained

unchallenged as witness of management was not cross-

examined by workman. For absence of evidence, 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 Central Railway,

Jabalpur reverting Shri Triloki Prasad from the post

of Train clerk to his original post w.e.f. 15-8-93 while

he has worked 30-7-87 to 6-5-88 and again from 21-8-

88 to 14-8-93 is legal.

(2)

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2155-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 02@2004) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@88@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2014

S.O. 2155.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2004)

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

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Uttar Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

08/07/2014

[No. L-41012/88/2007-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

–CUM- LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 02/2004

Ref. No. L-41012/88/2007-IR(B-I) dated: 08.10.2007

BETWEEN

Mandal Sanghatan Mantri

Uttar Railway Karmachari Union

283/63 KH (B), Ghari Kanora, Prewati Nagar

Post: Manak Nagar

Lucknow – 6

(Espousing cause of Shri Shiv Kumar)

AND

Senior Personnel Officer

Northern Railway

Loco Shop, Chaar Bagh

Lucknow.

AWARD

By order No. L-41012/88/2007-IR(B-I) dated:

08.10.2007, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred

this industrial dispute between Mandal Sanghatan Mantri,

Uttar Railway Karmachari Union, 283/63 KH (B), Ghari

Kanora, Prewati Nagar, Post: Manak Nagar, Lucknow and

Senior Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Loco Shop,

Chaar Bagh, Lucknow for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER

THE

ACTION

THE

MANAGEMENT OF NORTHERN RAILWAY,

LUCKNOW OVER NON PAYMENT OF PCO

ALLOWANCES TO SHRI SHIV KUMAR, TKT. NO.

IS-08 FROM 25/06/1998 TO 17/04/2001 LIKE OTHER

WORKMEN, IS JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO WHAT

RELIEF THE WORKMAN CONCERNED IS

ENTITLED?”

The case of the workman’s union, in brief, is that the

workman, Shiv Kumar, was appointed as skilled fitter on

05.07.77. It is alleged that the workman was made to join in

the inspection shop on the basis of suitability vide office

order dated 23.10.97 without PCO allowance w.e.f. 25.06.98;

5596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

whereas the other employees were given PCO allowance

from the date of resumption of the charge. It is stated that

the management has granted him PCO allowance, on

making various representations, w.e.f. 18.04.2001.

Accordingly, the workman’s union has prayed that the

workman be granted PCO allowance from 25.06.98 to

17.04.2001.

The management has disputed the claim of the

workman’s union and filed its written statement; wherein

it has stated that the workman was appointed as skilled

fitter on the sanctioned post of Speedometer in the Cadre

of year 1991-92 without PCO allowance and was posted in

Diesel Shop and at the time of his posting in Diesel Shop,

the Cadre of year 1996-97 was zero. It is submitted that a

policy settlement was regarding PCO allowance; wherein

it was decide that on the basis of Cadre of year 1991-92,

the suitability test of the working employees be done and

according to the Cadre of year 1996-97, they may be

appointed in Inspection Shop and paid PCO allowance.

Rest employees shall remain posted on their place of

posting without PCO allowance and they will be promoted

in the Shop floor. The workman after screening was posted

in inspection shop without PCO allowance. It is submitted

that at the time of his posting in PCO, it was decided in

consultation with both the recognized unions that staff in

PCO would be made on the basis of Cadre strength of 91-

92 but PCO allowance would be applicable on the basis of

Cadre strength sanctioned in the year 1996-97 and in Cadre

of 96-97 there was no sanctioned posts of Fitter Electrical

Grade I as PCO allowance; accordingly, PCO allowance

could not be granted to the workman for the want of post

but in other cases there was sanctioned post even in the

Cadre of 96-97 as such they were sanctioned PCO

allowance. Therefore, the management has prayed that

the claim of the workman’s union be rejected being devoid

of merit.

The workman’s union has filed its rejoinder whereby

it has stated nothing new apart from reiterating his

averments already made in the statement of claim.

The workman’s union has filed photo copy of

documents in support of its claim; whereas the

management has filed none. The workman has examined

himself whereas the management has not forwarded any

evidence, in spite of ample opportunities being forward to

it, which led to presumption that the management is not

interested to lead evidence hence its opportunity to lead

evidence was closed and the case was fixed for arguments.

The management again did not turn for arguments and the

authorized representative argued his case.

Heard representatives of the workman’s union only

and perused entire evidence on record and gone through

respective pleadings of the parties.

The workman’s union has contended that the

management of railways deprived the workman of PCO

allowance for which he was entitled as the other employees

were getting. The management has pleaded that the PCO

allowance was admissible on the basis of Cadre strength

of 96-97 and since there was no post in 96-97, therefore

the workman was not allowed PCO allowance on his joining

on the post.

10.

The workman union’s case is that the workman is

entitled for PCO allowance since his joining in the

inspection shop at par with other similarly situated

employees. The management has controverted the case

with pleading that the PCO allowance was admissible on

the basis of Cadre strength in Diesel Shop in 1996-97,

which was zero. Also, in view of the settlement arrived at

between the management and recognized unions, those

who clear the suitability test according to Cadre of year

1996-97, may be appointed in inspection shop with PCO

allowance. Also it was decided that the staff in PCO would

be made on the basis of Cadre strength of 91-92 but PCO

allowance would be applicable on the basis of Cadre

strength sanctioned in the year 1996-97. Since, in the

Cadre of 1996-97 there was no sanctioned post of Fitter

Electrical Grade-I, as such the workman was not allowed

PCO allowance for the want of post in the Cadre of 96-97.

However, the other employees were given PCO allowance

as their cases were covered under existing policy and

availability of post. The workman was granted PCO

allowance w.e.f. 18.04.2001 as a result of decision arrived

at, in the meeting with the recognized unions and railway

administration.

10.

The workman in his cross-examination has admitted

that he is of 96-97 batch. He could not recall name of any

employee who were receiving PCO allowance. The

management of the railways has not adduced any evidence

inspite of number of dates were given to them.

11.

The management has disputed the claim of the

workman’s union with pleading that the PCO allowance

was admissible on the basis of Cadre strength of 96-97

and since there was no post in 96-97, therefore, the

workman was not granted PCO allowance; but the

management did not prove its pleadings through evidence

as it did not turn up to file any evidence. On the contrary

the workman has proved its pleadings by the way of

evidence and he was duly cross-examined by the

authorized representative of the management. Hon’ble

Apex Court in State of U.P. vs. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava

& others (2006) 3 SCC 276 the statement of the witness,

having not been controverted would be deemed to be

admitted.

12.

Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the

case and law cited hereinabove, I am of the considered

opinion that the action of the management of Northern

Railway in non-payment of PCO allowance to the workman

for the period 25.06.1998 to 17.04.1998 was not justified

Accordingly, the workman concerned is entitled for

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5597

payment of PCO allowance for the period 25.06.1998 to

17.04.1998.

13.

The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

14.

Award as above.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

LUCKNOW

03rd July, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2156-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

bankSj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 328@99

vkSj 2A@04) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

16@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@282@99&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2014

S.O. 2156.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 328/99 &

2A/04) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of State Bank of Indore

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 16/07/2014

[No. L-12012/282/99-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/328/99&A/2/04

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE

Shri Ram Nagwanshi,

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank

Karmachari Sangathan,

Hardev Niwas, 9, Sanver road,

Ujjain (MP)

.....Workman

Versus

General Manager (Operations),

State Bank of Indore,

Merged as State Bank of India

Local Head Office,

Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal

....Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 30th day of June, 2014)

As per letter dated 15-11-99 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

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

282/99/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of Indore, Branch Ranjhi in not making Shri

Mukesh Phoolchand Agarwal permanent till date

whereas he has completed his services within

prescribed time limit is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at page 5

to 9. Case of Ist party workman is that he was engaged

against vacant post of peon by Branch Manager Santosh

Nirkhe from 26-12-88. Workman was doing work of

cleaning, sweeping, dusting in the Bank. Besides he was

also required to do other work of peon. He had worked

under different Branch Managers. He was paid bonus

from 1988 to 1993. He worked more than 240 days during

each of the year. That agreement was settled between

management and Union on 13-7-93. As per said settlement,

the employees completed more than 240 days service were

entitled for appointment as permanent employee. Workman

submits that he has acquired status of regular employee

under Section 25-B of I.D.Act. On such ground, workman

prays for appointment/ regularization as permanent

employee and direction for payment of difference of wages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at page 15 to 29.

IInd party raised preliminary objection. That workman was

engaged on daily wages on contract basis at wages Rs.12

per day for fetching water from the tap which was outside

the branch premises during summer season. That

municipal tap is not available in the Branch office.

Sometimes workman was asked to clean toilets, removing

of almirahs and also cleaning of branch premises, he was

purely engaged on contract basis. There was no employer

employee relationship. Workman was never employee of

the Bank. His services were on contract basis. Above

contentions are reiterated by IInd party that workman had

not completed 240 days or 295 days services. That the

wages were increased from Rs.3/- to 5/- per day. The Branch

Manager has no power to engage regular employees. It is

reiterated that workman was assigned job of cleaning,

fetching water at contractual rates fixed by Bank. Workman

was not employee of the Bank. That on completion of 240

days service, workman is not entitled for regularization.

However as per law, the services of employee can be

considered for regularization on completion of 240 days

service,. The workman was engaged on daily wages for

job assigned to him on contract basis. Workman is not

entitled to regularization claimed by him.

5598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Workman filed rejoinder at page 55 to 65 reiterating

his contentions in statement of claim. The workman

submits that in terms of agreement arrived, number of

employees have been absorbed in permanent service.

Those employees were similarly situated and other persons

namely Sarvashri Narhar Singh from Ranjhi Branch,

Ramesh from Gorakhpur branch, Umakant from Regional

office Jabalpur and Pranav from Jabalpur branch presently

posted at Katni, Raipur, Jabalpur and Satna branches in

the Bank. That workman was required to work from 10 AM

to 5.30 PM performing duties of peon/farrash. He claims

to have right for regularization of his service.

Application A/2/04 is filed by applicant workman

under Section 33-A of I.D.Act for violation of Section 33

of I.D.Act. That the applicant submits that during

pendency of reference R/328/99, his service conditions

were terminated by oral order dated 7-11-03. Order of his

termination of his service is arbitrary. He prays for direction

that non-applicant be directed to allow him to work with

consequential benefits.

Said application is opposed by Non-applicant filing

reply at Page 4/1 to 4/5. Non-applicant has alleged that

workman was engaged on contact basis at wages Rs.12/-

per day. The wages were increased to Rs.3/- to 5/- per day.

Workman was required to work 2-3 hours per day. That

application deserves to be dismissed.

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 manage-

In Negative

ment of State Bank of Indore, Branch

Ranjhi in not making Shri Mukesh

Phoolchand Agarwal permanent till

date whereas he has completed his

services within prescribed time limit

is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per

entitled to?”

final order

(iii) Whether applicant proves that

In Affirmative

his services are orally terminated

by Non-applicant during pendency

of R/328/99?

(iv) If so, to what relief workman is

As per

entitled?

final order.

