dk£ed] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;
(dk£ed vkSj çf'k{k.k foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2298-—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k
lafgrk] 1973 (1974 dk vf/fu;e la- 2) dh /kjk 24 dh mi&/
kjk (8) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fnYyh fo'ks"k
iqfyl LFkkiuk (dsanzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks) }kjk vkjlh 3(,l)
1984&,lh;w&I (Hkksiky xSl yhdst ekeyk) (lhvkj,y-
,elhvkjlh la- 4240@2013) esa rFkk blls lEc¼ ,oa mlh laO;ogkj
ds vU; ekeyksa esa tcyiqj fLFkr eè;izns'k mPp U;k;ky; rFkk
ftyk ,oa l=k U;k;ky;] Hkksiky esa mifLFkr gksus ds fy, Jh jkf'kn
lqgSy flíhdh] Hkkjr ds lgk;d lkfyflVj tujy dks fo'ks"k yksd
vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 225@3@2014&,ohMh&IIº
jktho tSu] voj lfpo
3221 GI/2014
(5893)
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- 35]
ubZ fnYyh, vxLr 24—vxLr 30] 2014] 'kfuokj@Hkkæ 2—Hkkæ 8] 1936
No. 35]
NEW DELHI, AUGUST 24—AUGUST 30, 2014, SATURDAY/BHADRA 2—BHADRA 8, 1936
bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 19th August, 2014
S.O.
2298.—In exercise of the Powers conferred
by sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government
hereby appoints Shri Rashid Suhal Siddiqui, Assistant
Solicitor General of india as Special Public Prosecutor for
appearing in RC. 3 (S) 1984-ACU. I (Bhopal Gas Leakage
Case) (Crl. MCRC No. 4240/2013) instituted by the Delhi
Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of
Investigation) in the Madhya Pradesh High Court at
Jabalpur and District and Sessions Judge Court, Bhopal
and other matters connected therewith and incidental
thereto.
[F. No. 225/3/2014-AVD-II]
RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.
5894
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
foÙk ea=kky;
(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2299-—Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vf/fu;e] 1934 dh
/kjk 8 dh mi&/kjk (4) ds lkFk ifBr mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM
(d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Jh
,p- vkj- [kku (tUe frfFk % 29&7&1954) dks 4 tqykbZ] 2014 ls
;k vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] nks o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy,
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ds fMIVh xouZj ds in ij iqu£u;qDr djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 1@1@2011&chvks&Iº
fefgj oqQekj] funs'kd (chvks&I)
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2014
S.O.
2299.—In exercise of the Powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) read with sub-section (4) of
Section 8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Central
Government hereby re-appoints Shri H. R. Khan (DoB :
29.7.1954), as Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India for
a period of two years w.e.f. 4th July, 2014, or until further
orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 1/1/2011-BO-I]
MIHIR KUMAR, Director (BO-I)
ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2300-—Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vf/fu;e] 1955
(1955 dk 23) dh /kjk 19 ds [k.M ([k) vkSj /kjk 20 dh
mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] LVsV cSad vkiQ chdkusj ,aM t;iqj ds izca/
funs'kd] Jh ch- Jhjke (tUe frfFk 20&09&1958) dks muds }kjk
inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls 30&09&2018 rd vFkkZr~ muds
vf/of"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys
vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] Jh gseUr th- dkWUVªsDVj (tks
30&04&2014 dks lsokfuo`Ùk gks pqds gSa) ds LFkku ij] Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad ds izca/ funs'kd ds in ij fu;qDr djrh gSA
¹iQk- la- 2@7@2013&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2014
S.O.
2300.—In exercise of the Powers conferred
by clause (b) of section (19) and Sub-Section (1) of Section
20 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the
Central Government, hereby appoints Shri B. Sriram (DoB :
20-09-1958), Managing Director, State Bank of Bikaner &
Jaipur as Managing Director, State Bank of India, against
the vacancy of Shri Hemant G. Contractor (who
superannuated on 30-04-2014), from teh date of his taking
over the charge of the post and upto 30-09-2018 i.e. the
date of his attaining the age of superannuation or until
further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 2/7/2013-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2301-—Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad vf/fu;e] 1955 (1955
dk 23) dh /kjk 19 ds [k.M ([k) vkSj /kjk 20 dh mi&
/kjk(1) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj]
,rn~}kjk] ,lchvkbZ dSfiVy ekdsZV fyfeVsM ds izca/ funs'kd ,oa
eq[; dk;Zikyd vf/dkjh] Jh oh-th-dkuu (tUe frfFk
11&07&1956) dks muds }kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls
31&07&2016 rd vFkkZr muds vf/of"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus dh
rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] Jh ,l-
fo'oukFku (tks 30&04&2014 dks lsokfuo`Ùk gks pqds gSa) ds LFkku
ij] Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/ funs'kd ds in ij fu;qDr djrh gSA
¹iQk- la- 2@7@2013&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2014
S.O. 2301.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by
clause (b) of Section (1) and sub-section (1) of Section 20
of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central
Government, hereby appoints Shri V.G. Kannan (DoB: 11-
07-1956), Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, SBI
Capital Markets Limited as Managing Director, State Bank
of India against the vacancy of Shri S. Visvanathan (who
superannuated on 30-04-2014), from the date of his taking
over the charge of the post and upto 31-07-2016 i.e. the
date of his attaining the age of superannuation or until
further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 2/7/2013-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2302-—Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad vf/fu;e]
1981 dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (2) ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 6 dh
mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] vkbZMhchvkbZ ,lsV eSustesaV
daiuh fy- ds izca/ funs'kd ,oa lhbZvks Jh nsckf'k'k efyd (tUe
frfFk % 01&10&1959) dks muds }kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k
ls 5 o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, ;k 30&09&2019 rd vFkkZr muds }kjk
vf/of"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr dj ysus ;k vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh
igys gks] 65]000&78]000 jQi, ds osrueku esa Hkkjrh;
fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad (,fDte cSad) ds mi izca/ funs'kd ds in ij
fu;qDr djrh gSA
¹iQk- la- 7@2(ii)@2013&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5895
New Delhi, the 20th July, 2014
S.O.
2302.—In exercise of the Powers conferred
by clause (aa) of sub-section (1) of section 6 read with
sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Export-Import Bank of
India Act, 1981, the Central Government hereby appoints
Shri Debasish Mallick (DOB : 01-10-1959), MD & CEO,
IDBI Asset Management Company Ltd. as Deputy
Managing Director of the Export Import (EXIM) Bank of
India in the pay scale of Rs. 65,000-78,000/- for a period of
5 years from the date of his taking over the charge of the
post or till 30-09-2019 i.e. the date of his attaining the age of
superannuation, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 7/2 (ii)/2013-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2303-—Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad vf/fu;e]
1981 dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (2) ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 6 dh
mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad ds
dk;Zikyd funs'kd Jh MsfoM jlfdUgk (tUe frfFk% 01&06&1961)
dks muds }kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls 5 o"kZ dh vof/ ds
fy, ;k vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] 65]000&78]000@&
jQi, ds osrueku esa Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad (,fDte cSad) ds
mi izca/ funs'kd ds in ij fu;qDr djrh gSA
¹iQk- la- 7@2(i)@2013&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th July, 2014
S.O.
2303.—In exercise of the Powers conferred
by clause (aa) of sub-section (1) of section 6 read with
sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Export-Import Bank of
India Act, 1981, the Central Government hereby appoints
Shri David Rasquinha(DoB : 01-06-1961), Executive Director,
Export-Import (EXIM) Bank of India, as Deputy Managing
Director of the Export Import (EXIM) Bank of India, in the
pay scale of Rs. 65,000-78,000/- for a period of 5 years from
the date of his taking over the charge of the post or until
further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 7/2 (i)/2013-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2304-—Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vf/fu;e] 1934 dh
/kjk 8 dh mi/kjk (4) ds lkFk ifBr mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM
(d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj]
,rn~}kjk] cSad vkiQ cM+kSnk ds vè;{k ,oa izca/ funs'kd Jh ,l-
,l- eqUnzk (tUe frfFk% 18&07&1954) dks muds inHkkj xzg.k
djus dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, ;k vxys vkns'kksa
rd] tks Hkh igys gks] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ds fMIVh&xouZj ds in
ij fu;qDr djrh gSA
¹iQk- la- 1@6@2013&chvks&Iº
fefgj dqekj] funs'kd (chvks&I)
New Delhi, the 30th July, 2014
S.O. 2304.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (1) read with sub-section (4) of
Section 8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Central
Government hereby appoints Shri S.S. Mundra (DoB :
18-07-1954), Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Baroda
as Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India for a period of
three years from the date of his taking over charge of the
post or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 1/6/2013-BO-I]
MIHIR KUMAR, Director (BO.I)
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2305-—jk"Vªh; d`f"k vkSj xzkeh.k fodkl cSad
vf/fu;e] 1981 dh /kjk 6 ds [k.M (3) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] cSadlZ baLVhV~;wV vkiQ
#jy MsoyiesaV (chvkbZvkjMh) ds funs'kd Jh gjh'kdqekj
jfldyky nos (tUe frfFk% 16&04&1959) dks muds }kjk inHkkj
xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls ikap o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, ;k mudh
vf/of"kZrk dh rkjh[k vFkkZr 30&04&2019 rd ;k vxys vkns'kksa
rd] tks Hkh igys gks] 65]000&78]000@& jQi, ds osrueku esa
jk"Vªh; d`f"k vkSj xzkeh.k fodkl cSad (ukckMZ) ds mi&izca/ funs'kd
ds in ij fu;qDr djrh gSA
¹iQk- la- 7@5(i)@2009&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 14th August, 2014
S.O.
2305.—In exercise of the Powers conferred
by clause (3) of section 6 of the National Bank for
Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981, the Central
Government hereby appoints Shri Harishkumar Rasiklal
Dave (DoB : 16-04-1959), Director, Bankers Institute of Rural
Development (BIRD), as Deputy Managing Director,
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
(NABARD) in the pay scale of Rs. 65,000-78,000 for a
period of Five years from the date of his taking over the
charge of the post or till the date of his superannuation i.e.
30-04-2019 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 7/5(i)/2009-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
5896
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2306-—jk"Vªh; d`f"k vkSj xzkeh.k fodkl cSad
vf/fu;e] 1981 dh /kjk 6 ds [k.M (3) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] jk"Vªh; d`f"k vkSj xzkeh.k
fodkl cSad (ukckMZ) ds eq[;izca/d Jh vkj-veyksjioukFku
(tUe frfFk% 01&06&1959) dks muds }kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh
rkjh[k ls ikap o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, ;k mudh vf/of"kZrk dh
rkjh[k vFkkZr~ 31&05&2019 rd ;k vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh
igys gks] 65]000&78]000@& jQi, ds osrueku esa jk"Vªh; d`f"k vkSj
xzkeh.k fodkl cSad (ukckMZ) ds mi&izca/ funs'kd ds in ij
fu;qDr djrh gSA
¹iQk- la- 7@5(ii)@2009&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 14th August, 2014
S.O.
2306.—In exercise of the Powers conferred
by clause (3) of section 6 of the National Bank for
Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981, the Central
Government hereby appoints Shri R. Amalorpavanathan
(DoB : 01-06-1959), Chief General Manager, National Bank
for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) as
Deputry Managing Director, National Bank For Agriculture
and Rural Development (NABARD) in the pay scale of Rs.
65,000-78,000 for a period of Five years from the date of his
taking over the charge of the post or till the date of his
superannuation i.e. 31-05-2019 or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 7/5(ii)/2009-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2307-—ljdkjh LFkku (vuf/d`r vf/Hkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh) vf/fu;e] 1971 (1971 dk 40) dh /kjk 3 }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] fuEufyf[kr lkj.kh ds dkye (2) esa mfYyf[kr vf/dkfj;ksa dks mDr vf/fu;e ds
iz;kstu ds fy, lEink vf/dkjh fu;qDr djrh gS vkSj vkxs ;g funs'k nsrh gS fd mDr vf/dkjh mDr vf/fu;e }kjk ;k mlds varxZr
lEink vf/dkjh dks iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa vkSj vf/jksfir drZO;ksa dk v/ksfyf[kr lkj.kh ds dkye (3) esa ;Fkk fofufnZ"V {ks=k ds varxZr vkus okys
ljdkjh LFkkuksa ds laca/ esa] vius {ks=kkf/dkj dh LFkkuh; lhek ds Hkhrj iz;ksx djsaxsA
lkj.kh
Ø- la-
vf/dkjh dk inuke
ljdkjh LFkkuksa dh Jsf.k;ka vkSj {ks=kkf/dkj dh LFkkuh; lhek,a
(1)
(2)
(3)
1-
vkpfyd izca/d] vkxjk
mRrj izns'k jkT; esa vkxjk] vyhx<+] bVkok] iQjQZ[kkckn] fiQjkstkckn] gkFkjl]
vapy] vkxjk
dUukSt] euhiqj] eFkqjk ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkiQ
bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gS rFkk mlds
iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
2-
vkapfyd izca/d]
xqtjkr jkT; esa vgenkckn] [ksM+k ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad
vgenkckn vapy] vgenkckn
vkiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk
mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSA
3-
vkapfyd izca/d] ve`rlj
tEew vkSj d'ehj rFkk iatkc jkT; esa ve`rlj] xqjnkliqj] gksf'k;kjiqj] tkya/j]
vapy] ve`rlj
diwjFkyk] 'kghn Hkxr flag uxj] rju&rkju] lkack ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr
ifjlj tks fd cSad vkiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij
fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
4-
vkapfyd izca/d] Hkkxyiqj
>kj[k.M jkT; esa nso?kj rFkk fcgkj jkT; esa ckadk] csxqljk;] Hkkxyiqj] xksM~Mk] tewbZ]
vapy] Hkkxyiqj
dfVgkj] [kxfM+;k] fd'kuxat] eqaxsj] ikdqj] iwf.kZ;k] lgjlk] lkfgcxat] lqikSy
ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds
}kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
5-
vkapfyd izca/d] Hkksiky
eè; izns'k jkT; esa v'kksduxj] fHk.M] Hkksiky] xquk] Xokfy;j] gks'kaxkckn] eqjSuk]
vapy] Hkksiky
jktx<+] flgksj] f'koiqjh ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkiQ
bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds
iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5897
6-
vkapfyd izca/d] cSad
mM+hlk jkT; esa vaxqy] ckyklksj] Hknzd] Hkqous'oj] cksyuxhj] dVd] xatke] txrflag
vkWiQ bafM;k] Hkqous'oj
iqj] tSikSj] >kjlqxqMk] dkykgkaMh] dsUnzikMk] [kqnkZ] dksjkiqV] Uk;kx<+] iqjh] jk;x<+
lacyiqj] lqanjx<+ ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds
gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud
fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
7-
vkapfyd izca/d] p.Mhx<+
gfj;k.kk] fgekpy izns'k jkT; rFkk la?k jkT; {ks=k p.Mhx<+ esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd
vapy]p.Mhx<+
cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa
rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
8-
vkapfyd izca/d] psUuS
rfeyukMq jkT; esa psUUkS] dqM~Mkyksj] dkaphiqje] djkbZdy] ukxIkV~Vue] isjEcywj]
vapy] psUuS
ikafMpsjh] ratkowj] fr:osYYkwj] fr:vUukeykbZ] osYyksj] foyqiqje ftyksa@mi&'kgjh
ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh
vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
9-
vkapfyd izca/d] dks;Ecrwj
rfeyukMq jkT; esa dks;Ecrwj] /eZiqjh] fMafMxqy] bjksM] dU;kdqekjh] d:j] dksMbZduky]
vapy] dks;Ecrwj
d`".kkfxjh] enqjS] ueDdy] uhyfxjh] iq:dksV~VbZ] jkekukFkiqje] lkysu] f'koxaxk]
Fksuh] fr:fpjkiYyh] fr:usyosyh] rwrhdksju] fo:¼uxj ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa
fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls
iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
10-
vkapfyd izca/d] /uckn
>kj[k.M jkT; esa /uckn ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ
vapy] /uckn
bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds
iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
11-
vkapfyd izca/d] xka/huxj
xqtjkr jkT; esa cukldkaBk] xka/huxj] dPN] esglk.kk] ikVu] lkcjdkaBk ftyksa@mi&'kgjh
vapy] xka/huxj
ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh
vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
12-
vkapfyd izca/d] xkft;kckn
mRrj izns'k jkT; esa cjsyh] fctukSj] cqyan'kgj] xkSrecq¼ uxj] xkft;kckn] esjB]
vapy] xkft;kckn
eqjknkckn] eqtÝiQjuxj] jkeiqj] lgkjuiqj ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa rFkk mÙkjk[kaM
jkT; esa lHkh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk
vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
13-
vkapfyd izca/d] cksdkjks
>kj[k.M jkT; esa cksdkjksa] cksdkjks LVhy flVh] fxjhMhg ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa
vapy] cksdkjks
fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls
iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
14-
vkapfyd izca/d] xksok
xksok jkT; esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds
vapy] xksok
}kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
15-
vkapfyd izca/d] xqokgkVh
vle] ef.kiqj] fetksje] v:.kkpy izns'k] f=kiqjk] es?kky; rFkk ukxkyS.M jkT; esa
vapy] xqokgkVh
fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls
iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
16-
vkapfyd izca/d] gtkjhckx
>kj[k.M jkT; esa prjk] gtkjhckx] dksMjek] jkex<+] jkex<+ Nkouh ftyksa@mi&'kgjh
vapy] gtkjhckx
ftyksa esa fLFkr cSad vkiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs
ij fy, x, rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k okys ifjlj A
17-
vkapfyd izca/d] gkoM+k
if'pe caxky jkT; esa ckadqjk] chjHkwe] c/Zoku] gqxyh] gkoM+k] fenukiqj] iwoZ
vapy] gkoM+k
enukiqj] iq:fy;k ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k
ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds
iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
(1)
(2)
(3)
5898
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
18-
vkapfyd izca/d] gSnjkckn
vkU/z izns'k jkT; esa vuariqj] fprwj] dqM~Mkikg] gSnjkckn] djheuxj] dwjuwy]
vapy] gSnjkckn
ukyxksaMk] usYyksj] futkekckn] jaxkjsM~Mh] ckjaxy ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr
ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij
fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
19-
vkapfyd izca/d] bUnkSj
eè; izns'k jkT; esa /kj] bUnkSj ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad
vapy] bUnkSj
vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk
mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
20-
vkapfyd izca/d] te'ksniqj
>kj[k.M jkT; esa bZLV flagHkwe] ljk;dsyk] [kjlkoku] oSLV flagHkwe ftyksa@mi&'kgjh
vapy] te'ksniqj
ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh
vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
21-
vkapfyd izca/d] dkuiqj
mRrj izns'k jkT; esa iQrsgiqj] tkykSu] >kalh] dkuiqj] dkuiqj nsgkr] mUuko
vapy] dkuiqj
ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds
}kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
22-
vkapfyd izca/d] dukZVd
dukZVd jkT; esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok
vapy] dukZVd
mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
23-
vkapfyd izca/d] D;ksa>j
mM+hlk jkT; esa D;ksa>j] e;qjHkat ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad
vapy] D;ksa>j
vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk
mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
24-
vkapfyd izca/d] dsjy
dsjy jkT; esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok
vapy] dsjy
mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
25-
vkapfyd izca/d] [k.Mok
eè; izns'k jkT; esa cjokuh] csrqy] cqjgkuiqj] gjnk [kaMok] [kjxksu ftyksa@mi&'kgjh
vapy] [k.Mok
ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh
vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
26-
vkapfyd izca/d] dksYgkiqj
egkjk"Vª jkT; esa dksYgkiqj] lkaxyh] lrkjk ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks
vapy] dksYgkiqj
fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x,
gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
27-
vkapfyd izca/d] dksydkrk
if'pe caxky jkT; esa 24 ijxuk ukFkZ] 24 ijxuk lkmFk] dksydkrk] ufn;ka
vapy] dksydkrk
ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds
}kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
28-
vkapfyd izca/d] y[kumQ
mRrj izns'k jkT; esa ckjkcadh] gjnksbZ] [kklh] y[kumQ] ihyhHkhr] 'kkgtgkaiqj
vapy] y[kumQ
ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds
}kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
29-
vkapfyd izca/d] yqf/;kuk
iatkc jkT; esa yqf/;kuk] eqDrlj] lax:j] iQjhndksV] iQkftYdk] eksxk] HkfV.Mk]
vapy] yqf/;kuk
eksgkyh] ifV;kyk] iQrsgx<+ lkfgc] fiQjkstiqj] :i uxj] Jh eqDrlj lkfgc] cjukyk
ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds
}kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
30-
vkapfyd izca/d] eqtÝiQjiqj
fcgkj jkT; esa njHkaxk] bZLV pEikj.k] xksikyxat] e/qcuh] eqtÝiQjiqj] leLrhiqj]
vapy] eqtÝiQjiqj
lkju] flgkj] lhrke<+h] floku] oSLV pEikj.k ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj
tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy,
x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
31-
vkapfyd izca/d] ukxiqj&I
egkjk"Vª jkT; esa ukxiqj] o/kZ ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ
vapy] ukxiqj
bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds
iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
(1)
(2)
(3)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5899
32-
vkapfyd izca/d] ukxiqj&II
egjk"Vª jkT; esa vdksyk] vejkorh] HkaMkjk] pUnziqj] x<+fpjksyh] xksafn;k] ;oreky
vapy] ukxiqj
ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds
}kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
33-
vkapfyd izca/d] ubZ fnYyh
fnYyh esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh
vapy] ubZ fnYyh
vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
34-
vkapfyd izca/d] iVuk
fcgkj jkT; esa vkSjaxkckn] HkkHkqvk] Hkkstiqj] cDlj] x;k] tgkukckn] dSewj] ukyank]
vapy] iVuk
uoknk] iVuk] jksgrk'k] oS'kkyh ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad
vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk
mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
35-
vkapfyd izca/d] iq.ks
egkjk"Vª jkT; esa vgenuxj] vkSjaxkckn] /qys] tyxkao] tkyuk] uanqjckj] ukfld]
vapy] iq.ks
iq.ks ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok
mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa
gSaA
36-
vkapfyd izca/d] jk;iqj
eè; izns'k jkT; vkSj Nrhlx<+ jkT; esa fNanokM+k] neksg] tcyiqj] dVuh] eaMyk]
vapy] jk;iqj
jhok] lkxj] lruk] flvksuh ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ
bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk
mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
37-
vkapfyd izca/d] jktLFkku
jktLFkku jkT; esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok
vapy] jktLFkku
mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
38-
vkapfyd izca/d] jktdksV
xqtjkr jkT; esa Hkkouxj] tkeuxj] twukx<+] iksjcanj] jktdksV] lqjsUnzuxj ftyksa@mi&'kgjh
vapy] jktdksV
ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh
vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
39-
vkapfyd izca/d] jkaph
>kj[k.M jkT; esa xqeyk] yksgkjnxk] iykew] jkaph] fleMsxk ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa
vapy] jkaph
fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls
iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
40-
vkapfyd izca/d] jËkfxjh
egkjk"Vª jkT; esa jËkfxjh] fla/qnqxZ ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad
vapy] jËkfxjh
vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk
mld siz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
41-
vkapfyd izca/d] flyhxqM+h
if'pe caxky jkT; esa nkftZfyax] tyikbZxqM+h] nhuktiqj (ukFkZ)] nhuktiqj (lkmFk)]
vapy] flyhxqM+h
dwp fcgkj] ekynk] eqf'kZnkckn ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad
vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk
mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
42-
vkapfyd izca/d] lksykiqj
egkjk"Vª jkT; esa ykrwj] ukansM+] vkslekukckn] lksykiqj ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr
vapy] lksykiqj
ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij
fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
43-
vkapfyd izca/d] mTtSu
eè; izns'k jkT; esa nsokl] eanlkSj] uhep] jryke] 'kktkiqj] mTtSu ftyksa@mi&'kgjh
vapy] mTtSu
ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh
vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
44-
vkapfyd izca/d] oM+ksnjk
xqtjkt jkT; esa vk.kan] Hk:p] nkgksn] ueZnk] uolkjh] iapegy] lwjr] rkih]
vapy] oM+ksnjk
oM+ksnjk] oylkM ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds
gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud
fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
(1)
(2)
(3)
5900
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
45-
vkapfyd izca/d] okjk.klh
mRrj izns'k jkT; esa bykgkckn] vktex<+] xkthiqj] xksaMk] xksj[kiqj] emQ] fetkZiqj]
vapy] okjk.klh
izrkix<+] jk;cjsyh] lar jfonkl uxj] lqYrkuiqj] okjk.klh ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa
fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls
iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
46-
vkapfyd izca/d]
vkU/z izns'k jkT; esa bZLV xksnkojh] xqaVwj] d`".kk] izdk'ke] Jhdkdqye] fo'kk[kkiV~Vue]
fo'kk[kkiV~Vue vapy]
fot;kuxje] oSLV xksnkojh] ;ue ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd cSad
fo'kk[kkiV~Vue
vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa rFkk
mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
47-
mi egkizca/d] iz/ku
egkjk"Vª jkT; esa eqEcbZ] jk;x<+] Bk.ks ftyksa@mi&'kgjh ftyksa esa fLFkr ifjlj tks fd
dk;kZy;] ifjlj foHkkx]
cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds gSa vFkok mlds }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gSa
eqEcbZ
rFkk mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k esa gSaA
¹iQk- la- 4@2@2013&chvks,º
,e-,e- nkSyk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2014
S.O.
2307.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by section 3 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the Officer mentioned in column No. 2 of the
table below to be Estate Officers for the purpose of the said Act and further direct that the said officers shall exercise the
powers conferred and the duties imposed on an Estate Officers by or under the said Act within the local limits of his
jurisdiction in respect of the public premises falling under area as specified in column No. 3 of the table below:
Sl. No.
Designation of the Officer
Categories of Public Premises and local limits of Jurisdiction
(1)
(2)
(3)
1.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Agra Zone, Agra
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
district of Agra, Aligarh, Etawah, Farrukhabad, Firozabad, Hatharas,
Kannauj, Manipur, Mathura within the State of Uttar Pradesh.
2.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Ahmedabad Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Ahmedabad
district of Ahmedabad, Kheda within the State of Gujrat.
3.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Amritsar Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the State of Jammu
Amritsar
& Kashmir and district/suburban districts of Amritsar, Gurdaspur,
Hoshiarpour, Jalandhar, Kapurthala, Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar, Taran
Taran, Samba within the State of Punjab.
4.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Bhagalpur Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Bhagalpur
district of Banka, Begusarai, Bhagalpur, Godda, Jamui, Kathihar, Khagaria,
Kishanganj, Munger, Pakur, Purnea, Saharsa, Sahibganj, Supaoul within
the State of Bihar and Deoghar District of Jharkhand State.
5.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Bhopal Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Bhopal
district of Ashoknagar, Bhind, Bhopal, Guna, Gwalior Hoshangabad,
Morena, Rajgarh, Sehore, Shivpuri within the State of Madhya Pradesh.
6.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Bank of India,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in districts/suburban
Bhubaneshwar
district of Angul, Balasore, Bhadrak, Bhubaneshwar, Bolangir, Cuttak,
Ganjam, Jagatsinghpur, Jeypore, Jharsuguda, Kalahandi, Kendrapada,
Khurda, Koraput, Nayagarh, Puri, Raygada, Sambalpur, Sundergarh within
the State of Orissa.
(1)
(2)
(3)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5901
7.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Chandigarh Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in State of Haryana &
Chandigarh
Himachal Pradesh & U.T. of Chandigarh.
8.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Chennai Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Chennai
districts of Chennai, Cuddalore, Kancheepuram, Karaikal, Nagapatinam,
Perambalur, Pondicheery, Thanjavur, Thruvallur, Tiruvannamalai, Vellore,
Villupuram within the State of Tamil Nadu.
9.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Coimbatore Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Coimbatore
districts of Coimbatore, Dharampuri, Dindigul, Erode, Kanyakumar, Karur,
Kodaikanal, Krishnagiri, Madurai, Namakkal, Nilgiris, Purukkottai,
Ramnathapuram, Salem, Sivaganga, Theni, Tiruchirapally, Tirunelveli,
Tuticorin, Virudhunagar Within the State of Tamil Nadu.
10.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Dhanbad Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Dhanbad
districts of Dhanbad within the State of Jharkhand.
11.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Gandhinagar Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Gandhinagar
districts of Banaskantha, Gandhinagar, Kutch, Mahsana, Patan, Sabarkantha
within the State of Gujrat.
12.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Ghaziabad Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Ghaziabad
districts of Bareilly, Bijnaur, Bulandshahar, Gautambudh Nagar, Ghaziabad,
Meerut, Moradabad, Muzaffarnagar, Rampur, Saharanpur within the State
of Uttar Pradesh and all districts within the State of Uttarakhand.
13.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Bokaro Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Bokaro
districts of Bokaro, Bokaro Steel City, Giridih within the State of Jharkhand.
14.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Goa Zone, Goa
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the State of Goa.
15.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Guwahati Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the State of Assam,
Guwahati
Manipur, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura, Meghalaya and Nagaland.
16.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Hazaribagh Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Hazaribagh
districts of Chatra, Hazaribagh, Koderma, Ramgarh, Ramgarh Cantt. Within
the State of Jharkhand
17.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Howrah Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Howrah
districts of Bankura, Birbhumk, Burdwan, Hooghly, Howrah, Midnapore,
Purba Madnapur, Purulia within the State of West Begal.
18.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Hyderabad Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Hyderabad
districts of Anantpur, Chittoor, Cuddapah, Hyderabad, Karimnagar,
Kurnool, Nalgonda, Nellore, Nizamabad, Ranga, Reddy, Warangal within
the State of Andhra Pradesh.
19.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Indore Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Indore
districts of Dhar, Indore within the State of Madhya Pradesh.
20.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Jamshedpur Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Jamshedpur
districts of East Singbhum, Saraikela, Kharswan, West Singbhum within
the State of Jharkhand.
(1)
(2)
(3)
5902
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
21.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Kanpur Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Kanpur
districts of Fatehpur, Jalaun, Jhansi, Kanpur Dehat, Unnao within the
State of Uttar Pradesh.
22.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Karnataka Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the State of Karnataka.
karnataka
23.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Keonjhar Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Keonjhar
districts of Keonjhar, Mayurbhanj within the State of Orissa.
24.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Kerala Zone, Kerala
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the State of Kerala.
25.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Khandwa Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Khandwa
districts of Barwani, Betul, Burhanpur, Harda, Khandwa, Khargone within
the State of Madhya Pradesh.
26.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Kolhapur Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Kolhapur
districts of Kolhapur Sangli, Satara within the State of Maharashtra.
27.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Kolkata Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Kolkata
districts of 24 Paragana North, 24 Pargana South, Kolkata, Nadia within
the State of West Begal.
28.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Lucknow Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Lucknow
districts of Baranbanki, Hardoi, Khasi, Lucknow, Pilibhit, Shahjahanpur
within the State of Uttar Pradesh.
29.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Ludhiana Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Ludhiana
districts of Ludhiana, Muktsar, Sangrur, Faridkot, Fazilka, Moga, Bhatinda,
Mohali, Patiala, Fategarh Sahib, Firozpur, Roop Nagar, Shri Muktsar Sahib,
Barnala within the State of Punjab.
30.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Muzaffarpur Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Muzaffarpur
districts of Dharbhanga, East Champaran, Gopalganj, Madhubani,
Muzaffarpur, Samastipur, Saran, Sheohar, Sitamarhi, Siwan, West
Champaran within the State of Bihar.
31.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Nagpur-I Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Nagpur
districts of Nagpur, Wardha within the State of Maharashtra.
32.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Nagpur-II Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Nagpur
districts of Akola, Amravati, Bhandara, Chandrapur, Ganchiroli, Gondia,
Yavatmal within the State of Maharashtra.
33.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
New Delhi Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in Delhi.
New Delhi
34.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Patna Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Patna
districts of Aurangabad, Bhabhua, Bhojpur, Buxar, Gaya, Jehanbad, Kaimur,
Nalanda, Nawadah, Patna, Rohtas, Vaishali within the State of Bihar.
(1)
(2)
(3)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5903
35.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Pune Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Pune
districts of Ahmednagar, Aurangabad, Dhule, Jalgaon, Jalna, Nandurbar,
Nasik, Pune within the State of Maharashtra.
36.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Raipur Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Raipur
districts of Chhindwara, Damoh, Jabalpur, Katni, Mandla, Rewa, Sagar,
Satna, Seoni within the State of M.P., and in the State of Chhatisgarh.
37.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Rajasthan Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the State of Rajasthan.
Rajasthan
38.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Rajkot Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Rajkot
districts of Bhavnagar, Jamnagar, Junagarh, Porbandar, Rajkot,
Surendranagar within the State of Gujarat.
39.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Ranchi Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Ranchi
districts of Gumla, Lohardega, Palamau, Ranchi, Simdega within the State
of Jharkhand.
40.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Ratnagiri Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Ratnagiri
districts of Ratnagiri, Sindhudurg within the State of Maharashtra.