REASONS

During pendency of present Reference R/328/99,

workman filed present proceeding under Section 33-A of

I.D.Act alleging oral termination of his service from 7-11-

2003. The legal position is shattered that complaint under

Section 33-A is required to be decided as a dispute. In

present case, though the proceeding are separate,

application 2/04 is arising out of R/328/99. It needs to be

decided simultaneously.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence in R/328/99.

Workman has stated that he was engaged on daily wages

from 26-12-98. He was doing work of cleaning, dusting

etc. he was also required to do work of peon. He was paid

bonus from 88 to 93, 96, 97. He completed 240 days

continuous service. In his cross-examination, workman

says that he is still working on daily wages at Ranjhi

branch. One Narhar Singh working with him on temporary

basis is made permanent. Smt. Durga Devi is also made

permanent. He was unable to tell what is permanent

appointment. That he had submitted application for

appointment of sub-staff but he was not called for interview.

He was not able to tell person who passed test/interview

are given appointments that there is no document which

shows wages to Rs.120/- per day are paid to the employees.

That his age is 40 years. He denies that he is not eligible

for appointment. He has passed sixth standard and claims

to be eligible for regular appointment.

10.

Evidence of management’s witness Onkar Singh is

submitted on affidavit. Management’s witness in his

affidavit says there is no pleading that workman is member

of the Union. Workman was never given appointment letter,

he was engaged on contract basis @ Rs.12/- per day.

Workman was not interviewed for regular appointment.

That appointments of sub staff are made after publication

in newspaper calling names from Employment Exchange.

Management’s witness has stated that workman was

engaged for 2-3 hours per day. In his cross-examination,

management witness says from 13-7-09, he is working in

State Bank of India, Ranjhi branch. Earlier he was not

working in said branch. He was unable to tell since what

time, the workman was working in Bank. As per record, he

has given evidence. In his further cross-examination,

workman has admitted documents referred to him at page

38, 39, vouchers at Page 13 to 23 are of his Bank. The

vouchers about payment of bonus are of the Bank. The

experience certificate is issued by Bank shows temporary

employees. The documents at Page 10 to 12, 37, 41 to 44,

45 to 47 referred to witness are also of the Bank. However

any employee was not regularized during his working

period.

11.

The document Exhibit W-1 is reply submitted to

ALC, office. Exhibit W-2 A, 2B, 2 C shows amount paid to

workman. Exhibit W-3 is experience certificate issued to

workman. The period is shown 26-12-88 to 25-2-89,

workman was working. The wages are shown 1026/- in

Exhibit W-4 working of workman on wages Rs.12/- 15/-,

20/- 25/- during the intermittent period 1-10-89 to 14-8-93.

Exhibit W-5 also shows payment of wages at similar rate

to the workman during October 1989 to May 1996. Working

days are shown 284 days in 1994, 300 days in 1995, 295

days in 1996. Document Exhibit W-6, 7 shows payment of

wages time to time of the workman.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5599

The workman has produced agreement with Union

Annexure PR-4 at Page 103. Managing Director, State Bank

of Indore was party to said agreement. One of the

agreement is material, it provided that after discussion it

was agreed that (i) an agreement be entered into between

the management of Associate Bank and SSBEA for

payment of back wages to eligible temporary employees

on the same lines and had been done in the State Bank of

India and all other cases filed by the Association/

individual employees before the conciliation officer/

industrial tribunal/ court or any other authority in this

regard be withdrawn., (ii) all temporary employees would

be subjected to a written test and/ or interview, as the case

may be, before they were absorbed in permanent service,

and they would appear in the written test/ interview after

they withdrew their cases for back wages pending before

the Court etc., (iii) protected employees who fail to qualify

in he onsuing test would be continued in temporary service,

and (iv) cases for permanent absorption and / or back

wages would be considered in respect of those temporary

employees whose services had been terminated on or after

Ist January 1975.

Workman has also produced copy of Circular dated

28-4-89. Learned counsel for workman has submitted

written notes of argument instead of arguing he matter

before Court. Above circular dated 24-5-78 clearly

contemplated absorption of temporary employees.

Workman is not given its benefit and therefore the denial

of regularization of workman is not legal. For above

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

12.

Point No.2- workman needs to be considered for

regularization if his service is as per various settlements

and agreements between Banks management and Union.

Learned counsel for IInd party relies on ratio held in :

Case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Versus Ashok Ranghba Abmre reported in 2008(2) Supreme

Court Cases 717. Ratio held in above cited case is that

illegal termination as violative of section 25-F doesnot

necessarily follow that workman is entitled to status of

permanency and claim of regular pay scales and other

benefits based on permanency.

Next reliance is placed in case of Mahboob Deepak

Versus Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and another reported in

2008(1) Supreme Court Cases 575. Ratio held in the above

cited case deals with termination of service of daily wager

having completed 240 days of continuous service in a

year. Service terminated on grounds of misconduct for

financial irregularities without complying Section 6-N of

UP Industrial Disputes Act. The Appellants claiming for

regularization held not sustainable.

The facts of the present case are not comparable.

Any kind of misconduct is not alleged on part of workman

rather workman was not given benefit of circular dated

24-5-78. Workman was not called for interview or test for

purpose of absorbing him in permanent service. Therefore

the action of the management cannot be upheld. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No.2 in Negative.

13.

Though workman has filed proceeding under Section

33-A of I.D.Act contending that his service are terminated

in the year 2003. Evidence of workman shows that he is

still working with Bank on daily wages. He is paid Rs.120/-

per day. It appears that workman is still in employment of

IInd party. No document is produced by management

about termination of service of workman. The proceeding

under Section 33-A of I.D.Act therefore is not tenable.

However in view of my finding in Point No.1 that workman

was denied benefit as per settlement of 1978, the action of

the management is not proper and legal. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 3 in Negative.

14.

For the reasons discussed above, workman

deserved consideration for absorption as permanent

employee of the Bank as per circular of 1978. Accordingly

I record my finding.

15.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of State Bank of

Indore, Branch Ranjhi denying regularisation to

workman Shri Mukesh Phoolchand Agarwal is not

legal and proper.

(2)

IInd party is directed to consider workman for

absorption as permanent employee of the Bank as

per circular dated 24-5-78 or any there agreement/

settlement between management and Union. The

proceeding under Section 33-A is rejected.

Action be taken within 3 months from the date of

publication of award.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2157-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 140@99)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@510@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2014

S.O. 2157.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 140/

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

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

5600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

between the management of State Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

16/07/2014

[No. L-12012/510/98-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/140/99

Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B.PATLE

Shri Ram Singh

S/o Govind Singh,

R/o Vill & PO Basaiya,

Distt. Morena (MP)

.....Workman

Versus

The Asstt. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Hamidia Road,

Bhopal (MP)

.....Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 21st day of May, 2014)

As per letter dated 22-3-99 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

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

510/98-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Asstt.

General Manager, State Bank of India, in terminating

the services of Shri Ram Singh, S/o Govind Singh

w.e.f. 31-10-97 is justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of

claim at Page 5/1 to 5/4. Case of workman is that he was

appointed as messenger on 5-5-87. He was continuously

working from 1-5-87 to 31-10-97 with IInd party Bank.

That he was working for more than 10 years with the IInd

party. He is covered as employee under Section 25(B) of

I.D.Act. IInd party Bank is a statutory organization

established under SBI 1955. The work performed by Ist

party workman is of permanent nature. Post were available.

There was need of hands in establishment of IInd party.

There was no justification in continuing workman as

employee or not regularizing his services. That SBI adopted

policy for regularizing services of daily wagers. Workman

was called for interview on 24-10-92. He appeared before

selection committee but result was not communicated to

him. That some other persons were secretly appointed in

April 1997 and services of workman were illegally

terminated. That workman was working as a regular

messenger since his initial appointment. It is clear from

inspection of board, the services of workman were illegally

terminated which amounts to retrenchment. That the

workman is unemployed after termination of his service.

On such grounds, workman is praying for his reinstatement

with back wages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/9.

IInd party submits that Ist party workman was employed

casually during 1987 to 1997. The working days of

workman during said period given in Para-1 of the Written

Statement. The total working days of workman were 458

days. Workman was engaged as per exigencies.

Discontinuation of his services is covered under Section

2(oo)(bb) of I.D.Act. it doesnot amount to retrenchment.

It is reiterated that the workman was intermittently engaged

and wages were paid to him. Workman was not in

continuous service. Workman had not completed 240 days

continuous service during any of the year. Workman was

called for interview on 6-11-92 in pursuance of bipartite

settlement dated 17-11-87, 16-7-88, 28-10-88 & 9-1-91.

Workman was not found suitable for appointment. His

name was not included in the select list and workman is

not entitled to reinstatement. Claim of workman is about

violation of Section 25-H of I.D.Act, Rule 77, 78 of I.D.Act.

The termination of workman is not illegal as alleged. On

such ground, 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 Asstt. General

Manager, State Bank of India,

in terminating the services of

Shri Ram Singh, S/o Govind

Singh w.e.f. 31-10-97 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

Workman is not

is entitled to?”

entitled to relief

claimed.

REASONS

The term of reference clearly relates to legality of

the termination of service of workman, it doesnot relates

to regularization of his service. Workman has pleaded that

he was continuously working as messenger from 1-5-97 to

31-10-97. IInd party had denied above contention of

workman. As per IInd party, workman was intermittently

engaged as per exigency from 1987 to 1999. Working days

of workman were 19, 38, 31, 4, 80, 53, 50, 39, 50, 46 & 48

during 1987 to 1997 respectively. Workman in his affidavit

of evidence has stated that he was continuously working

from 1-5-87 to 31-10-96. He completed 240 days continuous

service during each of the year. His services were orally

terminated. The Bank had called him for interview for

regularization of daily wage employees. In his cross-

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5601

examination, workman says that he was working in Bathaiya

branch, Distt. Morena. He worked since 1987 for 10 years.

He was doing work of filling water. He was also doing

other works. He had submitted application to the Branch

Manager. When there was no messenger, he used to be

called. When the messenger was proceeding on leave, he

used to be reengaged. He received education upto 5th

standard. He had produced certificate about working for

more than 240 days. Date of birth is 1-7-63. However

certificate about his working days is not produced on

record. The evidence of workman is not corroborated by

documents. No other employee is examined in support of

evidence of the workman.

Management filed affidavit of its witness Shri Rakesh

Baboo Gautam. Witness of the management has stated

that documents are destroyed. The witness of the

management has further stated about working days of

workman during 1987 to 1997 were between 19 to 80 days.

The workman had not completed 240 days continuous

service during any of the year. In his cross-examination,

witness of the management says that he was working at

Basaiya Branch from May 2010 to May 2012. The letter

sent to Head Office was seen by him. He has not seen

attendance register, payment vouchers in respect of

workman. He was unable to say the exact period the

workman was working. He denies that workman completed

more than 240 days in each year during 1987 to 1997. During

his period, seniority list or daily wager employee was not

prepared. That he had not preparing any seniority list of

the employees. The evidence of workman is not

corroborated by documents. His clear statement that he

was continuously working for more than 240 days during

each of the year 1987 to 1997 cannot be accepted. therefore

the termination of service of workman cannot be said in

violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. as the terms of

reference are silent about regularization of workman in

service, as per bipartite settlement, the point of

regularization needs no detailed discussion. For 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 Asstt. General

Manager, State Bank of India, in terminating the

services of Shri Ram Singh, S/o Govind Singh w.e.f.