41.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Siliguri Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Siliguri
districts of Darjeeling, Jalpaigudi, Dinajpur (North), Dinajpur (South),
Cooch Bihar, Malda, Murshidabad within the State of West Bengal.
42.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Solapur Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Solapur
districts of Latur, Nanded, Osmanabad, Solapur within the State of
Maharashtra.
43.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Ujjain Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Ujjain
districts of Dewas, Mandasour, Neemuch, Ratlam, Shajapur, Ujjain within
the State of Madhya Pradesh.
44.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Vadodara Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Vododara
districts of Anand Bharuch, Dahod, Narmada, Navsari, Panchmahal, Surat,
Tapi, Vododara, Valsad within the State of Gujarat.
45.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Varanasi Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Varanasi
districts of Allahabad, Azamgarh, Ghazipur, Gonda, Gorakhapur, Mau,
Mirzapur, Pratapgarh, Raibareli, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Sultanpur, Varanasi
within the State of Uttar Pradesh
46.
The Zonal Manager,
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Vishakhapatnam Zone,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Vishakhapatnam
districts of East Godavari, Guntur, Krishna, Prakasham, Srikakulam,
Visakhapatnam, Vizianayaram, West Godavari, Yanam within the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
47.
The Deputy General
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the
Manager, Head Office,
administrative control of the Bank of India situated in the districts/suburban
Premises Department,
districts of Mumbai, Raigad & Thane within the State of Maharashtra.
Mumbai.
[F. No. 4/2/2013-BOA]
M.M. DAWLA, Under Secy.
(1)
(2)
(3)
5904
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(jktLo foHkkx)
(dsUnzh; izR;{k dj cksMZ)
ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2308-—loZlk/kj.k dh tkudkjh ds fy, ,rn~}kjk
;g vf/lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd dsUnz ljdkj }kjk vk;dj
fu;ekoyh] 1962 (mDr fu;ekoyh) ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5?k ds
lkFk ifBr vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1961 (mDr vf/fu;e) dh /kjk
35 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM (iii) ds iz;kstukFkZ chjcy lkguh
baLVhV~;wV vkWiQ isfy;ksckWVuh] y[kumQ] (iSu&,,,Vhch6882,p)
laxBu dks dj&fu/kZj.k o"kZ 2014&15 ls vkxs fuEufyf[kr 'krksZa
ds v/hu ¶oSKkfud vuqla/ku laLFkk¸ dk;Zdykiksa dh Js.kh esa
vuqeksfnr fd;k x;k gS] uker%&
(i)
vuqeksfnr ^oSKkfud vuqla/ku laLFkk* dk eq[; mís';
oSKkfud vuqla/ku djuk gksxk_
(ii)
vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqla/ku Lo;a djsxk_
(iii)
vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqla/ku ds fy, bldks
izkIr jkf'k ds laca/ esa i`Fkd ys[kk cgh j[ksxk] ftlesa
vuqla/ku djus ds fy, iz;qDr jkf'k n'kkZbZ xbZ gks] mDr
vf/fu;e dh /kjk 288 dh mi&/kjk (2) ds Li"Vhdj.k
esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr fdlh ys[kkdkj ls vius [kkrk&cgh
dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk,xk vkSj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk
139 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds varxZr vk; dh fooj.kh
izLrqr djus dh fu;r frfFk rd ,sls ys[kkdkj }kjk
fof/or LkR;kfir ,oa gLrk{kfjr ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ bl
ekeys esa {ks=kkf/dkj j[kus okys vk;dj vk;qDr vFkok
vk;dj funs'kd dks izLrqr djsxk_
(iv)
vuqeksfnr laxBu izkIr nku vkSj lkekftd foKku esa
vuqla/ku ds fy, iz;qDr jkf'k dk vyx fooj.k j[ksxk
vkSj mi;qZDr ys[kk&ijh{kk fjiksVZ ds lkFk ys[kk&ijh{kd
}kjk fof/or lR;kfir ,sls fooj.k dh izfrfyfi izLrqr
djsxkA
2- dsnz ljdkj ;g vuqeksnu okil ys ysxh ;fn vuqeksfnr laxBu%&
(d)
iSjkxzkiQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkiQ (iii) esa mfYyf[kr i`Fkd
ys[kk cgh j[kus esa vliQy jgrk gS_ vFkok
([k)
iSjkxzkiQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkiQ (iii) esa mfYyf[kr viuh
ys[kk&ijh{kk fjiksVZ izLrqr djus esa vliQy jgrk gS_
vFkok
(x)
iSjkxzkiQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkiQ (iv) esa mfYyf[kr lkekftd
foKku ,oa lkaf[;dh vuqla/ku ds fy, izkIr ,oa iz;qDr
nku dk viuk fooj.k izLrqr djus esa vliQy jgrk gS_
vFkok
(?k)
viuk vuqla/ku dk;Z djuk can dj nsrk gS vFkok blds
vuqla/ku dk;Z dks okLrfod ugha ik;k tkrk gS_ vFkok
(Ä)
mDr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5?k ds lkFk ifBr
mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 35 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M
(iii) ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i ugha gksrk gS vkSj mudk
ikyu ugha fd;k tkrk gSA
¹vf/lwpuk la- 36@2014@iQk-la-203@30@2013@vkdfu&IIº
Ípk jLrksxh] voj lfpo (vkdfu&II)
(Department of Revenue)
(Central Board of Direct Taxes)
New Delhi, the 26th August, 2014
S.O. 2308.—It is hereby notified for general
information that the organization Birbal Sahni Institute of
Palaeobotany, Lucknow (PAN-AAATB6882H) has been
approved by the Central Government for the purpose of
clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income-
tax Act, 1961 (said Act), read with Rules 5C and 5D of the
Income tax Rules, 1962 (said Rules), from Assessment year
2014-2015 onwards in the category of 'Scientific Research
Association'activities subject to the following conditions,
namely:-
(i)
The sole objective of the approved 'Scientific
research association'shall be undertake scienfitic
research;
(ii)
The approved organization shall carry out scientfic
reseach by itself;
(iii)
The approved organization shall maintain separate
books of accounts in respect of the sums received
by it for scientific research, reflect therein the
amounts used for carrying out research, get such
books audited by an accountant as definced in
the explanation to sub-section (2) of section 288
of the said Act and furnish the report of such
oudit duly signed and verified by such accountant
to the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director
of Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case,
by the due date of furnishing the return of income
under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the said
Act;
(iv)
The approved organization shall maintain a
separate statement of donations received and
amounts applied for scientific research in social
science and a copy of such statement duly
certified by the auditior shall accompany the
report of audit referred to above.
2. The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if
the approved organization:-
a.
fails to maintain separate books of acconts referred
to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5905
b.
fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-
paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or
c.
fails to furnish its satement of the donations
received and sums applied for research in social
science or statistical research referred to in sub-
paragraph (iv) of paragraph 1; or
d.
ceases to carry on its research activities or its
research activities are not found to be genuine; or
e.
ceases to conform to and comply with the
provisions of clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of
section 35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and
5D of the said Rules.
[Notification No. 36/2014/F. No. 203/30/2013/ITA-II]
RICHA RASTOGI, Under Secy.(ITA-II)
dk;kZy;
iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr
t;iqj] 14 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2309-—vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1962 ds fu;e 2 lh
, ds lkFk iBuh; vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1961 (1961 dk 43 oka)
dh /kjk 10 ds [k.M (23lh) dh mi/kjk (vi) ds }kjk iznRr
'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq, iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] jktLFkku]
t;iqj ,rn~}kjk fu/kZj.k o"kZ 2013&14 ,oa vkxs ds fy, dfFkr /
kjk ds mn~ns'; ls ¶dkuksfM;k ih-th-efgyk egkfo|ky;] tokgj
yky usg: ekxZ] t;iqj¸ dks Lohd`fr nsrs gSaA
2- c'krsZa fd lfefr vk;dj fu;e 1962 ds fu;e 2 lh ,
ds lkFk iBuh; vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1961 dh /kjk 10 ds mi[k.M
(23lh) dh mi/kjk (vi) ds izko/kuksa ds vuq:i dk;Z djsA
¹vf/lwpuk la- 06@2014&15º
LorU=k dqekj] iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr
Office of the
Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Jaipur, the 14th August, 2014
S.O.
2309.—In exercise of the Powers conferred
by sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) read woth rule 2 CA of the
Income-tax Rules 1962, the Chief Commissioner of Income-
tax, Jaipur hereby approves "Kanoria PG Mahila
Mahavidyalaya, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur" for the
purpose of said section for the A.Y. 2013-14 onwards,
provided that the society conforms to and complies with
the provisions of sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of sedtion
10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2CA of the
Income-tax Rules, 1962.
[Notification No. 06/2014-15]
SWATANTRA KUMAR, Pr. Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax
(jktLo foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 28 vxLr] 2014
vkns'k
LVkEi
dk-vk- 2310-—Hkkjrh; LVkEi vf/fu;e] 1899 (1899
dk 2) dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (I) ds [k.M (d) }kjk iznRr
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsanz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk varjkZ"Vªh; foRr
fuxe }kjk rVh; jQi;k ca/ i=k dk;ZØe ds varxZr Í.ki=k ds
fuxZe vkSj n~forh;d cktkj esa 'ks;j varj.k ds laca/ esa 'kqYd dks
ekiQ djrh gSA
¹la- 02@2014&LVkEi@iQk- la- 33013@02@2014&,lvks (,lVh)º
fot; dqekj] voj lfpo
(Department of Revenue)
New Delhi, the 28th August, 2014
ORDER
STAMPS
S.O. 2310.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby
remits the duty in respect of issue of debentures and
secondary market transfer of shares under on shore rupee
bond program by the International Finance Corporation.
[No. 02/2014-STAMPS F. No. 33013/02/2014-SO (ST)]
VIJAY KUMAR, Under Secy.
fons'k ea=kky;
(lh ih oh izHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2311-—jktuf;d vkSj dkalyh; vkWfiQlj ('kiFk
vkSj iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 dh /kjk 2 ds [kaM (d) ds
vuqlj.k esa dsanz ljdkj ,rn}jk Jh d`".kk xqM:] lgk;d dks
25 vxLr] 20014 ls Hkkjr ds dksalqykokl] tík esa lgk;d dksalqyj
vf/dkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkf/d`r djrh gSA
¹la- Vh- 4330@1@2014º
,l ,u oh jeuk jko] mi lfpo(dksalqyj)
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV Division)
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2014
S.O. 2311.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the
Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths
and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government
hereby authorize Shri Krishna Gudaru, Assistant, in
Consulate General of India, Jeddah to perform the duties
of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from
25 August, 2014.
[No. T. 4330/01/2014]
S.N.V. RAMANA RAO, Dy. Secy.(Consular)
5906
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
lwpuk vkSj izlkj.k ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2312-—bl ea=kky; dh fnukad 30&04&2013 dh
lela[;d vf/lwpuk ds vuqØe esa vkSj pyfp=k (izek.ku)
fu;e] 1983 ds fu;e 7 vkSj 8 ds lkFk ifBr pyfp=k vf/fu;e]
1952 (1952 dk 37) dh /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsanz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Jh losZ'k dqekj
tk;loky dk uke rRdky izHkko ls dsanzh; fiQYe izek.ku cksMZ ds]
eqacbZ lykgdkj iSuy ls gVkrh gSA
¹iQk-la- ,e&11019@1@2013&Mhvks (,iQlh)º
,l- ukxukFku] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING
New Delhi, the 20th August, 2014
S.O. 2312.—In continuation of this Ministry's
Notification of even number, date 30-04-2013 and in exercise
of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 of
the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7
and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, the
Central Government hereby removes the name of
Shri Sarvesh Kumar Jayaswal from the Advisory Penel of
Central Board of Film Certification, Mumbai, with immediate
effect.
[F. No. M-11019/1/2013-DO (FC)]
S. NAGANATHAN, Under Secy.
'kgjh fodkl ea=kky;
(fnYyh izHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2313-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh uxj dyk
vk;ksx vf/fu;e] 1973 (1974 dk 1) dh /kjk 4 vkSj 5 }kjk
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Jh nqxkZ 'kadj feJ] vij lfpo]
'kgjh fodkl ea=kky; dks rRdky izHkko ls Jh Mh- nhfIrfoykl]
rkRdkfyd vij lfpo] 'kgjh fodkl ea=kky;] tks lsokfuo`RRk gks
x, gSa] ds LFkku ij fnYyh uxj dyk vk;ksx (Mh;w,lh) esa lnL;
(va'kdkfyd) ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
¹iQk-la- ,-&11013@2@2011&MhMh I,º
ds-ds-vkpk;Z] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(Delhi Division)
New Delhi, the 19th August, 2014
S.O.
2313.—In exercise of the powers conferred
by Sections 4 and 5 of the Delhi Urban Art Commission
Act, 1973 (1 of 1974), the Central Government hereby
appoints Shri Durga Shanker Mishra, Additional Secreatary
in the Ministry of Urban Development, as Member (Part
Time) in the Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC), vice
Shri D. Diptivilasa, the then Additional Secreatary in
Ministry of Urban Development, who retired on
superannuation, with immediate effect.
[F. No. A-11013/2/2011-DDIA]
K.K. ACHARYA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2314-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fodkl
vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 61) dh /kjk 3 dh mi /kjk (3) ds
[k.M (N) ds lkFk ifBr mi/kjk (1) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq, Jh nqxkZ 'kadj feJ] vij lfpo] 'kgjh fodkl
ea=kky;] Hkkjr ljdkj dks rRdky izHkko ls fnYyh fodkl
izkf/dj.k esa lnL; ds :i esa ukfer djrh gSA
¹iQk-la- ds&11011@21@2004&MhMh I,º
ds-ds-vkpk;Z] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th August, 2014
S.O.
2314.—In exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1), read with clause (g) of sub-section (3)
of Section 3 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (61 of
1957), the Central Govenment hereby nominates Shri Durga
Shanker Mishra, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Urban
Development, Government of India, as Member of the Delhi
Development Authority, with immediate effect.
[F. No. K-11011/21/2004-DD1A]
K.K. ACHARYA, Under Secy.
LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky;
(LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2014
'kqf¼i=k
dk-vk- 2315-—bl foHkkx dh vf/lwpuk la[;k-;w-
12012@498@2007&,e bZ (ih-II)] fnukad 27&11&2013 ds Øe
esa] vkSj Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn vf/fu;e] 1956 (1956 dk
102) dh /kjk 11 dh mi /kjk (2) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq, dsanzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djds
,rn}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa fuEufyf[kr vkxs
vkSj la'kks/u djrh gS] uker %&
mDr vuqlwph esa&
¶iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i¸ (dkye (3) esa) 'kh"kZd
ds varxZr] ¶ekU;rk&izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk¸ 'kh"kZd ¹dkye (2)
esaº vkSj ¶iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i¸ ¹dkye (3) esa)º
'kh"kZd ds varxZr Jh ckykth fo|kihB] iksafMpsjh] ds le{k
fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,] uker %&
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5907
2
3
¶cSpyj vkWiQ esfMflu
,e- ch-ch-,l-
vkSj cSpyj vkWiQ ltZjh¸
(;g izfro"kZ 150 ,e-ch-ch-,l Nk=kksa
ds okf"kZd izos'k lfgr fnlEcj] 2012
esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh lR; lkbZa
esfMdy dkWyst ,aM fjlpZ bULVhV~;qV]
dkaphiqje] esa 'kSf"kd o"kZ 2008&09]
2009&10] 2010&11] 2011&12]
2012&13 vkSj 2014&15 ds ckn ls
HkrhZ vkSj izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs
fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds lEca/ esa Jh ckykth
fo|kihB] iksafMpsjh }kjk Lohd`r fd,
tkus ij ekU;rk&izkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh)A
¹iQk-la- ;w- 12012@498@2007 ,e-bZ (ih&II)º
nsokuan ih- osBs] voj lfpo
ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky;
(mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx)
(jktHkk"kk ;wfuV)
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2316-—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
ds vuqlj.k esa] ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky; (mPprj f'k{kk
foHkkx) ds varxZr Hkkjrh; izca/ laLFkku] jk;iqj dks] ,sls dk;kZy;
ds :i esa] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkjh&o`Un us fgUnh dk
dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/lwfpr djrh gSA
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 14th August, 2014
S.O.
2316.—In pursuance of sub. rule (4) of rule
10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpoes of
the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby
notifies the Indian Institute of Management, Raipur under
the Ministry of Human Resource Development,
(Department of Higher Education) as office, whose more
than 80% members of the staff have asquired working
knowledge of Hindi.
[No. 11011-3/2014-O.L.U]
R. P. SISODIA, Jt.Secy.
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2317-—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 01 flRkEcj] 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`Rr 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`Rr dh tk pqdh gSº
ds mica/ iatkc jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs]
vFkkZr~ %
Ø-
jktLo xzke
gncLr
rglhy
ftyk
dk uke
la[;k
1-
tLlksoky
22
ifV;kyk ifV;kyk
2-
ckju
35
ifV;kyk ifV;kyk
3-
'kkfUr uxj
52
ifV;kyk ifV;kyk
4-
riQiQty iqjk
31
ifV;kyk ifV;kyk
5-
pukj ckx vcZu
30
ifV;kyk ifV;kyk
,LVsV&iQsl&II
6-
FksMh
29
ifV;kyk ifV;kyk
7-
oh- iQkje cgknqjx<+
113@1
ifV;kyk ifV;kyk
8-
feFkqektjk
108
ifV;kyk ifV;kyk
9-
?kyksjh
69
ifV;kyk ifV;kyk
10-
oh- cwVk flag okyk
71
ifV;kyk ifV;kyk
okdk lukSj
11-
lukSj
71
ifV;kyk ifV;kyk
¹la-&,l&38013@56@2014&,l-,l-1º
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O. 2317.—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 September, 2014 as the date on
which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44
and 45 which have already been brought into force) and
5908
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Chapter-V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and
Section 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 Punjab namely:-
Sr.
Name of the
Hadbast Tehsil
Distt.
No.
Village
No.
1.
Jassowal
22
Patiala Patiala
2.
Baran
35
Patiala Patiala
3.
Shanti Nagar
52
Patiala Patiala
4.
Taffazalpura
31
Patiala Patiala
5.
Chanarbagh Urban
30
Patiala Patiala
Estate, Ph-II
6.
Thery
29
Patiala Patiala
7.
V. Farm Bahadurgarh
113/1
Patiala Patiala
8.
Mitthu Majra
108
Patiala Patiala
9.
Gholari
69
Patiala Patiala
10.
V. Buta Singh Wala
71
Patiala Patiala
Waka Sanour
11.
Sanour
71
Patiala Patiala
[F. No. S-38013/56/2014-SS.I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2318-—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 01 flRkEcj] 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`Rr 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`Rr dh tk pqdh gSº
ds mica/ iatkc jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs]
vFkkZr~ %
Ø-
jktLo xzke
gncLr
rglhy
ftyk
dk uke
la[;k
1-
cqtZ eqgkj
120
vcksgj iQkftYdk
¹la-&,l&38013@57@2014&,l-,l-1º
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2318.—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 September, 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
Section 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 Punjab namely:-
Sr.
Name of the
Hadbast Tehsil
Distt.
No.
Village
No.
1.
Burj Muhar
120
Abohar Fazilka
[No. S-38013/57/2014-SS.I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2319-—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 01 flRkEcj] 2013 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`Rr 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`Rr dh tk pqdh gSº
ds mica/ gfj;k.kk jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs]
vFkkZr~ %
Ø-
jktLo xzke
gncLr
ftyk
dk uke
la[;k
1-
galkdk
203
jsokM+h
2-
lgkjuokl
130
jsokM+h
3-
[kM[kMk
300
jsokM+h
4-
fu[kkjh
193
jsokM+h
5-
xkthokl
153
jsokM+h
6-
dj.kkokl
151
jsokM+h
7-
dfy;kokl
283
jsokM+h
8-
lcu
17
jsokM+h
9-
jke flag iqj
18
jsokM+h
10-
cq<yk
186
jsokM+h
11-
[kkVqokl
168
jsokM+h
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5909
12-
dklksyk
167
jsokM+h
13-
duektjk
126
jsokM+h
14-
[kjxokl
127
jsokM+h
15-
ykMMwokl vfgj
129
jsokM+h
16-
nknjk (tknjk)
87
jsokM+h
17-
ukaxy 'kgcktiqj
55
jsokM+h
18-
?kkeykokl
136
jsokM+h
19-
tkSukokl
197
jsokM+h
20-
jlxku (jklxkao)
195
jsokM+h
¹la-&,l&38013@58@2014&,l-,l-1º
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2319.—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 September, 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 Haryana namely:-
Sr.
Name of the
Hadbast Distt.
No.
Village
No.
(1)
(2) (3) (4)
1.
Hansaka
203
Rewari
2.
Saharanwas
130
Rewari
3.
Kharkhara
300
Rewari
4.
Nikhari
193
Rewari
5.
Gajjiwas
153
Rewari
6.
Karnawas
151
Rewari
7.
Khaliawas
283
Rewari
8.
Saban
17
Rewari
9.
Ram Singh Pur
18
Rewari
10.
Bhudla
186
Rewari
11.
Kathuwas
168
Rewari
(1)
(2) (3) (4)
12.
Kasola
167
Rewari
13.
Kanmajra
126
Rewari
14.
Khargwas
127
Rewari
15.
Ladhuwas Ahir
129
Rewari
16.
Dadra (Jadara)
87
Rewari
17.
Nangal Shahbajpur
55
Rewari
18.
Dhamlawas
136
Rewari
19.
Jonawas
197
Rewari
20.
Rasgan (Rasgaon)
195
Rewari
[No. S-38013/58/2014-SS.I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2320-—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 01 flRkEcj] 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`Rr gks pqdh
gS) vè;k;&5 vkSj 6 (/kjk&76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk & 77]
78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS) ds
mica/ xqtjkr jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %
¶xqtjkt jkT; ds ftyk vgenkckn ds rkyqdk lkuan ds
laiw.kZ jktLo] uxjikfydk ,oa xzke iapk;r lhekvksa vkSj LkHkh xk¡oksa
esa izo`Ùk gksaxsA**
¹la- ,l&38013@59@2014&,l-,l-1º
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2320.—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 September, 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 Gujarat namely:-
"The area comprised within the entire Revenue,
Muncipal and Gram Panchayat limits of "Taluka-Sanand
and all villages of Taluka-Sanand, District - Ahmedabad,
State-Gurarat"
[No. S-38013/59/2014-SS.I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
(1) ( 2 ) ( 3) (4)
5910
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2321-—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 01 flRkEcj] 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`Rr gks pqdh gS) vè;k;&5 vkSj 6 (/kjk&76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk &77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds
flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS) ds mica/ dukZVd jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %µ
Ø-la-
jktLo xzke dk uke
gkscyh
rkyqd
ftyk
1-
HkwougYyh
CkSaxyw:
nsougYyh
cSaxyw: xzkeh.k
2-
mn;fxjh
CkSaxyw:
nsougYyh
caSxyw: xzkeh.k
3-
nkSMklUus
CkSaxyw:
nsougYyh
caSxyw: xzkeh.k
4-
;krhZxgYyh
CkSaxyw:
nsougYyh
caSxyw: xzkeh.k
5-
vUus'oj
CkSaxyw:
nsougYyh
caSxyw: xzkeh.k
6-
vlhZudqUns
CkSaxyw:
nsougYyh
caSxyw: xzkeh.k
7-
xaxkiqV~VugYyh
CkSaxyw:
nsougYyh
caSxyw: xzkeh.k
8-
csV~VkdksVs
CkSaxyw:
nsougYyh
caSxyw: xzkeh.k
9-
fpDdugYyh
CkSaxyw:
nsougYyh
caSxyw: xzkeh.k
10-
ekSyugYyh
CkSaxyw:
nsougYyh
caSxyw: xzkeh.k
11-
csxwj
CkSaxyw:
nsougYyh
caSxyw: xzkeh.k
12-
djgYyh
CkSaxyw:
nsougYyh
caSxyw: xzkeh.k
13-
gsXxugYyh
CkSaxyw:
nsougYyh
caSxyw: xzkeh.k
14-
vUusxVk
CkSaxyw:
nsougYyh
caSxyw: xzkeh.k
15-
ljnkjgYyh
CkSaxyw:
nsougYyh
caSxyw: xzkeh.k
16-
nsougYyh Vkmu
CkSaxyw:
nsougYyh
caSxyw: xzkeh.k
¹la- ,l&38013@60@2014&,l-,l-1º
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2321.—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 September, 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 Karnataka, namely:-
Sr.
Name of the Rev. Village or
Hobli
Taluk
District
No.
Municipal Limts
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1.
Villages within the limits of BIAL area.
Kasaba
Devanahalli
Bangalore Rural
Bhuvanahalli
2.
Udayagiri
Kasaba
Devanahalli
Bangalore Rural
3.
Doddasanne
Kasaba
Devanahalli
Bangalore Rural
4.
Yarthiganahalli
Kasaba
Devanahalli
Bangalore Rural
5.
Anneshwara
Kasaba
Devanahalli
Bangalore Rural
6.
Arashinakunte
Kasaba
Devanahalli
Bangalore Rural
7.
Gangamuttanahalli
Kasaba
Devanahalli
Bangalore Rural
8.
Bettakote
Kasaba
Devanahalli
Bangalore Rural
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5911
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
9.
Chikkanahalli
Kasaba
Devanahalli
Bangalore Rural
10.
Mylanahalli
Kasaba
Devanahalli
Bangalore Rural
11.
Begur
Kasaba
Devanahalli
Bangalore Rural
12.
Villages surrounding BIAL area Karahalli
Kasaba
Devanahalli
Bangalore Rural
13.
Hegganahalli
Kasaba
Devanahalli
Bangalore Rural
14.
Anneghatta
Kasaba
Devanahalli
Bangalore Rural
15.
Sadarahalli
Kasaba
Devanahalli
Bangalore Rural
16.
Devanahalli Town
Kasaba
Devanahalli
Bangalore Rural
[F. No. S-38013/60/2014-SS.I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2322-—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 01 flRkEcj] 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`Rr gks pqdh
gS) vè;k;&5 vkSj 6 (/kjk&76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk &77]
78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS) ds
mica/ rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %µ
dsUnz
{ks=k ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu
jktLo xk¡o
jkeukFkiqje ftys ds
jkeukFkiqje rkyqd ds
ijedqMh ,oa jkeukFkiqje
1- jkeukFkiqje uxjikfydk lhek
rkyqd esa jkeukFkiqje
2- dwfj;wj
dsUnz
3- ifV~Vie dkRrku
4- lDdj dksV~V;
5- vPpqnu o;y
6- iqYyaxqfM
7- okykUnjoS
8- d"kqdwj.kh
9- dq;oudqfM
10- ykUnS
ijedqMh rkyqd ds
11- iksxywj (iksxywj)
12- ls;~;kywj
{ks=k ds varxZr vkus okys jktLo
xk¡o
¹la- ,l&38013@61@2014&,l-,l-1º
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2322.—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 September, 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
Area Comprising the Revenue
Villages of
Ramanathapuram
1. Ramanathapuram Municipal
Centre, Paramakudi
Limited
& Ramanathapuram
2. Kuriyur
Taluk Ramanathapuram
3. Pattinamkathan
District
4. Sakkarakottai
5. Achuthanvayal
6. Pullangudi
7. Valantharavai
8. Kalukoorani
9. Kuyavankudi
10. Landai
of Ramanathapuram Taluk
11. Bogalur
12. Seyyalur
of Paramadudi Taluk
[No. S-38013/61/2014-SS.I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
5912
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2323-—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 01 flRkEcj] 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`Rr gks pqdh
gS) vè;k;&5 vkSj 6 (/kjk&76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk &77]
78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS) ds
mica/ rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs]
vFkkZr~ %µ
dsUnz
{ks=k ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu
jktLo xk¡o
dkaxs;e fr:Iiwj
1- dkaxs;e
2- dnaxuh
3- x.kifriky;e
4- ifM;wj
5- f'koueyS
6- rkejsfV~Viky;e
7- vkackMh
8- ohj.kEiky;e
9- oV~VeyS
10- dM;wj
11- vjrksyqoq
12- laiarEiky;e
13- usykyh
14- mfn;wj
15- uyjksM
16- ijulsjof"k
17- ukFkdfM;wj
18- iy;dksV~VS
19- eqÙkwj
20- fpUu eqÙkwj
{ks=k ds varxZr vkus okys jktLo
xk¡o
¹la- ,l&38013@62@2014&,l-,l-1º
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2323.—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 September, 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
Sections77, 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
Area Comprising the Revenue
Villages of
Kangeyam Tirupur
1. Kangeyam
District
2. Kathangani
3. Ganapathipalayam
4. Padiyur
5. Sivanmalai
6. Thammarettipalayam
7. Alambadi
8. Veeranampalayam
9. Vatamalai
10. Kadayur
11. Aratholuvu
12. Sampanthampalayam
13. Nelai
14. Uthiyur
15. Nalroad
16. Paranservazhi
17. Nathakadiyur
18. Palayakottai
19. Muthur
20. Chinna Muthur
[No. S-38013/62/2014-SS.I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2324-—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 01 flRkEcj] 2014 dks
ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5913
vè;k;&4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh
gS) vè;k;&5 vkSj 6 (/kjk&76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk &77]
78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS) ds
mica/ rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs]
vFkkZr~ %
dsUnz
{ks=k ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu
jktLo xk¡o
d`".kfxfj rkyqd ds gkslwj
1- iw.kifYk~y (iw.kifYk~Yk)
,oa rsaxf.kdksV~VS rkyqd esa gfjrk 2- csyxks.MifYk~y (csyxks.MifYk~y)
(csyxks.Mify~y)
3- dyqxks.Mify~y (dyqxks.Mify~Yk)
(csyxks.Mify~y)
4- isfj;e/xks.Mify~y
(isfj;e/xks.Mify~y)
¹la-&,l&38013@63@2014&,l-,l-1º
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2324.—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 September, 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
Area Comprising the Revenue
Villages of
Harita (Beloagondapalli) 1. Poonapalli
Hosur & Denkanikottai
2. Belagondapalli
Taluk Krishnagiri
3. Kalugondapalli
District
4. Periyamadhagondapalli
[No. S-38013/63/2014-SS.I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2325-—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 01 flRkEcj] 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`Rr gks pqdh
gS) vè;k;&5 vkSj 6 (/kjk&76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk &77]
78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS) ds
mica/ rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs]
vFkkZr~ %
dsUnz
{ks=k ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu
jktLo xk¡o
'kwyfxfj {ks=k gkslwj rkyqd
1- vM~Mxkfjfd
esa d`".kfxfj ftyk
2- dkeu/ksM~Mh
3- e:/k.Miy~yh (e:/k.Miy~yh)
4- uYyxudksFkiy~yh
(uYyxudksFkiy~yh)
5- 'kwyfxfj
6- R;kxjkluiy~yh
(R;kxjkluiy~yh)
¹la-&,l&38013@64@2014&,l-,l-1º
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2325.—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 September, 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
Area Comprising the Revenue
Villages of
Shoolagiri area Hosur
1. Addagariki
Taluk Krishnagiri
2. Kamandhoddi
District
3. Marudhandapalli
4. Nallaganakothapalli
5. Shoolagiri
6. Thiagarasanapalli
[No. S-38013/64/2014-SS.I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
5914
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2326-—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
y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 105@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41012@169@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th July, 2014
S.O.
2326.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 105/2002)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Central Railway, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
16/06/2014.
[No. L-41012/169/2001-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. 105/2002
Ref. No. L-41012/169/2001-IR(B-I) dated: 31.05.2002
BETWEEN
Shri Shamimudin, S/o Late Sh. Najirudin
692/1, Kund Pada, Nand Purva
Distt. – Jhansi (U.P.) – 284001.
AND
The Divisional Commercial Manager (Catering)
Central Railway,
Jhansi – 284 001.
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-41012/169/2001-IR(B-I) dated:
31.05.2002 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by
clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred
this industrial dispute between Shri Shamimudin, S/o Late
Sh. Najirudin, 692/1, Kund Pada, Nand Purva, Distt. – Jhansi
(U.P.) and the Divisional Commercial Manager (Catering),
Central Railway, Jhansi for adjudication to this CGIT-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow.
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“KYA MANDAL VANIJYA PRABANDHAK
(KHAN-PAAN) MADHYA RAILWAY, JHANSI
DWARA KARMKAAR SHRI SHAMIMUDDIN
ATMAJ SHRI SW. NAJIRUDDIN KO DINANK
30.9.1994 SE SEWA SE NISHKAASIT KARNA
NAYAYOCHIT HAI? YADI NAHI TO
SAMBANDHIT KIS ANUTOSH KA HAQDAAR
HAI?”
3.
The case of the workman, Shamim-ud-din, in brief, is
that he was engaged as daily rated casual labour w.e.f.
10.07.88 to discharge multi functional duties, including
cooking, packing of food, cleaning of vassals and service
of meals to passengers of trains including Shatabdi
Express. The appointment was regular for performing
regular and perennial work and for made for indefinite
period till the attaining the age of superannuation. The
workman was given Monthly Rated Casual Labour (MRCL)
status after having completed 120 days continuously at
base kitchen w.e.f. 28.12.1992. It is submitted that the
workman continued to work as such for approximately
more than four years when all of sudden his services have
terminated w.e.f. 30.09.1994 after serving a notice under
Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947. The management by the
means of said notice retrenched the services of the
workman after paying compensation of Rs. 6216/-. It has
been alleged by the workman that while terminating/
retrenching the services of the workman, the management
of the railway did not observed rule of last come first go,
as there are several persons who were similarly situated
and appointed with the workman viz. Phool Singh, Jamil
Siddiqui, Ambika Prasad are still working as Khalasi at
Jhansi Karkhana. It has also been alleged that the workman
as engaged at catering unit, Jhansi (Base Kitchen) and the
number of workman of Catering Unit, Jhansi (Base Kitchen)
is more than 100, hence while terminating the services of
the workmen, the condition contemplated under Section
25 N of the I.D. Act has not been followed. Accordingly,
the workman has prayed that his termination/retrenchment
w.e.f. 30.09.1994 be set aside with consequential benefits,
including full back wages.
4.
The management of the central railway has field its
written statement; whereby has admitted the engagement
of the workman as a daily rated casual labour along with
other w.e.f. 10.07.1988 due to exigencies of service on
introduction of ‘Shatabdi Express Train’ for the purpose
of preparing and delivering food article and providing
associated services to the passengers of Shatabdi Express.
It is also admitted that the workman was given temporary
status on 28.12.1992. It is submitted by the management
that the workman was based at Catering Unit, Jhansi; but
he was working exclusively for providing an associated
services to the ‘Shatabdi Express Train’. It is further
submitted that at no point of time the strength of the
catering unit, Jhansi, even after including the catering staff
of ‘Shatabdi Express, never had 100 or more, thus, the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5915
provisions of Section 25 N is not applicable in respect of
the workman concerned. And accordingly, the termination
of the workman under Section 25 F of the I.D. Act was just
and legal. The management has denied this allegation of
the workman that any of the juniors to the workman have
been retained in service; and has submitted that all the
similarly engaged, specifically for Shatabdi Express Train
were retrenched simultaneously under Section 25 F of the
Act vide order dated 30.09.1994 after complying with the
necessary formalities as required under Section 25 F of
the Act. Accordingly, the management has prayed that
the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of any
merit.
5.
The workman has filed its rejoined reiterating the
averments already made in the statement of claim.
6.
The parties have filed documentary evidence in
support their claim. The workman has examined himself
whereas the management has examined Shri P.K. Pandey,
DCM, Central Railway, Jhansi. The parties availed
opportunity to cross-examining the witnesses of each other
apart from putting oral submissions.
7.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival contentions of the rival parities and perused entire
evidence in light thereof.
8.
The authorized representative of the workman has
contended that the action of the management in
terminating the services of the workman under provisions
of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947 is malicious and
camouflage. He has also contended that the action of the
management amounts to non-compliance of Section 25 N.
The representative of the workman has argued that on
acquiring temporary status, the workman derived status
of temporary servant and was governed by the Railway
Servants (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, hence, his
termination without adhering to the said rules and principle
of natural justice is illegal.
The workman has filed list of employees at Catering
Unit Jhansi for the year 1994 showing 142 employees at
work in the said year to substantiate that Catering Unit
Jhansi was an ‘Industrial Undertaking’ under section 25 K
and he was entitled to protection and benefit under Section
25 N. A copy of letter dated 28.12.92 is filed to show
temporary status being granted to him and 20 other casual
labours. Temporary status was granted to the workman
w.e.f. 28.12.1992. The above letter dated 28.12.92 further
mentions approval of the Sr. Divisional Commercial
Manager, Jhansi, in granting the temporary status. Copy
of notice under Section 25 F of the Act, terminating his
services is also filed. Medical certificate is also filed to
show his health in full conformity with the requirements
of the services in catering unit. The workman has also
filed a copy of letter of the Chief Catering Inspector dated
12/14.7.94 in respect of proposal discharging of 21 Monthly
Rated Casual Labours including the workman.
9.
The management’s authorized representative has
pleaded that Railway Board imposed complete ban on the
engagement of fresh causal labour after the year 1980,
without prior personal approval of the General Manager
of the Zonal Railways. The workman together with others
casual labours were engaged by the competent authority,
without prior personal approval of the General Manager
and so, it is contended that engagements were void-ab-
initio, being against the rule and instructions of the Railway
Board. It is also submitted that on process of streamlining
man power under the ‘Man Power Planning’, the workman
twenty other were found surplus being in excess of
requirement and so, were retrenched with legal
compensation etc. under the provisions of Section 25 F of
the I.D. Act, 1947.
The management has filed a copy of chart indicating
total strength (designation wise) of the catering unit,
Jhansi including Shatabdi Express, a copy of the FA &
CAO letter dated 2.7.93, a copy of CPO (HQ) letter dated
19.8.93, a copy of letter dated 8.7.94 of Sr. Divisional
Accounts Officer, Central Railway, Jhansi. A copy of official
notice dated 28.9.94 regarding disengagement of the
services of the workman and others, a copy of letter dated
28.09.94 by the DRM regarding his disengagement and of
others.
10.
Admittedly, the workman was engaged as daily rated
casual labour w.e.f. 10.07.1988 and was granted Monthly
Rated Casual Labour (MRCL) status after having
completed 120 days continuously at base kitchen w.e.f.
28.12.1992 and his services have been terminated w.e.f.
30.09.1994 after complying with the provisions of Section
25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 i.e. payment of
retrenchment compensation of Rs. 6216/-. Aggrieved from
termination of services the workman preferred an Original
Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
which was not entertained for the want of jurisdiction.
Thereafter, the writ petition before Hon’ble High Court,
Allahabd, which directed the workman to raise an industrial
dispute before appropriate Government and consequently
the present industrial dispute was raised.
11.
Coming to the submission by the authorized
representative of the workman that the Section 25 F was
applied maliciously and this provision was used as
camouflage. The factum of appointment, acquiring of
temporary status and termination with notice under Section
25 F required to be analyzed. The workman and others
were engaged in Catering Unit of Jhansi to strengthen the
working of the said unit. No separate establishment or
unit was formed to cater requirements of the Shatabdi
Express. The letter of the Chief Catering Inspectors
mentions that newly appointed casual worker/cleaners
were retained in the unit and instead 14 of the senior were
assigned work of Shatabdi Express. This fact remains
uncontroverted. This further corroborate the plea of the
workman that he and others were the employees of the
5916
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
catering unit Jhansi and not of any separate unit in the
name of Shatabdi Express unit; as pleaded by the
management. In fact, the base kitchen was common. The
workman and others were engaged on selection due to
increased load of work. Their engagement was made by
the competent authority. The management has not
disputed legality of the appointment, grant of temporary
status to them except stating non-obtaining of approval
of the General Manager and justified the retrenchment of
the workman on plea of surplusage of staff.
12.
Here it is necessary to refer the few lines of the
notice of retrenchment dated 30.09.94; wherein it is
specifically mentioned as under:
“aapki sewaon ki aavaskhyata nahi hone ke karan
aapki sewaon ko etaddwara tatkaal prabhav se
samapt ki jaati hai ………………….”
The natural meaning of the above expression is that
there were surplus staff and the services of the workman
and others were not needed. To substantiate the above
fact, the management has annexed a chart indicating total
strength (designation wise) at Catering Unit, Jhansi
including Shatabdi Express. This chart has been classified
in two parts; first part showing present total strength and
the second part showing total strength at the time of
retrenchment i.e. on 30.09.94. A glance over this chart
indicates present total strength 98, including 44 bearers
and 18 cleaners. On the date of retrenchment i.e. 30.09.94,
the strength at Catering Unit, Jhansi was 63 including 24
bearers and 10 cleaners. This chart falsifies the fact stated
in the notice or retrenchment dated 30.09.94. The strength
since increased by (98-63) = 35 at present. The number of
bearers and cleaners also increased. The shrinkage of
staff on man power planning is obviously an afterthought
and false, particularly, when the present strength increased
by more than 33% i.e. by 35, in comparison to the year of
the retrenchment. Even if the explanation has been given
as how the workman and other were in excess when the
strength in 1994 was much less than the present strength.
The plea that the workman and other retrenched workmen
were surplus, apparently, is contrary to the facts. The
management’s witness Shri P.K. Pandey admitted staff
strength to be 142 in his cross examination. There is no
material to infer that the workman and other retrenched
workmen were surplus, to warrant action under Section
25 F. The basis of notice under Section 25 F is, thus,
rendered non-est, making the use of this section malicious
exercise of power. This fact is also falsified by the letter of
the Chief Catering Inspector, Central Railway, Jhansi dated
20.07.94, in reference to the letter No. C/192/CL/117 DC
dated 12/14.07.94. This letter very specifically states that
58 posts of MRCL were sanctioned, as against only 42
MRCL were working and there existed shortage of 16
MRCL. This fact has not been controverted in the written
statement or in the oral statement of the Divisional
commercial Manger (C). Thus, it is, fully proved that
dispensation of the services of the workman, on ground
of non availability of work was totally unjustified and
Section 25 F was used as device to get rid of the workman
and others. The management deliberately concealed letter
No. C/192/CL/117 DC dated 12/14.07.94, in reply to which
the Chief Catering Inspector had clarified the position and
required services of the workman and 20 others, whose
retrenchment were under consideration.
13.
The management has taken plea that the engagement
of the workman and others was without prior personal
approval of the General Manager and so, the very
appointments were illegal. Any copy of circular banning
the recruitment has not been filed. However, assuming
the ban on fresh engagement after 1980 the engagements,
if not fraudulent, may be said irregular and not illegal.
This circular was administrative in nature and issued as
guidelines to rationalize and regulate fresh engagements.
Fresh engagements were not banned but regulated by a
clog of approval of the General Manager. This condition,
in fresh engagement did not render the appointment of
the workman, illegal, against the sanctioned strength. The
so called guidelines permitted engagement of the casual
labour subject to the approval of the General Manager.
This administrative measure was to prevent abuse of
engaging casual labours. This must be borne in mind that
casual engagement connotes engagement without post.
In the present case, the engagements were against the
posts. In any event, at the time of retrenchment, the status
of the workman did not remain casual on acquiring
temporary status as there existed sanctioned post as stated
by the Chief Catering Inspector in his letter. Such
administrative instructions cannot take away legal status
of the workman engaged by the competent authority. The
workman and others were not apprised that they were
being engaged against the instructions of the Railway
Board. They were selected by the competent authority by
adopting the due process. The taking of approval was the
duty of the authorities and not of the workman. The
workman cannot be punished if the approval was not
sought. There is no material to show that approval was
sought and rejected. There is also, no material that the
concerned officers involved in engagement of the workman
and others were penalized by the Railway management for
having acted against the instructions of the Railway Board.
The fact, is otherwise. Management’s documents show
that FA&CO Office, Bombay, by letter No. AC/958/E&G/
CORES/II dated 02.07.93 questioned engagement of 21
MRCL at Jhansi catering unit. Para 1 of this letter mentions
letter No. E(NG)II-CL/43 dated 07.06.84 circulated under
office letter No. HPV/22513/R dated 09.08.84, ‘no fresh,
shall be engaged as casual labour, without prior approval
of the General Manager, some guidelines have been issued
to all DRM by your office vide letter quoted above. These
irregular (not illegal) appointments of 21 MRCLs were also
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5917
questioned by the Chief Personnel Officer of the Central
Railway by letter dated 19.08.93. Again Sr. DAO JHS vide
letter dated 08.07.94 mentioned about irregular
appointment. In concluding para of this letter ‘discharge
notice’ to such appointees (MRCL) was desired.
Management has filed office note dated 28.09.94. Mr. R.N.
Srivastava, DCM (Catering) Jhansi submitted his note to
ADRM/Sr. DPO/Sr. DCM for dispensing services of 21
MRCL by issuing notice. On this note endorsements of
the above authorities are given. It was decided to
discharge them on the plea of there being no work and
this note was approved. It appears that in view of this
decision on office note, the series of the workman and 20
others were dispensed with taking assistance of section
25 F though the fact considered were different i.e. irregular
appointment without approval. It has already been
observed that the Chief Catering Inspector justified their
retention on plea of availability of work. The chart of
strength also justify this inference. It appears that the
senior authorities, to save their skin adopted this device
of dispensing services of the workman and 20 others. The
workman and similarly placed were made to pay for sin of
authorities after wasting six years of their prime age. As
observed earlier, the workman had not obtained
engagement by fraud. He was selected and engaged and
further provided temporary status. All employees with
temporary status are governed by the Railway Servants
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules. He was no longer casual
worker but worker with temporary status, to be treated as
temporary Railway Servant. If the Railway treated their
services irregular he should have been given opportunity
to explain his position. The workman was not given any
opportunity to justify his engagement after acquiring
temporary status. This approach was against the rule of
natural justice. Even on assuming his appointment no
regular, his termination should have been preceded by a
show cause notice.
14.
Now it has to be considered as to whether Section
25 F applied at all in case of the workman? The workman
claims that his retrenchment could be made under Section
25 N of the I.D. Act, 1947. The management in reply has
contended that the management is not an ‘Industrial
Establishment’ within the meaning of 25 L (a)(i) of the I.D.
Act, 1947, as it is not Factory under sub-section (m) of
section 2 of the Factories Act. Section 2(m) Factories Act,
reads as follow:
(m)
“factory” means any premises including the
precincts thereof
(i)
Whereon then or more workers are working,
or were working on any day of the preceding
twelve months, and in any part of which a
manufacturing process is being carried on with
the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on,
or
(ii)
Whereon twenty or more workers are working
or were working on any day of preceding
twelve months, and in any part of which a
manufacturing process is being carried on
without the aid of power, or is ordinarily so
carried on.
But does not include a mine subject to
the operation of (the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of
1952) or (a mobile unit belonging to the armed
forces of the Union, railway running shed or
hostel, restaurant or eating palace).
(Explanation I – For computing the
number of workers for the purposes of this
clause all the workers in (different groups and
relays) in a day shall be taken into account)
(Explanation II – For the purposes of
this clause, the mere than an Electronic Data
Processing Unit or a Computer Unit is installed
in any premises or part thereof, shall not be
construed to make it a factory if no
manufacturing process is being carried on in
such premises or part thereof)
15.
Taking advantage of the exception clause, it is
submitted by the management that catering unit, in railway
is not an ‘industrial establishment’. The exception clause
mention ‘railway running shed or a hotel, a restaurant or
eating place. The catering department comprising with
several working units in Central Railway is to be taken as
a single establishment, for computing number of employees
to be more than 100. In any event, the workman has filed
list of staff at catering unit Jhansi for the year 1994 which
shows the number of staff being 142. This fact is not
contorverted by evidence. The management witness, Shri
P.K. Pandey who appeared for cross examination, admitted
that number of working staff is 142. This admission settled
the controversy of number game, to bring the provision of
chapter V-B in operation.
16.
The factor is as to whether the activities in catering
establishment in Central Railway, particularly, the working
catering unit, Jhansi, may be taken as ‘manufacturing and
so may be said a factory under section 2 (m) of the Factory
Act, 1948. The definition of ‘factory’, reproduced above,
excludes railway running shed or a hotel, a restaurant or
eating place. Undeniably, the catering unit Jhansi is not a
running shed or hotel. It is also not a restaurant in true
sense. It prepares meal for the passengers in train or
otherwise and serve in trains, platform and occasionally,
in room marked for at on the platform. There is a common
base kitchen to cater needs of the passengers, not only of
Shatabdi Express but of other trains also. Evidently,
catering unit Jhansi is not covered by the exclusion clause
of ‘factory’ as defined under section 2(m) of the Factory
Act, 1948.
5918
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
17.
Preparation of food items in base kitchen and other
related activities as packaging supply in train or platform
etc. are run on commercial basis. The character of such
activities in base kitchen is nothing but of manufacturing.
These activities in manufacturing food etc. in base kitchen
are systematic and not casual.
18.
Hence, in view of the discussions made hereinabove,
it can be safely said that the provisions of section 25 N of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not applied since
the permission required by clause (b) of Section 25 N of
the Act has not been complied with as the prior permission
of the appropriate Government has not been taken. There
is no document on record to show that application was
moved by the employer, seeking permission of the
appropriate Government; and permission was granted by
the said Government. Thus, the workman was entitled to
be dealt with the provisions under section 25 N and not
under section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Hence, the retrenchment order under Section 25 F was
illegal.
19.
Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of considered opinion that the action of the
management of the Divisional Commercial Manager
(Catering), Central Railway, Jhansi in terminating the
services of the workman under section 25 F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was neither legal nor justified;
and accordingly, I come to the conclusion that the workman
is entitled for reinstatement will full back wages and other
consequential benefits, assuming that there existed no
termination at any point of time within six weeks from the
date of publication of this award in the gazette, failing he
shall also be entitled for simple interest @ 6% per annum
on arrears. The reference is answered accordingly.
20.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW
04th June, 2014
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk-
2327-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947
(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
cqysUn[kaM {ks=kh; xzkeh.k cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
mudsdeZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
138@99) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@225@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 30th July, 2014
S.O.
2327.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.138/99)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Bundelkhand Kshetriya
Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 16/07/2014.
[No. L-12012/225/98-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/138/99
Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri J.K.Kothia,
C-2/9, Sector-5,
Rohini, New Delhi.
.....Workman
Versus
General Manager,
Bundelkhand Kshetriya Gramin Bank,
Tikamgarh,
M.P.
.....Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 27th day of June, 2014)
1.
As per letter dated 15-3-99 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/
225/98-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of
Bundelkhand Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Tikamgarh in
terminating the services of Shri Jinesh Kumar Kothia
vide order dated 20-5-95 is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference notices were issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at page
4/1 to 4/7. Case of workman is that he was employed as
cashier with IInd party Bank at Malguwan branch during
12-6-84 to 27-11-84. Chargesheet was issued to him on
12-12-91 committing forgery and misappropriation of
amount by IInd party. That incident was also reported to
police against him and Branch Manager S.P. Garg reported
to Police station Kundeela and an offence under Section
409 of Indian Penal Code has been registered against both
of them was filed and chargesheet has been filed in
Criminal case bearing No. 58/84 & 358/97. Workman and
Shri Garg Branch Manager were acquitted on 20-8-98. That
chargesheet issued to workman after 7 years of the alleged
incident. Workman denied charges against him filing reply.
Enquiry Officer found workman guilty. The punishment of
removal was imposed. The appeal preferred by workman
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5919
was rejected by Appellate Authority. Workman submits
punishment of removal from service is illegal. Ist party
workman has pleaded that he was not supplied documents.
Effectively revived the charges. List of witnesses and
documents were not supplied to him. Enquiry Officer
mechanically framed charges against him. Enquiry Officer
adopted illegal procedure. Workman was not allowed to
defend himself engaging counsel of the choice. He was
not given sufficient time to submit list of witnesses and
documents. The findings of Enquiry Officer are not
supported by cogent evidence. The findings are perverse.
In view of acquittal in criminal case., there was no
justification to hold workman guilty, enquiry summarily
conducted. It caused prejudice to workman. On such
grounds workman prays for his reinstatement with back
wages.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 11/1 to
11/5. It is submitted by IInd party that workman was
employed as clerk cum cashier at Malgawa branch during
June to November 84. Chargesheet was served on him on
12-12-91 alleging forgery and misappropriation of amount,
false payments. DE was held against him. Workman was
given reasonable opportunity. Enquiry Officer found
charges against workman are proved. Considering report
of Enquiry Officer after showcause notice, punishment of
removal from service was imposed against workman. Said
punishment is commensurate to charges. The Bank is
constituted under Regional Rural Banks Act 1976. Central
Govt. has made Service Regulations called Kshetriya
Gramin Bank Staff service Regulation 1980. It is further
submitted that Ist party workman posted as clerk cum
cashier. Shri S.P.Garg was Branch Manager, they were
found preparing bogus vouchers, misappropriating large
amount, withdrawn a substantial amount from account of
one account holder Shri U.S.Gupta without his knowledge.
Ist party workman was holding post of trust and
confidence in Bank. He was not expected to indulge in
forgery showing false amount. On such contentions IInd
party prayed for rejection of claim of workman.
4.
IInd party management submitted rejoinder at page
12/1 to 12/5 reiterating its contentions raised in statement
of claim. Workman submits that Shri B.R.Vijay was not
permitted to act as Defence Representative. Shri
S.K.Sharma clerk cum cashier was Defence Representative.
The documents produced before Enquiry Officer were
certified copy of documents. He did not object to its
production in Enquiry Proceedings.That criminal trial and
Departmental Enquiry are different. There is no nexus
between each other.
5.
As per order dated 20-4-04, my predecessor held
enquiry conducted against workman is not valid and
proper. However the Bank was permitted to adduce
evidence to prove misconduct in Court. Considering
pleadings and above facts, the points which arise for my
consideration and determination are as under. My findings
are recorded against each of them for the reasons as
below:-
(i)
Whether the charges alleged against
In Negative
workman are proved from evidence
adduced by management?
(ii) Whether the action of the manage-
In Affirmative
ment of Bundelkhand Kshetriya
Gramin Bank, Tikamgarh in terminating
the services of Shri Jinesh Kumar Kothia
vide order dated 20-5-95 is legal and
justified?
(iii) If not, what relief the workman is
As per final
entitled to?
order.
REASONS
6.
Point No.1- As stated above, the enquiry conducted
against workman was found illegal. Management is
permitted to prove misconduct in Court. Management filed
affidavit of evidence of Shri A. K. Srivastava Manager
(Audit and Inspection) at Head office, Shri B.L.Pushpkar
Branch Manager. So far as evidence of Shri B.L.Pushpkar
is only on the point that he has forwarded complaint
received from Sudama Prasad Pateria, forwarding letter is
Exhibit M-39. The complaint submitted by Sudama Prasad
Pateria, Article P-1 is not proved as the complainant
Sudama is not examined by management. Shri B.L.Pushkar
in his cross-examination says that he was witness in
criminal case against workman. He donot recollect anything
about it. It is denied that Sudama Prasad has withdrawn
Rs.3000/- on 12-6-84 through his brother. The evidence of
management’s witness A.K.Srivastava is on point that on
26-11-84, while he was working as cashier cum clerk, the
workman in collusion with Branch Manager S.P.Garg,
misappropriated the amount by showing payment of
Rs.2000/- to Shri Mahadeva Saur Account No.1/3 , Rs.2000
from Shri Halka Kumhar Account No.5/2, Rs.2000 from
Shri Kalau Lodhi Account No.12/1, Rs.2000 from ShriTantu
Account No. 16/1 & Rs.2000/- from Shri Ram Dayal &
Chhotelal Chamar Account No. 17/3. He has further
illustrated the procedure of disbursing loan amount. IInd
and other instalments are disbursed to the borrower when
he shows that the earlier instalment has been properly
utilized. At the time of disbursement of amount to the
borrower, debit voucher is prepared by the concerned
clerk, debit voucher passed for payment by the Branch
Manager and thereafter at the time of handling over of the
amount to the borrower, his signature is taken at the back
side of the voucher over the revenue stamp as an
acknowledgement of receipt of amount. The witness has
further stated that amount Rs.2000/- shown paid to
Mahadev on 26-11-84 in pass book and ledger sheet. Said
amount was not actually paid to the borrower. It was clear
from the debit voucher related to transaction. It was duty
of workman to obtain signature of borrower. Similarly
5920
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
amount Rs.2000/- was paid on 26-11-84 to Halka Kumhar.
The payment of Rs.2000/- shown from account of Shri
Kalua Lodhi in Agricultural Term Loan Account on
26-11-84. Rs.2000/- from Account of Tantu Chamar on
26-11-84, amount of Rs.2000/- from Account of Ram Dayal
& Chhotelal on 20-11-84, amount of Rs.2000/- from account
of Sarman Basore on 27-11-84, amount was not paid to
those borrowers as per the debit voucher. That Shri Kothia
had admitted fictitious vouchers and withdrawal of
Rs. 3500/-. He tried to shift entire blame on ShriGarg. From
evidence of Shri A. K. Srivastava document Exhibit M-13
to M-35 are proved.
7.
I will deal with those documents at later part of
judgment. The witness in his cross-examination says
telephone messenger was received from Post man,
thereafter he alongwith Chairman of Bank went to Malgawa
branch for inspection on 28-11-84. He donot remember
whether Shri Garg was present at that time. He was unable
to say about receiving complaint Exhibit M-12. He was
unable to tell in whose handwriting Exhibit M-13 and
document M-14 is written. Document Exhibit M-15 bears
signature of Mr. Garg. The entries are taken by Garg or
Kothia. The witness admits that he had not received any
letter from Kothia, the workman. The witrness admits that
he had not received any letter from Kothia the workman.
Therefore he cannot identify his handwriting. He was
unable to identify handwriting of document M-16.
Document M-17 is written in handwriting of Mr. Garg.
The entries are written by Garg or Kothia. The witness
denies that Bank has suffered any financial loss. Witness
was unable to tell whether amount of Rs.3000/- was
deposited in name of Uma Shankar on 12-6-84. Witness
was unable to tell about it without going through the
documents. In his further cross-examination he says in
pay book on 12-6-94 overwriting is possibly made in entry
of J.K.Kothia i.e. workman. Document M-19 is in writing
of Mr. Garg., he was unable to tell who had filled the
information. The witness was unable to tell who filled
documents M-20 to 24 that document Exhibit M-25, 26 are
filed by Garg. Exhibit 27 are filled by Kothia. Witness was
unable to tell who filled documents Exhibit M-29, 30.
Documents M-31, 33 are filled by Shri Kothia and 32 by
Shri Garg. Witness was unable to tell who filled Exhibit
M-34, 35. The witness reaffirmed that as he was working
in Head office, he identify signatures of Kothia workman.
He deny that payment of Rs. 1500 , 2000 was shown without
voucher.
8.
Workman filed affidavit of evidence denying his
involvement in alleged forgery and misappropriation of
amount. There was no dispute during course of argument
that Garg has been dismissed from service,. Both workman
and Garg Branch Manager were acquitted. Counsel for
IInd party Shri Shroti submits that State Bank has
challenged their acquittal filing appeal but no such
document is produced on record., copy of deposition of
management’s witness Anil Srivastava is produced at
Exhibit 32. The copy of judgment in criminal case is
produced at Exhibit M-5. Argument advanced about delay
in initiating the enquiry against workman argued by learned
counsel for workman cannot be considered in view of the
judgment by Hon’ble High Court in miscellaneous petition
3172/92 was dismissed. The judgment is produced at Exhibit
M-4. Criminal Court in his judgment Exhibit M-5 has
disclosed evidence of prosecution witnesses. From
reading of para-7 of the judgment, it is clear that prosecution
examined witnesses Shri Khemchand Jain, K.P.Ahirwar,
R.l. Singh, Anil Kumar Srivastava, Madanmohan,
Mahadev, Halka, Kaluwa Modi, Gorelal, Sudama Prasad,
Ramdayal, C.P. Dubey, J.L. Rathore, , Sarmana and others
total 16 witnesses and the documents. The evidence of
MW-2 A.K. Srivastava is discussed in Para 16 to 20. The
evidence of Anil Srivastava was not accepted in support
of charges. In para-20 of the judgment, criminal court
observed that payments of Rs.2000/- shown 5 times entries
were required to be taken by cashier. That Kothia workman
had not signed on Article 27. It is not necessary to
reappreciate the evidence but it is surprising to note that
any other witnesses are not examined by management.
MW-2 Anil Srivastava in his cross-examination has
admitted that he has not received any letter from workman.
Therefore he could not identify signatures. However in
later part of his cross-examination, he says that as he was
working in branch, he identify his handwriting. His
evidence is not reliable. The complaint at Page 36 about
incident was submitted by workman himself. Exhibit M-34
is pass book. It is not bearing signatures of workman. The
evidence of management’s witness A.K. Srivastava is not
cogent about who has taken entries in relevant documents
about payment of amount from term loans of all these
persons. Ist party workman in his cross-examination has
denied documents Exhibit M-17 is written in is handwriting.
That entries in M-27,28 are in his handwriting. Payment of
Rs.1500 and 2000 shown in Exhibit 28. It is not shown from
his account. The amount was withdrawn. The entry dated
12-6-84 in Exhibit 29 amount is not scored out by him. The
entry was not written by him. He had taken entries in Exhibit
M-31 except dated 12-6-84. All those account holders are
not examined. There is no evidence that amount shown
debited was received by workman.
9.
Learned counsel for Ist party Pranay Choubey
submits that the charges of forgery, misappropriation
needs cogent evidence. That workman was acquitted
along with Branch Manager. The findings of criminal court
in the matter of fraud, forgery, misappropriation cannot be
reversed in support of his argument. Counsel relies on
ratio held in Case of Jeevan Prakash Pandurang Moksho
versus State Bank of India and another reported in 1983-2-
LLN 250 their Lordship of Bombay High Court dealing
with acquittal of bank employee on appeal. Employee
reinstated in service on request. It was held that DE is
barred. The employer Bank having once taken a decision
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5921
and reinstated the employer, renders itself powerless either
to alter that decision or change the course and pick up
other alternative.”
The ratio cannot be applied to present case at hand
in view of judgment by Hon’ble High Court in
Miscellaneous Petition No. 1372/92 Exhibit M-4.
10.
Learned counsel for workman also relies on
Judgment by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7431/
2008 in case of Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National
Bank and others. Their Lordship of Apex Court observed
the materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are
required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on
some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions
of Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental
proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the
report of the Enquiry Officer was based on merely ipse
dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not
have been sustained.
In present case, the witnesses examined in criminal
case are not examined by IInd party ad the witnesses No.2
A.K.Srivastav has been examined. His evidence is not
cogent how he identifies handwriting and signatures of
workman. The evidence is clear that amount Rs,15,000/-
was withdrawn by ShriGarg and not returned back. Said
amount was debited in different accounts. The evidence
of Anil Kumar Srivastava is not clear that all those debit
vouchers for said amount are made in writing to the
workman.
11.
Learned counsel for workman Pranay Choubey
further relies on
Ratio held in case of management of Centaur Hotel
versus P.S,.Mohan Nair and another. In para-9 of the
judgment their Lordship observed it may be noted that
chargesheet was based on letters addressed by
Respondent No.1 to the petitioner which were given around
7-8 years back. The explanation of the petitioner is that it
acted on an anonymous complaint received.
In view of judgment Exhibit M-4, the point raised
cannot be accepted.
12.
Documents Exhibit M-6 to M-12 are loan application
forms. Amount debited in each is written on reverse side.
Evidence of management’s witness is not cogent that
entries about debiting amount Rs.2000/- , 1000/- in those
documents are made by Ist party workman. Debit entry of
Rs.2000 in Exhibit M-9 is not bearing signature of any
body. Document Exhibit M-11 is zerox copy of seizure
memo. The original or documents M-14 to M-34 are not on
record. Therefore evidence of management’s witness about
entries cannot be relied.
13.
Learned counsel for IInd party Shri Shroti relied on
ratio held in Case of State of UP and others reported in
1996(3)SSC 750. In case of N.Selvaraj versus Kumbakonam
city union Bank Ltd. Reported in 2006(9)SSC-172, South
Bengal State Transport Corp versus Sapan Kumar Mitra
and others reported in 2006(2) SSC 584. The ratio held in
those cases cannot be applied to case at hand. The charges
against workman cannot be proved from evidence of
management’s witness.
14.
Learned counsel for management ShriShroti during
course of argument submitted that amount of different
persons was debited, misappropriated the amount by
workman with ShriGarg, workman has taken entries in debit
vouchers proves the charges against him. The evidence
of Shri Anil Srivastav is discussed in detail by criminal
court and not found sufficient to hold acute guilty of
charges. In present case MW-2 A.K.Srivastava is examined.
Any other material witness is not examined. The evidence
is not sufficient to prove charges against workman. For
above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Negative.
15.
Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.1,
charges against workman are not proved from evidence
on record, therefore the punishment of removal from service
deserves to be quashed and set-aside. The workman in
his evidence says that after retirement, he was not gainfully
employed. That he is residing with his daughter. Workman
was under suspension from 1984. He was dismissed from
service in 1988. How he was surviving all those years is
not explained from his evidence. Considering above
aspects, workman deserves to be reinstated with 50 %
back wages. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2
16.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Bundelkhand
Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Tikamgarh in terminating
the services of ShriJinesh Kumar Kothia vide order
dated 20-5-95 is not legal and proper.
(2)
IInd party is directed to reinstatement workman with
continuity of service with 50 % back wages.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2328-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947
(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj czSBoSrs
cqj.k ,.M tsLlksi daLVªD'ku daiuh fyfeVsM 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;
dksydrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 29@ 2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@01@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
5922
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014
S.O.
2328.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. Reference
No. 29 of 2013) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of the Braithwaite Burn &
Jessop Construction Co. Ltd. and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 8/8/2014.
[No. L-42011/01/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 29 of 2013
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
Braithwaite Burn & Jessop Construction Co. Ltd.