31-10-97 is legal and proper.

(2)

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2158-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 136@99)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@471@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2014

S.O. 2158.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 136/

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

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of State Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

16/07/2014.

[No. L-12012/471/98-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/136/99

Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B.PATLE

Shri N.K.Patel,

Dy. General Secretary,

State Bank of India Staff Congress, 5/235,

Pragati State Bank Staff Colony,

Vikasnagar,

Jabalpur

.....Workman/Union

Versus

Asstt. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Marhatal,

Jabalpur

.....Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 25th day of June, 2014)

As per letter dated 18-3-99 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

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

471/98/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India, Region-II in not paying gratuity,

pension, PF to Shri Shankarlal Chourasia from 19-9-

67 to 5-1-89 during his temporary service 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 submitted statement of

5602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

claim at page 2/1 to 2/3. Case of workman is that he was

working as temporary messenger in Kareli branch of IInd

party Bank from 1967. The details of his working days are

given. He worked for 92 days in 1967, 265 days in 1968, 275

days in 1969,255 days in 1970 & 242 days in 1971. That he

worked more than 240 days during each of the year. That

he was called for examination for the post of messenger in

1969, 1970, 1971 but he was not selected as he was found

overage. However he was working as messenger from

1971, 1972 to 1982. Again he was working as temporary

messenger in Kareli branch from March 1983. In 1986, he

was called for interview for post of messenger. On 6-1-89,

he was appointed as regular messenger. Earlier he was

denied said post in 1969, 1970, 1971. After 20 years, he was

appointed on the same post. That he was continuously

working as messenger from 1967. He was retired from post

of messenger. He was not allowed benefits of Provident

Fund, Gratuity, Pension etc. workman claims those

benefits with 18 % interest.

Management filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to

5/10. Claim of workman is opposed. Preliminary objection

is raised that the reference is not tenable. Shri N.K.Patel

raised dispute on behalf of workman. He was dismissed

from service. He is not competent to raise any dispute.

Workman is claiming regularization from 1967. It is

submitted that workman was engaged on daily wages on

posts depending upon exigencies of work. The details of

working days of workman are shown as 92 days in 1967,

265 days in 1968, 275 days in 1969,255 days in 1970 , 242

days in 1971, 180 days in 1972, 150 days in 1973, 135 days

in 1974, 110 days in 1975, 108 days in 1976 & 21 days in

1977. That workman was engaged from 1-3-83 to 5-1-89 for

5 years, 10 months, 5 days. On 6-1-89, workman was

appointed as permanent messenger. Workman was given

retiral benefits on 1989. It is reiterated that workman was

not permanent employee, his engagement was casual, he

was not entitled to regularization. As per settlement of

1987, he was appointed as permanent messenger. It is

submitted that Branch Manager has no power to appoint

regular messenger. The procedure for appointment of

regular messenger was not followed therefore workman is

not entitled for regularization. Employee who complete

minimum 10 years service is entitled to pension. Workman

was allowed pensionary benefits considering his service

from 6-1-1989 to 29-8-99. All other adverse contentions of

workman have been denied. It is reiterated that merely

working for 240 days in calendar year doesnot give right

of permanent employee to the workman. Only after

appointment, selection as per recruitment rules gives right

of permanent employee to such employees. Applicant’s

claim for regularization raised at earlier point was not

accepted. It is submitted that workman is not entitled to

Provident Fund, Pension, Gratuity claimed by him.

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

Workman has contented that he was working as messenger

from 19-9-67 as per provisions of Miscellaneous Provisions

Act, he is entitled to the provident Fund. It was necessary

on part of the IInd party to deposit his contribution of

Provident Fund. IInd party has violated said act. Workman

is entitled to gratuity for the years he had completed 240

days continuous service.

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 manage-

Partly

ment of State Bank of India,

Negative

Region-II in not paying gratuity,

pension, PF to Shri Shankarlal

Chourasia from 19-9-67 to 5-1-89

during his temporary service is

legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per

entitled to?”

final order.

REASONS

The substance of pleadings of workman is that he

was working as temporary messenger from 1967 to 1989.

He was not allowed benefit of Pension, Gratuity and

Provident Fund. Despite he was continuously working.

That he had completed 240 days continuous working. He

was not given benefit of gratuity for those years. Claim of

workman is denied by IInd party contending that workman

is claiming benefit of regularization. Workman was engaged

as temporary casual employee.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence covering

most of his contentions in Statement of claim. He was

working from 1969. He was appointed as permanent

messenger on 6-1-89. He was denied benefits of Pension,

Gratuity and Provident Fund. He claims to be entitled for

all those benefits. In his cross-examination workman says

he was appointed as regular messenger on 5-1-89. After

six months, he was confirmed. He was receiving full pay

from 5-1-89. He was appointed as messenger/watchman.

That he completed 240 days continuous service during

1980-85 and 85 to 89. However he has not pleaded the

same in statement of claim. He has not stated in his

statement of claim that he completed 240 days service

during 1985 to 1989. In Written Statement filed by

management and statement of claim filed by workman,

working days are shown. Evidence of management’s

witness Shri Vinayak Wagle has also shown working

days of workman 92 days in 1967, 265 days in 1968, 275

days in 1969, 255 days in 1970, 242 days in 1971 etc. the

evidence of workman about working days is not

challenged in cross-examination of management’s witness.

Written Statement filed by management is further clear

that workman was engaged from 1983 to 15-1-1985 for 5

years, 10 months, 5 days. The management’s witness in

his cross-examination says that in Bank, Provident Fund

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5603

is deducted from only those employee who is confirmed in

the Bank. He claims ignorance whether SBI has obtained

exemption from PG. Act. The service of workman was

considered from 6-1-1989. His earlier period is not counted.

Management’s witness was unable to tell the period of

working of workman from 1969 to 1989. In his further cross-

examination, management’s witness says that documents

relating to workmen were not destroyed by the Bank. The

documents were destroyed prior to he had take charge.

The management’s witness denies that he had seen record

and deliberately not produced in Court. Witness says

temporary employees are not entitled to gratuity. There is

order in Bank that PF is deducted only when employees

are confirmed in the Bank. Those orders are not produced

in the Court.

There is no dispute that the workman was appointed

as permanent messenger on 6-1-1989. Parties are in dispute

about claim of Ist party workman for pension, Gratuity

and Provident Fund for the period 1967 to 15-1-1989.

Management claimed that temporary employees are not

entitled to gratuity. In Section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity

Act, 1972, employee is defined.

Employee means any person (other than apprentice)

employed on wages in any establishment , factory, mine,

oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop to do

any skilled, semiskilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory,

technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such

employment are express or implied and whether or not

such person is employed in a managerial or administrative

capacity but doesnot include any such person who holds

a post under the Central Government or a State Government

and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing

for payment of gratuity.

From above definition, it is clear that no difference

is made between permanent or temporary employees, only

apprentice has been excluded from definition of employee.

The continuous service defined under Section 2(a) of Sub

Section 2(ii) the employees completed 240 days service.

Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act provides –

gratuity shall be payable to an employee the termination

of his employment after he has rendered continuous service

for not less than 5 years on his superannuation or on his

retirement or resignation or on his death or disablement

due to accident or disease. Provided that the completion

of continuous service of 5 years shall not be necessary

where the termination of the employment of any employee

is due to death or disablement.

Considering above provisions employee completing

5 years service irrespective of the fact that employee is

temporary or permanent, the employee is entitled to

gratuity. The amount of gratuity is provided under Section

4(4), 15 days wages for an year or part thereof in cases of

six months.

Learned counsel for Ist party workman relied on ratio

held in

Case of Shri Y.K.Singla versus Punjab National Bank

and others reported in 2013(3) Supreme Court Cases 472.

Issue held in above cited case relates to interest on delayed

payment of gratuity under Section 7(3a) that the employee

has right to make the choice governed by any other

alternative provision/instrument so as to be entitled to

get protection of better terms of gratuity envisaged under

Section 4(5) of Payment of Gratuity Act. The ratio held in

case has no direct bearing to case at hand.

10.

Learned counsel for IInd party management Shri Vijay

Tripathi submits that temporary employee is not entitled

to benefit of gratuity, Provident Fund, Pension. Learned

counsel relies on ratio held in case of State Bank of India

versus Kannaiah and others reported in 2004-1-SCC-315.

The ratio held in the case deals with the point of cut off

date. There is no rationale to fix cut off date. The Bank has

to decide eligibility for new benefit. The ratio has no direct

bearing to the controversy between parties.

11.

Considering provisions of Section 4 of Payment of

Gratuity Act, the definition of employee, no difference is

made between temporary or permanent employees.

Workman is entitled to payment of gratuity for the year he

had completed continuous service for more than six

months. As per pleadings and evidence, workman has

pleaded 240 days continuous service in 1968, 1969, 1970,

1971 and more than six months in 1972. He had completed

continuous service from 1968 to 1988 for 5 years. Thus

workman is entitled to payment of gratuity for 1968 to

1972- 5 years and 1983 to 1988 – 5 years: Total 10 years.

Gratuity is payable 15 days wages for completed one year

service. Thus the workman is entitled to payment of gratuity

for 150 days.

12.

So far as claim of workman for payment of Provident

Fund is considered, Section 2(f) of Provident Fund Act

1952 provides-

Employee means any person who is employed for

wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise in or in

connection with the work of an establishment, and who

gets his wages directly or indirectly form the employer

and includes any person

(i)

Employed by or through a contractor in or in

connection with the work of the establishment;

(ii)

Engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice

engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 or under

the standing orders of the establishment.

Above definition doesnot make difference between

temporary or permanent employee.

Section-6 provides-

The contribution which shall be paid by the

employer to the Fund shall 10 % of the basic wages,

5604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dearness allowance and retaining allowance if any, for the

time being payable to each of the employees whether

employed by him directly or by or through a contractor

and the employees contribution shall be equal to the

contribution payable by the employer in respect of him

and may if any employee so desires and if the scheme

makes provision therefore, be an amount not exceeding

ten percent of his basic wages, dearness allowance and

retaining allowance if any, subject to the condition that

the employer shall not be under an obligation to pay any

contribution over and above his contribution payable

under this section.”

Though the evidence shows that workman was

working as temporary messenger from 1967, workman have

not paid any contribution towards Provident Fund

therefore the IInd party employer is not obligated to pay

the contribution towards Provident Fund. The Bank has

framed employees pension rules.

As per Rule-8, it is provided that no employee shall

be eligible to become member –

(a)

If he is a member of the Imperial Bank of India

Employees Pension and Guarantee Fund or if he is

engaged in any country outside India and appointed

for service in such country,

(b)

If he is below 21 years of age,

(c)

If he is over 38 years of age.

Rule-9 provides subject as hereinafter provided

every employee shall as from the date of his admission to

the fund, contribute to the fund every month an amount

equal to five percent of his salary subject to a maximum

contribution of Rs. 90 per mensem. In respect of any period

in which the full salary of an employee is not payable to

him, his contributions shall be calculated on his reduced

salary if any. The contributions shall be made by deduction

from salary and shall cease when an employee ceases to

be in pensionable service in terms of Rule-20.