AND
Their workmen
Present : JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
Appearance :
On behalf of the
: Mr. Partha Bhanja Chowdhury,
Management
Ld. Counsel with
Mr. L.M. Ghosh, Ld. Counsel.
On behalf of the
: Ms. Sujaya Ray, Ld. Counsel.
Workmen
State : West Bengal.
Industry: Heavy Engineering.
Dated: 31st July, 2014.
AWARD
By Order No.L-42011/01/2013-IR(DU) dated
03.07.2013 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of
the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
Braithwaite Burn and Jessop Construction Co. Ltd.
in denying the demand of union for 20% Bonus for
financial year 2010-2011 is justified? To what relief
the said union entitled to?”
2.
When the case was taken up for hearing on
21.07.2014, Ld. Counsel for the management submitted that
the State Government was the appropriate Government in
respect of the dispute. In support of the said contention
the management referred to a decision reported in 2012(3)
CHN 16. Ld. Counsel for the union conceded the argument
of the Ld. Counsel for the management and submitted that
the State Government was the appropriate Government
and not the Central Government.
3.
Here, in the instant case, the Central Government by
an order of reference referred the dispute to this Tribunal.
4.
Now considering the submission of both the parties
with reference to the decision referred to above, it appears
that the State Government was the appropriate Government
to make the reference dated 03.07.2013.
5.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the
instant reference is not maintainable as this Tribunal has
no jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant reference case.
Accordingly the instant reference dated 03.07.2013 is set
aside.
The present reference is disposed of accordingly.
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
Dated, Kolkata,
The 31st July, 2014
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2329-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj twV dkjiksjs'ku
vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 4@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 08@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@202@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014
S.O.
2329.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. Reference
No. 4 of 2012) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of the Jute Corporation of
India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 8/8/2014.
[No. L-42011/202/2011-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 04 of 2012
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
The Jute Corporation of India Ltd.
A N D
Their workmen
Present : Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5923
Appearance :
On behalf of the
: None.
Management
On behalf of the
: Mr. Madhusudan Dutta,
Workmen
Ld. Advocate.
State: West Bengal
Industry: Jute.
Dated: 31st July, 2014
AWARD
By Order No.L-42011/202/2011-IR(DU) dated
24.02.2012 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of
the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“(1) Whether the action of the management of Jute
Corporation of India in denying the regularization
of service to its 400 casual workers is legal and
justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?
(2) Whether the management of Jute Corporation of
India in denying the demand of casual workers for
extending medical allowance, house rent allowance
and conveyance allowance in line with permanent
employees is legal & justified? What relief the
workmen are entitled to?”
2.
This reference has been made at the instance of the
Jute Corporation of India Field Workers’ Union as the
management of Jute Corporation of India denied to
regularize the service of its casual workers.
3.
The case of the union is, in a nutshell, as follows:
the concerned workmen were appointed against permanent
vacancies/posts and since their appointment they have
been working continuously and uninterruptedly. The jobs
which are being performed by them are of permanent in
nature; but insipte of that they are termed as casual
workmen. It has been further contended that the concerned
workmen have been provided with the benefit of 16 days
leave with pay, Gratuity after retirement at the age of 58
years, festival advance; but they have been denied the
benefit of getting regular pay scale with increment, Group
Insurance and Dearness Allowance. It is the specific case
of the concerned workmen that the Jute Corporation of
India is treating them as Class-IV employees for all practical
purposes and as such they are entitled to grades and scales
of pay at par with the permanent Class-IV employees of
Jute Corporation of India. It is also the contention of the
said workmen that several representations were made by
the workmen for regularization of their services but the
management did not regularize their services. Accordingly,
the union raised industrial dispute and ultimately this
reference has been made.
3.
In this case the Jute Corporation of India after
receiving notice of the Tribunal appeared through its Ld.
Advocate. But thereafter none turned up on behalf of the
management. Accordingly, this reference has been heard
exparte.
4.
The union examined one witness and proved some
documents in support of its case.
5.
On perusal of the evidence of the witness it appears
that he has corroborated the case of the union.
Unchallenged testimony of the witness goes to show that
the concerned workmen were appointed against permanent
vacancies/posts and they have been performing their
respective jobs continuously and uninterruptedly since
their appointment and the said jobs are of permanent in
nature. Unassailed evidence of the witness has also
established that the concerned workmen are covered by
the benefit as recommended by the Pay Commission.
6.
It has been argued on behalf of the union that the
concerned workmen have been working continuously and
uninterruptedly for years together and as such they cannot
be termed as temporary or casual. Reference has been
made to the decisions reported in 2006 LAB I.C. 960; 2006-
III-LLJ 482 and 1996-I-LLJ 1223
7.
It has already been pointed out that the
unchallenged testimony of the sole witness of the union
has proved the case of the union and from the evidence of
the witness it is evident that the concerned workmen since
their appointment, have been working continuously and
uninterruptedly and that the jobs which are being
performed by them are permanent in nature. Considering
the above facts and circumstances with reference to the
decisions referred to above, the concerned workmen
cannot be termed as temporary or casual workmen.
8.
Considering the above facts and circumstances with
reference to the discussions referred to above, it appears
that the services of the concerned workmen are required
to be regularized and accordingly the management of Jute
Corporation of India is to regularize the services of the
concerned workmen within three (3) months from the date
of passing of this Award.
9.
The concerned workmen are also entitled to get all
the benefits which are being given to the permanent
employees of Jute Corporation of India from the date of
passing the Award.
10.
The instant order of reference dated 24.02.2012 is
answered accordingly.
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
Dated, Kolkata,
The 31st July, 2014.
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2330-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj
(esaVsusal) osLVuZ VsyhdkWe jhtu ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
5924
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds
iapkV lanHkZ la[;k lh th vkbZ Vh@,y lh@vkj@154@01 dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@168@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014
S.O.
2330.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/154/01) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
Cum Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of the Director
(Maintenance), Western Telecom Region and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 8/8/2014.
[No. L-40012/168/2001-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/154/2001
Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Govind Prasad Patel,
S/o Shri Beniprasad Patel,
Vill Boroda, PO Dhoresar,
Tehsil Dhimarkhada,
Katni (MP)
.....Workman
Versus
Director (Maintenance),
Western Telecom Region,
Telecom Building, IInd Floor,
CTO Compound,
Jabalpur
.....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 21st day of July 2014
1.
As per letter dated 28-9-2001 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-
40012/168/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Director
(Maintenance), Western Telecom Region, Jabalpur
in terminating the services of Shri Govind Prasad
patel S/o Shri Beni Prasad Patel w.e.f. 30-12-99 is
just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page
2/1 to 2/8. Case of Ist party workman is that he is resident
of Village Baroda in Katni Distt. MP. He submits that on
1-5-97, he was engaged by Dy.Engineer for maintenance
of Microwave as casual labor. He was also assigned work
of taking entries in inward, outward register. As per
directions of IInd party No. 4, 5. However he completed
240 days continuous service during each of the year. He
worked with devotion. He is eligible for status of temporary
employee. Despite of repeated request and assurance
given by IInd party No. 4, 5 status of temporary employee
was not granted to him. The IInd party out of malafide
shown him as contract labour. Workman submits that he
was doing various kind of work. Gate pass was issued in
his name. on 25-3-98 for redressal of his grievance, he
issued notice through Advocate Shri P.K.Mahurya. Even
after issuing notice, false reply was given by IInd paprty
No.4. that the workman was engaged on contract basis.
Workman reiterates that he was continuously working as
casual labour from May 97 to Dec-99. IInd party has not
paid wages for September to December 99. Workman
submits that his services are terminated in violation of
Section 25-F of I.D.Act. On such ground, he prays for his
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement at page 9/1 to 9/3.
Claim of workman is denied. IInd party submits that
workman was never engaged as casual labor. There was
no need of casual labour by IInd party. The knowledge of
typing, working on computer is not required for casual
labour. The work of maintenance of DE Microwave is not
done by casual employees in Katni Office. Workman not
completed 240 days as casual labor. All other contentions
of workman are denied. It is reiterated that workman was
working on contract basis therefore documents about his
educational qualification, experience etc. were not required.
After completion of contract, workman was informed that
whenever work is available, he would be called again. On
such ground, IInd party prays for rejection of claim.
4.
Workman filed rejoinder at page 10/1 to 10/2
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. He
submits that as workman was engaged as casual labour,
there was no need to advertise said post. That he
completed 240 days continuous service as casual labour.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the manage-
In Negative
ment of Director (Maintenance),
Western Telecom Region, Jabalpur
in terminating the services of Shri
Govind Prasad Patel S/o Shri Beni
Prasad Patel w.e.f. 30-12-99 is legal
and justified?
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5925
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
As per
entitled to?”
final order.
REASONS
6.
Workman is challenging termination of his services
as employee in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. He has stated
that from 1-5-97 he was continuously working with IInd
party No.4, 5 for maintenance of Microwave. He was
working as casual labor. He was taking entries in inward,
outward register. He completed 240 days working. He was
also doing typing, computer operating work. He was not
granted status of temporary employee despite his request.
He had completed 240 days continuous service. That he
was issued gate pass on 25-3-98 for taking materials from
Jabalpur. In his cross-examination workman says that the
post was not advertised, his name was not sponsored
through Employment Exchange. He has not faced any
examination. Appointment letter was not given to him. He
was doing work of taking entry in issue and dispatch
register, typing work. He was sent to OFK for checking. At
the relevant time Shri Rammilan , Dilip Kumar, Dashrath
Prasad were working as temporary status mazdoor. SDE
Shri Dubey and DE Vasanta were working during the
relevant period. His wages were paid by Shri S.N.Dubey.
there was no cashier. He was expecting service in the office.
He had to submitted application to any office after his
discontinuation. He denies suggestion that he has not
completed 240 days continuous service. In Document
Exhibit M-1 to M-9, name of workman finds reference.
Those documents relates to payment of Rs.1500/- per
month by SDE Katni. The details are shown computer
work ad DE maintenance etc. during June 97. Reference of
typing work is also found in Document Exhibit M-2, M-3.
Payment is also made for computer work, typing work,
assisting in office work etc. There is specific reference
about work on contract basis. Those documents are
admitted by Ist party.
7.
The evidence of management’s witness Shri S.N.
Dubey in his affidavit of evidence says that the workman
was engaged on contract basis. In his cross-examination,
management’s witness denies that workman continuously
worked from 1-5-97 to 30-12-99. He denies that workman
was doing work of office assistant taking entries in inward,
outward register. Such register is not maintained in the
office. The office of DE was separate in the same building.
He denies that workman was not paid wages for Sept. to
Dec-99. The evidence of workman is not corroborated by
documents produced on record. So far as document
Exhibit W-1 to W-14, though the management’s witness
produced at Exhibit W-14 shows letter given by
Dy.Engineer to Director shows that workman had
completed 240 days workman may be confirmed. Document
Exhibit W-14 also shows the information was called for
granting temporary status of temporary labours completing
240 days continuous service. Document Exhibit W-1 to
W-2 also bears name of workman and payments made to
him. When the documentary evidence shows workman
had completed 240 days continuous service, termination
of his service without notice or payment of retrenchment
compensation cannot be said legal. For above reasons, I
record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
8.
Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1
termination of workman is in violation of Section 25-F of
I.D.Act, question arises whether he is entitled for
reinstatement with back wages. The evidence in cross-
examination of workman shows he had not issued
appointment letter. His name was not sponsored through
Employment Exchange, he not faced any examination.
Therefore considering short period of working in May 97
to December 99, relief of reinstatement cannot be granted.
Reasonable compensation would be appropriate to meet
the ends of justice. In my considered view, compensation
Rs.40,000/- would be proper and reasonable. Accordingly
I record my finding in Point No.2.
9.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Director
(Maintenance), Western Telecom Region, Jabalpur
in terminating the services of Shri Govind Prasad
Patel S/o Shri Beni Prasad Patel w.e.f. 30-12-99 is not
proper.
(2)
IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.40,000
within 30 days from the date of publication of award.
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.
10.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2331-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
vflLVsaV tujy eSustj] ch ,l ,u ,y vkWfiQl vkWiQ fizfUliy
tujy eSustj] y[kumQ 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kumQ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 28 of 2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 08@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@21@2006&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
5926
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014
S.O.
2331.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 28 of
2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Assistant General Manager
(Legal), BSNL, Office of Principal General Manager,
Lucknow and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 8/8/2014.
[No. L-40012/21/2006-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 28/2006
Ref. No. L-40012/21/2006-IR(DU) dated: 10.10.2006
BETWEEN
Shri Asha Ram S/o Shri Sukh Ram
R/o Village Mahooli, Post Samesi
Lucknow.
AND
The Asstt. General Manager (Legal)
BSNL
o/o Principal General Manager
Telecom Distt.
Lucknow.
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-40012/21/2006-IR(DU) dated:
10.10.2006 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 Asha Ram S/o
Shri Sukh Ram, R/o Village Mahooli, Post Samesi, Lucknow
and the Asstt. General Manager (Legal), BSNL, o/o
Principal General Manager, Telecom Distt., Lucknow for
adjudication.
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER THE ACTION OF MANAGEMENT OF
PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT
SANCHAR NIGAM LITD., LUCKNOW IN
TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF THEIR
WORKMAN SHRI ASHA RAM, W.E.F. 1/4/2005 IS
LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO WHAT
RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”
3.
The case of the workman, Asha Ram, in brief, is that
he applied for recruitment of casual labour before Chief
General Manager/Principal General Manager, BSNL,
Lucknow in the year 1997 and accordingly was appointed
as casual labour by the SDO, T.P. Nagar w.e.f. 01.01.1998
in the Ganga Sinchaipuram, Telebagh Exchange and worked
as such up to 31.03.2005 continuously, without any break
for more than 240 days in each calendar year. It has been
submitted by the workman that he was neither given any
appointment letter at the time of appointment nor at later
stage; however, he performed the duties of lineman during
his working tenure with the opposite party. It is also
submitted by the workman that during his employment he
was transferred to P.G.I. Exchange for some time and
thereafter was transferred back to the initial place of his
appointment where he worked up till his termination of the
services. It has been stated that the BSNL Headquarters,
in the year 2000/2001, directed all the regional offices to
initiate process for regularization of all casual labour; and
the Dy. General Manager vide their letter dated 28.05.2001
asked the regional units to provide the list of casual
workmen so that their regularization could be done. It is
alleged by the workman that the concerned SDO did not
provide any information with ill intention, which was
resulted into his non-regularization and when he demanded
regularization under SC-ST category, the management
terminated his services w.e.f. 01.04.2005 without complying
with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. It is also stated that at the time of
terminating his services there were many junior workmen
in the department and after his termination the management
engaged other workmen viz, Sudhir and Bahadur who are
still working; and accordingly has violated the provisions
of the I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the workman has prayed
that his termination dated 01.04.2005 be declared illegal
and he be reinstated with consequential benefits including
continuity in service and full back wages.
4.
The management of the BSNL has filed its written
statement, denying the claim of the workman; wherein it
was submitted that the workman never worked as a regular
or casual labor with the opposite party; rather he was a
contract labour and worked as such with the management.
It is also submitted that no payment to the workman was
made through ACG-17, instead payment was made by the
contractor. It was also pleaded that the workman never
worked for 240 days with the management and being an
employee of the contractor his services were neither
terminated nor retrenched by the management, therefore,
he is not entitled for any relief claimed by him. As such,
the statement is liable to be rejected being devoid of merit.
5.
The workman has field its rejoinder wherein apart
from reiterating the averments already made in the
statement of claim he has denied that he was a contract
labour and stressed that he was appointed as casual worker
by the management.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5927
6.
The workman has filed the photocopy of numerous
documents in support of his claim; whereas the
management has filed none. The workman has examined
himself in evidence; but 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 parties did not turn up for arguments for
a long span of time nor moved any application. Therefore,
the case was reserved for award keeping in view the
reluctance of the parties and long pendency of the case.
7.
I have gone through rival pleadings of the parties
and scanned entire evidence available on record.
8.
The workman has come up with a case that he was
appointed as a casual worker by the opposite party on
01.01.1998 in the Ganga Sinchaipuram, Telebagh Exchange
and worked as such up to 31.03.2005 continuously in
different exchanges of the BSNL, without any break for
more than 240 days in each calendar year. It is contended
by the workman that his services have been terminated by
the management without complying the mandatory
provisions of Section 25 F of the Act.
9.
In rebuttal the management has contended that the
workman was never been appointed by it and seldom any
payment was made to him by the management; rather he
worked as a contract labour and payment were made to
him by the contractor. It was also pleaded that the workman
never worked for 240 days continuously in any calendar
year and there was no termination/retrenchment of the
workman since the workman was a contract labour; and
this does not violate any of the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
10.
The workman has filed number of photocopy of the
documents, less any appointment letter or payment details
received from the BSNL, as claimed by him in his statement
of claim. It is also the case of the workman that his services
have been terminated in utter violation of the provisions
of Section 25 F of the Act. 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. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court
has observed as under:
“The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not
produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary
or wages for 240 days or record of his appointment
or engagement for that year to show that he has
worked with the employer for 240 days to get the
benefit under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act. It is now well settled that it is for the claimant
to lead evidence to show that he in fact worked for
240 days in a year preceding his termination.”
11.
Admittedly no appointment letter was issued; and
also, there is no evidence of the workman that the SDO
was competent to engage casual labour. He has not
produced any voucher or any other documentary evidence
to prove this fact that he was paid salary by the
management and he actually worked for 240 days in a year
preceding the date of termination i.e. 01.04.2005.
12.
It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of order the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the
order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking
jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the present case,
burden was on the workman to set out the grounds to
challenge the validity of the termination order and to prove
that the termination order was illegal. It was the case of
the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in
each calendar year. This claim has been denied by the
management; therefore, it was for the workman to lead
evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days
in the year preceding his alleged termination. In Range
Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani (2002) 3 SCC 25 Hon’ble
Apex Court has observed as under:
“It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked
but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was
then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that
he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year
preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is
only his own statement in his favour and that cannot
be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or
tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman
had, in fact, worked for 240 days or order or record
of appointment or engagement for that period was
produced by the workman. On this ground alone,
the award is liable to be set aside.”
13.
In the present case the workman has stated that he
has worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year,
but has not produced any documents in support of his
oral evidence nor summoned the documents from the
management. From the photocopy of the documents filed
by the workman it cannot be inferred that the workman
worked for 240 days in 12 months preceding the date of
his alleged termination i.e. 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005; and
he received payment for the same from the management of
BSNL. However, if for the argument’s sake, the
photocopies filed by the workman are taken to be true
then it comes out that the workman worked with the
management of BSNL in the year 99 to 2002, paper No.
16/8 to 16/15. Thus, the workman has utterly failed to
discharge the burned that lied upon him and has failed to
5928
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
substantiate his pleading by cogent documentary evidence
that he was actually in the services of the management of
BSNL and he worked for 240 days during period 01.04.2004
to 31.03.2005 i.e. last one year preceding the date of his
termination; and his services were terminated in violation
of Section 25 of the I.D. Act, 2005, without giving him any
notice or notice pay in lieu thereof or any retrenchment
compensation.
14.
Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. Initial
burden of establishing the fact of continuous work for
240 days in a year is on the workman but he has failed to
discharge the same. There is no reliable material for
recording findings that the workman had worked more
than 240 days in the preceding year from the date of his
alleged termination and the alleged unjust or illegal order
of termination was passed by the management.
15.
Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against
the workman, Asha Ram and he is not entitled to any relief.
16.
Award as above.
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
LUCKNOW
04th August, 2014
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2332-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
viQlj bu pktZ fefyVªh Msjh iQkeZ 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k CGIT/LC/R/30/05) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14012@03@1996&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014
S.O.
2332.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/30/05) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
Cum Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Officer-in-Charge, Military Dairy
Farm and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 8/8/2014.
[No. L-14012/03/1996-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/30/05
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Soni Choudhary,
S/o Shri Buddhu Choudhary,
R/o Bhongawar
Near Bajranjbali Temple,
Jabalpur
.....Workman
Versus
Officer-In-charge,
Military Dairy Farm,
Mandla road,
Jabalpur
Dy. Director,
Military Farm,
Head Quarter Central Command,
Lucknow
.....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 3rd day of July 2014
1.
As per letter dated 27-4-05 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-14012/
03/1996-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Officer-
In-charge, Military Dairy Farm, Mandla road, Jabalpur
in terminating the services of Shri Soni Choudhary
S/o Shri Buddhu Choudhary w.e.f. 2-12-94 is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page
11/1 to 11/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
initially employed in the post of mason helper in Military
Dairy Farm situated at Mandla Road, Jabalpur i.e. IInd
party. He was appointed on 23-4-98. He was continuously
working till 2-12-94 without any break. His services were
terminated on 3-12-94( wrongly typed as 1984). That he
had completed 240 days continuous service in each of the
year. His services are terminated without notice, he was
not paid retrenchment compensation. Termination of his
service is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. On such
ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with back
wages.
3.
Initially workman was proceeded exparte.
Management filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/6.
IInd party submitted that it is not covered as an Industry
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5929
under Section 2(j) of I.D. Act. The reference is not tenable.
Provisions of I.D. Act are not applicable to sovereign
functions of State. That there is recruitment policy for
regular/temporary post. Workman was not sponsored
through Employment Exchange. He was not selected by
any selection post. Workman was engaged when
temporary work was available as per exigencies. Workman
had not completed 240 days continuous service. Casual
employee cannot be considered for employment as it will
be violative of Articles 14,16 of the Constitution. IInd party
has referred to ratio held in different cases by High Courts,
Supreme Courts. Workman was not employed by
management. If there is no post of mason in Military Dairy
Farm, workman was engaged as helper to mason by one
Narayan. Workman was paid wages by said mason. IInd
party has further pleaded that headquarter has issued
circular dated 30-5-96. Directions were issued for
regularization of casual/temporary workers who had been
engaged after 7-6-88. Workman was engaged as casual/
temporary employee after 7-6-88. Claim of workman cannot
be allowed.
4.
After statement of claim filed by workman, Additional
Written Statement is filed by IInd party reiterating most of
its contentions in earlier Written Statement. Ex-parte order
was called back on 21-8-07. Workman did not pay cost of
Rs.100 imposed against him. Workman was intermittently
engaged for few days. His discontinuation is not violative
of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. On such contentions, IInd
party prays for rejection of claim.
5.
Workman filed rejoinder reiterating its contentions
in statement of claim.
6.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
“Whether establishment of IInd
In Affirmative
party is covered as Industry ?
(ii) Whether the action of the manage- In Affirmative
ment of Officer-In-charge, Military
Dairy Farm, Mandla road, Jabalpur
in terminating the services of Shri
Soni Choudhary S/o Shri Buddhu
Choudhary w.e.f. 2-12-94 is legal
and justified?
(iii) If not, what relief the workman is
Workman is not
entitled to?”
entitled to relief
claimed by him.
REASONS
7.
Workman is challenging termination of his services
for violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. IInd party has
denied contentions of workman completing 240 days
service. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. Workman
has stated that he was appointed as helper mason in
Military Dairy Farm on 23-4-88. He was continuously
working till 2-12-94. The services were terminated from
3-12-94 without notice. He had completed 240 days
continuous service. He was not paid retrenchment
compensation. In his cross-examination, workman says
appointment letter was not given to him. Dairy Farm is
managed by Army for supply meal to the Jawans. He was
paid wages on monthly basis. He was engaged by Shri
K.B.Singh on daily wages. He was paid wages for actual
working days. Narayan was working as Mason. He was
engaged as his helper. Helper was appointed to the person
who was liked by Shri Narayan. His father was working in
Dairy Farm. He was working as Assistant to Narayan. He
was collecting cow dung, bathing cows etc. The post was
not advertised. His name was not sponsored through
Employment Exchange.
8.
Management’s witness Shri M.P.Konhar filed
affidavit of his evidence that witness has stated that
provisions of I.D. Act are not applicable to dairy farm run
by military. Dairy Farm is commanded by Farm Officer of
the Indian Army who is designed as Officer incharge of
the establishment of Defence Forces to defend the
territories of the country from external aggregation.
Witness of management has further stated that workman
has not completed 240 days continuous service. Workman
was engaged as helper of mason Narayan. In his cross-
examination, management’s witness says during 1980 to
1997, he was at Dehradun Headquarter. He was working at
Jabalpur. The post of Mason helper is not covered in any
category. The employee of said category is engaged for
petty work. It is denied that workman worked continuously
from 23-4-88 to 2-12-94. IInd party management has
produced copies of muster roll Exhibit M-6,7. Learned
Counsel for IInd party submits that workman was orally
engaged for 8 days in August 1994, 16 days in September
1994. The evidence of management’s witness in Para-10
on above point remained unchallenged. Workman has not
produced any documents to support his contention that
he worked continuously from 1988 to 1994. The
uncorroborated evidence of workman cannot be accepted.
9.
So far as dispute whether establishment of IInd party
is covered as an Industry under Section 2(j) of I.D. Act is
considered, the evidence of both parties shows that
workman was engaged as helper of mason, that he was
collecting cow dung, bathing cows. Management’s witness
has not given details of the activities carried in the Dairy
Farm. However from nomenclature of Dairy Farm, it is clear
that work of defending territories of the country from
external aggregation is not done by the Dairy Farm.
Though Dairy Farm is controlled by Military Authorities,
work carried by Military Farm cannot be considered as
sovereign functions. The evidence on record is not
sufficient to hold that establishment of IInd party is not
5930
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
covered as industry under section 2(j) of I.D.Act. Therefore
I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
10.
IInd party has produced document Exhibits M-1 to
M-5. Circular issued time to time prohibiting engagement
of casual employees and the circulars for regularization of
casual employees. However the terms of reference does
not cover the regularization of service of workman.
Therefore I am not inclined to discuss those documents in
detail. For the reasons discussed above, the award is
passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Officer-In-charge,
Military Dairy Farm, Mandla road, Jabalpur in
terminating the services of Shri Soni Choudhary S/o
Shri Buddhu Choudhary w.e.f. 2-12-94 is legal and
proper.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to relief claimed by him.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2333-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
vflLVsaV bathfu;j] VsyhdkWe (jsyos bysfDVªfiQds'ku izkstsDV)] ch
,l ,l ,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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
CGIT/LC/R/43/05) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 08@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@235@1994&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014
S.O.
2333.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/43/05) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
Cum Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of Assistant Engineer, Telecom (Railway
Electrification Project), BSNL and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 8/8/2014.
[No. L-40012/235/1994-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/43/05
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE
Shri Vinod Gadekar Jain
S/o Shri Suryabhanji Gadekar Jain,
R/o Ganesh Ward,
Near Jain Mandir,
Pandhurna,
Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
... Workman
Versus
Assistant Engineer,
Telecom (Railway Electrification project),
BSNL, Pandhurna,
Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
... Management
AWARD
Passed on this 25th day of July 2014
1.
As per letter dated 25-5-05 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/
235/1994-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of
Assistant Engineer, Telecom Railway Electrification
Project, BSNL Pandhurna, Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
in terminating the services of Shri Vinod Gadekar
Jain w.e.f. 30-5-89 is just and legal? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Pages 2/1 to 2/5. Case of workman is that he was initially
appointed as casual labour on 11-11-1986 by Asstt.
Engineer Telecom Project, BSNL Pandhurna. Thereafter
workman had worked at various places such as pandhurna,
Wadegaon, Marood, Tigaon, Pankha and others. That he
was working uninterruptedly till 31-5-89. His services were
orally terminated. He was not served with notice for
retrenchment. He was not paid retrenchment
compensation. Any reasons were not assigned for his
termination. Workman submits that he completed 240 days
continuous service during each of the year. His services
are terminated in violation of Section 25-F, H of I.D.Act.
He claims to be unemployed and unable to maintain his
family members. On such ground, workman is praying for
reinstatement with back wages.
3.
IInd party filed Written statement at pages 9/1 to
9/3. IInd party submits that the dispute is raised belatedly
without reasons. Therefore the reference deserves to be
dismissed on ground of delay. IInd party admits that
workman was engaged by Asstt. Engineer,(RE Project),
Pandhurna, Distt. Chhindwara. IInd party denies that
workman was continuously working without break. It is
denied that workman completed 240 days continuous
service during each of the year. IInd party has shown
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5931
working days of workman November 86 to October 87- 362
days. November 87 to December 87- absent without
intimation. Jan-88 to Aug-88 162 days, sept.88 to Oct-88
absent without intimation. November 88 to May 89 – 89
days. That IInd party is reiterating that workman had not
referred 240 days uninterrupted service during 12
preceding months before his termination. That
management had complied provisions of I.D. Act. Workman
was not retrenched therefore there was no question of
compliance of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. Workman had left
job of his own. On such ground, IInd party prays for
rejection of claim.
4.
Workman filed rejoinder at Pages 11/1 to 11/2
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
“Whether the action of the manage-
In Negative
ment of Assistant Engineer, Telecom
Railway Electrification Project, BSNL
Pandhurna, Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
in terminating the services of Shri
Vinod Gadekar Jain w.e.f. 30-5-89 is
just and legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
As per
entitled to?”
final order.
REASONS
6.
Workman is challenging termination of his service
for violation of Section 25-F, H of I.D. Act. IInd party denies
termination of workman rather it is contention of IInd party
that workman himself left job and he was not rejected by
IInd party. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence.
Workman has stated that he was initially engaged on daily
wages on 1-11-1986. He was Asstt. Engineer , Telecom
Project Pandhurna. Thereafter he was working at different
places under different supervisors. He completed 240 days
service during each of the year. He was terminated without
notice. From evidence of workman, documents Exhibit
W-4 is proved. IInd party has admitted certain documents.
Exhibits W-1, W-2 is copy of personal record of workman.
Exhibit W-3 is character certificate issued by Jr. Telecom
Officer. Character is reported good. Exhibit W-4 is card
issued in name of workman. Card bears endorsement/
entries about working of workman at different places. The
working days are also shown. As per pleadings of
workman, his services are terminated from 30-5-89. If
working days are carefully considered for the period May
-88 to May 89, 196 working days are found.
7.
Learned counsel for workman Shri N.Salunke relies
on ratio held in case of workmen of American Express
International Banking Corporation versus management of
American Express International Banking Corporation
reported in AIR 1986 SC-458. Their Lordship held Sundays
and other paid holidays can be taken into account while
considering the continuous service. Under Section 25 B
of I.D. Act, paid holidays and Sundays are required to be
counted while considering continuous service of the
employee. If 52 Sundays and holidays are taken into
account, working days of workman comes more than 240
days. The evidence of workman is corroborated by
Document Exhibit W-4. Workman in his evidence in cross-
examination says appointment letter was not given to him.
He was engaged on daily wages. After completion of
project work, the service used to come to end. He denies
that he remained absent without intimating IInd party. He
denies that he not completed 240 days continuous service
during preceding 12 months. His evidence on substantial
points is not shattered in cross-examination.
8.
Management filed affidavit of its witness Shri
D.S.Thakur. management witness has stated that workman
was absent without intimation during November 87 to
December 87. During Jan-88 to Aug-88, workman had
worked for 162 days. From Sept.88 to Oct-88 workman
absent without intimation. From November 88 to May 89
workman worked only for 144 days. Workman had not
completed 240 days continuous service. Management’s
witness in his cross-examination says his affidavit is filed
on the basis of record. Management not produced
documents about working days of workman despite
application for production of document is filed by
workman. The evidence of workman is corroborated by
documents whereas unchallenged evidence of
management’s witness Could hardly be relied without
documents produced on record. The services of workman
are terminated without notice in violation of Section 25-F
of I.D. Act. Therefore, I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Negative.
9.
Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1,
termination of services of workman is legal, question arises
whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement with
back wages. Counsel for workman Shri N.K.Salunke on
the point relies on ratio held in
Case of Ashok Kumar Sharma versus Oberoi flight
Services reported in 2010 (1) SSC 142. Their Lordship
considering workman admitted guilt in writing and so
dismissed from service directed workman to be paid
compensation Rs. 60,000 instead of reinstatement.
Ratio held in the case does not support claim of
reinstatement for workman.
Next reliance is placed in case of Asstt. Engineer,
Rajasthan Development Corporation and another versus
Gitam Singh reported in 2013 (2) SSC (L&S) 369. Their
Lordship dealing with wrongful termination of daily rated
5932
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
worker whether relief of compensation and not
reinstatement be granted. Their Lordship held distinction
should be drawn between daily rated workman and
workman holding regular post and compensation Rs.50,000
was allowed to meet the ends of justice.
Reliance is also placed in ratio held in case of
Secretary State of Karnataka versus Umadevi reported in
2006(4) SCC-1. Their Lordship in Para 46, 47 of the judgment
held dealing with public employment, temporary,
contractual, casual, daily wage or adhoc employees
appointed dehors the constitutional scheme of public
employment on the basis of such work.
The ratio held in the case doesnot support claim for
reinstatement of Ist party workman. Therefore reasonable
compensation would meet the ends of justice. Considering
working period of 3 years, compensation Rs.60,000
appears reasonable. Accordingly, I record my finding in
Point No. 2.
10.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Assistant Engineer,
Telecom Railway Electrification Project, BSNL
Pandhurna, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in terminating
the services of Shri Vinod Gadekar Jain w.e.f. 30-5-89
is not legal and proper.
(2)
IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 60,000
to the workman.
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] 13 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2334-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
iqjLdkj izdkf'kr djrk gS (lanHkZ la[;k 86@2013) phiQ ,XthD;wfVo
viQlj] bÝdks fdlku lapkj fyfeVsM 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 86@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 08@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@77@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014
S.O.
2334.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 86/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of Chief Executive Officer, IFFCO Kisan
Sanchar Limited and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 8/8/2014.
[No. L-42012/77/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 30th July, 2014
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 86/2013
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between
the Management of IFFCO Kisan Sanchar Ltd. and their
workman)
BETWEEN
Sri T. Gnanasekaran
:
1st Party/
Petitioner
AND
The Chief Executive Officer
:
2nd Party/
IFFCO Kisan Sanchar Limited
Respondent
IFFCO House, 1st and 2nd Floors
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019
Appearances :
For the 1st Party/
: M/s C. Venkatesan & Vinod Kumar,
Petitioner
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/
: M/s A. Ilango & K. Sankaran,
Respondent
Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/77/2013-IR(DU)
dated 19.09.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the management of the IFFCO
Ltd. in terminating the services of Sri T.
Gnanasekaran, Territory Coordinator from the
services without an enquiry is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?”
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5933
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 86/2013 and issued notice to both
sides. Both parties appeared through counsels and filed
their claim and counter statement respectively.
3.
The Respondent has raised objection regarding the
maintainability of the case and has argued on the issue.
4.
It has been pointed out that the Respondent is not
an institution for which the Central Government is the
appropriate Government, only in which case this Tribunal
can adjudicate the matter.
5.
The document produced by the Respondent shows
that it is a private limited company incorporated under the
Companies Act. The Articles of Association and
Memorandum of Association of the Respondent are also
produced. These definitely show that the Central
Government is not the appropriate Government in respect
of the Respondent. So this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
deal with the matter. The reference is closed as not
maintainable. Award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 30th July, 2014)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner and Management’s side
-
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2335-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
tujy eSustj VsyhdkWe (th ,e Vh Mh) ch ,l ,u ,y ,.M
vkFklZ 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
270/2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@08@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@124@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014
S.O.
2335.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 270 of
2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the General Manager, Telecom
(GMTD) BSNL & Others and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 8/8/2014.
[No. L-40012/124/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 270 of 2013
Reference No. L-40012/124/2013/IR(DU)dated 18.03.2014
Shri Dharam Pal
son of Shri Hari Ram
and five others Ex-workman,
Village Khandroli,
PO Gumthala Rao,
Yamunanagar Haryana.
.....Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
Telecom ( GMTD) BSNL,
SSA Ambala, Nepier Raod,
Ambala Cantt. ( Haryana).
2.
M/S Vichitra Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
Regd. Office- A1/31, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058.
.....Respondents
Appearances :
For the Workman
:
None.
For the Management
: Sh. Balwinder Singh and
Shri Rakesh Gupta.
AWARD
Passed On : 5.8.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-40012/124/2013/IR (DU) dated 18.03.2014
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
Term of Reference:
“Whether the action of the management of General
Manager, Telecom (GMTD) BSNL, SSA Ambala and
their contractor M/S Vichitra Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
New Delhi over the matter of alleged illegal
termination of Shri Hari Ram and five others services
are legal and justified. If not what relief the workman
is entitled to?”
5934
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Case repeated called. Despite repeated opportunities,
none appeared for the workman nor has any claim statement
been filed. The notice was issued to the workman on the
address provided by the Ministry of Labour mentioned in
the reference. Representatives of the respondents are
present. It appears that the workman is not interested to
pursue the present reference. In view of the above the
present reference is disposed off and answered against
the workman as no claim has been lodged on behalf of the
workman.
3.
Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt.
be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
Chandigarh
5.8.2014
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2336-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
iqjLdkj izdkf'kr djrk gS (lanHkZ la[;k 273@2013) tujy eSustj
,.M vkFklZ] Hkkjr bysDVªkWfuDl fyfeVsM 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1]
paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 273@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14012@42@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014
S.O.
2336.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 273 of
2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the General Manager & Others,
Bharat Electronics Limited and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 8/8/2014.
[No. L-14012/42/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Case No. ID No. 273 of 2013.
Reference No. L-14012/42/2013 (IR(DU)) dated 27.02.2014
Shri Sahdev S/o Shri Ved,
R/o H. No. 946,
Indira Colony,
Sector-17, Panchkula
(Haryana)
.....Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
M/s Bharat Electronics Limited,
405, Industrial Area,
Phase-III, Panchkula (Haryana)
2.
The Chief Managing Director,
M/s Bharat Electronics Limited,
Head Office, Outer Ring Road,
Bangalore.
.....Respondents
Appearances
For the Workman
:
None
For the Management
: Sh. N.K.Zakhmi
AWARD
Passed On : 06.08.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No.L-14012/42/2013/IR (DU) dated 27.02.2014
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
Term of Reference:
“Whether relationship of employer and employee
exists between Sh. Sehdev S/o Sh.Ved and Bharat
Electronics Ltd. Panchkula? If yes, whether action
of the Bharat Electronics Ltd. Panchkula in
terminating the services of Sh.Sahdev w.e.f. 1.4.2013
is legally just and valid? If not, then to what relief
the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
2.
Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already two opportunities have been allowed to
file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of
the above the present reference is disposed off for want
of prosecution.
3.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.
be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
Chandigarh
6.8.2014
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5935
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2337-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Hkkjr
lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] MkYVsuxat 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] /uckn
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 47@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 08@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40011@27@2007&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th August, 2014
S.O.
2337.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 47 of
2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Daltengunj and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 8/8/2014.
[No. L-40011/27/2007-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1) DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)
OF I.D.ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 47 of 2007
Employers in relation to the management of
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Daltengunj
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Sri S.K.P.Sinha, Advocate
For the workman
: Sri D.Mukherjee , Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Telcom
Dated 4/7/2014
AWARD
By Order No.L-40011/27/2007-IR -(DU), dated
20/09/2007, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Dainik Bhogi Mazdoor
Sangh for regularization of services of Shri Sanjeev
Kumar and 109 other workmen, as per Annexure, by
the management of BSNL , Ranchi and Daltenganj
is legal and justified? If Yes, to what relief the
workmen are entitled to and from which date(s) ?”
2.
The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
11.10.2007. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. The sponsoring Union/workman files their written
statement on 19.12.2007 Thereafter the management files
their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 12.09.2008.
Rejoinder and document also filed by both side.
3.
The management examined two witness and marked
document as M-1 to M-10 but the workman examined one
witness and marked one document as W-1 series.
4.
The short point that involved in this case that the
workmen concerned, who were admittedly rendering
services through petty contractors to be regularised in
their respective trade or not.
5.
The management submitted that there is ban to
engage contract labourers and accordingly they are
retrained from engaging them , On the other breath it has
been pleaded and proved that the BSNL is taking contract
workers from petty contactors. It has also been stated by
witness of BSNL that, he can not file petty contractor
certificate, of contractors from whom it is bringing labourer.
6.
On the other hand, the union submitted that they
are continuously rendering service to BSNL . They were
getting less wage then that of regular employees for which,
the labour enforce inspector, inspected and submitted
report .
7.
The case was stated before RLC ( C) who directed
BSNL to deposit differential wage before him. Against that
order a writ was taken by BSNL to High Court single bench,
and that was dismissed. Against that order LPA was taken
to division bench of that court that was also dismissed.
8.
The point before this Tribunal is the pay of the
labourer is protected but the question is whether they will
be regularized or not. The fact is that the Central
Government has not declared, the work , which is performed
by the workmen is prohibitory category or not. In the
absence of that the workman can not be regularized atonce.
9.
Considering the facts and circumstance of this case,
It is ordered, not to remove labourer who are before this
Tribunal supplied by contractors. The BSNL authority is
further asked to take at least 20 to 25 persons form the
workmen in employment according to seniority in a year
and regularized them accordingly within a stipulated period
i.e within 5 years Moreover under no circumstance they
be removed from service.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding officer
5936
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
PALMU, DALTENGANJ
Sl. Name of worker Fathers Name
Permanent Address
Temporary
Date
Description
Work
Work
No.
Address
from
of work
place
Supervisory
work
Officer
begins
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
1
Sudama Pal
Late Prasad Pal
Vill- Rajhara,
Vill—Kauriya,
1.12.1984
Line man
Pol
S.D.E. Group
PO- Dhanjai
PO Sua,
PS- Lesligunj,
PS- Daltengunj
Dist- Palamu,
Jharkhand
2. Santosh Prasad
Ramdhani Saw
Village- Manjjhaudi,
2000
Line Man
Panki
S.D.E. Group
PO- Panki,
Barawadih
PS- Panki,
Dist- Palamu
3. Rajendra Pal
Sri Rajeshwar Pal
Vill- Kouriya,
1998
Line man
Satbarwa
S.D.E. Group
PO- Sua,
Barwadih
PS- Daltengunj,
Palamu,
4. Mandev Oraon
Sri Daroga Oraon
Vill- Ukar PO- Sua,
Vill- Matikhat,
2001
Line man
Belta
S.D.E. group
PS- Daltengunj,
PO-Kumardih,
Barwadih
Palamu.
PS- Marika
5. Ram Chandra
Shiv Ram
Vill- Rengri ,
1998
line man
Lesligunj
S.D.E. group
Ram
PO+P.S Lesligunj,
Barwadih
Palamu,
6. Surendra Uraon
Sri Bandeshwar
Vill- Chukru
-do-
2006
Helper
Daltengunj
S.D.E. group
Oraon
Post-Sua,
Cable
Barwadih
Daltenganj,
Jointer
Palamu.
7. Upendra Giri
Ghura Giri
Vill Pachmo,
-do-
2002
Line Man
Lesliganj
S.D.E. group
Post- Sangbar,
Barwadih
Lesliganj, Palamu.
8. Banarsi Ram
Ganesh Ram
Vill-Pathrahi,
-do-
2003
Helper
Lesliganj
S.D.E. group
Post-Lesliganj,
Barwadih
Palamu
9. Dinesh Ram
Sri Ram Nath Ram Vill- Kouriya
1999
Line man Daltenganj
S.D.E.(P)
PO- Sua,
PS- Daltenganj,
Palamu,
10. Raghbir Ram
Sri Lalji Ram
Vill- Koriya
1996
Lineman
Daltenganj
-do-
Post- Sua,
PS- Daltenganj,
Palamu.
11. Rajdeep Ram
Sri Ramlal Ram
-do-
1999
Line man Daltenganj
-do-
12. Mahendra Ram
Sri Lalji Ram
-do-
-do-
1999
Line man
-do-
S.D.E. Phones
13. Ajay Paswan
Sri Shiv Shankar
Vill.+Post-Rajwadih, -do-
2002
Line man Daltenganj S.D.E. Phones
Manjhi
PS- Daltenganj,
Palamu
14. Ashok Ram
Sudeshwar Ram
Vill- Koriya
-do-
1/2003
Line man
-do-
-do-
Post- Sua
PS-Daltengunj,
Palamu.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5937
15. Arvind Singh
Nandu Singh
Vill- Ratan Bigha,
Haidar Nagar
1.4.2001
Line Man
Haidar
S.D.E.T.
Haidar Nagar,
Nagar,
Daltengunj
16. Vibhash Vishwas
Gopal Vishwash
Vil- Sabdalpur,
-
2000
Line Man
Japla
do
Araghat,
West Bengal
17. Tonu Ram
Sanatan Dom
Daltenganj
2/3 1985
Sweeper
Daltengunj
-do-
18. Ajay Mehta,
Kameshwar Mehta Mohmmadgunj,
2002
Line Man Mohamad gunj
S.D.E.T.
Palamu
19. Ajay kumar
Sri Ram Chandra
Vill- Koriya ,
Vill- Koriya,
January
Line Man
Chainpur
S.D.E.(G)
Mahto
Mahto
Teliabandh,
Teliabandh,
2000
Barwadih.
P.O Sua,
P.O Sua ,
PS- Daltengunj,
PS- Daltengunj,
Palamu.
Palamu.
20. Sunil Kumar
Sri Ganesh Ram
Vill- New Area
Vill- New Area
2002
Line Man
Chainpur
S.D.E.G.
Kandakhor
Kandakhor
Barwadih.
Daltengunj,
Daltengunj,
Palamu
Palamu
21. Arvind Ram
Sri Lala Ram
Vill+ PO- Kankari,
Vill+PO- Kankari,
Feb/
Cable
SDEG
Barwadih,
P.S-Chainpur,
PS-Chainpur,
2002
Jointer
Barwadih.
Palamu
Palamu
helper
22. Rambaneshwar
Sri Nanku Singh
Vill- Ausana,
Vill- Ausana,
2000
Line Man
Bhandar
S.D.E.T.
Singh
Tola- Chholani,
Tola-Chholani,
(Exchange)
PS- Chando,
PS- Chando,
Chainpur, Palamu
Chainpur, Palamu
23. Triloki Ram
Bahadoor Ram
Vill- Basdih,
Vill- Basdih,
1998
Cable Jointer Satbarwa
S.D.E.G.
PO- Basdih,
PO- Basdih,
Barwadih.
PS- Lesligunj,
PS- Lesligunj,
Dist- Palamu,
Dist- Palamu,
24. Bhola Prasad
Sri Krishna Mehta
Vill- Shila Pat,
28/7/02
Cable
D/Gunj.
S.D.E.T.
PO- Mahmood Gunj,
Jointer
Barwadih.
Palamu
25. Kameshwar Ram Sri Somaru Ram
Village- Awsane
1999
Cable
Darwadih,
S.D.E.T.
Post- Chando,
Jointer
Thana- Chainpur,
Palamu
26. Banarsi, Ram
Santokhi Ram
-do-
1996
Cable
Narshingpur
S.D.E.G.
Jointer+
Pathra
Line man
Exchange
27. Ram Asharay
Sri Chattu Ram
Vill- Uchari,
Vill- Uchari,
Jan.
Line Man
-do-
S.D.E.G.
Post- Garhwa,
Post- Garhwa,
2001
PS+Dist- Garwah
PS+Dist-Garwah
28. Umesh Ram
Sri Janglu Ram
Vill- Awsani,
Vill-Awsani,
Feb/
Cable
Telegraph
S.D.E.G.
Post- Chando,
Post- Chando,
1995
Jointer
Section
Thana Chainpur,
Thana Chainpur,
Palamu
Palamu
29. Krishnandan
Late Godani
Vill-Redma,
Vill- Redma,
Dec.
Cable
S.D.E
Daltengunj
Sharma
Sharma
Town No. 2,
Town No. 2,
1998
jointer
Phones
Daltengunj,
Thana-
Dist-Palamu
Daltengunj,
30. Binod Singh
Lt. Hareshwar
Vill+PO- Sua,
Vill+PO-Sua,
Cable
SDE
-do-
Singh,
PS- Daltengunj,
PS- Daltengunj,
jointer
Phones
Palamu
Palamu
31. Ashok Ram
Sidheshwar Mochi
Vill- Koriya
Vill- Koriya
15.2.03
Line Man
-do-
-do-
Post- Sua,
Post- Sua,
PS- Daltengunj,
PS- Daltengunj,
Palamu.
Palamu.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
5938
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
32. Subhash Singh,
Radhika Singh,
Vill-Kichaki,
Vill- Kichaki,
1996
Cable
S. D.E.
PS-Barwadih
PS-Barwadih
Jointer
Phones
Dist-Latehar
Dist-Latehar
33. Ashok Baitha
Ramlal Baitha
Vill-Kitasoti Khurd, Vill-Kitasoti
2003
Cable
S.DE.(P)
PS- + Dist-Garwa
Khurd,
Jointer
Daltengunj
PS- + Dist-Garwa.
helper
34. Binod Ram
Hari Ram
Vill-Post Rajwadih,
Vill-Murma khurd,
1999
Cable
S.D.E.
Dist- Palamu
PO- Idra,
Jointer
Phones
PS- Bishrampur
35. Sarju Ram
Nathuni Ram
-do-
Vill+Po-Rajwardih,
2002
Helper
Daltengunj
S.D.E
Dist- Palamu,
Phones
36. Arjun Ram
Nathuni Ram
-do-
-do-
2000
Cable
Daltanjgunj
S.D.E.
Jointer
Phones
37. Upendra Ram
Nagdish Ram
Vill-Bhimgarha
Vill-Bhimgarha
2002
Helper
S.D.ET
Telegraph
PO-Chainki,
PO-Chainki,
jointer
PS- Daltenganj,
PS- Daltenganj,
Palamu.
Palamu.
38. Kedar Baitha
Laxman Baitha
Vill- Kariya
Vill- Kariya
1998
Cable
S.D.E.
Daltenganj
Post- Sua,
Post- Sua,
Jointer
Phones.
PS- Daltenganj,
PS- Daltenganj,
Palamu
Palamu
39. Dhan Lal
Ltd. Ramjit Singh
Vill- Inrukhi
Bijay Mehata
5/7/98
Cable
S.D.E.
-do-
PO- Sewtha,
Aaghore
Jointer
Phones
PS- Sahar,
Aashram Road
Dist-Arra, Bihar.
Sudna
40. Sanjay Kumar
Sri Wakil Singh
Vill- Muren,
-do-
5/42009
-do-
S.D.E.
-do-
Singh
Post- Barhi,
Phones
Thana- Jagdishpur,
Aarha,Bihar.
41. Kamlesh Kr.
Sri Laxman Singh
Vill- Jumraji Tola,
Telephone Colony
2/3/01
Cable
S.D.E.
-do-
Singh
PO Baulipur,
Motihari
Jointer
Phones
PS- Jagdishpur,
Police Line A/7
Arha, Bihar.
42. Binay Kumar
Sri Kedar Baitha.
Vill- Kouriya,
Vill- Kouriya,
5/4/03
Cable
S.D.E.
-do-
Baitha
PO-Sua,
PO-Sua,
Jointer
Phones
PS- Daltenganj,
PS-Daltenganj,
Palamu.
Palamu.
43. Abhay Kumar
Late Bhikhu Ram
Vill- Bakoia,
Vill- Bakoia,
25.1.99
Cable
S.D.E.
-do-
Niranjan
Post Palpol,
Post Palpol,
Jointer
Phones.
PS- Daltenganj,
PS- Daltenganj,
Dist-Palamu
Dist-Palamu
44. Radha Krishana
Sri Kuldip Mahto
Vill-+P.O Garikhas,
Vill-+P.O Garikhas,
2.8.02
Cable
Daltanganj
S.D.E
Mahto
PS- Patan,
PS- Patan,
Jointer
Phones
Dist- Palamu
Dist- Palamu
45. Tepeshwar
Lt. Bhublal Manjhi Vill+Post- Rajwadih, Vill+Post- Rajwadih,
5.10.03
Cable
-do-
-do-
Manjhi
PS- Daltenganj,
PS- Daltenganj,
Jointer
Dist Palamu
Dist- Palamu
46. August Kumar
Ram Ch. Ram
-do-
-do-
2.2.2002
Cable
-do-
-do-
Jointer
47. Vijay Kumar
Ram Chhotan Ram Vill-Jolharan
28.8.1998
Driver
-do-
-do-
Daltenganj,
48. Mithlesh Kr.
Sri Ram Badan
Vill- Bhidri,
20.7.98
Cable
-do-
-do-
Singh
Singh,
PO-Indri,
Joiner
PS Jagdishpur,
Arrah Bihar.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5939
49. Kamleshwar
Lt. Johan Tigga
Vill+po-Rajdandwa,
S.P. Kothi
1.6.2002
Cable
-do-
SDE Phones
Tigga
Mahuatand,
Daltengunj
Joiner
Dist- Latehar,
50. Anu Ram
Lt. Nanku Ram
Vill- Hamid Ganj,
Hamidgunj
5.4.2001
Cable
-do-
SDE Phones
PO- D./Ganj,
Daltengunj
Joiner
Dist- Palamu
51. Janeshwar
Sri Sohan Baitha
Vill- Kouria,
Kouria
10.4.2003
Cable
-do-
SDE Indoor
Baitha
Post – Sua,
Joiner
PS- Daltenganj,
Dist- Palamu,
52. Birendra Giri
Ghura Giri
Vill- Pachmo,
2002
MDF Incharge
-do-
SDE Phones
PO Sanghbad,
PS- Lesliganj,
Dist- Palamu,
53. Sanjeev Kumar
Jupteshwar Pd.
Hospital Road,
Daltengunj
2/2000
Clerk
TDM (O)
TDM Office
Hamidganj,
Daltanjganj
Daltenganj,
54. Gopal Kumar
Jagdish Prasad.
Dipuban Garwah.
2000
Computer Daltanjganj
TDM Office
operator
55. Pradip Pal
Ram N. Pal
Sudna Daltenganj,
2005
do
Daltanjganj
TDM Office
56. Raghunandan
Kariman Singh
Kejki, Saraithi
2002
Helper
Daltanjganj
SDE Phones
Singh
Pokhari,
PS- Barwadih,
Latehar,
58. Basant Kumar
Sudama Ram
Hamid Ganj,
2001
Generator Daltanjganj
TRA
D/Ganj, Dist
Operator
Palamu.
59. Rajiv Kumar
Ram Narayan
Vill post- Patel
Vill Post-Patel
10.4.1998
TRS
TRA
A.O.
Singh
Singh
Nagar, Sudna,
Nagar, Sudna,
Section
Office
D/Ganj.
D/Ganj.
60. Manoj Kr. Gupta Sri Shivshankar
Vill Post- Patel
24.3.2000 C. Operator
TRA
A.O.
Pd. Gupta
Nagar, Sudna,
Office
D/Ganj.
61. Ajay Kr. Sinah
Sri Braj Kishore Pd. Rirma Ranchi Road,
2/7/2000
do
TRA Office
A.O.
62. Amrendra Kr.
Sri Ram Ch.
Rerma D./Ganj
5/11/2002
do
TRA Office
A.O.
Sinha
Pd. Sinha
63. Laxmi Kumari
Sri Gori Shankar
New Area
6/8/1998
do
TRA Office
A.O.
Sharma
Sharma
Hamidganj, Medni
Nagar, Palamu
64. Ravi Ranjan Kr.
Shyam Bihari
Vill Post Sudna
18/12/01
do
TRA Office
A.O.
Singh
D/Ganj, Palamu
65. Sanjay Kumar
Sri Sukhlal Rajak
Nai Mohalla,
20/1/02
do
TRA Office
A.O.
Rajak
D/Ganj, Palamu.
66. Vinay Kr. Sinha
Krishna Pd
Abadganj,D/Ganj.,
21/2/97
MDF
TRA Office
SDE Indoor
Srivastava
67. Murlidhar
Kali Pandey
Daltenganj,
2003
C. Operator
Main
SDE Indoor
Pandey
exchange
68. Raj Kumar
Shyam Saw
Vill Post- Saltua,
1/7/2000
Peon
D/Ganj
SDE Indoor
PS- Chainpur,
Palamu.
69. Basanti Devi
Baijnath Mochi
Vill-Bapoia,
2000
Sweeper
Indoor
SDE Indoor
Post – Polpol,
PS-D/Ganj,
Palamu.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
5940
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
70. Raghunandan
Rekha Ch. Ganju
Balumath, Latehar,
11/4/2002
C. Jointer
Latehar
SDE Indoor
Ganju
71. Suresh Kumar
Arjun Ganju
Balumath, Latehar
15/5/1998
Line man
Latehar
SDE Indoor
72. Ashok Kumar
Ram Pd. Lohra
Balumath, Latehar
10/10/2000 G. Operator
Balumar
SDE Indoor
73. Pankaj Kumar
Suresh Ram
Balumath, Latehar
10/10/2000
C/ Jointer
Chandwa.
SDE Latehar
74. Manoj Kumar
Nandu Singh
Village- Ratan bigha,
10/2/2004
G/Operator
SD
Latehar
Po- Haider Nagar,
Latehar
Palamu
75. Baijnath Singh
Satya Nr. Singh
Village- Ratan bigha,
1.3.2001
Clerk
SD
Latehar
Po- Haider Nagar,
Latehar
Palamu
76. Anil Kumar
Lt. Purna Nand
Vill- Deokuli,
1.2.2000
I.Operator
SD
Latehar
Sinha
Sinha
PO- Sahokarma,
Latehar
Via- Rafiganj,
Dist Aurgabad,
PS Kasma, Bihar.
77. Chandradeo Ram Lal Dhari Ram
Villa- Kutmu,
1.2.2004
C/J. Helper
SD
Latehar
Po- Manika,
Latehar
Latehar
78. Santosh Singh
Radhika Singh
Vill- Kejki,
1.3.98
C.Jointer
SD
Latehar
PS- Barwadih,
Latehar
Dist- Latehar
79. Babu Lal Oraon
Jageshwar Oraon.
Vill- Jer,
5.2.99
Line man
SD
Latehar
PO- Ledpa,
Latehar
Dist- Latehar,
80. Mukesh Giri
Rajendra Giri
Vill- Kedar,
2.2.03
Line man
SD
Latehar
Post- Manatu,
Latehar
Dist Palamu
81. Bhuwan Patra
Mangru Patra
Vill- Sarik,
10/2004
AC operator
SD
Latehar
Majholi Orissa
Latehar
82. Arvind Singh
Salik Singh
Vill- Bishunpur,
5/1/2002
Line man
SD
Latehar
PO- Nagar Utari,
Latehar
Dist- Garhwa
83. Rameshwar Oran Jaga Oraon
Vill- Itmu,
3./3.2002
Line man
SD
Latehar
Chandwa, Latehar
Latehar
84. Binod Mahato
Ganuri Mahto
Vill- Koria,
2000
G. Opeartor
SD
Latehar
Po- Sua PS- D/Ganj,
Latehar
Dist- Palamu
85. Ganauri Mahato
Durga Mahto
Vill- Koria,
2000
Do
SD
Latehar
Po- Sua PS- D/Ganj,
Latehar
Dist- Palamu
86. Ashish Kumar
Kauleshwar
BALUMATH.
2000
do
SD
Latehar
Sinha
Pd. Singh
Latehar
87. Mukesh Kr. Ram Lal Mohan Ram
Uchri, Near Harijan
2/2/1999
Cashier
SDE Group
Garhwa
Hospital, Niskarma,
Targhar
Garhwa
Garhwa.
88. Manoj Kr. Ram
Bal Krishna Ram
Sukhbana, Nawada,
2.10.2003
G. Opeator
do
Garhwa
Dist- Garhwa,
89. Nanku Ram
Phaguni Ram
Moh- Ghaghari,
1.5.1993
Line man
do
Garhwa
Chandravanshi
Chandravanshi
PO- Bairia,
PS- Dhawaldih,
Garhwa.
90. Ram Ch. Baitha
Badri Baitha
Vill- Sonbarsa,
5.7.98
Line man
SDE
Garhwa
PO- Pachdumari,
Group
PS- Bhavnathpur,
Garhwa
Garhwa.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5941
91. Rajesh Kr.
Munga Mahto
Vill Sihpur,
1.5.2001
Line man
SDE
Garhwa
Mehta
PO- Adhora,
Group
PS- Nagar Utari,
Garhwa
Garhwa
92. Babu Lal Ram
Mahendra Ram
Vill Sihpur,
13.3.2001
Line man
SDE
Latehar
PO- Adhora,
Group
PS- Nagar Utari,
Garhwa
Garhwa
93. Sarvan Mehta
Doman Mehta
Rankaraj, Garhwa,
10.3.2002
Line man
-do-
Garhwa
Nagar Utari,
Dist- Garhwa,
94. Pradip Ram
Ganesh Ram
Rankaraj, Garhwa,
2003
Line man
-do-
Garhwa
Nagar Utari,
Dist- Garhwa
95. Baleshwar Ram
Arjun Ram
Vill- Ursula,
1.1.85
Line man
-do-
Rehala
Ravi
PO- Dewaria, Rehala,
Dist Palamu,
96. Basant Kumar
Moti Ram
Vill+post- Rehala,
1985
Line man
-do-
Rehala
Dist- Palamu,
97. Ashok Kr. Ravi
Hira Ram
Vill+post- Rehala,
1/2003
Line man
-do-
Meral
Dist- Palamu,
98. Ajay Ram
Kawal Ram
Vill Ramna, Nagar,
2000
Line man
-do-
Ramna
Utari, Garhwa.
99. Vivek Kr.
Nand Kishor
Vill- Sihpur,
2002
Line man
-do-
Nagar utari
Thakur
Thakur
PO- Adhora,
Nagar Utari,
Dist- Garhwa
100. Rajesh Kr.
Lallu Ram
Vill- Sihpur,
2002
Line man
-do-
do
PO- Adhora,
Nagar Utari,
Dist- Garhwa
101. Binod Ram
Hari Ram
Navi Nagar,
2001
Line man
-do-
Morwe
Aurangabad
102. Ram Kesh Ram
Mundrika Ram
Majgaon,
2003
Line man
-do-
Monjholi
Dist- Garhwa
103. Ganesh Pd.
Bishnath Singh.
Sahpurpatori,
1998
C/ Jointer
-do-
Garhwa
Singh
Arrah, Bhojpur.
104. Ishwari Singh
Sri Shiv Pd. Singh.
Garhwa.
2000
Clerk
-do-
Garhwa
105. Manoj Ram
Keshwar Ram
Dhurki,
2000
Line man
-do-
Morwe
106. Dilip Kr. Singh
Kamta Pd. Singh
Jokhanmoh, D/Ganj
2003
Clerk
-do-
Daltenganj
107. Jamadhar
Mahavir
Kaliband Arah
13.3.1998
Technician
Barwadih
Daltenganj
Choudhary
Choudhary
108. Raj Nandan Ram Gokul Ram
Daltenganj
1992
Clerk
SDET
Daltenganj
D/Ganj
109. Dhirendra kr.
Ram Lal Ram
Housing colony
1.6.2006
Clerk
do
Daltenganj
D./Ganj
110. Sanjeev Kr.
Ram Nr. Singh.
Sudna Daltenganj.
2003
Peon.
SDEP D/Ganj.
Daltenganj
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
5942
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2338-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947
(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-
lh-,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 8 /
2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@08@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@195@2003&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th August, 2014
S.O.
2338.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 8/2004)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
20/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/195/2003-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)
OF I.D.ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 8 of 2004
Employers in relation to the management of
Sijua.Area of M/s. B.C.C.L.
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer
Appearances :
For the Employers
: Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman
: Sri P.M.Prasad, Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal.
Dated 23/5/2014
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/195/2003-IR (C-I), dated.24/
12/2003, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Bihar Janta Khan Mazdoor
Sangh for immediate regularisation of Sri Parasnath
Pandey after successful completion of one years’s
Driver (Trainee) from BCCL is proper and justified?
If so, to what relief the workman is entitled ?”
2.
This case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 02.01.2004. After receipt of the reference, the
Sponsoring Union files their Written statement on
08.02.2005 and the management also files the written
statement on 29.07.2005. Thereafter rejoinder and
document filed by the parties. The workman examined
himself as witness.
3.
The short point involved in this case is that the
workman after successful completion of one year training,
the workman will be regularised as Driver or not.
4.
The workman was working as Trammer and he under
went on training of driver. After completion of training
and after successful test as such he has been posted as
Driver category V which appears from the documents
filed in this case.
5.
The workman has himself admitted the said facts in
his cross-examination of WW-1 . that “I was promoted in
1999 as Driver Cat.V” . That he was also said that he called
for trial test on 12.11.98. after passing trial test, he was
given the post of Driver Cat.V in 1999.
6.
Since the workman has already been regularised as
Driver category V the present reference is not maintainable.
7.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
I hold that the demand of Bihar Janta Khan Mazdoor
Sangh for immediate regularisation of Sri Parasnath Pandey
after successful completion of one years Driver (Trainee)
from BCCL is not proper and justified, Hence he is not
entitled to get any relief.
This is my award
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2339-—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; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 64@1992) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@08@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@266@1991&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5943
New Delhi, the 20th August, 2014
S.O.
2339.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/1992)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. ECL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
20/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/266/1991-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD.
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Ref. No.64 of 1992
Employer in relation to the management of
Gopinathpur Colliery , M/S ECL,
AND
Their workmen.
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers
: Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman
: None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal.
Dated 20/06 /2014
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/266/1991-IR (C-I), dated.
29/07/1992, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar
Union for regularisation of S/Shri Churamoni Mahato
and two others as water carrier in category –I by the
management of the Gopinathpur colliery is justified?
If yes, to what relief the workman concerned are
entitled ?” A list of workmen is enclosed.
ANNEXURE
List of workmen
Gopinathpur Colliery (Water Carrier)
1.
Churaman Mahto S/O Khiro Mahto, Vill-+P.O
Khurgio, Dist- Giridih
2.
Harihar Mahto S/O Gonki Mahto, Vill- Dharampur
P.O- Duar Rahari , Dist- Giridih
3.
Atwari Mahto S/O- Sukar Mahto Vill+P.O- Balia, Dist-
Giridih
2.