13.

The pleadings and evidence of workman shows that

he was not member of the Employees Pension, he has not

contributed amount to the pension, therefore workman

cannot claim benefit of pension. For above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No.1 in Partly Negative for non-

payment of gratuity to the workman.

14.

Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.1,

workman had completed continuous service from 1968 to

1972 and 180 days in 1973. He was continuously working

from 1983 to 1988 for 5 years. He was not paid gratuity for

6-10 years which comes to wages for 150 days. Workman

is not entitled to Provident Fund, pension for the reasons

discussed above. Workman is entitled only for Gratuity

for 150 days. Accordingly I record my finding in Point

No. 2.

15.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of State Bank of India,

Region-II in denying payment of Gratuity to the

workman Shri Shankarlal Chourasia is not proper

and legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay Gratuity of 150 days

wages to the workman at the rate of wages last

drawn.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. 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] 30 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2159-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

ØsfMV ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 4@2005)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@05@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12025@01@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2014

S.O. 2159.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 4/2005)

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

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Development Credit

Bank Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 07/05/2014.

[No. L-12025/01/2014-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

Present : SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 11th day April, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L. C. No. 4/2005

Between :

Sri Suleman S. Panjwani,

S/o Sri Sadruddin G. Panjwani,

R/o H.No. 5-8-591/A/1 to 13,

Flat No.2-B, Premier Enclave,

Mubarak Bazaar Lane, Abids,

Hyderabad – 1.

..….Petitioner

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5605

AND

The Area Head South,

Development Credit Bank Limited,

Area Office, South, Prestige,

Meridian Annexe,

128 (31/1/), M.G. Road, Bangalore-560 001.

The Branch Manager,

Development Credit Bank Limited,

Secunderabad Branch,

9-1-125/3, Siddartha Plaza,

S.D. Road, Secunderabad.

….Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: M/s. Ch. Indrasena Reddy &

D. Vilas, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. S. Prasada Rao, C. Bala

Subramanyam, K. Bharathi &

K. Satyamurthy, Advocates

AWARD

This is a petition filed by Sri Suleiman S. Panjwani

who claimed to be a workman and who is Ex. Assistant.

Officer of the Respondent bank, invoking Sec.2A(2) of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking for setting aside the

dismissal order dated 23.11.2004 passed by the first

Respondent, holding the same as illegal and arbitrary and

contrary to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

and to grant him the relief of reinstatement into service,

full back wages, continuity of services, due promotions

with all other attendant benefits including notional

increments.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as

follows:

Petitioner joined the service of the 2nd Respondent

on 31.12.1994 and put in continuous and unblemished

record of service till the date of service of the impugned

dismissal order dated 23.11.2004. While dismissing the

Petitioner from service Respondent has not taken into

consideration his past conduct length of service, the

gravity of the misconduct alleged to have been proved

against him. The punishment of dismissal from service is

shockingly disproportionate and do not commensurate

with the gravity of misconduct alleged to have been proved

against him. The action taken against the Petitioner is

illegal, unjust, contrary to law and provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also in violation of

principles of natural justice. the last drawn salary of the

Petitioner was Rs.18,300 pm excluding other perks. As on

the date of his dismissal he was working as Assistant

Officer, and his functional designation was Relationship

Manager. Nature of his duties were to extend the services

to the customers of high net worth individuals and to

help for their requirements. Since he was the senior

employee in the 2nd Respondent most of the customers

knew him as relationship manager, he has to maintain good

relation with customers and he is to look after the business

and branch operations also as per the instructions of the

2nd Respondent and other higher officers of the bank.

He helped the Respondent bank. In retaining huge existing

deposits of the customers and put in good record of

service. He received awards for best performance number

of times. Thus, he is sincere hardworking and profitable

employee of the 2nd Respondent. Though, he was

designated as Asst. Officer/Relationship Manager he was

not having any managerial powers. He was neither

appointing authority nor Disciplinary Authority nor leave

sanctioning authority. He was not having any delegating

powers and supervisory powers. He was working under

the control of 2nd Respondent. Therefore, he comes under

the purview of the workman as defined under Sec.2(s) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Respondent bank

is an industry as per Sec.2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. Thus, this court got jurisdiction to entertain this

case. On 1.9.2004, 1st Respondent issued a show-cause

notice of punishment to the Petitioner alleging that he has

helped a walking customer in opening a fictitious current

account in the name of M/s. Bright Computers and

facilitated committing of fraud on the bank to the extent of

Rs.29 lakhs approximately. Petitioner submitted his

explanation on 3.9.2004 explaining the actual facts and

duly denying the allegation levelled against him as false,

baseless and incorrect. Without mentioning any provision,

straight away 1st Respondent issued show-cause notice

proposing some punishment which is contrary to law and

also in violation of principles of natural justice. without

considering the explanation properly 1st Respondent

passed the penalty order on 14.9.2004 confirming

punishment proposed in their first notice. No domestic

enquiry was conducted in the matter giving any

opportunity to the Petitioner. Straight away penalty was

imposed, withholding of performance allowance and

reversion to Asst. Officer Grade to Senior Asst. Officer.

But his functional designation was not changed. This

action is illegal, unjust and contrary to law and also in

violation of principles of natural justice. Further, on

12.11.2004 again 1st Respondent another penalty order

proposing the capital punishment of dismissal from

service instead of the penalty imposed vide order dated

14.9.2004 for the same alleged misconduct. Petitioner

submitted his reply once again, denying the truth of the

allegations levelled against him and explaining the actual

facts and circumstances of the case. But, without

considering the same 1st Respondent passed final penalty

order on 23.11.2004 confirming the proposed penalty of

dismissal from service. This penalty was imposed for the

same alleged misconduct for which Petitioner was already

punished vide order dated 14.9.2004 which amounts to

double jeopardy which is not permissible under law.

Further, the alleged misconduct does not constitute any

misconduct. Helping a walking customer in opening a

5606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

current account is not a misconduct. It is only part and

parcel of duty of the employee of the bank. Petitioner has

not committed any misconduct. If he committed any

misconduct Respondents would have definitely conducted

domestic enquiry into the matter. Without conducting any

such enquiry and without giving reasonable opportunity

to the Petitioner to defend himself basing on alleged

information given by the police, 1st Respondent has taken

action and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service.

The alleged information given by police was not proved

either before the Enquiry Officer or before the Criminal

Court. Admittedly criminal proceeding in the matter is

pending before the Criminal Court. In any view of the

matter procedure adopted by the first Respondent in

dismissing the Petitioner is illegal, unjust and contrary to

law and violation of mandatory procedure required to be

adopted for taking disciplinary action against an employee.

The allegation that police have recovered an amount of

Rs.2,50,000 from the residence of the Petitioner is not

correct. The amount recovered belongs to his joint family.

It was taken by his father as a loan from Ismalia

Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. and part of that amount

was taken as loan from LIC policies. Petitioner never

committed any misconduct and he never got any malafide

intention to appropriate or misappropriate the legitimate

revenue of Respondent bank. After illegal dismissal from

his service he approached the Respondents with a request

to reinstate him into service but in vain. Hence, this

petition. He got old aged parents, wife, three months kid,

married younger brother and sister in law in his joint family,

for whose maintenance he used to contribute substantial

share. Due to his illegal dismissal from service his entire

family is on streets facing hardships.

Respondents filed their counter with the averments

in brief as follows:

This dispute is not at all maintainable either under

law or on facts. Petitioner is not a workman as defined

under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and rules made

there under. Nature of duties performed by him at

Secunderabad branch of the bank are of managerial in

nature as he was discharging the duties of Relationship

Manager-cum-Manager-Customer service of the branch.

The duties enumerated to be performed by such official

show that Petitioner was supervising the entire operations

of the branch. As relationship manager he owns

responsibility for 60% of the branches in house targets.

He was also officiating as Branch Manager of the

Secunderabad branch of the bank. His basic pay was

Rs.13,244 and total gross salary was Rs.18,310 which he

himself admitted. Since August, 2002 he was working as

Relationship Manager admittedly. In October, 2002 he

was designated as Relationship Manager of the

Secunderabad branch, since 7.8.2004 he was officiating as

Branch manager in the absence of regular Branch Manager.

A fraud to the tune of Rs. 28,75,000 was committed on the

bank by opening a fictitious account depositing foreign

cheques and withdrawing the amount on realisation. On

31.3.2004 while the Petitioner was working as Relationship

Manager at Secunderabad branch of the bank one Mohd.

Qureshi approached him to open a current account and he

was referred by the Petitioner to OBST(Outbound sales

team). Since the account was for proprietary firm and the

supporting document was for partnership the account

opening form was returned to the party by the Petitioner.

On 12.4.2004 same person approached the bank with

account opening form along with a partnership deal in the

same name. Again he was referred to OBST by the

Petitioner. Whereafter, the account was opened. On

16.4.2004 a cheque for GBP(Great Britain Pound) 6150

drawn on HSBC, London was deposited for collection.

The prescribed declaration for foreign inward remittance

(Form No.2) as per Foreign Exchange Management Act,

1999 was not obtained. Said cheque was returned by the

collecting bank on 30.4.2004 stating “Theft reported”. The

branch promptly send intimation of return of the cheque

and debit advice for charges etc., to the account holder

without making any enquiries despite the fact that the

account was new. Thereafter, on 31.5.2004 a cheque for

Euros 5020 drawn on Irish Nation Wide by Irish Nation

Wide Banking Society and also a DD for Euros 48250 drawn

on permanent TSB were deposited for collection. They

were forwarded to regional processing centre for collection

under Petitioner’s signature on the tally sheet. Regional

Processing Centre informed him at the branch to obtain

letter clarifying the purpose of remittance. The account

holder submitted a letter to him stating the purpose as

“advance payment for purchase of Hard Disc and

Panasonic Digital Camera” which was forwarded to

Regional Processing centre without making any enquiry.

The proceeds of the above said instruments were credited

to the account by Regional Processing Centre on 15.6.2004

and the said cash was withdrawn over the counter on

15.6.2004, 16.6.2004 and 18.6.2004. A total amount of

Rs.28,75,000/- was withdrawn. On 23.6.2004 the bank was

informed by Swift message that all the instruments have

been dishonoured for reason, “fraud cheque”. Thus, the

party fraudulently withdrew Rs.28,75,000 from the bank.