After receipt of the reference, parties are noticed,
Though they took steps for certain dates, subsequently
did not appears nor take any interest in the case. It is
presumed that the disputes between parties have been
resolved in the meantime, Hence No Dispute Award is
passed.
This is my award
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk-
2340-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947
(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj 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; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
217@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
20@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@357@2001&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th August, 2014
S.O.
2340.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 217/
2001) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. CCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
20/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/357/2001-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)
OF I.D. ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 217 of 2001
Employers in relation to the management of
Kathara Colliery of M/S. C.C.L.
AND
Their workmen.
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer
5944
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances:
For the Employers.
: Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman.
: Sri D.Mukherjee, Rep.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal.
Dated : 22/5//2014
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/357/2001-IR (C-I), dated
24/09/2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the BCKU from the
management of Kathara Colliery of M/S C.C. Ltd for
promotion to Shri K.S.Yadav workman is justified?
If so, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled
and from what date?”
2.
This case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 01.11.2001. After receipt of the reference, the
Sponsoring Union files their Written statement on
13.09.2002 and the management also files the written
statement on 05.05.2003. Thereafter rejoinder filed by the
Union. The workman himself examined as witness.
3.
The Short point involved in the reference is whether
the workman is entitled to promotion. If is the case of
workman that he is an union leader for which he was
dismissed illegally and he got back his job on the basis of
award of CGIT—2.
4.
The matter was also challenged in High Court and
on the basis of High Court judgment , the workman was
reinstated and got his wages.
5.
But It is strange that the workman who is a union
leader, has concealed the High Court order as well as
settlement arrived between Union and management out
side the court.
6.
Moreover the promotion is not a matter of right and
it is given on the basis of C.R. and work experience. When
it has not been proved that illegally the promotion of the
workman has been stopped, this Tribunal will not disturb
the decision of the management.
7.
Considering the facts and circumstance of this case,
I hold that the demand of the BCKU from the management
of Kathara Colliery of M/s. C.C. Ltd for promotion to Shri
K.S.Yadav workman is not fair. Hence he is not entitled to
get any relief.
This is my award
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk-
2341-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947
(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-
lh-,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
241@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
20@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@379@2001&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th August, 2014
S.O.
2341.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 241/2001)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
20/08/2014
[No. L-20012/379/2001-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD.
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)
OF I.D.ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 241 of 2001
Employers in relation to the management of
P.B.Area of M/S. B.C.C.L.
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer
Appearances:
For the Employers.
: Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman.
: Sri U.P. Sinha, Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 9/5/2014
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/379/2001-IR(C-I), dated -07/
11/.2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5945
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Union to provide
employment on compassionate ground to Sri Durga
Bhuiya dependent son of late Baljeet Bhuiya, Ex-
Dresser as per the provision 9.4.2 of NCWA is proper
and justified ? If so, to what relief is the said
dependent entitled ?”
2.
The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
27.11.2001. After notice both parties appeared, the
Sponsoring Union files their written statement on
06.06.2002. Thereafter the management files their written
statement-cum- rejoinder on 29.10.2002.
3.
The short point to be decided In this case is that the
applicant who has requested the management to take him
employment after the death of his father at a belated stage,
will be given employment or not.
4.
After the death of the father of the applicant the
management asked her mother vide W-1 to furnish certain
documents i.e information of Date of Birth etc. After getting
the same the applicant applied for job in the year 1998,
though his father died in the year 1991. The management
refused employment on the ground of belated claim.
5.
Getting documents from state Government is not an
easy matter. The case where the earning member died in a
job, is harness, his heir is to get job and he has to apply
promptly
6.
Though in this case it has not been done. The
management to do well to give employment to the workman
after observing all formality. The case should be taken up
liberally as the applicant’s father rendered services to the
management .
7.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
I hold that the demand of Union to provide employment
on compassionate ground to Sri Durga Bhuiya dependent
son of late Baljeet Bhuiya, Ex- Dresser as per the provision
9.4.2 of NCWA is proper. The management to give him job
as per rules within 3 months from the date of publication
of the award and the same fact be intimated to the
undersigned for reference.
This is my Award
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2342-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
242@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
20@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@380@2001&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th August, 2014
S.O.
2342.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 242/2001)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
20/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/380/2001-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)
OF I.D.ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 242 of 2001
Employers in relation to the management of
P.B.Area of M/S. B.C.C.L.
AND
Their workmen.
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers.
: Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman.
: Sri N.G.Arun, Rep.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal.
Dated : 21/5/2014
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/380/2001-IR (C-I), dated
07/11/2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Union to provide
employment on compassionate ground to Sri Ramjee
Gupta dependent son of Late Baijnath Gupta Ex-
Tyndel as per the provision of NCWA is proper and
justified? If so, to what relief is the said dependent
entitled ?”
2.
This case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 27.11.2001. After receipt of the reference, the
Sponsoring Union files their Written statement on
14.03.2002 and the management also files the written
statement on 1.10.2002 . Thereafter rejoinder and document
filed by the parties. The workman examined two witness.
5946
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
The Short point involved in this case is whether
Ramjee Gupta Who claims to be the son of the deceased
workman Baijnath Gupta be given employment on
compassionate ground .
4.
In this case before the management a lady Radhe
Devi claiming to be wife of Late Baijnath Gupta claimed
for job. Ramjee Gupta objected the same , raised the dispute
that his father had 3 wives and one among them Radhe
Devi applied for job and after getting the job she would
marry elsewhere. This being the situation the management
could not provide job to any one. In this case management
should not have been blamed. Unless a clear case is
brought before this Tribunal.
5.
The management files many document and marked
. As per M-2 there was an agreement between Radhe Devi
and Sri Ramjee Gupta, in which Smt Radhe Devi claims for
service and second party Sri Ramjee Gupta received entire
amounts as P.F, Gratuity etc.
6.
Thereafter Smt Radhe Devi and Sri Ramjee Gupta
files affidavit before notary, Dhanbad. In the affidavit of
Sri Ramjee Gupta Ext- M-1 said that I have no objection if
my said mother be provided an employment under BCCL
in place of my late father and I shall not raised my claim for
same. But now Sri Gupta claims for service.
7.
Considering the facts and circumstance of this case,
I hold that the demand of the Union to provide employment
on compassionate ground to Sri Ramjee Gupta dependent
son of Late Baijnath Gupta Ex-Tyndel as per the provision
of NCWA is not proper. Therefore his claim is rejected,
Hence he is not entitled to get any relief .
This is my award
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2343-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 182
of 2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@08@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@185@2001&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th August, 2014
S.O.
2343.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.
182/2001) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 20/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/185/2001-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD.
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)
OF I.D.ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 182 of 2001
Employers in relation to the management of
Kustore Area of M/S. B.C.C.L.
AND
Their workmen.
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer
Appearances:
For the Employers.
: Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman.
: Sri K.N. Singh, Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal.
Dated. 26/5/2014
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/185/2001-IR (C-I), dated
10/08/2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of BCCL
kustore Area, in dismissing Sh. Anil Bouri miner
loader from services w.e.f. 02.09.98 is justified ,
legal & fair? If not, to what relief is the workman
entitled ? ‘’
2. This case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
10.09.2001. After receipt of the reference, The Sponsoring
Union files their Written statement on 03.12.2001 and the
management also files the written statement on 06.05.2002.
Thereafter rejoinder and document filed by the parties.
3.
The short point involved in this case is that the
workman while in job fell ill seriously and was treated in
hospital and his condition was also known to the
management.
4.
The workman who was working then as miner loader
requested the management to give him lighter work so
that he can continue in his job, which was not heeded by
the management and the workman raised an I.D case.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5947
5.
Ultimately management dismissed the sick workman.
While the dispute is pending, he died and his legal
representative have been substituted.
6.
During hearing it is held that the dismissal of the
workman is unjustified. He be reinstated without back
wages. Since the workman has died in stead of
compassionate employment to any of his heir , his family
be given monetary compensation as per norms.
This is my award
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2344-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
210@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
22@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@345@2001&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2014
S.O.
2344.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No. 210/
2001) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
22/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/345/2001-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
Reference : No. 210 of 2001
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D.Act. 1947.
Parties: Employer in relation to the management of
Sijua Area M/s BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : SRI R.K.SARAN, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers
: Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman.
: None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 16/6/2014
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/345/ 2001 /IR (C-I) dated
21/09/2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of BCCL , Sijua Area in
not regularization of Shri Mithu Das as Hindi Typist
is justified? If not to what relief is the concerned
workman entitled and from what date?”
2.
After receipt of the reference both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates, none taking any
stap subsequently. Case remain pending . It is felt that
the disputes between the parties have been resolved in
the meantime. Hence pass a No disputed Award.
Communicate to the Ministry.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2345-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 46
of 2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@08@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@203@2005&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2014
S.O.
2345.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2006)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
22/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/203/2005-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
Reference: No. 46 of 2006
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
5948
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Parties: Employer in relation to the management of
Block II Area M/s BCCL
AND
Their workmen.
Present : SRI R.K.SARAN, Presiding Officer.
Appearances :
For the Employers
: Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman
: None.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 17/6/ 2014
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/203/ 2005 /IR (C-I) dated
01/06/2006, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Colliery
Mazdoor Sangh from the management of BCCL
Block II Area to regularize Shri Ajit Kumar Pandey
as leave clerk is fair and justified? If not ,so, to what
relief is the workman entitled and from what date?”
2.
After receipt of the reference both parties are
noticed. Both parties are appearing , Ld counsel of the
union submits that this case has already been settled. It
is felt that the disputes between the parties have been
resolved in the meantime. Hence pass a No disputed Award.
Communicate to the Ministry.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2346-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
94@ 2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@08@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@426@1999&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2014
S.O.
2346.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 94/2000)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
22/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/426/1999-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD.
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)
OF I.D.ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 94/2000
Employers in relation to the management of
Katrash Area M/S BCCL
And
Their Workman
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer
Appearances:
For the Employers.
: Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman.
: Sri D.Mukherjeei, Rep.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal.
Dated. 17/6/2014
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/426/1999-IR (C-I), dated
02/02/2000, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of BCCL in
dismissing the services of Shri Shatrughan Prasad
Baishnow of Keshlapur Colliery w.e.f. 11/12. 6.96 is
justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman
is entitled to?”
2.
The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
23.02.2000. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. The sponsoring Union files their written statement
on 12.11.2001.Thereafter the management files their written
statement-cum-rejoinder on 03.07.2002. Rejoinder and
document also filed by the parties .
3.
The point involved in the reference is that the
workman has been dismissed from his services from
Keshalpur Colliery w.e.f 12.6.96 for unauthorized absence
from Jan. 1996.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5949
4.
During preliminary hearing it is revealed that the
case is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty.
He has already out of service for 18 years. It is felt to give
another chance to the workman to serve.
5.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
I hold that Shri Shatrughan Prasad Bishnow concerned
workman- be reinstated in the service without back wages.
And his pay be fixed on initial starting of his category,
after his joining.
This is my award
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2347-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
60@1992) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@08@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@215@1991&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2014
S.O.
2347.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/1992)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
22/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/215/1991-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD.
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D.Act. 1947
Ref. No.60 of 1992
Employer in relation to the management of Salanpur
Colliery , M/S BCCL,
AND
Their workmen.
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers
: None
For the workman
: None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal.
Dated : 23/6/2014
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/215/1991-IR (C-I), dated
05/08/1992, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Salanpur
Colliery of M/S BCCL in dismissing the service of
S/Shri Sarju Munda and Nagina Munda w.e.f.
03.08.90 is justified ? If not, to what relief the
workman are entitled?”
2.
After receipt of the reference the parties are noticed,
Though they took steps for certain dates, subsequently
did not appears nor take any interest in the case. It is
presumed that the disputes between parties have been
resolved in the meantime, Hence No Dispute Award is
passed.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2348-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947
(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-
lh-,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 43
of 2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@@08@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@78@2008&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2014
S.O.
2348.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2008)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
22/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/78/2008-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)
OF I.D.ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 43 of 2008
5950
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Employers in relation to the management of
Lodna Area of M/S. B.C.C.L.
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer
Appearances:
For the Employers.
: Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman.
: Sri P.M.Prasad, Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal.
Dated : 5/6//2014
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/78/2008-IR (CM-I), dated
23/09/2008, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“(i) Whether the action of the management of
joyrampur Colliery of M/S BCCL in not providing
dependent employment to Shri Santosh Singh S/o
Late Janak Deo Singh, Surface Trammer under the
provision of NCWA is justified and legal? (ii) To
what relief is the dependant son of the concerned
workman entitled?”
2.
This case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 01.10.2008. After receipt of the reference, The
Sponsoring Union files their Written statement on
26.02.2009 and the management also files the written
statement on 13.05.2011. Thereafter rejoinder and
document filed by the parties. The workman and the
management examined one evidence each.
3.
The short point involved in this case as to whether
the applicant is entitled to compassionate employment.
Admittedly the applicant’s father died while in job under
the management.
4.
Her widow applied for compassionate appointment,
she was referred for medical board and her age assessed
as 44 as per Ext M-3. But she was not given job but asked
to received monetary compensation.
5.
According to MW-1, the widow received the
monetary compensation. So also the applicant WW-1
stated in his evidence that her mother received monetary
compensation.
6.
If the monetary benefit in lieu of job already
received by the mother of the complainant, the applicant
has no case.
7.
Therefore it is ordered, if monetary compensation
already received by the widow , the claim of the applicant
for job will be refused. If no monetary compensation in
lieu of job received by the widow , the applicant be given
job within the 3 months from the date of publication of
this award . Action of the management be communicated
to the undersigned for reference.
This is my award
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2349-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZLdks 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- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 44@2010) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@08@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@288@2003&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2014
S.O.
2349.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/2010)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. IISCO, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
22/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/288/2003-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)
OF I.D. ACT, 1947
Ref. No. 44 of 2010
Employers in relation to the management of M/S
IISCO Ltd.
AND
Their workmen.
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer
Appearances:
For the Employers. : Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman. : Sri P.N.Singh, Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5951
Dated 16/6/2014
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/288/2003-IR (CM-I), dated
26/04/2004, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Chasnalla
Colliery of M/S IISCO Ltd., in providing employment
to Smt. Sindhu Sinha under 9.4.2. if NCWA –III vide
latter dated 22/24.8.98 after 14 years of the death of
workman and that too on casual basis for 89 days
only and terminating his services vide order dated
28.9.98 on the ground that another claiment Sri
Sanjay Kumar Sinha filed a suit in the Court against
the management and the said workman, is justified?
If not, to what relief is the concerned workman
entitled?”
2.
The case is received from the Ministry of Labour by
the CGIT NO.II, After receipt of reference, workman files
their written statement on 07.06.2004 before the CGIT NO.II,
The management files their written statement -cum-
rejoinder on 25.10.2004. And thereafter the workman files
their rejoinder & document and examined himself as
witness.
3.
As per Ministry’s latter No. L-20012/288/2003 IR (C-
I) dated 17/9/2010 the case is received on transfer from
CGIT No.II to this Tribunal and evidence of the concerned
workman is taken as WW-I .
4.
The short fact of the case is that after the death of
the concerned workman, the management gave
compassionate employment to Arbind Kumar Sinha into
job but Arbind Kumar Sinha also died for which his widow
Sindhu Sinha applied for job and got conditional
employment for 89 days .
5.
But in the meantime, Sri Sanjay Kumar, son of the
deceased filed T.S No. 79/99 against the management and
to get job in place of his father.
6.
The management to avoid controversy cancelled
the conditional appointment of Smt Sindhu Sinha after 89
days. After the finalization of the suit the management,
while found there is no controversy gave appointment to
Sindhu Sinha. During the pendency of the suit there was
gap of 7 years. During which Sindhu Sinha was out of
employment and she is claiming back wages and continuity
of service.
7.
In the Opinion of the Tribunal, the management has
no fault for litigation but he was unnecessarily dragged
into litigation. Before and after civil litigation the
management provided job to Sindhu Sinha. Though in her
affidavit the claimant has claimed for back wages, it has
not been stated that during that period she was out of
employment and she has not gainfully employed.
8.
The management also has not illegally removed
Sindhu Sinha, Since her prior service was conditional and
was restricted to 89 days.
9.
Considering the facts and circumstance of this case,
I hold that, Since her prior service was conditional and
was restricted to 89 days . Sindhu Sinha is not entitled to
back wages or continuity of service . Accordingly she is
not entitled to get any relief.
This is my award
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2350-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj 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; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 61@1992) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@08@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@269@1991&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2014
S.O.
2350.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 61/1992)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. CCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
22/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/269/1991-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Ref. No. 61of 1992
Employer in relation to the management of
Pindra Colliery , M/s. CCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
5952
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances :
For the Employers
: None
For the workman
: None
State : Jharkhand
Industry :-Coal.
Dated : 23/06/2014
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/269/1991-IR (C-I), dated.29/
07/1992, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Pindra
Colliery of CCL, P.O-Pindra,Distt- Hazaribagh. The
dismissing of Sri Triveni Manjhi an Ex-PRW is
justified? If not , to what relief Shri Triveni Manjhi is
entitled to?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, parties are noticed,
Though they took steps for certain dates, The management
examined one evidence and marked document M-1 to M-
3. subsequently the workman did not appears nor take
any interest in the case. It is presumed that the disputes
between parties have been resolved in the meantime, Hence
No Dispute Award is passed.
This is my award
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2351-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
30@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@08@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@2@2010&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2014
S.O.
2351.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2010)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
22/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/2/2010-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)
OF I.D.ACT, 1947
Ref. No. 30 of 2010
Employers in relation to the management of
Kusunda Area M/S B C.C.L.
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Sri U.N.Lall , Advocate
For the workman
: Sri H.P.Gond, Rep.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 10/6/2014
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/02/2010-IR -(CM-I), dated
17-03-2010, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“(i)Whether the action of the management of Godhur
Colliery under Kusunda Area of M/S BCCL in
superannuating Smt Parwa Kamin M/Loader from
the service of the company w.e.f. 01.04.2006 is
justified and legal ? ii) To what relief is the workman
concerned entitled?”
2.
The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
30.10.2010. After receipt of reference , both parties are
noticed, the Sponsoring Union files their written statement
on 01.06.2010. And the management files their written
statement -cum-rejoinder on 10.02.2012.
3.
The short point involved in the case is the
concerned workman in this case is illegally terminated by
the BCCL management prematurely on 01.04.2006 .
4.
Her case is a scheme started for female VRS, so that
their child can be taken into job. According to the scheme,
she applied for VRS and her son also applied for job. But
her VRS was not accepted on wrong notion and her son
was not given job. She approached the High Court. High
Court directed to approach CGIT. She came then on a
reference .
5.
Her claim is on Form “B” Register. Her Date of Birth
was 21 years as on 26.06.1983 as filed . Management
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5953
counsel submits that it is tampered and she was 31 years
by then. But the management could not prove that fact.
But from the medical board age determination, it is seen
that she was 25 years . Had she was 25 years in the years
1983. So she will be 60 years of age in the year 2018
Therefore her superannuation on 01.04.2006 is illegal..
6.
Considering the facts and circumstance of this case,
I hold that the action of the management of Godhur Colliery
under Kusunda Area of M/S BCCL in superannuation of
Smt Parwa Kamin M/Loader from the service of the
company w.e.f. 01.04.2006 is not justified and legal. Her
superannuation on 01.04.2006 is illegal. She be reinstated
in her job. Since she has opted for VRS, her VRS be
accepted. She be not given back wages and in her place
her son be taken into job within one month from the date
of publication of the award.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2352-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
80@2000 vkSj 144@2000)) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 22@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@352@1999&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
¹la- ,y&20012@503@1999&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2014
S.O.
2352.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 80/2000 &
144/2000 ) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 22/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/352/1999-IR (CM-I)]
[No. L-20012/503/1999-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD.
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)
OF I.D.ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 80 of 2000 & 144/2000
Employers in relation to the management of
P.B. Area M/S B C.C.L.
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Sri D.K.Verma , Advocate
For the workman
: Sri N.M.Kumar, Rep.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 11/6/2014
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
Ref. No. 80 of 2000:- Order No. L. 20012/352/1999 IR
(C-I) dt. 28.01.2000
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor
Union from the management of Gopalichuk Colliery,
under P.B.Area of M/S BCCL to provide employment
to Smt Gita Devi ,W/O Late Kishun Nonia on
compassionate ground under clause 9.3.0 of NCWA
-4 is justified? If so, to what relief Smt Gita Devi is
entitled?”
Ref. No. 144/2000:- Order No. L20012/503/99 IR (C-I)
dated 01/03/2000
SCHEDULE
“Whether the refusal of the management of P.B.
Area of M/S BCCL to provide compassionate
appointment to the dependent son of late Kishun
Nonia is proper and justified ? if not, to what relief is
the dependent son of the deceased workman
entitled?”
2.
The case is received from the Ministry of Labour for
adjudication. After receipt of reference , both parties are
noticed,
3.
The short point that involved in this case as to
whether, the widow of the workman will be given
compassionate appointment as the concerned workman
died while in job. After the death of the concerned workman,
the present applicant filed an application before the
management for job.
4.
At the same time the son of the deceased workman
raised a dispute to get a job and the same has been received
from the Ministry in this Tribunal numbered as Ref. No.
144/2000 is registered and ordered to be heard analogously.
5954
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
After a long lapse of time, the widow again appeared
in this case , wanted to redress her grievance and her case
is opened on 19.12.2012 . At the same time in other case
Ref. No. 144/2000 the son of the workman neither appeared
nor putforth his claim. Hence Ref. No. 144/2000 is ordered
as No Dispute award.
6.
During hearing of the case learned counsel for the
widow of the workman, in this case submitted that the
widow Smt. Gita Devi is 55 to 56 years now, and she may
not be able to work, Hence she be given monetary
compensation in lieu of job from the date 19.12.2012 , the
day she came to the Tribunal to fight her case diligently.
Accordingly it is ordered to give monetary compensation
to Smt Gita Devi from 19.12.2012 as per norms.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2253-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k iwoZ eè;
jsyos 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 ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 87@2013) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41011@03@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2253.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 87/2013)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of South East Central Railways
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 5/08/2014.
[No. L-41011/03/2014-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/87/2013
Date: 15.07.2014
Party No. 1 : The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
South East Central Railway,
Kingsway, Nagpur.
Versus
Party No. 2 : Shri Bhimraj Hagroo Baisare,
Jyothi Nagar, Laskari Bagh,
Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Nagpur.
The General Secretary,
Parcel Porters Sanghathan,
New Mankapur Plot No. 37,
Near Mhada Colony,
Nagpur-440030.
AWARD
(Dated: 15h July, 2014)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of S.E.C.L and the workman, Shri Bhimraj
Hagroo Baisare for adjudication, as per letter No.L-41011/
03/2014-IR (B-I) dated 25.02.2014, with the following
Schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of South
East Central Railway, Nagpur in imposing the penalty
of removal of service of Shri Bhimraj Hagroo Baisare,
Trackman under SSE (P.Way) Kamptee, is just, fair
& legal? If not, what relief the concerned workman
is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
by registered post with acknowledgment due to file their
respective statement of claim and written statement.
In spite of sufficient service of the notice, on the
workman and the management of SECL, they neither
appeared nor filed any statement of claim or written
statement. The union representative, General Secretary of
the Parcel Porters Sangathana appeared on 15.07.2014 and
filed an application for permission to withdraw the case
on the ground that the workman is not interested to
continue the case further. In view of the application and
as it was intimated that the workman is not interested to
contest the reference, the reference was closed and fixed
for award.
3.
It is well settled that whenever a party challenges
the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove
the illegality of the order and it is imperative for him to file
written statement before the Industrial Court setting out
grounds on which the order is challenged and he must
also produce evidence to prove his case. If the party fails
to appear or file written statement or produce evidence,
the dispute referred by the Government cannot be
answered in favour of the said party and the party would
not be entitled to any relief.
Judging the present case with the touchstone of the
settled principles as mentioned above, it is found that the
workman has neither appeared nor filed any statement of
claim and as such, he is not entitled to any relief. Hence,
it is ordered:-
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5955
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative and
against the workman. The workman is not entitled to any
relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2354-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad 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 tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 241@97) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@157@96&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2354.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.
241/97) 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 25/08/2014.
[No. L-12012/157/96-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/241/97
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE
Deputy General Secretary,
State Bank of India Staff Congress(INTUC),
5/235, Pragati State Bank Colony,
Vikas Nagar, Jabalpur
.....Workman/Union
Versus
Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Jayendraganj,
Gwalior (MP)
.....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of July, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 21-8-97 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/
157/96-IR(B).The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of India, Gwalior Branch in terminating the
services of Shri Tarunkumar Pradhan, Clerk-cum
typist from 6-9-95 is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
through Dy.General Secretary, State Bank of India Staff
Congress, Jabalpur. Case of workman is that he was initially
appointed as clerk-cum-typist in State Bank of India vide
order dated 1-9-1975. He was confirmed in service on 1-3-
1976. That he was transferred from Jabalpur to Damoh
branch of State Bank of India on 1-3-87. That workman
was discharging his duties to the satisfaction of his
superiors while working at Damoh. Workman was placed
under suspension vide order dated 20-4-97. On 11-3-93,
workman was served with charge sheet. The allegations
in charge sheet were while working at Damoh, he
fraudulently withdrawn amount of Rs. 35000/- by six
withdrawals on different dates. It was alleged that he
received aggregating of Rs. 2400/- for credit into saving
Account No. 166/160 of Shri Mahesh Prasad Agrawal. That
workman made fictitious credit entries in major accounts.
It was also alleged that he received aggregating amount
Rs. 2400/- from Saving Account No. 166/160 of Shri Mahesh
Prasad Agrawal, Rs.2310/- from Saving Account No. 69/
137 of Shri Laxminarayan on 19-12-1991 and made fictitious
credit entries in the Ledger accounts on different dates. It
was alleged that workman received Rs. 3000/- for credit
into Saving Account No. 4/143 of Shri Santosh kumar Jain
on 1-2-92. He made fictitious entries. As workman
withdrawn amount from Account No. 16/25401 on different
dates. That on 27-5-91, workman fraudulently increased
balance in the Saving Bank Account by Rs. 1000/- by
overwriting. That acts committed by workman amounts to
gross- misconduct. As per para 521(4)(j) of Sastri Award.
It is further submitted that as per Sastry Award, the Bank
was required to furnish relevant documents for proper
defence of the workman. In spite of several request,
workman was not supplied relevant documents. The charge
pertains to some accounts. It was not possible for workman
to remember each and every entries in account. Documents
were not supplied to him. Therefore the workman could
not submit reply to the charge sheet. Without reply to
charge sheet, Bank proceeded with the Departmental
enquiry. Shri R. K. Jaiswal Branch Manager was appointed
as Enquiry Officer. Shri Akhleshwar Shastri Branch
Manager Damoh City Branch was appointed as presenting
Officer.
3.
Workman further submits that enquiry was
adjourned to 26-5-94, 27-5-94. On 26-5-94, the Defence
Representative Shri G. K. Shrivastava had come to Bhopal.
5956
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
He couldnot attend enquiry Proceedings. That he
requested to adjourn enquiry to some other date. However
he was granted only two hours time. Workman further
submits that Enquiry Officer did not follow principles of
natural justice. They denied opportunity to cross-examine
witnesses. On 26-9-94, Defence Representative Srivastava
could not attend proceeding as he had to attend meeting
of Federation at Hyderabad. His request for adjournment
was turned down by Enquiry Officer. That Presenting
Officer Shri Shastry presented witness No.1 O.P.Dubey,
witness No.2 Shri Ramlal Ahirwar and witness No.3 Shri
G.P.Soni. in absence of Defence Representative, the
witnesses couldnot be cross-examined by Defence
Representative. Workman was asked to cross-examine
their witnesses. The exhaustive reasons are given by
workman alleging that enquiry conducted against him
was not proper. He was denied opportunity to cross-
examine witnesses. The documents are not supplied on
his request. As enquiry against workman is held illegal by
my predecessor as per order dated 15-10-2012, detailed
contentions of workman are not narrated.
4.
Workman submits that he was not given chance to
produce his witnesses. Enquiry was adjourned to
14-12-94 and fixed at Bhopal. He was not permitted to
produce defence witness. Workman had denied charges
against him. Enquiry Officer without going through material
on record and recorded perverse findings and submitted
his report. The Disciplinary Authority issued show-cause
notice dated 8-6-95. Workman was called to appear on
22-6-95 at Gwalior. Workman could not appear for enquiry
as he was not allowed by Headquarter Branch manager.
He submitted that order of dismissal passed by party
6/9/95 is without application of mind. Findings of Enquiry
Officer are perverse. On such ground, workman prays for
setting aside order of dismissal and reinstatement with
consequential benefits.
5.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to
7/10. Preliminary objection is raised that Shri N.K.Patel,
General Secretary of Union is a dismissed employee. He is
not competent to represent for workman. The reference is
not tenable. That workman was issued charge sheet on
11-3-93 relating to withdrawal of amount Rs. 35,000- details
given at Page 2 of Written Statement. All withdrawals were
passed by workman for payment. The balancing of relevant
ledger for the month of August, 91 and for subsequent
months was done by the workman and he deliberately
managed to show the relevant ledger as balanced for the
month of August, 91 and for subsequent months by
overwriting manipulating totals. Employee was also
charged for receiving sums aggregating Rs. 2400 for credit
into Saving Bank Account No. 66/160 of Shri Mahesh
Prasad Agrawal. The details are given at page 3 of Written
Statement. Ist party employee put initial at some withdrawal
forms for having posted them in the relevant ledger
account. He had also passed 4 withdrawal forms for
payment. He had increased amount of 3 withdrawals of
Rs.1000/- each. He fraudulently obtained aggregate of Rs.
5000/-. That workman withdrawn from Saving Bank
Account No. 16/2501 on different dates. He had
fraudulently increased balance in Saving Bank Account
by Rs. 1000/- by overdrawing and thus overdrew an
aggregate sum of Rs. 7409/- from his account. The charge
sheet was issued to workman. Enquiry was conducted as
per rule. Principles of natural justice were followed.
Workman had participated in enquiry. After receiving report
of Enquiry Officer, show-cause notice was issued to
workman and punishment of dismissal was imposed. IInd
party has denied adverse allegation about he was not
provided documents on request, that enquiry was not
conducted properly. IInd party denies that principles of
natural justice were not followed by Enquiry Officer. IInd
party reiterate that after considering grave misconduct to
the report of Enquiry Officer, punishment of dismissal was
imposed after issuing show-cause notice. It is submitted
that workman is not entitled to any relief.
6.
Workman filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/3 reiterating
his contentions in statement of claim. It is submitted that
allegation about filling withdrawal vouchers is based on
report of handwriting expert. The handwriting expert was
not examined in enquiry. Complainants was not examined
in DE. The documents were relied by Enquiry Officer is
illegal.
7.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the manage-
In Negative
ment of State Bank of India, Gwalior
Branch in terminating the services
of Shri Tarunkumar Pradhan, Clerk
cum-typist from 6-9-95 is legal and
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
As per
entitled to?”
final order.
REASONS
8.
Workman is challenging dismissal. As per order
dated 15-10-2012, my predecessor held enquiry conducted
against workman is not legal and proper. Management
was permitted to prove misconduct before Tribunal.
However management failed to adduce in evidence about
alleged misconduct. The evidence of management is
closed on 30-9-13. Workman has filed affidavit of his
evidence on other issues. Workman says he was appointed
as clerk-cum-typist in Bank. He was working with devotion.
He was served with charge-sheet. The charge-sheet were
false. He denied charges. Enquiry was conducted against
him. The Account Holders were not examined in enquiry.
The charges cannot be proved against him. After dismissal
from service, he is unemployed. In his cross-examination,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5957
workman says he was working as clerk. He was unable to
tell when Departmental Enquiry was initiated against him.
He received charge-sheet Exhibit M-1. The monthly
account was prepared by all the employees collectively.
He was checking Day Book every day. That withdrawal
form of Rs.10,000/- of Shri O.P.Dubey may bear his
signature. He had not deposited amount in Account of
Shri Mahesh kumar Agrawal. The workman is not acquaint
with Santosh kumar and Laxmi Narayan. The evidence of
workman is by way of denial of the charges. IInd party
has failed to examine any witness to prove charges alleged
against workman. IInd party has failed to prove charges
alleged against workman. When charges are not proved,
the action of dismissal of Ist party workman by IInd party
cannot be said illegal. Therefore I record Point No. in
Negative.
9.
Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 that
charges against workman are not proved, the dismissal of
workman is illegal. Question arises whether the workman
is entitled for reinstatement with back wages. Workman in
his evidence says that after dismissal of service, he was
unemployed, he was not engaged in gainful employment.
IInd party has not adduced any evidence in its liberty. If
evidence of workman is totally appreciated, the evidence
doesnot show how he was maintaining his family when he
had no source of income. Considering those aspects in
my considered view, reinstatement of workman with 40 %
back wages would be appropriate. Accordingly I record
my finding in Point No.2.
10.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of State Bank of India,
Gwalior Branch in terminating the services of
Shri Tarunkumar Pradhan, Clerk-cum-typist from
6-9-95 is not legal and proper.