It was also gathered that the account holders were always

in touch with the Petitioner for opening the account in the

name of proprietaryship and later in the name of

partnership. As Relationship Manager had he been alert

and made enquiries at various stages the fraud could have

been averted. It was also gathered that one Mr. Prasad

used to meet him for follow up of the cheques and collection

and subsequently for heavy cash withdrawals. Without

making proper enquiries Petitioner accepted the AOF and

referred the account OBCT and thus facilitated the party

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5607

to open the account and further facilitated the party to

fraudulently withdrawn large sums of money credited out

of proceeds of bills collected. Besides he was also fully

aware that the first instrument was reported to be a theft

and the account holders frivolous reasons for foreign

inward remittance should have alerted him and steps could

have been taken to prevent the financial loss of

Rs. 28,75,000 to the bank. The in house investigation

revealed that Petitioner was responsible for facilitating

the commission of fraud. On 2.11.2004 Petitioner was

arrested by the Central Crime Station(CCS), Detective

department, Hyderabad. Police also recovered a sum of

Rs.2.5 lakhs from the Petitioner as per the letter dated

20.11.2004 addressed by the Police to the bank. It is also

gathered that during interrogation Petitioner confessed

before the police that he colluded with the gang comprising

S/Sri Prasad, Sanjay and Qureshi to open the current

account in the name of M/s. Bright computers and thereby

facilitated commission of fraud on the bank to the extent

of Rs.29 lakhs. Petitioner never revealed facts before the

bank. He gave his reply basing on legal advice. There are

improvements in his version from time to time. Bank gave

a reasonable opportunity to him to explain and thereafter

imposed punishment. It was felt that there was no need to

hold enquiry since the inconsistent are so glaring and

visible to the naked eye. The initial punishment was

reviewed basing on the facts emerged subsequently.

Petitioner is well aware of the facts and circumstances

leading to passing of the impugned order and he is building

up a legal case. Respondent bank is dealing with public

money and is custodian of public money. A large sum was

allowed to be fraudulently withdrawn from the bank and

Petitioner is responsible for the same. Contentions of the

Petitioner that he got unblemished record of service and

that he was illegally dismissed from service are not correct.

His further contention that punishment imposed is

shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the

misconduct also is not correct. His contention that the

action taken by first Respondent is illegal, unjust contrary

to law and contrary to provisions of industrial dispute act

and also in violation of principles of natural justice are all

incorrect. Petitioner’s version that as he is neither an

appointment authority nor Disciplinary Authority nor leave

sanctioning authority, he is a workman is not at all correct.

This is a twisted interpretation given by him and is not

acceptable. He is not a workman. Contention of the

Petitioner that Respondent bank can not take any action

against him while the criminal proceeding is pending is

not correct. Petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs

sought for. Petition is liable to be dismissed.

To substantiate the contentions of the Petitioner he

examined himself as WW1 and got marked Ex.W1 to W10.

For the Respondent Management MW1 and MW2 were

examined and Ex.M1 to M7 were marked.

Heard either party.

The points that arise for determination are:

Whether the Petitioner is a workman and whether

the present dispute is an industrial dispute

entertainable by this court?

II.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for the reliefs

sought for?

7. Point No. I:

It is the contention of the Petitioner that he is a

workman whereas Respondent Management is vehemently

denying the correctness of this contention. The workman

is defined in Sec.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

as follows:

“ ‘workman’ means any person(including an

apprentice) employed in any industry to do nay

manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,

clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,

whether the terms of employment be express or

implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding

under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,

includes any such person who has been dismissed,

discharged or retrenched in connection with or, as a

consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,

discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute,

but does not include any such person—

(i)

Who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45

of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or

the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) ; or

(ii)

Who is employed in the Police service or as

an Officer or other employee of a prison ; or

(iii)

Who is employed mainly in a managerial or

administrative capacity; or

(iv)

Who, being employed in a supervisory

capacity, draws wages exceeding one

thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or

exercises, either by the nature of the duties

attached to the office or by reason of the

powers vested in him functions, mainly of a

managerial nature.”

Now it is to be verified whether, the nature of

employment of the Petitioner with the Respondent bank,

as on the date of his dismissal from service falls within the

purview of the above referred definition of the “workman”.

As can be gathered from the pleadings in this case and

also the evidence adduced on record, by the date of arising

of cause of action for taking action against the Petitioner

by the Respondent bank, he has been working as “Senior

Assistant Officer with functional designation as

Relationship Manager cum Manager Customer Service”.

It is the contention of the Petitioner that though the

nomenclature of his designation spells ‘Manager’ he was

not actually performing managerial duties and that he was

5608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

only working under the supervision of the Branch Manager

and thus, he is a workman. Whereas, Respondent

Management is relying upon Ex.M2 and M3, the job cards

of Relationship Manager and Manager customer services

respectively, in support of their contention that Petitioner

was not a workman. As can be seen from these documents

and also the other evidence adduced on record a

Relationship Manager has to play a key role in all branch

marketing efforts and events and also has to take

responsibility for 60% of the branch in house target. He

has to identify prospects of sales team and has to structure

business solutions to meet customer requirements among

other duties. As per Ex.M3, the job card of manager

customer services the said official has to make final

checking and approval of account opening forms and

documents thereof. He is the custodian of stock of five

leaf cheque books, ATM Cards returned undelivered, stock

of unused pay orders/demand drafts. Further he has to

handle ear-marking/freezing requests, deceased accounts,

including disposal of claims etc.. He is responsible for

ATM along with Head Cashier. He will be in joint custody

of cash along with head Cashier. He is accountable for

achieving of branch cross sales target and he will be in

joint custody of security documents along with designated

CSE, among other assigned duties. All these functions

clearly spell that they are managerial and supervisory in

nature.

10.

It is an undisputed fact that Petitioner has been the

Relationship Manager and also has been Manager of

Customer Service. It is his own pleading. It is not the

contention of the Petitioner that he was not entrusted

with various tasks enumerated in Ex.M2 and M3. This

shows the capacity in which Petitioner has been working

with the Respondent bank. He has been attending to all

key functions in the Management and functioning of the

bank. At no stretch of imagination he can be termed as a

workman, in the given circumstances.

11.

Since, Petitioner is not a workman present dispute

can not be termed as an industrial dispute and therefore it

can not be entertained by this court.

This point is answered accordingly.

12.

Point No. II :

In view of the finding given in Point No.I, present

dispute is not an industrial dispute and therefore, Labour

Court can not entertain this dispute and can not adjudicate

the same. Therefore, for want of jurisdiction, this court is

not going into merits and demerits of this case. Since,

this court got no jurisdiction to entertain this case,

Petitioner can not seek for any of the reliefs sought for,

from this court.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

In the result, petition is dismissed.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 11th

day of April, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

for the Petitioner

for the Respondent

WW1: Sri Suleiman

MW1: Sri Suraj Kumar

S. Panjwani

Chowdhury

MW2: Smt. Peri Nagamani

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photostat copy of appointment letter dt.

29.12.1994

Ex.W2:

Photostat copy of show cause notice dt.

1.9.2004

Ex.W3:

Photostat copy of explanation to Ex.W2 by

WW1 dt. 14.9.2004

Ex.W4:

Photostat copy of 1st punishment order

dt.14.9.2004

Ex.W5:

Photostat copy of appeal against Ex.W4

Ex.W6:

Photostat copy of penalty order dt. 12.11.2004

Ex.W7:

Photostat copy of explanation dt. 15.11.2004 to

Ex.W5

Ex.W8:

Photostat copy of Final penalty order dt.

23.11.2004

Ex.W9:

Photostat copy of appeal against Ex.W7 dt.

10.1.2005

Ex.W10:

Photostat copy of annexure-D of Bipartite

settlement 1997-2000 between the Respondent

Management and their workmen union.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Photostat copy of lr. from Police to the

Respondent No.2 dt. 20.11.2004

Ex.M2:

Photostat copy of job card of Relationship

Manager (RM)

Ex.M3:

Photostat copy of job card of MCS(Manager

Customer Services)

Ex.M4:

Photostat copy of show cause punishment

notice to WW1 dt.1.9.2004

Ex.M5:

Photostat copy of reply to Ex.M4 by Petitioner

Ex.M6:

Photostat copy of penalty order dt.12.11.2004

Ex.M7:

Photostat copy of representation by Petitioner

dt.15.11.2004 against Ex.M6.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2160-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5609

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

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 58@2007) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@99@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2014

S.O. 2160.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/2007)

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

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Northern Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

30/07/2014.

[No. L-41012/99/2007-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

–CUM- LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 58/2007

Ref. No. L-41012/99/2007 – IR (B-I) dated: 15.10.2007

BETWEEN :

Sri Suresh Chander S/o Late Lalla Nivasi

758, Back of Sabji Mandi

Mahavir Floor Mill, Bachhaarvan

Raibareli

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager

Northern Railway

Administrative Office, NE Rly.

Hazratganj, Lucknow

AWARD

By order No. L-41012/99/2007-IR (B-I) dated:

15.10.2007 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)

referred this industrial dispute between the Sri Suresh

Chander S/o Late Lalla Nivasi, 758, Back of Sabji Mandi,

Mahavir Floor Mill, Bachhaarvan, Raibareli and the

Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway,

Administrative Office, NE Rly., Hazratganj, Lucknow for

adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT

OF DRM, NORTHERN RAILWAY, LUCKNOW IN

REMOVING SRI SURESH CHANDER, HELPER

KHALASI FROM SERVICE W.E.F. 18/12/2003 IS

JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF THE

WORKMAN CONCERNED IS ENTITLED?”

It is admitted case of the parties that the workman,

Suresh Chander was working as Helper Khalasi under the

control of Senior Section Engineer (C & W), Lucknow and

he was issued major penalty charge sheet SF-5 dated

27.5.2002 for unauthorized absence for the period from

25.10.2001 to 20.02.2002. Shri P.K. Khanna, SSE, Charbagh

was appointed Enquiry Officer, who submitted his enquiry

report before the disciplinary authority with finding that

the workman was guilty of unauthorized absence from

duty. The Disciplinary Authority relying on the enquiry

report passed removal orders vide dated 18.12.2003 against

the workman. The workman preferred an appeal, which

was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated

13.09.2004. The workman also moved a review application

before ADRM, which too was rejected vide order dated

14.12.2006.

It has been alleged by the workman that management

of the railways neither appointed any Presenting Officer

to present their case nor provided him proper opportunity

to defend himself. It was further alleged that the enquiry

was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of

Rule 9 of the D & A Rules, 1968 and also that the Enquiry

Officer neither recorded the workman’s statement not

provided him opportunity to adduce his defence witness.

Besides it was alleged by the workman that the Enquiry

Officer in his finding has mentioned that the unauthorized

absence of the workman for the period 25.10.2001 to

29.12.2001 is proved; whereas in the charge sheet the

alleged period of absence was 25.10.2001 to 20.02.2002,

even then the Disciplinary Authority passed dismissal

order dated 18.12.2003. The workman has also alleged

that he was not given copy of findings of enquiry report

and show cause notice before passing the impugned order

of removal, in as much as, he was not offered opportunity

of personal hearing before issuance of punishment order.

Accordingly, the workman has prayed that the disciplinary

enquiry should stand vitiated as it was conducted in

violation of the principles of natural justice and impugned

order dated 18.12.2003 be set aside with consequential

benefits to him.

The management of the railways in its written

statement has denied the allegations of the workman and

has submitted that, under Rules, it was not mandatory for

the management to appoint Presenting Officer in the

present matter and the workman was afforded sufficient

opportunity to defend himself. The enquiry was conducted

following the norms laid down by the D & A Rules and

that of principles of natural justice; and also that the

Disciplinary Authority rightly passed the impugned order

dated 18.12.2003 on the basis of findings of Enquiry Officer

and there is no infirmity in it. Accordingly, the management

has prayed that the claim of the workman is liable to be set

aside without any relief to him.

5610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The workman field rejoinder, reiterating his

contentions, already made in the statement of claim.

The parties filed documents in support of their

respective case and adduced oral evidence. The workman

examined himself; whereas the management examined Shri

Pradip Khanna, Enquiry Officer in support of their case.

The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine each

other’s witnesses. Both the parties forwarded oral

arguments in support of their contentions.

Heard authorized representatives of the parties and

perused entire evidence on record.

Following preliminary issues were framed at the

request of the parties vide order dated 03.09.2009:

(i)

Whether the departmental inquiry was conducted

in violation of principles of natural justice; and

(ii)

Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer was

perverse?

After framing of preliminary issues the workman was

called upon to adduce its evidence.

10.

The workman examined himself whereas the

management examined Shri Pradip Khanna, SSE, Inquiry

Officer, in support of their stand on preliminary issue. After

hearing arguments of the parties, preliminary issues were

decided in favour of the workman vide order dated

14.12.2011, which reads as under:

“The disciplinary enquiry was not conducted in

accordance with principles of natural justice. As

such, the issue No. 1 is decided against the

management. The management of railway is afforded

opportunity to prove the charges leveled against

the workman before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the

management is directed to file list of witnesses and

reliance on 30.01.2012.”

11.

Accordingly, the case was listed on 30.01.2012 with

direction to the management to file documentary evidence

and list of witnesses in support of their charge sheet before

this Tribunal. The management filed evidence of Shri Anant

Lal, ADME (C&W), Northern Railway in order to prove

the charges leveled upon the workman. In rebuttal the

workman examined himself. The parties’ witnesses were

cross-examined by each other. The authorized

representatives of the parties availed opportunity to argue

their respective cases.

12.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

submissions of the authorized representatives, pleadings

of the parties and entire evidence adduced by the either

parties, documentary as well as oral.

13.

It is the case of the management that the workman,

Suresh Chand was found absent from his duties from

25.01.2001 when a vigilance check was conducted on

20.02.2002. Resultantly, disciplinary proceedings was

initiated against him with issuance of penalty charge sheet

SF-5 dated 27.5.2002 for unauthorized absence for the

period from 25.10.2001 to 20.02.2002. It was argued by the

authorized representative of the management that the

workman was found absent from his duty during a vigilance

check, without any formal leave application and sanction

of the same by any a Competent Authority; hence, the

punishment imposed upon the workman is just and

proportionate.

14.

Per contra, the workman has come up with the case

that his alleged unauthorized absence was due to long

illness of his family members, which caused mental agony

to him and resultantly he could not take up his duties

properly. It was also contended by the workman that he is

not a habitual absentee and the punishment imposed upon

him is harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct

committed by him as he remained absent for 66 days only.

15.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival contentions of the parties and perused the evidence

available on record in light thereto.

16.

The management has examined Shri Anant Lal,

ADME (C & W), N. Railway to prove the allegations made

in the charge sheet. During cross-examination the

management witness was confronted with the article of

charges, paper No. 4/11 and it was stated in the charge

sheet that the workman was alleged to have been absented

from 25.10.2001 to 20.02.2002. It was further stated in the

findings recorded on paper No. 4/14 that the official was

found to be unauthorisedly absent from 25.10.2001 to

29.12.2001; but in the charge sheet the duration of absence

mentioned was from 25.10.2001 to 20.02.2002. It was also

stated that the concerned official who made above mistake

in the charge sheet has been charge sheeted separately. It

has been further admitted that the charge sheet was issued

for absence from 25.10.2001 to 20.02.2002 but during

inquiry it was found proved that the workman was

unauthorizedly absent from his duty from 25.10.2001 to

29.12.2001 only.

17.

Contrary the workman in his evidence has admitted

that he remained absent from 25.10.2001 to 29.12.2001 i.e.

for 66 days which was neither intentional nor deliberate

but the same was due to unavoidable circumstances i.e.

due to serious illness of his mother and his wife. In cross-

examination he has also stated that he has never been a

habitual absentee.

18.

The management has tried to lead evidence to the

effect that the workman was a habitual absentee; but the

matter under scrutiny before this Tribunal is the charge

sheet dated 27.05.2002, which reads as under:

“Annexure – I

Article of charges on the basis of which D&AR

action is proposed to be taken against Shri Suresh

Chander, H-Kh, T.No. 667 working under Senior

Section Engineer/C&W/Lko.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5611

Shri Suresh Chander, H/Kh, T.No. 667 while working

such committed irregularities as under:

During the vigilance check conducted on physical

presence of staff/unauthorized absentee of staffs

on dated 20.02.2002 in the office of SSE/C&W/LKO

he was found unauthorized absent since/from

25.10.2001 to vigilance i.e. 20.02.2002 without any

prior intimation to his superior i.e. concerned

supervisor/SSE/C&W/LKO.

By the above act of omission and commission, Shri

Sursh Chander, H/Kh, T. No. 667 failed to maintain

absolute integrity, exhibited lack of devotion to duty

and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway

Servant thereby contravened rule No. 3.1 (i) (ii) &

(iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966.”

From bare perusal of the above article of charges it

is crystal clear that the workman had been issued a charge

sheet for absence from 25.10.2001 to 20.02.2002 but during

inquiry it was found that dates were wrongly mentioned

and in fact the workman was actually found absent from

25.10.2001 to 29.12.2001. There is no iota of evidence from

any corner that the charge sheet was issued to the

workman regarding his habitual absence as no record of

previous absence was mentioned in the charge sheet nor

any finding was given by the inquiry officer on this point.

On vitiation of the inquiry by this Tribunal vide order

dated 14.12.2011, the management was required to prove

the charges leveled by it upon the workman vide charge

sheet dated 27.05.2002, which is regarding one time

absence from 25.10.2001 to 20.02.2002. Hence, as per

procedure the management has not lead an evidence to

prove the fact that workman was actually absent from

25.10.2001 to 20.02.2002, while the management’s won

witness viz. Shri Anant Lal, ADME has admitted that the

workman remained absent only w.e.f. 25.10.2001 to

29.12.2001. This amounts to the admission that the period

of absence shown in the charge sheet is not correct.

19.

The workman has contended that the punishment

laid down by the management is disproportionate as it is

in excess to the actual misconduct committed by the

workman. Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Dr.

P.L. Singia 2009 (121) FLR 770 (SC), dealing with

unauthorized absence, has stated thus:

“Unauthorized absence (or overstaying leave), is

an act of indiscipline. Wherever there is a

unauthorized absence by an employee, two courses

are open to the employer. The first is to condone

the unauthorized absence by accepting the

explanation and sanctioning leave for the period of

the unauthorized absence in which event the

misconduct stood condoned. The second is to treat

the unauthorized absence as a misconduct, hold an

enquiry and impose a punishment for the

misconduct.”

The court further, while dealing with the concept of

punishment ruled as follows:

“Where the employee who is unauthorizedly absent

does not report back to duty and offer any

satisfactory explanation, or where the explanation

offered by the employee is not satisfactory, the

employer will take recourse to disciplinary action in

regard to the unauthorized absence. Such

disciplinary proceedings may lead to imposition of

punishment ranging from a major penalty like

dismissal or removal from service to a minor penalty

like withholding of increments without cumulative

effect. The extent of penalty will depend upon the

nature of service, the position held by the employee,

the period of absence and the cause/explanation for

the absence.”

20.

In Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India

Limited and another vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and

others 2009 (15) SSC 620, Hon’ble Apex Court, after

analyzing the doctrine of proportionality at length, ruled

thus:

“19. The doctrine of proportionality is, thus, well-

recognized concept of judicial review in our

jurisprudence. What is otherwise within the

discretionary domain and sole power of the decision-

maker to quantify punishment once the charge of

misconduct stands proved, such discretionary power

is exposed to judicial intervention if exercised in a

manner which is out of proportion to the fault. Award

of punishment which is grossly in excess to the

allegations cannot claim immunity and remains open

for interference under limited scope of judicial

review.

20. One of the tests to be applied while dealing with

the question of quantum of punishment would be:

would any reasonable employer have imposed such

punishment is like circumstances? Obviously, a

reasonable employer is expected to take into

consideration measure, magnitude and degree of

misconduct and all other relevant circumstances and

exclude irrelevant matters before imposing

punishment.

Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case directed for

reinstatement of the delinquent for the proved charges of

unauthorized absence for a period of more than six months,

being the punishment of removal unduly harsh and grossly

in excess to the allegations; but withheld the back wage

by the way of punishment for proved misconduct of

unauthorized absence. The Court observed as under:

“21. In a case like the present one where the

misconduct of the delinquent was unauthorized

absence from duty for six months but upon being

charged of such misconduct, he fairly admitted his

guilt and explained the reasons for his absence by

stating that he did not have any intention nor desired

5612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to disobey the order of higher authority or violate

any of the Company’s rules and regulations but the

reason was purely personal and beyond his control

and, as a matter of fact, he sent his resignation which

was not accepted, the order of removal cannot be

held to be justified, since in our judgment, no

reasonable employer would have imposed extreme

punishment of removal in like circumstances. The

punishment is not only unduly harsh but grossly in

excess to the allegations.”

21.

In the instant case the workman had admittedly been

unauthorizedly absent from 25.10.2001 to 29.12.2001for 66

days only of course without prior intimation to the high

authorities and approval of the Competent Authority. The

workman in his evidence has stated that his absence was

neither intentional nor deliberate but it was due to some

unavoidable and compelling circumstances prevailing in

his family i.e. long illness of his mother and wife, which

caused their death. There is no allegation from

management that the workman was a habitual absentee

and also there is no iota of evidence before this court that

the workman was ever issued any other charge sheet for

unauthorized absence.

22.

Therefore, under the facts and the circumstances of

the case and considering the law, it comes out that the

punishment, imposed by the management upon the

workman for proved/admitted unauthorized absence from

25.10.2001 to 29.12.2001 i.e. for 66 days is not only unduly

harsh but grossly in excess to the allegations made in the

charge sheet. Also, there is neither any allegation, in the

charge sheet, that the workman was a habitual absentee

nor there is any evidence on the record to the effect.

Therefore, the punishment order dated 18.12.2003 is set

aside; and the management is directed to reinstate the

workman, Virendera Kumar, with all consequential benefits,

except the 50 % back wages from the date of removal until

reinstatement, by the way of punishment for his

unauthorized absence.

23.

Award as above.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

LUCKNOW

10th July, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2161-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 67@2007)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@28@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2014

S.O. 2161.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/2007)

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

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of North East Railway

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 30/07/2014.

[No. L-41011/28/2007-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 67/2007

Ref. No. L-41011/28/2007-IR (B-I) dated: 14.12.2007

BETWEEN

Member Executive

North East Railway Shramik Sangh

C/o Sri D.P. Awasthi, 49, Tilak Nagar

Lucknow

(Espousing cause of Shri Jagdev Prasad)

AND

Senior Divisional Personnel Officer

North East Railway

Ashok Marg, Railway Karyalaya

Lucknow.

Senior Divisional Commercial Manager

North East Railway,

Ashok Marg, Lucknow.