(2)
IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with
continuity of service and 40 % back wages.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days from the date of publication 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] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2355-—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
tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 37@03) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41012@131@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2355.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/03)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Central Railways and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
5/08/2014.
[No. L-41012/131/2002-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/37/03
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE
Shri Suresh Kumar Sahu,
S/o Shri harilal Sahu,
Ex-Diesel Asstt.
Katni, Kachiwada,
Katni (MP)
.....Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway,
Jabalpur
.....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 9th day of July, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 29-1-2003 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-41012/
131/2002-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Divisional
Railway Manager, Central Railway, Jabalpur in
terminating the services of Shri Suresh Kumar Sahu,
S/o Shri Harilal Sahu, Ex-Diesel Assistant w.e.f.
28-8-98 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled to?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Page 5/1 to 5/3. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
appointed as Apprentice Assistant Driver after
advertisement and examination conducted for said course
following selection process. He was appointed on 9-9-96
in pay scale 950-1500. He was declared successful and
appointed as Diesel Assistant at Sagar. He was performing
his duty to the satisfaction of management. That at the
time of his recruitment, he furnished certain information/
certificate. That in order of appointment, it was not
mentioned that his services could be terminated if the
certificates furnished by him was false. He was surprised
5958
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
that he was placed under suspension from 3-7-98 without
assigning any cause. He was orally informed about
termination of his services as certificate furnished by him
found false. Workman submits that order of his termination
was not received by him. The order was not supplied to
him. Workman submits that he completed 240 days service.
Termination of his service is in violation of Section 25-F of
I.D.Act. On such ground, workman is praying for
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3.
Management filed Written Statement at Page 10/1 to
10/4. Claim of workman is opposed. Appointment of
workman following recruitment process is not denied. That
as per Railway Service, workman was asked to submit
attestation form duly completed in all respects. Workman
has executed the attestation form on 16-9-96. The
Attestation form clearly shows that on furnishing false
information or suppression of any factual information in
the attestation form, his services would be liable to be
terminated. Workman had submitted unconditional
undertaking to Railway Recruitment Board that his services
would be terminated without notice if any information
found false.
4.
IInd party further submits that on basis of vigilance
investigation, it was revealed that the workman obtained
employment on the basis of fake certificate, he was
suspended form 3-7-98. That in terms of department
personal training office Memorandum dated 19-5-93, it was
found that Govt. servant not qualified or eligible in terms
of service or had furnished false information or produced
a false certificate in order to secure employment, such
persons should not be retained in service. That workman
had obtained employment on basis of fake certificate
therefore his services were terminated on 28-8-98. In
pursuance of unconditional declaration in the attestation
form and memorandum dated 19-5-93, the termination letter
was acknowledged on 2-9-98. It is submitted that the
services of workman were terminated as he had secured
employment on false certificate. Therefore he is not entitled
to any relief. Workman is not entitled to reinstatement.
IInd party prayed for rejection of claim.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the manage-
In Affirmative
ment of Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway, Jabalpur in terminat-
ing the services of Shri Suresh Kumar
Sahu, S/o Shri Harilal Sahu, Ex-Diesel
Assistant w.e.f. 28-8-98 is legal and
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
Relief prayed
entitled to?”
by workman is
rejected.
REASONS
6.
Workman is challenging termination of his services
for violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. Management
submits that workman secured appointment producing
fake/false documents. Workman failed to participate in the
reference proceeding. No evidence is adduced by
workman. During pendency, workman died. If LRs are
brought on record, the LRs are proceeded exparten
7-12-08. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Suraj
Prasad Choubey supporting contentions of management
in Written Statement. Witness of management was not
cross-examined. I find no reason to discard his
unchallenged evidence. To be precise, claim of workman
is not supported by any evidence. Management’s witness
remained unchallenged therefore I record my finding in
Point No.1 in Affirmative.
7.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Divisional Railway
Manager, Central Railway, Jabalpur in terminating
the services of Shri Suresh Kumar Sahu, S/o
Shri Harilal Sahu, Ex-Diesel Assistant w.e.f. 28-8-98
is legal and proper.
(2)
Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
8.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2356-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ
bankSj etZM Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad 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 tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 250@97) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
25@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@151@96&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2356.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.
250/97) 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
Merged as State Bank of India and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 25/08/2014.
[No. L-12012/151/96-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5959
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/250/97
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Chhaganlal Khichi
Through Shri Ram Nagwanshi,
General Secretary,
All India State Bank of Indore
Employees Congress,
7/1, North Harsidhi, Indore
.....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 10th day of July, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 5-9-97 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/
151/96-IR(B). The dispute under reference relates to:
^^Jh Nxuyky f[kph vkeZ xkMZ dks LVsV cSad vkWQ bankSj
vkapfyd dk;kZy; bankSj ds izca/kd }kjk U;k;ky; }kjk
nks"keqfDr ds ckn Hkh vuq’kklukRed dk;Zokgh djds
vR;kf/kd dBksj naMksa ls mlh vijk/k ds fy;s iqu% nafMr
djuk D;k U;k;ksfpr gS] ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr deZdkj
fdl fj;k;r gsrq ik= gSa A**
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Union submitted statement of claim at Page
3/1 to 3/9. Case of Ist party Union is that Shri Chhaganlal
Khichi, Arm Guard was appointed by IInd party Bank on
21-8-86. He worked with devotion and honesty. On
13-12-91 at 11.40 AM, above named workman had to
proceed on leave. He went to sign leave application.
Unfortunately gun hang on his shoulder fell on surface
and bullet was fired. Said incident was informed to police.
Workman was acquitted by Criminal Court. After his
acquittal, workman was served with chargesheet dated
1-1-1993. Workman was suspended after the incident and
chargesheet issued to him was groundless. In criminal
case, witnesses namely Shri Devisingh Thakur, Omprakash,
Krishnakant, D.C.Borilal, Narendra, Devendra Laad were
examined. Criminal court while acquitting observed that
the gun fell on surface accidently as its hook had broken.
Workman was served with notice. Punishment was
proposed to discontinue his special allowance and with
hold his two increments with cumulative effect. Workman
submits that the Competent Authority has imposed harsh
punishment withholding two increments, suspension
period treated on duty. Circumstances were not considered
by the authorities. Punishment is harsh and illegal. Any
kind of enquiry was not conducted. Statement of witnesses
were not recorded. The admission of charge had obtained
under threats from workman. The punishment is imposed
violating principles of natural justice. He was denied
opportunity of defence witness. On such ground, Ist party
prayed for setting aside order of punishment and prays
for consequential benefits.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 11/1 to
11/6. IInd party submits that it is established under
Compensation Act and State Bank of India Act 1959. It
has branches in different cities. There are rules for
recruitment of clerk and subordinate staff. Workman had
shown serious negligence on 13-12-91. Gun on his shoulder
fell down and bullet was shoot up causing injury to Branch
Officer Mr. Laad. Mr. Laad was seriously injured, he was
taken to Choithram Hospital for treatment. Shri Balkishan
Sahni was also injured. Because of serious negligence
shown by workman Gun fell on surface shooting up bullet.
Workman was suspended as per order dated 24-1-92.
Subsistence allowance was paid to the workman. Police
submitted chargesheet before CGM, Ratlam. In said case,
prosecution failed to prove charge. Workman was
acquitted on 17-8-93 on technical ground. The decision of
Criminal Court doesnot prevent management from initiating
departmental enquiry. Chargesheet was issued to workman
for misconduct under para-19.12,19.6. workman was served
with showcause notice. Workman admitted misconduct
against him. Leniency was shown to the workman while
imposing punishment withholding 3 increments and
treating suspension period on duty. A such the said order
doesnot call for any interference by the Tribunal. On such
grounds, IInd party prays for rejection of claim.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the manage-
In Affirmative
ment of Regional Office of State
Bank of Indore ( India) after acquittal
of Shri Chhaganlal Khichi, Arm Guard
initiating the departmental enquiry
and again imposing seviour
punishment is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
Workman is not
entitled to?”
entitled to any
relief as claimed
by him.
5960
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REASONS
5.
Workman is challenging punishment of withholding
two increments and treating suspension period on duty.
Exhibit W-I is copy of FIR about incident shows that gun
hanged at shoulder of workman fell on surface and bullet
was fired from it causing injury at palm of Devendra Laad.
Mr. Laad was referred to the hospital for treatment. W-2 is
copy of suspension order of workman dated 24-1-92.
Suspension order was issued during pendency of enquiry.
Exhibit W-3 is copy of chargesheet issued to workman.
Charges relates to gun at shoulder of workman fell and
bullet was fired from it causing injury at palm of Mr. Laad.
The act of workman was serious negligence. Document
Exhibit W-2 is reply given to the letter of workman for
application for revocation of suspension. The suspension
order was revoked and workman was posted at Mandsor.
He was entitled to full salary and allowances. Exhibit W-5
is letter given by workman to Regional Office of State
Bank dated 18-12-93. Exhibit W-6 is showcause notice
issued to workman. The proposed punishments were to
discontinue special allowance and withhold two
increments with cumulative effect. Exhibit W-8 is reply
given by workman admitting his guilt. He had committed
misconduct. He undertaken not to repeat such act in
future. Exhibit W-9 is punishment order, punishment was
imposed against workman withholding two increments
with cumulative effect. Suspension period was treated on
duty. Exhibit W-10 is copy of office memorandum
challenging said punishment before the Competent
Authority. Exhibit W-11 is copy of order rejecting the
appeal.
6.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. In his cross-
examination, workman says that he is working in State
Bank of India Javra Branch as Head Cashier, no enquiry
was conducted against him. He received chargesheet. He
had submitted reply to the chargesheet. He further says
that he was forced to admit charge but he did not
complained about it to the police or superior officers. His
increment was withheld. His appeal was dismissed. The
admission of charge by Ist party workman under Exhibit
W-8 on 31-1-94 workman did not complained about it to
any of the authorities. Said ground is raised only in
statement of claim. The evidence of Management’s
witness Ramesh Kumar Vari supports contentions of
management in Written Statement. Management’s witness
admitted documents Exhibit W-1 to W-12 referred in his
cross-examination. He was not posted at Station Road,
Branch Ratlam on 13-12-91. He filed affidavit of his
evidence as per documents. He claimed ignorance whether
list of documents witnesses were supplied to workman. In
present case as per document Exhibit W-8 workman
admitted charges. There was no question of issuing
charges with list of witnesses and documents. Enquiry
was not conducted against workman therefore no question
arises about legality of enquiry against workman.
7.
Learned counsel for management relief on ratio held
in Case between Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot
Ramazwamy Mudaliar educational Institution versus
Educational Appellate Tribunal and another reported in
1999(7) Supreme Court Cases 332. Their Lordship held in
the case where the facts are almost admitted, the case
reveals itself and is apparent on the face of the record and
inspite of opportunity no worthwhile explanation is
forthcoming as in the present case, it would not be a fit
case to interfere with the termination order.
In present case, as per Document Exhibit M-8, Ist
party workman has unconditionally admitted his
misconduct. Action taken against workman cannot be said
illegal.
Next reliance is placed between Divisional Controller,
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation versus
M.G.Vittal Rao reported in 2012(1) Supreme Court Cases
442. Their Lordship of the Apex Court considering on facts
held once delinquent employee was found guilty of all
charges and there was due adherence to natural justice
while conducting domestic enquiry, punishment of
dismissal was proportionate to delinquency.
In present case, chargesheet and evidence of
management’s witness shows the gun hang at shoulder
of workman fell down shooting a bullet Bank Officer
Mr. Laad suffered injury at his palm. He was admitted in
Choithram Hospital. The misconduct admitted by workman
is of serious nature. Security Guard entrusted with gun is
expected to be careful that the weapon handed over to
him may not cause harm to anybody. Punishment of
withholding two increments with cumulative effect cannot
be said disproportionate. I record my finding in Point No.1
in Affirmative.
8.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Regional Office of
State Bank of Indore ( India) after acquittal of
Shri Chhaganlal Khichi, Arm Guard initiating the
departmental enquiry and again imposing seviour
punishment is justified.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by
him.
9.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2357-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iwoZ jsyos
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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5961
eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 54@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41011@70@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2357.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2009)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Western Railways
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 25/08/2014.
[No. L-41011/70/2008-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/54 of 2009
Employers in relation to the Management of
Western Railway
The Divisional Railway Manager
Western Railway
Mumbai Central
Mumbai 400 008.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
The Divisional President
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 Workman
: Mr. M.B. Anchan, Advocate.
Mumbai, dated the 23rd June, 2014.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No.L-41011/70/2008-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 not placing tin
the correct seniority in respect of Shri Sanjay Kawale
and not paying the scale of Fitter Gr-III is justified?
If not, what relief the workman Shri Sanjay Kawale is
entitled to ?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, notices were issued
to both the parties. In response to the notice, the second
party workman filed his statement of claim at Ex-6.
According to the union workman Shri Sanjay Kamble was
appointed as Electric Fitter, Grade-III in the scale of 950-
1500 alongwith 28 other candidates against 25 % quota of
direct recruitment and he has taken charge of the said
post from 28/12/1988. Out of 28 candidates, 26 were sent
for training of six months. The workman and one more
have already undergone three years training of NCTVT
sponsored by the Western Railway. Therefore they were
not sent for training. In the circumstances management
ought to have appointed the workman as ELF-III in the
scale of 950-1500 w.e.f. 28/12/1988. However management
treated him as an apprentice like the other panel candidates
and paid only stipend of Rs.900/- p.m. with 30% D.A. He
was appointed as temporary ELF-(RAC) in the scale of
950-1500 along with five employees and posted against
the 25 ELF-Grade-III from direct quota against the 23 newly
created vacancies.
3.
The union claims that, workman ought to have
appointed from 21/12/1988 to the said post and the other
should be appointed subsequently. He was not given
seniority at the time of his initial appointment. On
9/5/1996, out of 51 employees, 24 employees were
promoted to ELF-II in the scale of Rs.1200-1800 (RP). The
Union claims that workman ought to have been promoted
to the said scale from 1/10/1991. According to the union
the name of workman should have been at Sr. no.5.
However he was not called for selection and was not
promoted. The next promotion was to the post of ELF-I in
the scale of 1320-2040. In the said promotion order name
of workman should have been at Sr no.38. However neither
he was called for selection, nor promoted whereas his
juniors were promoted as ELF-I. The union further submits
that his next promotion was to the post of Master Craft
Fitter (MCF) in the scale of Rs.5000-8000. His junior Mr.
Kishore Naik and Mr. Ramchandra Shukla were promoted
to the said post in March 2008. His juniors were further
promoted to the post of Jr. Engineer in the scale of 5500-
9000 and he was denied the promotion to the above
referred posts. He is infact entitled to the seniority and
promotions as stated hereinabove. The workman made
several representations to the Railway Administration. The
said issue was also raised in the PNM Meeting by Western
Railway Mazdoor Sangh held on 25/26-09-1996. The
workman had also approached CAT, Mumbai vide OA
no.457/2000. The said application was rejected by CAT
5962
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vide its order dt.1/6/2001 on the ground of delay in filing
the application. The union submits that workman Mr.
Sanjay Kawale who was appointed as a regular ELF-III in
the scale of 950-1500 from 28/12/1988, therefore he is
entitled to seniority from 28/12/1988 and should be
considered for further promotion to the post of ELF-II,
ELF-I and to the post of MCF, Jr. Engineer-II from March
2008. Therefore union prays that the management be
directed to promote him and to pay him the arrears in pay
and allowances and consequential benefits.
4.
The management resisted the statement of claim vide
their written statement At Ex-8. According to the
management the claim of the union is stale and cannot be
adjudicated at such a belated stage. It is well settled
principle of law that in the matter of fixation of seniority
and promotion, the claim of purportedly agreed employee
should not be entertained after expiry of six months from
the date of promotion. The dispute is also bad in law in as
much as the statement of claim is filed on 17/02/2010 for
fixation of seniority w.e.f. 1988 and further promotions are
claimed on the basis of said fixation of seniority. If such
stale claim is entertained at this stage the same would
cause grave prejudice and irreparable loss not only to the
management but also to the employees who had been
promoted during the intervening period. It is well settled
principle of law that in dispute related to promotion, the
promotees who may be affected in case the claim is allowed,
must be made parties to the reference. Thus the union is
making an attempt to disturb seniority of promotes who
are not parties to this reference.
5.
According to the management selection of a person
appointed as 25% direct quota are based on written test
and interview. Selected candidates are sent for training of
six months after a panel is prepared as per the points
obtained by the candidates. Since workman had
undergone NCTVT training, he was not required to
undergo training of 6 months but he voluntarily opted to
attend the said training. Stipend was paid to workman as
he had opted for training. Five candidates were appointed
in accordance to their serial number in the panel. Since
Mr. Kawle was at Sr. no.8 of trade RAC/MGCT he was not
appointed and at no point of time he raised any grievance
about his seniority number. When next vacancies arose
in 2/4/1991, workman was appointed and subsequent
promotions were also granted to him. Workman cannot
seek relief of being placed in the seniority above the
candidates who secured higher marks than him.
Management denied the allegation that the workman was
wrongly placed in the seniority. According to them as
union had approached CAT, they are estopped from re-
agitating this issue before this Tribunal. Management
therefore prays that the reference be rejected with cost.
6.
Following are the issues for my determination. I
record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:
Sr. Issues
Findings
No.
1.
Whether the action of management
Yes.
of Western Railway in not placing the
correct seniority of Mr. Sanjay Kawale
and not paying him scale of Fitter
Grade-III is justified?
2.
If not, whether the workman Mr. Sanjay
No.
Kawale is entitled to get the seniority
and pay scale as prayed for?
3
What relief the workman is entitled to?
No relief.
4.
What order?
As per
order below.
REASONS
Issues nos. 1 to 3 :-
7.
In this respect at first the management has raised
the point of limitation. According to the management
dispute in respect of fixation of seniority since the year
1988 cannot be raised after more than 20 years. It is raised
in the year 2010. For the delay of more than 20 years for
raising the dispute is not explained by the union or
workman. Furthermore if the seniority of the workman is
accepted as claimed, it would disturb the seniority of many
other employees who were promoted since 1988 till 2010.
Therefore it was rightly pleaded on behalf of the first party
that claim of the union is stale claim and cannot be
entertained.
8.
The second objection raised on behalf of the first
party is that in case the claim of the workman is accepted
and he is given seniority, since 1988 the other employees
who were already given promotion twice or thrice, their
seniority would be disturbed without hearing them. It is
well settled principle of natural justice that no person shall
be condemned unheard. The other employees who were
already promoted for more than two three times since 1988,
their seniority would be disturbed. Therefore they were
necessary parties to this reference. Their seniority cannot
be disturbed without giving them chance of hearing.
Chance of hearing cannot be given unless they are made
party to this Reference. On this count also the claim is not
tenable as the other employees whose seniority is likely
to be disturbed are not made party to this dispute.
9.
Furthermore the ld. adv. for the first party pointed
out that the workman has admitted in his cross that he
was appointed in 1991 when there was vacancy. It
indicates that he was rightly appointed to the promotional
post. Therefore he has not raised any dispute for more
than 20 long years. Now he cannot raise the dispute that
too without impleading the employees in the reference
whose seniority is likely to be disturbed. In the
circumstances I come to the conclusion that the claim of
the Union is devoid of merit in respect of promotion of the
workman and paying the scale in the promoted post.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5963
Therefore I hold that the action of the management is quite
justified. Accordingly I decide this issue no.1 in the
affirmative. Consequently I also hold that workman Mr.
Sanjay Kawale is not entitled to get the seniority and pay
scale as prayed for. Accordingly I decide these issue no.2
& 3 in the negative and proceed to pass the following
order:
ORDER
Reference stands rejected with no order as to cost.
Date: 23.06.2014
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2358-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ
bankSj etZM 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] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 29@02) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
25@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@41@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2358.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/02)
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 Merged
as State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 25/08/2014.
[No. L-12011/41/2001-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/29/02
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE
General Secretary,
Dainik Wetan Bhogi Karmchari Sangthan,
F-1, Darambhumi, Trapti Vihar,
Opp. Engineering College,
Ujjain (MP)
.....Workman/Union
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 10th day of July 2014
1.
As per letter dated 25-1-02 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12011/
41/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the General Manager of State
Bank of Indore in not considering to count the past
services in the probation period of 57 workers (as
per list attached) is justified? If not, to what relief
the workers are entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Union submitted statement of claim. Case of
Union is that 57 employees appointed are entitled to bonus
under Section 8 of Payment of Bonus Act and para-20.8 of
Bipartite Settlement. The employees working on daily
wages has raised dispute before ALC, Indore. The dispute
was settled between parties on 13-7-93. The employees
working 240 days in an year be given appointment on
permanent post. Daily wage employee completed less than
240 days could not be discontinued. Said settlement was
signed by representatives of the parties. IInd party did
not implement said settlement. Union raised dispute before
ALC, Bhopal. It is further submitted that 57 daily wage
employees completing 240 days in a year list was displayed
by ALC for permanent appointment. That 21 persons from
the list as per seniority were appointed after completing
the formalities. As per Para 20.8 of Bipartite Settlement
dated 19-10-66, dispute was raised before ALC claiming
bonus. It is reiterated that directions be issued for
payment of bonus to 57 daily wage employees. That
working on daily wages of those 57 employees be
considered as part of probation period. Directions be issued
for payment of bonus.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/7.
Claim of Ist party Union is denied. Preliminary objection is
raised that the dispute referred is vague. Government of
India was sending incomplete reference not considered
whether probation period in respect of seniority or other
purposes. The daily wage employees were employed
temporarily. He cannot be treated to be appointed on
probation. Objection is raised that so called General
Secretary Ram Nagwanshi is a dismissed employee of State
Bank of India. He cannot represent employees of the Bank.
IInd party submits that it is established under SBI Act,
5964
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1959 having zonal and regional offices. The Bank has
service regulations for recruitment of clerical and
subordinate cadre. The issue of regularizing services of
daily wage casual employees was raised by the union
operating in the Bank. Union were pressing hard to absorb
daily wagers who completed 240 days service and fulfilled
academic qualifications. Settlement was arrived on 13-7-
93 between bank and Union. In terms of said settlement,
one time opportunity or absorption on permanent basis in
subordinate cadre as peon cum farrash was given to daily
wage employees who put more than 240 days service in
consecutive months.
4.
That candidates found suitable by Committee were
given appointment and observed in the vacancies in the
Bank. Daily wage workers who put more than 240 days
service in 12 consecutive months were satisfying eligibility
criteria have been absorbed. It is reiterated that the eligible
daily wage employee were regularized. Claim of Union is
vague. Such claim cannot be allowed. Claim abut probation
is allowed. The seniority of candidates selected after
following recruitment process be given. On such ground,
IInd party prays for rejection of claim.
5.
Union filed rejoinder at Page 10/1 to 10/3 reiterating
its contentions in Statement of claim.
6.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the General
In Affirmative
Manager of State Bank of Indore
in not considering to count the
past services in the probation
period of 57 workers (as per list
attached) is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workmen are
Workmen are
entitled to?”
not entitled to
relief claimed
by them.
REASONS
7.
Along with order of reference, list of employees is
received. The claim pertaining to probation period of 57
employees is denied. The terms of reference doesnot
include other reliefs prayed in statement of claim. Though
affidavit of evidence is filed by Shri R.Nagwanshi himself,
however he did not produce himself for cross-examination.
As per ordersheet dated 15-6-2011, his evidence cannot
be read into. Thus claim of Ist party Union is not supported
by witnesses. Copy of settlement is produced at Exhibit
W-1. Clause I of the said settlement provides one time
opportunity for absorption on permanent basis in
subordinate cadre as peon cum farrash will be given to
temporary employees who have put in more than 240 days
of service in a period of twelve consecutive months
provided they satisfy the eligibility criteria laid down under
the Bank’s rules such as minimum educational
qualifications, age etc. That list of such temporary
employees based on information available with the Bank
was prepared. They were called to appear for interview.
Those who failed to appear for the interview shall not be
considered for permanent appointment in the Bank. Para-
3 of Exhibit W-1 provides after verification of the details
submitted by the employees, those found eligible shall be
interviewed by a Committee constituted by the bank. Para-
7 provides the cases of those who have worked for less
than six hours in a week will not be covered under this
settlement. Para-8 provides those persons who have put
in more than 240 days service but who donot possess the
educational standard required for the post of peon, the
status quo regarding the present employment will be given
preference in appointment for part time or full time
vacancies as per the rules of the Bank.
8.
No evidence is adduced by Ist party. As such claim
of Ist party Union is not supported by any thread of
evidence. Management’s witness Deepak filed affidavit
of his evidence covering most of the contentions of
management in Written Statement. In cross-examination,
he claims ignorance whether those 57 candidates after
interview result was not declared for 3 years. The witness
claims ignorance about material questions asked to him.
He did not discuss about list of those persons with his
possession. To sum up, the claim of Union is not supported
by evidence therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Affirmative.
9.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the General Manager of State Bank of
Indore in not considering to count the past services
in the probation period of 57 workers is legal and
proper.
(2)
Union is not entitled to any relief as claimed by them.
10.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2359-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ
bankSj etZM 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] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 15@00) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
25@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@332@99&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5965
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2359.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/00)
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 Merged
as State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 25/08/2014.
[No. L-12012/332/99-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/15/00
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE
Shri H.P.Khajuria,
Asstt. General Secretary,
Akhil Bhartiya Adhinasth Bank Karmchari Sangh,
Central Office, Huzrat Pul,
Opp Ashoka Palace, Lashkar,
Gwalior
.....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 11th day of July 2014
1.
As per letter dated 11-1-00 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/
332/99/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of Indore in terminating the service of
Shri Nandkishore Sen w.e.f. 2-8-97 is justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Page 4/1 to 4/2. Case of workman is that he was employed
as peon in Morar branch in State Bank of Indore on
15-9-93 on daily wages. He was paid Rs.50/- per day.
Vouchers were maintained in the Bank. His services were
terminated on 2-8-97 by Branch Manager. One Kamal has
been appointed in his place. That he completed 240 days
continuous service. His services are terminated in violation
of Section 25-F of I.D.Act to accommodate other person.
He continuously worked for 5 years. The termination of
his service is in violation of Shastri Award, Desai Award
and Bipartite settlement. He prays for reinstatement with
back wages.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement at page 5/1 to 5/8.
IInd party raised preliminary issue that workman was not
permanent employee. He worked from time to time as casual
worker to supply water for 2 hours in Morar branch of the
Bank. Engaging casual labours for few days doesnot give
right for absorption in service. IInd party denied that
workman had completed 240 days continuous service as
workman was engaged on daily wages. As per exigencies,
there was no question of termination of his service.
Workman was not entitled to absorption in Bank service.
All other adverse contentions of workman have been
denied. IInd party prays for rejection of claim of workman.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the manage-
In Affirmative
ment of State Bank of Indore in
terminating the service of Shri
Nandkishore Sen w.e.f. 2-8-97 is
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
Workman is not
entitled to?”
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
5.
Though workman is challenging termination of his
service for violation of Section 25-F, H of I.D.Act, he failed
to submit his evidence. Evidence of workman was closed
on 1-6-2011. Management filed affidavit of evidence of
Shri Udaymansingh Tomar, Branch Manager.
Management’s witness supported contentions prayed in
Written Statement filed by the management. That workman
was not employee of the Bank. He was casually engaged
as per exigencies. Evidence of management’s witness
remained unchallenged. There is no evidence to support
contentions of workman. I record my finding in Point No.1
in Affirmative.
6.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of State Bank of Indore
in terminating the service of Shri Nandkishore Sen
w.e.f. 2-8-97 is proper and legal.
(2)
Relief claimed by workman is rejected.
7.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
5966
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2360-—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] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1000@2005) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@177@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2360.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.
1000/2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, No. II Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of State Bank
of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 25/08/2014.
[No. L-12012/177/2004-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 1000/2005
Registered on 16.9.2005
Sh. Sat Pal, S/o Sh. Pritam Chand,
R/o #271A,
Shaheed Babu Labh Singh Nagar,
Jalandhar City
.....Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Pb, SCO No.101-108,
Sector 17, Chandigarh
.....Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
: Sh. D.C. Mittal, Adv.
For the Management
: Sh. S.K. Gupta, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on- 22.7.2014
Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/
177/2004 (IR(B-I)) Dated 20.12.2004, by exercising its
powers under Section 10 Sub section (1) Clause (d) and
Sub section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of India, Chandigarh in dismissing Sh. Sat Pal,
Ex-Clerk-cum-Cashier, from service vide order dated
30.9.2002 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman appeared
and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was
working as Clerk-cum-Cashier with the respondent
management at Chabbal Kalan Branch, District Amritsar.
He was placed under suspension and was not paid
subsistence allowance and on that account he could not
participate in the inquiry proceedings. The Inquiry Officer
conducted the inquiry and he was dismissed from service
vide order dated 30.9.2002. He has challenged the order of
dismissal on the ground that he was not given proper
opportunity of being heard by the Inquiry Officer which is
against the principle of natural justice. He requested the
Inquiry Officer to stay the proceedings during the
pendency of the criminal case and as such the inquiry
proceedings are illegal. He was not supplied the inquiry
report along with the show cause notice and therefore the
impugned order is not sustainable. His appeal was also
dismissed by the appellate authority without application
of mind.
It is further pleaded that he was sanctioned a house
loan of Rs.4,29,000/- on 13.7.2000 and his retiral benefits
of Rs.81,711/- were adjusted in that account despite the
fact, he has already deposited Rs.1,09,211/-. That the
management also issued notice asking him to discharge
his liabilities which is not legal. This conduct of the
management shows that the management is bent upon for
causing loss to him.
Since the order of dismissal is illegal and void, he be
reinstated in service with full back wages.
Respondent management filed written reply pleading
that workman raised a fictitious debit entry of Rs. 4, 24,
364/- in the account while preparing pension for the month
of 2000 and the amount was credited in the account of
Sh. Balbir Singh, pensioner. The workman withdrew
Rs.1,92,000/- under forged signature of Rajinder Kaur with
whom Balbir Singh had a joint account. Thus workman
committed a fraud, and after conducting regular inquiry
he was rightly dismissed from service. Proper opportunity
of hearing was given to the workman and he was also
served with the copy of the report along with show cause
notice.
The workman was charge-sheeted on account of
the following charges:-
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5967
CHARGE-SHEET
1.
While you were working on pension setat. Your
prepared the pension payment scroll relating to the
pension payable to the pensioners in the month of
February, 2000. You raised a superfluous debit of
Rs.4,22,785/- to the Govt General Account-Focal
Point Link Branch account and credited the amount
of Rs.424364/- instead of Rs.1579/- to Saving Bank
Account No.:_-3/2666 of Sh. Balbir Singh without
any authority on 6.3.2000 with the ulterior motive to
defraud the Bank with Rs.4,22,785/-. All the relative
debit and credit vouchers were prepared by you
and get them passed from the authorized officer.
2.
You allegedly connived with Sh. Balbir Singh holder
of a S/B Account No.P-3/2666 and prepared a debit
voucher for Rs.422000/-, got its confirmation from
him and diverted the above said amount to S/B
Account No.P-2298 jointly held by him with Smt.
Rajinder Kaur (his wife) with ulterior motive to
defraud the Bank.
3.
While you were not working on S/B seat, you
prepared a withdrawal of Rs.100000/- on 14.6.2000
under the forged signature of Smt. Rajinder Kaur to
debit her Joint S/B account No.P-5/P 2298 you issued
token to the fraudulent/purported presenter, posted
the said voucher in S/B A/C No:P-5/P-2298 and get
it passed for payment from an authorized Officer
without producing the ledger and received the
payment in an unauthorized manner and thus
committed the and defrauded the bank.
4.
Again on 19.8.2000 though you were not working
on S/B seat, prepared another withdrawal of
Rs.22000/- with the forged signatures of Smt. Rajinder
Kaur. You issued token to the fraudulent/purported
presenter posted the same in joint S/B Account
No:P-5/.P-2298. You used your official position to
get its payment from the concerned cashier in an
unauthorized manner and defrauded the bank.
5.
On 1.9.2000 though you were not working on S/B
seat. You prepared a withdrawal of Rs.70,000/- under
the forged signatures of Smt. Rajinder Kaur, holder
of Joint S/B Account No:P-5/P-2298. You issued
token to the fraudulent/Purported presenter, posted
the withdrawal in his account. You used your official
position to get its passed for payment in an
unauthorized manner and got the payment from the
cashier and defrauded the bank.
Vide order dated 23.8.2010, the inquiry was held to
be proper and fair and it was further observed that workman
was provided full opportunity to participate in the inquiry.
This order has not been challenged and has attained
finality. The only contention raised by the learned counsel
for the workman is that workman has been acquitted in a
criminal case vide judgment dated 28.3.2007, and therefore,
his dismissal from service on account of fraud and forging
of documents is not justified and the punishment awarded
is harsh and is liable to be set aside.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman did not appear before the inquiry
officer despite service of notice on several occasions and
the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry. He
recorded the statements of several witnesses and several
documents were also produced before him after
scrutinizing the evidence, he found the charges proved
against him vide his detailed inquiry report dated 1.5.2002.