AWARD

By order No. L-41011/28/2007-IR (B-I) dated:

14.12.2007 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)

referred this industrial dispute between Member Executive,

North East Railway Shramik Sangh, C/o Sri D.P. Awasthi,

49, Tilak Nagar, Lucknow and Senior Divisional Personnel

Officer, North East Railway, Ashok Marg, Railway

Karyalaya, Lucknow & Senior Divisional Commercial

Manager, North East Railway, Ashok Marg, Lucknow for

adjudication to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER

THE

ACTION

THE

MANAGEMENT OF NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY,

LUCKNOW IN NOT GIVING TEMPORARY STATUS

TO SRI JAGDEV PRASAD S/O SRI RAM ASHREY

AFTER COMPLETION 120 DAYS WORK OF

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5613

WATERMAN FROM 1.4.1976 TO 31.8.1976 AND

ALSO NOT GIVING C.P.C. SCALE BENEFIT FOR

THE SAID PERIOD, IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED?

IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF THE CONCERNED

WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

The case of the workman’s union, in brief is that the

workman, Jagdev Prasad was engaged as casual labour

for the duration 01.04.1976 to 10.04.1974 and thereafter, he

was re-engaged w.e.f. 04.05.1976 and worked continuously

up to 31.08.1976, completing 120 days continuous services.

It is submitted by the union that the workman by the virtue

of Rule 2501 became entitled to attain temporary status on

completion of 120 days continuous working on 31.08.1976;

but the management of railway did not grant him temporary

status up till 01.04.1985. It is alleged by the workman’s

union that the action of the management of not granting

him temporary status on 31.08.1976 caused him monetary

loss, as he was not given CPC scale of Rs. 196-232 and

this loss cumulated in subsequent years when he was not

allowed increments and subsequent scales. It is also

alleged by the workman’s union that the other junior

workmen were regularized by the management, sparing

the workman in spite of the fact that he appeared in the

screening test on 08.08.89 and also passed medical test on

12.10.89. Accordingly, the workman’s union has prayed

that the workman be given temporary status w.e.f. 31.08.76

on completion of 120 days of continuous working and he

may be held entitled for payment in the scale Rs. 196-232

and other consequential benefits.

The management of the North Eastern Railway has

denied the allegation of workman’s union that by filing its

written statement; wherein it has submitted that the

workman, Jagdev Prasad was engaged as casual waterman

in summer season on daily wages on 01.04.76. It is

submitted that at that time there was no provision for giving

time scale to such daily wagers engaged in summer season;

whereas the same was extended vide letter dated 25.01.85

of the Railway Board; and accordingly, the workman was

given benefit of time scale w.e.f. 01.04.85. It is submitted

by the workman that the workman was successfully

screened against panel dated 30.08.90 and accordingly,

was regularized w.e.f. 22.10.92. It is also submitted by the

management that the claim of the workman that he got

temporary status w.e.f. 01.04.85 is wrong; as a workman

gets temporary status on completing 120 days working

after grant of time scale. Hence, the workman is not entitled

for grant of temporary status even w.e.f. 01.04.85.

Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim

of the workman’s union be rejected being devoid of any

merit.

The workman’s union has field its rejoinder; wherein

it has reiterated the averments already made in the

statement of claim and has introduced nothing new.

The workman’s union has filed documentary

evidence in support of their case; whereas the management

has filed none. The workman’s union produced the

workman in evidence who was cross-examined by the

authorized representative of the management. The

management has not forwarded any evidence, in spite of

ample opportunities being forward to it, and accordingly

the case was fixed for arguments. The management again

did not turn for arguments whereas the authorized

representative argued his case.

Heard representatives of the workman’s union only

and perused entire evidence on record and gone through

respective pleadings of the parties.

The authorized representative of the workman’s

union has argued that the workman was entitled to grant

of temporary status w.e.f. 31.08.76 when he completed 120

days continuous working as casual labour vide Rule 2501;

but the management granted the same w.e.f. 01.04.1985

which resulted into non-grant of scale of Rs. 196-232. It

also contended that the management regularized other

juniors ignoring the fact that the workman was successfully

screened on 08.08.89 and passed the medical test also on

12.10.89.

Per contra, the management’s case is that the

workman was actually given time scale w.e.f. 01.04.1985 as

per directions of the Railway Board’s order dated 25.01.85;

however he was successfully screened vide panel dated

30.08.90 and was accordingly regularized w.e.f. 22.01.92.

10.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

submissions of the authorized representative of the

workman’s union, pleadings of the parties and entire

evidence adduced by the workman, documentary as well

as oral.

11.

The workman’s union has come forward with a case

that the workman was engaged as seasonal casual labour

and worked continuously for 120 days and was entitled

for temporary status from a date prior to the date when he

was granted temporary status. The management has

denied the claim of the workman union, therefore, the

burden was on the workman’s union to prove their case

that after engagement of the workman as seasonal casual

labour he worked continuously for mandatory 120 days

continuously required for grant of temporary status. The

workman has pleaded that he was given temporary status

w.e.f. 01.04.1985 and was granted scale Rs. 196-232; but

from the reply of the management it is clear that the

workman being seasonal casual labour was not permissible

for grant of time scale under rules at that time and

subsequently the time scale was granted to the seasonal

casual labourers in terms of letter dated 25.01.1985 of the

Railway Board and accordingly, the workman was granted

time scale w.e.f. 01.04.1985, to which the workman is taking

his date of grant of temporary status. The workman has

not filed any reliable detail of working with the

management as casual labour i.e. Casual Labour Card to

ascertain this fact that he worked for 120 days continuously

5614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

as casual labourer and was actually entitled for grant of

temporary status w.e.f. 31.8.76 in terms of Rule 2501 as

claimed by him.

12.

The workman has come up with a case that after

grant of temporary status was subjected to screening test

on 08.08.89 and also passed the medical test on 12.10.89

even then he was not regularized whereas other workmen

junior to him were regularized. Admittedly, the workmen

viz. Bhagwane, Shatrughan Sinha, Brahmshankar Mishra

were regularized on the result of screening held; but the

workman in his cross-examination has stated that he

passed the screening held on 08.08.89 and he was found

unfit in the medical. This goes to show that the

management rightly did not regularize his services as he

could not fulfill the norm for regularization. On the contrary

the workmen viz. Bhagwane, Shatrughan Sinha,

Brahmshankar Mishra and others who are claimed to be

junior to the workman were regularized consequent to their

clearing the screening test and medical test. The workman

has not given any details regarding their date of joining to

ascertain this fact that the claimed workmen were actually

junior to the workman. Also, when the alleged juniors

passed the screening test and medical test, they were got

regularized; whereas the workman as spared for not clearing

the medical test, therefore, the workman cannot claim parity

with those who cleared the medical test. Hence, the case

of the workman is different with respect to those who are

claimed to be junior to the workman.

13.

Thus, from the discussions made hereinabove, it is

clear that the wokman’s union did not discharge the burden

that lied upon it and failed to prove its pleadings by cogent

evidence, therefore, I come to the conclusion that action

of the management of North Eastern Railway, Lucknow in

not giving temporary status to the workman after alleged

completion of 120 days is neither illegal nor unjustified.

Accordingly, the workman concerned is not entitled for

any relief.

14.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

LUCKNOW

09th July, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2162-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 102@2003)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@1@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2014

S.O. 2162.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 102/

2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of State Bank of India and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

16/07/2014.

[No. L-12012/1/2003-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM~LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/102/2003

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.P ATLE

Shri Raj Kumar Rai & 7 others,

S-107, Near Kopal School,

Nehru Nagar,

Bhopal (MP)

......Workman

Versus

The Asstt. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Hamidia Road,

Bhopal (MP)

.....Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 20th day of May 2014)

As per letter dated 27-5-2003 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-12011/

1/2003-IR (B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Asstt.

General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Bhopal in terminating the services of the workmen

(as listed in Annexure I against their date of

termination) is justified? If not, to what relief these

workmen are entitled for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. on behalf of Ist party No.l to 8, statement of

claim is filed at pages 5/1 to 5/9. Workman Bhopal Singh

Negi Ist party No.l/3 died during pendency. His LRs are

not brought on record. The case of workmen is that they

belong to family with humble background. They received

education with difficulties. They claim to be qualified to

be appointed as Class-III, IV cadre of IInd party. That they

were engaged at different branches during 1985, 86, 86

temporarily against vacant sanctioned post of messengers.

On basis of regular need to work and requirement, those

employees were working against sanctioned post of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5615

messengers in different branches. The post of messengers

were advertised after fulfilling qualifications and conditions

as per advertisement, they were eligible to be appointed.

The Ist party workmen were working more than 30 days in

temporary employment during each of the calendar year.

They were called for interview on 20-9-89 and 23-9-89. Ilnd

party Bank published handbook on staff matters. As per

Chapter 12 Para 3.2 the chance was to be given to the

temporary employees for permanent employment. The

candidates found unsuitable for selection and be

discontinued immediately. That Ist party workmen were

not communicated about their unsuitability, they were

hopeful that they were selected after interview. They were

waiting for the appointments. After their interview for post

of messengers, staff circular dated 9-9-92 confirmed that

the select list prepared after interview in 1989 was kept

alive. Temporary employees selected in the list would be

taken in service. It is further submitted that since the date

of interview, Ist party were reiterating that they should be

regularized in cadre of messengers. Their representations

in the matter were not considered since past 10 years.

Workmen were selected in previous interview. They were

assured that they were not required to face interview again

as per letter dated 10-2-97. Ist party workmen were never

communicated about their unsuitability after the interview.

It is reiterated that the workmen were not appointed against

permanent post of messenger for the post they were

interviewed. They were assured continuation of services

until regular posting. That fresh candidates who were not

working on daily wages for one single day were appointed

namely Dal Bahadur, Anil Kumar Kanchedi Lal , Baboolal

Sharma.

The Ist party workman apprehended termination of

their service as per staff circular dated 18-9-98. They filed

miscellaneous petition before Hon’ble High Court on

9-11-01. Said petition was disposed issuing certain

directions. The directions were not complied by IInd party.

It is further submitted that the settlement was entered

between the management and employees for absorption

of temporary employees classified as A,B,C in 1998.

Another agreement was entered in 1991 which extended

the period of anticipating vacancies from 1988 -92 to 1995-

96. Personnel Officer of IInd party merely asked them to

write sterio type form about working days before 1994.

The directions were not complied. Writ Petition No. 2404/

00 & 3696/00 were filed. It was brought to the notice of

Hon’ble High Court that after termination of 450 persons,

about 50 persons were appointed. Workmen further

submits that they worked for more than 7 years, their

services were terminated and junior employees were

regularized. On such ground. Workmen are praying for

their reinstatement with consequential benefits. They also.

prayed for continuation of their service as per circular

dated 3-12-02.

IInd party filed Written Statement at page 20/1 to

20/10. IInd party submitted that Ist party employees were

employed on daily wages as messengers. The working

days of workmen were Raj Kumar Rai- 82 days, S.Babulkar-

90 days, S.Mishra-74 days, B.S.Negi- 87 days, V. M. Singh-

89 days, R.K.Matai- 89 days, Y. Bhoi-86 days and R.Solanki-

85 days in the year 1996. It is reiterated that all workmen

were engaged on exigencies as part time messengers. They

were free to come to duty on next date. Management was

also on liberty to not engage them. That workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service. Their

discontinuation is covered under Section 2(oo) (bb) of

I.D. Act. Ist party workmen are not entitled to retrenchment

compensation under Section 25-F of I.D. Act. They are

not employees under Section 25(B) of I.D. Act. that as per

agreement dated 17-11-87, 16-7-88, 28-10-88 & 9-1-91

between the management of SBI and staff federation,

opportunity was to be given to the workmen working during

1-7-75 till 31-7-88 extended to 14-8-91. Ist party employees

were considered for permanent appointment. They were

interviewed but not found suitable for permanent

employment as per their seniority and cut off date. He

further submitted that as per ratio held in Case of Umadevi

and others versus State of Karnataka in 2006(4) SCC-01,

the workmen are not entitled for regularization of their

services. The Ist party workmen were never appointed

against permanent vacancies. The temporary employees

could not be made permanent after expiry of term of

appointment. The workmen were given opportunity for

absorption on the post of permanent messengers. They

were found not eligible in the interview. Therefore workmen

are not entitled for reinstatement. It is further submitted

that workmen were not selected for permanent

appointment. The representations of Ist party workmen

were considered and decision was communicated to them.

Violation of Article 14, 16, 21 of the constitution is denied.

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 Asstt. General

except in case of

Manager, State Bank of India,

workman Shri Raj

Zonal Office, Bhopal in

Kumar Rai.

terminating the services of the

workmen (as listed in Annexure I

against their date of termination)

is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

As per final order.

is entitled to?”

REASONS

Terms of reference clearly spells to the legality of

termination of services of Ist party workmen. Terms of

reference are silent about the regularization in service of

the Ist party workmen. Ist party workmen have pleaded

that they were called for interview for permanent post of

5616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2014/SRAVANA 11, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

messenger in 1989, they were not communicated about

their unsuitability for the said post. They were under

impression that they would be appointed. Despite of

representations, they did not receive the appointment

orders. Identical affidavit of evidence are filed by

Shri Sanjay Babulkar, Santosh Mishra, Yashwant Bhoi,

Vinod Mangal Singh, Raj Kumar Matai, Raju Solanki, Raj

Kumar Rai and Bhopal Singh Negi. Except Shri Bhopal

Singh Negi, all of them were cross-examined. Negi died

during pendency of reference proceeding and he could

not be cross-examined. In all affidavit of evidence,

workmen have stated that they were working on vacant

post of messenger. The post was sanctioned. That they

were fulfilling the conditions they were working in

establishment of respondent Bank. IInd party during

preceding 4 years. That they were called for employment

on post of messengers as per selected list prepared after

interview. It was followed by staff circular which confirmed

that the select list prepared on the basis of interview held

was kept alive. They were getting the pay scale plus DA

with all other financial benefits including medical

reimbursement and bonus. They claims to have been

selected after interview. The post was advertised.

Management had given employment to fresh candidates.

Shri Sanjay Babulkar in his cross-examination says

that he has no knowledge about settlement between Union

and management. He denies that he had given interview

as per the settlement. He claims that he was interviewed

as per the advertisement. That after his interview, his name

was at Sl. No. 177 of the Waiting List. He also claims that

junior persons were appointed by the management.

Shri Santosh Mishra in his cross-examination says that

prior to 14-8-91, he had worked only for 74 days. He was

interviewed as per Bipartite Settlement. His name was at

Sl. No. 376 of the Waiting List. He claims ignorance of the

date of appointment of Lal Bahadur, Thapa Anil Kumar,

Kanchedilal, Babulal Sharma. He admits that prior to his

interview he had completed 240 days continuous service.

Shri Yashwant Bhoi in his cross-examination says that

previously he was working as canteen boy. In the year

1986, he worked as messenger, he was interviewed as per

the settlement. Prior to his interview, he worked for 86

days. The certificate of 86 days working was issued. His

name was at S1. No. 20 of the waiting list. Shri Vinod Mangal

in his cross-examination claims ignorance about settlement

between Union and management. He denies that he was

interviewed as per the settlement. That he was at S1.No.

160 in the waiting list. He did not recollect who is appointed

in the waiting list below his number but those persons

were appointed in 1997. Raj Kumar Matai in his cross-

examination says prior to 14-8-91, he was working as

canteen boy. He was called for interview as per settlement

between Bank and Union. Prior to 14-8-91, he worked for

89 days. His number was 186 in the “C” category of waiting

list. He did not remember what was date of appointment of

Babulal, Thapa Anil Kumar, Kanchedilal and Lal Bahadur.

Evidence in cross-examination of Raju Solanki is also

similar to cross-examination of other witnesses.

Advertisement was given in 1991 for post of messenger.

Earlier he had worked for 89 days in Badkheda branch of

the Bank. As he received information about the availability

in said branch, he had gone there. His no. was 228 in the

Waiting List. He worked for 89 days prior to his interview.

Raj Kumar Rai in his cross-examination says that he had

worked for 82 days prior to his interview. His name was at

Sl.No. 267 of the Waiting List. He was called for interview

for the post of messenger after advertisement was

published. Gopal Singh Negi was not available for his

cross-examination.

Documents Exhibit W-l shows that Sanjay Kumar

had worked for 90 days during 1-10-82 to 3-9-83. Exhibit

W-2 shows that Bhopal Singh worked for 87 days during

13-3-85 to 16-6-85. Exhibit W-3 shows that Yashwant Bhoi

worked for 86 days during 8-1-87 to 5-6-87. Exhibit W-4

shows that Raj Kumar Rai worked for 82 days in 1984 in

the Bank. Exhibit W-5 shows that Shri Raj Kumar Matai

worked for 89 days from June 83 to August 83. Exhibit

W-6 shows that Vinod Mangal Singh was called for

interview for temporary appointment. Exhibit W -8 is copy

of circular dated 9-9-92. Said document shows that for

appointment in the Bank, norms should be prescribed.

Exhibit W-9 is letter dated 27-1-94 by Asstt. General

Manager. The letter shows that there are no directions for

how many days candidates in waiting list should be

appointed. That document Exhibit W-10 is order passed

by Hon’ble High Court in 2404/2000. The directions were

given by Hon’ble High court that petitioner shall give

period of service including the names of branches and

certificate/proof in support of their claim, petitioners shall

furnish the date of their application for empanelment,

petitions whose date of birth is under dispute may also

furnish documents in support of their date of birth,

petitioners may also furnish the name of those persons

who according to them have worked for less number of

days etc... In present case, the evidence of workmen shows

that they did not worked for more than 240 days. The

documents also shows that they had worked about 82 to

90 days during the period from 82 to 85. The document

Exhibit W -12 shows that Shri Raj Kumar Rai had worked

for 82 days in 1984 in Regional Branch Bhopal. He worked

for 1208 days during the period from 93 to 97, he also

worked for 898 days during 1-4-97 to 17-9-99. The working

for subsequent period i.e. 1993 to 1997 and 1-4-97 to 17-9-99

was not considered.

Above document clearly shows that Shri Raj Kumar

Rai had worked more than 240 days since 1993 to 1997. His

services are terminated without notice.

10.

The evidence of management’s witness Shri M.K.

Kaushik is on the point that any of the workmen had not

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 2] [email protected] 11] 1936

5617

completed 240 days continuous service. they were all

engaged as per exigencies as par time messenger. All

workmen were called for interview as per settlement but

workmen were not found eligible as per the prescribed

criteria. In his cross-examination, management’s witness

says he did not know the period and time of discontinuation

of the services. He claims ignorance whether the

employees were again re-employed. That those employees

were paid back wages. He claims ignorance whether salary

of employees were paid from Establishment Accounts. The

witness was referred reply dated 23-1-07 but the witness

claimed ignorance about its contents.

11.

Management is admitting that candidates were

interviewed and it is admitted that workmen were not found

suitable. In documents about selection of candidates after

interview is not produced on record. However as discussed

above, the point of regularization is not included in terms

of reference. The reference is related to the legality of

termination of services of workmen. The copies of

settlement are produced by IInd party but the same are

demed by counsel for 1st party. The evidence discuss.ed

above sh.ows that as per document Exhibit W-12 workman

Raj Kumar Rat had completed 240 days continuous service

prior to his termination, his services are terminated without

notice in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act.

12.

Learned counsel for management Shri Tripathi relies

on ratio held in

“Case of Krisihna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited versus

Mohammed Rafi reported in 2009(11) Supreme Court

Cases-522. The ratio held by their Lordship is burden

of proof as to completion of 240 days of continuous

work in a year lies on aggrieved workman.

13.

Learned counsel for workmen Shri Ashok Srivastava

on the point relies on ratio held in

“Case of Shri Sanjay Kumar versus Chief Executive

Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ratlam reported in 2010(3)

MPLJ-457. Their Lordship dealing with termination

of daily rated employee without giving notice or

retrenchment compensation. Evidence produced by

the petitioner workman was sufficient to prove that

the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days.

Burden proof in rebuttal there is no cogent evidence

adduced by the respondent. Burden of proof shifts

on the respondent employer to prove that petitioner

did not complete 240 days of service in the requisite

period to constitute continuous service.”

In present case only from Document Exhibit W -12

working days of Shri Raj Kumar Rai are found more

than 240 days. Management had not produced any

record about working days of other employees. No

evidence in rebuttal is produced by management

but evidence of workman is also not cogent that

they have completed more than 240 days. As per

document Exhibit W -1 to W -6, all those employees

have worked only between 80-90 days. Therefore

termination of their service cannot be said in violation

of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. considering the evidence

on record, I donot find substance to discuss ratio in

detail the ratio held in ILR(2012) M.P.378 or 2013-

LAB. I.C.3329. 2008-M.P.L.S.R.180 is judgment by

the Honble High Court but it appears the judgment

by Industrial Tribunal, Indore. It cannot be treated

as binding president.

14.

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

that the action of the management of Asstt. General

Manager, State Bank of India Zonal Office, Bhopal m

termmatmg the services of the workmen except Shri Raj

Kumar Rai is found in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act.

The termination of services of all other workmen is found

proper and legal. Question arises to what relief, the

workman Shri Raj Kumar Rai is entitled.

15.

As per evidence of Shri Raj Kumar Rai, he was

working for 4 years preceding termination of his services.

Considering he was called for interview but no evidence

produced whether he was selected, the copy of Waiting

List is not produced, workman cannot be allowed

reinstatement with back wages. Reasonable compensation

would be appropriate relief. Considering length of service

of 4 years preceding his termination, compensation Rs. 1

Lakh would be appropriate and reasonable. Accordingly I

record my finding in Point No. 2.

16.

In the result, award is passed as under :—

(l)

The action of the management of Asstt. General

Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Bhopal in terminating the services of the workmen

except Shri Raj Kumar Rai is legal and proper.

(2)

The action of the management terminating

workman Shri Raj Kumar Rai is violative of

Section 2S-F of I.D. Act.

(3)

IInd party management is directed to pay

compensation Rs. 1 Lakh to workman Shri Raj

Kumar Rai. Amount as per above order shall be

paid to workman within 30 days from the date of

notification of award. In case of default, amount

shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date

of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.