The punishing authority after considering the inquiry
report, passed the impugned order.
There is no defect in the inquiry proceedings and
the same has already been held to be fair and proper vide
order dated 23.8.2010.
As per judgment dated 28.3.2007, the workman was
acquitted by the Court regarding the same charges but
the same do not ipso facto entitle the workman to get any
benefit as the Inquiry officer scrutinized the evidence led
before him minutely and then came to the conclusion that
charges are proved against him and in the circumstances
no benefit can be given to the workman and in this respect
reliance may be placed on Suresh Pathrellla Vs. Oriental
Bank of Commerce reported in 2007 (3) RSJ 1, wherein it
was observed in para 8 of the judgment as follows:-
“In our view, the findings recorded by the learned
Single Judge are fallacious. This court has taken the view
consistently that acquittal in a criminal case would be no
bar for drawing up a disciplinary proceeding against the
delinquent officer. It is well settled principle of law that
the yardstick and standard of proof in a criminal case is
different from the disciplinary proceeding. While the
standard of proof in a criminal case is a proof beyond all
reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmental proceeding
is preponderance of probabilities.”
The workman was a bank officer and he committed
fraud by forging entries in the bank accounts. It is a
settled law that a bank officer is required to exercise higher
standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the
money of depositors and the customers and is required to
take all possible steps to protect the interest of the bank.
Since the workman wrongly debited and credited the entries
in the bank account and himself withdrew the amount; he
is guilty of gross misconduct and the penalty imposed on
him cannot be said to be excessive and no ground is made
out to interfere with the same.
Thus the action of the management in dismissing
the workman from service is legal and valid and workman
is not entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly
answered against the workman. Let hard and soft copy of
the award be sent to the Central Government for further
necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
5968
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2361-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ
bankSj etZM 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] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 94@09) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
25@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@2@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2361.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 94/09) 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 Merged
as State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 25/08/2014.
[No. L-12011/2/2009-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/94/09
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B. PATLE
General Secretary,
Pratarit Karmachari Kalyan Manch,
F-1, Tripti Vihar Opp. Engg. College,
Karma Bhoomi, Ujjain
.....Workman/Union
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 8th day of July 2014
1.
As per letter dated 20-10-09 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/
2/2009-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of General Manager (Treasury),
State Bank of Indore, Indore in not making payment
of pension to Shri S.R.Prajapati is justified? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman through Secretary of Union
submitted statement of claim. Case of workman is that he
was working as clerk in State Bank of Indore. Said Bank is
merged in State Bank of India on 12-11-1997. Pension
papers were submitted. Workman was informed vide letter
dated 20-11-97 about registration of pension bearing No.
01046. Ist party workman was informed by letter dated
19-3-01 that 3 increments were given instead of termination
of his service. The workman has referred to it. Letters
were sent to the Bank in the matter of payment of Provident
Fund. That delay was caused in the matter of payment of
Provident Fund, Pension. Workman claimed all those
amount with interest.
3.
IInd party is proceeded exparte. Terms of reference
is clear that only it is to be decided whether IInd party in
not making payment of pension to workman is legal or
not.
4.
Ist party workman submitted in writing that he has
been compulsorily retired. Option for pension was
submitted by him. Amount of Provident Fund and pension
are transferred in Account No. 01046. It appears claim of
pension has already been satisfied. The amount is credited
in above account of the workman. Therefore the reference
stands disposed off as satisfied.
5.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2362-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,y vkbZ lh
vkWiQ bafM;k 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] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 47@2005) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&17012@36@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2362.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 47/2005) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of LIC of India and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
25/08/2014.
[No. L-17012/36/2001-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5969
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/47/2005
Date :18.07.2014.
Party No. 1 : The Senior Branch Manager,
LIC of India, City Branch,
Kingsway, Nagpur-440006
Party No. 2 : Shri Bhaurao Anadkar,
No. 2/11.Hudco Colony,
LIG-1, Behind Jaripatka Police Station,
Nara Road, Nagpur-440006.
AWARD
(Dated: 18th July, 2014)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of LIC of India and the applicant, Shri Bhaurao
Laxmanrao Anandkar, for adjudication, as per letter No.
L-17012/36/2001-IR (B-I) dated 26.05.2005, with the
following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of LIC of
India in terminating the services of Shri Bhaurao
S/o Laxmanrao Anandkar w.e.f. 06.06.2001 is
justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the applicant, Shri Bhaurao
Laxmanrao Anandkar, (“the “applicant” in short) filed the
statement of claim and the management of LIC of India,
(“Party No. 1” in short) filed its written statement.
The case of the applicant as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was employed as a peon by
party No.1 in its office on 06.1.1998 and he continued as
such up to 06.06.2001, without any break in service and he
also performed overtime duties for 2355 hours and though
he had put in more than 240 days of service without any
break, he was retrenched from service by party No.1
without compliance of the provisions of LIC’s Service
Rules and the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and
the documents No 1 to 25 fully support his claim.
The applicant has prayed for his reinstatement in
service with full back wages and consequential benefits.
3.
The party No.1 in its written statement has pleaded
inter-alia that Life Insurance Corporation of India (“LIC”
in short) is a body corporate established under the
provision of section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation
Act, 1956 (“Insurance Act” in short) and in accordance
with the provisions of section 23(1) of the Insurance Act,
it is empowered to engage such number of employees as it
deems fit to carry out its functions and business and under
section 48 of the Insurance Act, the Central Government
is empowered to make rules in respect of the aforesaid
enactment and in accordance with the provisions of
section 49 of the Insurance Act, LIC has framed regulations,
which are known as Life Insurance Corporation of India
(Staff) Regulations, 1960 (“the Regulations” in short) and
section 49 of the Insurance Act, before its amendment by
the amended Act of 1981, empowered the LIC to make
regulation providing for the terms and conditions of
services of the employees of LIC including the transferred
employees and accordingly, the LIC framed the regulations
and as a consequence of the Amendment Act among
others, the Central Government was empowered to make
rules to provide for the terms and conditions of services
of the employees of LIC, vide clause (cc) of sub-section 2
of section 48 and the Regulations and other provisions in
force, immediately before the commencement of the
Amendment Act shall be deemed to be the Rules made by
the Central Government under section 48(2) (cc) and (c)
and the Rules made by the Central Government shall have
the effect notwithstanding anything contained in, among
others, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other law
for the time being in force and the Regulations are having
statutory effect and thus the Regulations are having
overriding effect notwithstanding anything contained in
the Act or any other enactment, settlement or award for
the time being in force and Regulation 4 of the Regulations
empowers the Chairman of LIC to issue instructions from
time to time to carry out the provisions of the Regulations
and Regulation 8(1) of the Regulations provides that,
“Notwithstanding anything contained in these
Regulations, a Divisional Manager may employ staff in
class III and IV on a temporary basis subject to such
general or special directions as may be issued by the
Chairman from time to time and according to Regulation
8(2), “no person appointed under sub-regulation (1) shall
only by reason of such appointment be entitled to
absorption in the service of LIC or claim preference for
recruitment to any post”
It was further pleaded by the party No.1 that the
applicant was never appointed by it at any point of time as
alleged and he had never worked as a peon or in any other
post either as a permanent or a temporary, badli and part
time employee or even as a casual labourer and it has its
own recruitment procedure. Rules and Regulations and
no appointment can be made by the Senior Branch
Manager without following the prescribed recruitment
procedure and the claim of the applicant is far from truth
and the City Branch, Nagpur is the biggest branch amongst
26 branches under the jurisdiction of its Nagpur Divisional
Office and there are about 600 agents working in the branch
and in the year 1998 to 2001 during which , the applicant
5970
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
has falsely claimed to have worked as a peon, the number
of agents were perhaps was still more and many persons
work for the agents in the office of City Branch to assist
them for payment of premiums, settlement of claims, revival
of lapsed policies, nominations and assignments etc. of
the policies taken by their policy holders and such persons
become familiar with the staff in course of time and they
establish friendly relationship with the staff working in
the office and many a time they volunteer to do some of
the jobs in the office to help the staff and the applicant
might had been engaged by some agent and his service
might had been utilized by such agent during the material
time and taking advantage of his friendly relation with the
staff, he manipulated the office record to his advantage,
with a view to make a false claim and as the workman was
neither employed nor engaged by it in any capacity, he is
not entitled to any relief.
4.
In the rejoinder, the applicant after reiterating the
facts mentioned in the statement of claim has pleaded that
the decisions cited by the party No.1 in the written
statement have no application at all to the present case in
hand.
5.
It is necessary to mention here that in this reference,
award had been passed on 24.08.2009, directing the party
No. 1 to reinstate the applicant as a peon with continuity
and full back wages, as no written statement was filed by
party No.1. However, the party No.1 approached the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ
Petition No.936 of 2011 against the said award and the
Hon’ble High Court by order dated 27.09.2011 quashed
and set aside the award and remanded the matter for a
fresh decision.
6.
Both the parties have adduced oral evidence in
support of their respective claims, besides placing reliance
on documentary evidence.
The applicant has examined himself as the only
witness in order to prove his case. In his examination in
chief on affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts
mentioned in the statement of claim and rejoinder.
However, in the cross-examination, he has admitted that
no appointment letter was issued by the management for
his appointment and his name was not sponsored by the
Employment Exchange for his appointment and there was
also no paper advertisement by the LIC for appointment
of peon in the office and he did not appear in any written
examination before his appointment and no medical
examination was also conducted before his appointment
and he had not signed any muster roll. The applicant in
his cross-examination has further admitted that in
annexures, 1, 2, 4 to 9, 14 to16 and 18 to 20, his name has
not been mentioned, authorizing him to receive the forms
and other articles and in annexure-3, he has corrected the
name from “Bhimrao” to “Bhaurao” and added
“Anandkar” to the same and in annexure-10, he has written
his name Bhaurao Anandkar in his own handwriting and
annexures 11 to 13 and 22 to 25 are prepared by him and he
has not filed any document to show that LIC had paid him
salary for the period in question and the documents filed
by him were not supplied to him officially and he has also
not obtained the same by filing application in LIC office
for supplies of copies of the same and he has obtained the
copies of the said documents himself.
7.
The evidence of the witness for the party No.1, Jiban
Gopal Maity on affidavit is in the line of the stands taken
by the party No.1 in the written statement. In the cross-
examination, this witness has stated that he has no
personal knowledge about the case of the workman and
the contents of his affidavit are based on documents
available in the office and no report was submitted against
the workman to the police for the alleged manipulation of
the official records of LIC.
8.
At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant was
employed as a peon in the office of the office of Nagpur
Branch No. 971 of party No.1 with effect from 06.11.1998
and he worked continuously up to 06.06.2001 without any
break in service and he also performed overtime duties for
2355 hours and he was a workman and as he had performed
continuous work for more than 240 days during a period
of 12 calendar months, his services were covered under
the provisions of Section 25-B of the Act and the case of
the applicant has been fully proved by the documents
filed by him and the oral evidence adduced by him and the
applicant was retrenched from service illegally and without
following or complying the provisions of Section 25-F of
the Act and neither any letter of termination was served
on the applicant nor any retrenchment compensation was
paid to him at the time of termination of his services and as
the termination of services of the applicant was illegal, he
is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and
full back wages.
9.
Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the party No.1 that the applicant was never employed
by party No.1 in any capacity in the office of its Nagpur
Branch No. 971 and as such, there is no question of his
working for more than 240 days or over time, retrenchment
of his service and compliance of the provisions of Section
25-F of the Act and it is clear from the evidence on record
including the own admission of the applicant in his cross-
examination and virtually the un-challenged testimony of
the witness for the party No.1 that the applicant has
manipulated the documents filed by him, only to make a
false claim and the applicant is not entitled to any relief.
It was further submitted by the learned advocate for
the party No.1 that in view of the Rules made by Central
Government under clause (cc) of Section 48 (2) of the
Insurance Act, the provisions of the Act or any other law
for the time being in force are not applicable to the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5971
corporation in the matter to which the provisions of Staff
Regulations, 1960 apply and in case of conflict between
the Act and the Staff Regulations, the Staff Regulations
shall prevail and Regulation 8 of Staff Regulation deals
with temporary staff and empowers the authorities
mentioned therein to employ person on temporary basis
to the post of Class III & IV and it further provides that no
person appointed on temporary basis shall be entitled to
claim absorption in service or preference for recruitment
to any post and as such, the provisions of the Bombay
Shops and Establishment Act and the Industrial
Employment (Standing Order Act) have no application to
the corporation regarding the terms and conditions of
appointment of the employees on permanent or temporary
basis and as such the reference is devoid of any merit and
is liable to be rejected.
In support of such contentions, reliance has been
placed on the decisions reported in AIR 1994 SC-
1343(M.Venugopal Vs. The Divisional Manager, LIC of
India) and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 1655 of 2002 (Life
Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Ravindra Vyenkat Ladhe
and Others).
It was further submitted by the learned advocate for
the party No.1 that not admitting, but for the sake of
argument, even if, it is held that the applicant was engaged
temporarily by the Party No. 1 and the provisions of the
Act are applicable to the case of the applicant, still then,
he is not entitled to any relief, as there is no evidence on
record to show that the applicant had infact worked for
240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months of the alleged
date of termination i.e. 06.06.2001.
10.
In this case, the applicant though has claimed that
he was employed by the Senior Branch Manager of Nagpur
Branch as a Peon on 06.11.1998, neither in the statement
of claim nor in the rejoinder nor in his evidence on affidavit,
he has mentioned as to how he was employed as a Peon.
The applicant has also not pleaded as to how and by
whom he was retrenched from service. The applicant has
not filed any order of employment or retrenchment. The
applicant has not pleaded anything about payment of
salary or wages by Party No.1, for his employment. He has
also not filed a scrap of paper showing payment of
remuneration by Party No.1 in support of his claim of such
employment. In his evidence on affidavit also, the applicant
has not whispered a single word about payment of
remuneration by Party No.1 to him for any such
employment.
The applicant in his cross-examination, has
categorically admitted that he did not sign any muster roll
and in annexures 1, 2, 4 to 9, 14 to 16 and 18 to 20 (The
documents filed by the workman himself), his name has
not been mentioned, authorizing him to receive the forms
and other articles. He has further admitted that in annexure-3,
he had corrected the name of “Bhimrao” to “Bhaurao”
and added “Anandkar” to the same and in annexure-10,
he has written his own name in his own handwriting and
annexures 11 to 13 and 22 to 25 were prepared by him and
he has not filed any document to show that LIC had paid
salary for the period in question.
It is clear from the evidence on record including the
admission of the applicant as mentioned above that the
applicant was never employed by Party No.1 as a Peon or
in any other capacity and he was not a workman. It is also
found that the applicant somehow laid his hands on the
documents filed by him and manipulated the same to his
advantage to raise the claim.
11.
So far the second contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No.1 that the provisions of the Act
are not applicable to the Party No.1, in view of the Rules
and Regulations having overriding effects is concerned, I
think it proper to refer the decision of the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay in WP No. 1655 of 2002, which is a direct
decision in regard to the point in controversy. The Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay in its decision have stated as
follows:
“Now in so far as the present case is concerned, it
would be necessary to advert first and for most to
the Life Insurance Staff Regulations of 1960. These
Regulations were initially framed by the corporation
with the previous approval of the Central
Government in exercise of powers conferred by
Section 49 (2) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act,
1956. Regulation 8 in relation to temporary Staff
provides thus:
Temporary Staff
-8(1) notwithstanding anything contained in these
Regulations, a Divisional Manager may employ staff in
Classes III and IV on a temporary basis subject to such
general or special directions as may be issued by the
Chairman from time to time.
-(2) No person appointed under sub-regulation (1)
shall only by reason of such appointment be entitled to
absorption in the service of the Corporation or claim
preference for recruitment to any post.
Regulation 4 provides that the Chairman may, from
time to time, issue such instructions or directions as may
be necessary to give effect to, and carry out, the provisions
of the regulations and in order to secure effective control
over the staff employed in the Corporation. In so far as
the members of the temporary staff are concerned, sub-
regulation (2) of Regulation 8 specifically provided that
no person appointed under sub-regulation (1) shall be
entitled to claim absorption or preference for recruitment
only by reason of such appointment.
5972
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Parliament amended the provisions of the Life
Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 by Amending Act 1 of
1981. As a result of the amendment, clause (cc) was
inserted in sub-section (2) of Section 48 which confers
power upon the Central Government to make rules to carry
out the provisions of the Act. By and as a result of clause
(cc) as inserted, the Central Government is empowered to
provide for the terms and conditions of service of the
employees of the corporation. The rule-making power in
Section 48 (2) (cc) extends to the following:
“(cc) the terms and conditions of service of the
employees and agents of the Corporation, including
those who became employees and agents of the
Corporation on the appointed day under this Act”.
Sub-section (2A) was also introduced in Section 48
by the Amending Act and it provides as follows:
(2A) The regulations and other provisions as in force
immediately before the commencement of the life Insurance
Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1981, with respect to the
terms and conditions of service of employees and agents
of the Corporation including those who became employees
and agents of the Corporation on the appointed day under
this Act, Shall be deemed to be rules made under clause
(cc) of Sub-section (2) and shall, subject to the other
provisions of this section, have effect accordingly”
(emphasis supplied).
As a result of Sub-section (2A), the Staff Regulations
that were framed in 1960 are deemed to be Rules made
under clause (cc) of Sub-section (2) of Section 48.
Sub-section (2B) of Section 48, as amended,
provides that the rule making power that is conferred by
clause (cc) of Sub-section (2) shall include the power to
give retrospective effect to the rules; to amend the
regulations and the provisions referred to in sub-section
(2A) with retrospective effect from a date not prior to
20th June, 1999. Sub-section (2C) of Section 48 has a
significant bearing in the present case and provides thus:
“(2C) The provisions of clause (cc) of sub-section
(2) and sub-section (2B) and any rules made under
the said clause (cc) shall have effect, and any such
rule made with retrospective effect from any date
shall also be deemed to have had effect from that
date, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order
of any court, tribunal or other authority and
notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial
disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or any other law or
any agreement, settlement, award or any instrument
for the time being in force” (emphasis supplied)
The effect of Sub-section (2C) is to impart overriding
effect to the provisions of clause (cc) of sub-section (2) as
well as to any rules which have been made under clause
(cc) notwithstanding any judgment, decree or any order
of any Court or Tribunal or other authority and
notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 or any other law or any other agreement,
settlement or other instrument for the time being in force.
Regulations 8 of the Staff Regulation of 1960 which
empowers the authority nominated therein to recruit class
III and IV personnel on a temporary basis is, therefore, a
rule within the meaning of Section 48(2)(cc). That is
specifically provided for in sub-section 2A. A person
appointed on a temporary basis under sub-regulation (1)
of Regulation 8 is not entitled to absorption in the services
of the Corporation or to claim preference for recruitment
to any post. In exercise of the power conferred by
Regulation 4, statutory instructions were issued by the
Chairman of the Corporation on 28th June, 1993 defining
the method and manner of recruitment of temporary staff.
These rules have overriding effect over the provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Sub-section 2C of
Section 48 specifically provides so.
The amended provisions of the Life Insurance
Corporation Act, 1956 came up for consideration before a
Bench of three Learned Judges of the Supreme Court in
M. Venugopal Vs. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance
Corporation of India, Machilipatnam (1994) 2 SCC 323.
The Supreme Court held that as a result of the statutory
fiction that is created by the provisions of sub-section
(2A), regulations relating to the terms and conditions of
service of employees and agents of the Corporation framed
under Section 48 (2) (bb) shall be deemed now to be Rules
under Section 48 (2)(cc) and all “such rules shall have
overriding effect over the provisions contained in the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so far as the terms and
conditions of employment of such employees who also
conform to the requirement of the definition of “workman”
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are concerned”.
Construing these provisions, the Supreme Court held that
the termination of the services of a person appointed as
probationer under Regulation 14 shall be deemed to be in
pursuance of the rules framed under Section 48 (2) (cc)
and would have overriding effect over Section 2(oo) and
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The
Court held thus:
The amendments introduced in Section 48 of the
Corporation Act have clearly excluded the provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act so far as they are in conflict
with the rules framed under section 48 (2) (cc). The result
whereof will be that termination of the service of the
appellant shall not be deemed to be “retrenchment” within
the meaning of Section 2(oo) even if sub-section (bb) had
not been introduced in the said section. Once Section 2
(oo) is not attracted, there is no question of application of
Section 25-F on the basis of which the termination of the
service of the appellant can be held to be invalid. The
termination of the service of the appellant during the period
of probation is in terms of the order of appointment read
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5973
with Regulation 14 of the Regulations, which shall be
deemed to be now Rules under Section 48(2)(cc) of the
Corporation Act”.
The Supreme Court noted that the constitutional validity
of the Amending Act of 1981 was upheld in A.V. Nachane
Vs. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 205. The Court held that
the wisdom of the legislature in either extending the
protection of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, or denying the same cannot be assessed by the
Court unless it is held to be violative of any of the
provisions of the Constitution.
“Earlier such employees used to be governed by the
regulations framed by the Corporation under Section 49
of the Corporation Act as well as by the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, being “workman” within the
meaning of that Act. It was up to them to enforce the
rights or remedies in terms of the regulation so framed
under the Corporation Act or in accordance with the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. But after the
amendment introduced by the Parliament in Section 48,
the employees of the Corporation shall not be entitled to
protections to which they were entitled before the coming
into force of the amendment aforesaid. The amendments
cannot be held to be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution merely on the grounds that a section of the
employees of the Corporation had the benefit or protection
of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, which
now they have been deprived of. The wisdom of the
legislature in extending the protection of the provisions
of the Industrial Disputes Act or denying the same cannot
be judged by the Courts unless any such step held to be
violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution”.
The decision of the Supreme Court concludes the
present case. The Tribunal was in error in coming to the
conclusion that the order of retrenchment must fail for
failure to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workmen were
temporary workmen. Under the terms of their engagement,
their services could be dispensed with and the power to
dispense with a member of the temporary staff is implicit
in Regulation 8 of the Staff Regulations of 1960. Upon the
enforcement of the Amending Act of 1981, the regulation
acquired the character of a rule framed under Section
48(2)(cc). The rule overrides the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 by virtue of the provisions of Section
48 (2C)”.
Judging the present case in hand with the touch
stone of the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Bombay
High Court as mentioned above, it is found that the
provisions of The Act are not applicable to the party No.1
and the Regulation as framed overrides the provisions of
the Act and other laws for the time being in force and on
that score also, the applicant is not entitled to any relief.
12.
In this case the applicant has claimed that he had
completed more than 240 days of work in a period of 12
calendar months, his services were terminated illegally
without compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of
the Act. Party No.1 has completely denied the employment
of the applicant in any capacity. For the sake of argument,
though not admitted, it is held that the applicant had
worked with party No.1 from 06.11.1998 to 06.06.2001 on
temporary basis (as per his cross-examination) and that
the provisions of the Act are applicable, still then the
applicant is not entitled to any relief, for the ground that
to avail the benefits of Section 25-F of the Act, it was
necessary for the applicant to prove that in fact he had
worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months
of the alleged date of termination i.e. 06.06.2001 in this
case, but the applicant has miserably failed to prove the
same.
In view of the materials available on record and the
discussions made above, it is found that the applicant is
not entitled to any relief. Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative and
against the applicant. The applicant is not entitled to any
relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2363-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
01@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@187@2003&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2363.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.
01/2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 25/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/187/2003-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
5974
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
Reference: No. 01/2004
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947.
Employer in relation to the management of
Sijua Area M/S BCCL
AND
Their workmen.
Present : Sri R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers
: Sri D.K.Verma , Advocate
For the Workman
: None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 2/7/2014
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/187/ 2003 /IR (CM-1)) dated
24/12/2003, the central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the INMOSA from the
management of BCCL , Sijua Area for rectification of
date of Birth in services record of Sh. Hari Mahato
as 15.01.49 is justified? If so, to what relief is the
concerned workman entitled ?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears
subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the
disputes between the parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2364-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
3/2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@41@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2364.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2012)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
25/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/41/2011-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD.
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947.
Reference No. 3 of 2012
Employer in relation to the management of
Sendra Bansjora Colliery of M/S B.C.C.L.
AND
Their workman.
Present : SRI R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman
: Sri R. R. Ram, Rep.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 10/7/2014
AWARD
By order No.-L20012/41/2011/ IR(CM-I), dated
20/12/2011 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act,1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Sendra
Bansjora Colliery of M/S B.C.C.L in dismissing Sh.
Parna Kole Fitter from the service of the company
vide letter dated 22/27.07.2009 is fair and justified?
To what relief the workkman concerned is entitled
to?”
2.
The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
06.01.2012 After receipt of reference, both parties are
noticed, The Sponsoring Union /Workman files their
written statement on 19.03.2012. And the management files
their written statement -cum-rejoinder on 08.08.2013. The
point involved in the reference is that the workman has
been dismissed from his services.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5975
3.
During preliminary hearing it is revealed that the
case is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty.
But he has already out of service for 5 years. It is felt to
give another chance to the workman to serve.
4.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee. But
the workman be kept under probation for a period one
year Therefore the question of back wages does not arise
at all.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2365-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
09@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@06@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2365.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09/2009)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
25/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/06/2009-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
Reference: No. 09/2009
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Employer in relation to the management of
Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL,
AND
Their workmen
Present : SRI R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Sri Nitish Sahay , Advocate
For the workman
: None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated 2/7/2014
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/06/ 2009 /IR (CM-1)) dated 26/
02/2009, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Colliery
Mazdor Congress from the Management of
Gondudih Colliery under Kusunda Area of M/s
BCCL to grant up-gradation as Electrician Cat-vi/
Electrical Supervisor to Shri Anand Das, Electrician
Cat-V is justified? ii) To what relief is the workman
concerned entitled and from what date?”
2.
After receipt of the reference , both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears
subsequently. Case remain pending. Ld Counsel for the
workman submits that workman is not interested to contest
the case. It is felt that the disputes between the parties
have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute
Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2366-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
28@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@21@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2366.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2008)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
25/08/2014
[No. L-20012/21/2005-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
5976
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
Reference : No. 28/2008
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act. 1947
Employer in relation to the management of
Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL,
AND
Their workmen
Present : SRI R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers
: Sri D.K.Verma , Advocate
For the workman
: Sri S.N.Goswami, Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 4/7/2014
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/21/ 2005 /IR (CM-1)) dated 30/
05/2008, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Godhur
Colliery of M/S BCCL in not regularizing the service
of Shri B.N.Banerjee as office Superintendent is
justified and legal? (ii) To what relief is the concerned
workman entitled and from what date?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates, Ld Counsel for
the workman submits that workman is not interested. to
contest the case. It is felt that the disputes between the
parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2367-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
57@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@91@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2367.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2009)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
25/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/91/2009-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
Reference: No. 57/2009
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act. 1947.
Employer in relation to the management of
East Bassuria Colliery, Kusunda Area M/S BCCL
AND
Their workmen.
Present : SRI R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Sri U.N.Lall , Advocate
For the workman
: None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 1/7/2014
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/91/ 2009 /IR (CM-1)) dated 23/
10/2009, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar
Union from the Management of East Bassuria
Colliery under Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL for basic
fitment in Cat. IV with protection of SPRA in respect
of Shri Sankar Das, Mason w.e.f. 19/06/1996 is
justified and legal? ii) To what relief is the workman
concerned entitled and from what date?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears
subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the
disputes between the parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5977
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2368-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
61@ 2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@197@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2368.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 61/2006)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
25/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/197/2005-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
Reference: No. 61/2006
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Employer in relation to the management of
Kusunda Area M/S BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : SRI R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer.
Appearances :
For the Employers
: Sri U.N.Lall , Advocate
For the workman.
: None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 3/7/2014
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/197/ 2005 /IR (CM-1)) dated
01/06/2006, the central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar
Union form the management of East Basuria Colliery
under Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL for regularization
of Shri Dhiren Mahato. Underground, Line Mistry
to the post of Cap Lamp Fitter is justified? If so, to
what relief is the workman entitled and from what
date?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears
subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the
disputes between the parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2369-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
127@1991) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
25@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@204@1990&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2369.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.
127/1991) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 25/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/204/1990-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)
OF I.D. ACT, 1947
Ref. No. 127 of 1991
Employers in relation to the management of
Nichitpur Colliery M/S BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer
5978
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances:
For the Employers.
: Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman.
: Shri N. G.. Arun, Rep.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 21/ 7/ 2014
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/204/1990-IR (CM-I), dated
13/11/1991, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Rashtriya Colliery
Mazdoor Sangh that dependant of Shri Sukumar
Chatterjee Ex-Cashier, Nichitpur Colliery of M/s. Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd. , be given employment in terms of
clause 9:4:4 pg. NCWA-III is justified ? If so, to
what relief the concerned workman entitled?”
2.
The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
05.12.1991. After notice both parties appeared , the
Sponsoring Union/workman files their written statement
on 11.08.1992. Thereafter the management files their written
statement-cum-rejoinder on 25.03.1994. Only one witness
is examined on behalf of the workman. As WW-1.
3.
The short point that involved in this reference is
the claimant who is admittedly the son of a retired
employee whether is to get employment as per NCWA.
4.
Heard both sides, workman representative as per
NCWA the claimant is entitled to a job . On the other
hand, the management submitted that such provisions of
NCWA was struck down by the Apex Court with a finding,
if this type of provisions will be allowed to continue in
NCWA , other meritorious people will be debarred from
joining in the company, only back door entry will be
encouraged.
5.
The said direction of the Apex Court still holds good
and other High Courts have followed that direction.
Therefore the present workman’s claim have no legs to
stand.
6.
Considering the facts and circumstance of this case,
I hold that the demand of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor
Sangh, that dependant of Shri Sukumar Chatterjee Ex-
Cashier Nichitpur colliery of M/S BCCL be given
employment in terms of clause 9:4:4 of NCWA-III is not
justified, Hence his claim disallowed. He is not entitled to
get any relief.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2370-—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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 118@2003)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@299@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
S.O.
2370.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.
118/2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 25/08/2014.
[No. L-12012/299/2002-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/118/2003
Date : 24.07.2014
Party No. 1 : The Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India, Region-V,
Zonal Office, S.V. Patel Marg,
Nagpur-440001.
Versus
Party No. 2 : Shri Maruti Bapurao Borkar,
P.O. Rasulabad, Taluka:Arvi,
Distt. Wardha. (MS).
AWARD
(Dated : 24th July, 2014)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of SBI and their workman, Shri Maruti
Bapurao Borkar, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-12012/
299/2002-IR (B-I) dated 10/17.04.2003, with the following
schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of India, Nagpur in dismissing the workman,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5979
Shri Maruti Bapurao Borkar, Ex-Messanger-cum-
Farash from service w.e.f. 18.11.1998 is justified? If
not, what relief the said workman is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to
file their respective statement of claim and written
statement, in response to which, the workman, Shri Maruti
Bapurao Borkar, (“the workman” in short) filed the
statement of claim and the management of S.B.I., (“party
no.1” in short) filed the written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that on 12.07.1982, he was appointed
as a waterman by party no.1 and was posted as Farash-
Cum-Messanger, a class-IV post at Arvi Branch and his
main job was to clean the furnitures of the Bank, taking
files from one table to the other and to obey the orders of
the Branch Manager and other staff members and in the
mid of 1985, he was transferred to Pulgaon Branch as
Farash-Cum-Messanger and on 02.05.1987, a wet party
was organized by the officers and staff of the said branch
and the party continued till late mid-night and he was
asked by the Branch Manager to serve liquor and food in
the party and at about 11.P.M., liquor was finished, so, the
passing officer of the Bank, Shri Ballal directed him to
arrange for more liquor and he went out of the Bank and
tried to get liquor, but as all the shops were already closed,
he could not able to get any liquor and when he returned
to the Branch and informed about the same to Shri Ballal,
he (Mr. Ballal) became infuriated and threw the glass at
him, which hit him on his forehead and none of the officers
cared to take him to the doctor for first aid, but on the
contrary, he was asked to leave the Bank premises
immediately and he lodged a complaint immediately with
Pulgaon Police and the Station Officer directed a constable
to take him to the doctor for medical assistance and on the
next day, when the Branch Manager came to know about
the lodging of the complaint by him, he was called for by
the Branch Manager and he was directed him to withdraw
the complaint against Shri Ballal and when he refused to
do so, he was threatened by the Branch Manager that in
case on non-withdrawal of the complaint, he would see to
it that he (workman) would be out of employment and
after the said incident, the behavior of the staff and the
Branch Manager with him was very rude and insulting.
The further case of the workman is that on
02.07.1987, the Branch Manager suspended him on false
and frivolous charges and on the complain of the Branch
Manager, Pulgaon, Police filed three criminal cases bearing
case nos. 343/90, 344/90 and 345/90 under sections 420,
468 and 471 of I.P.C. against him in the court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Pulgaon and on 27.01.1988, a charge
sheet was issued against him and he received the charge
sheet on 26.02.1988 and as the charge sheet was in English,
he sought true translated copy of the charge sheet, after
which, the party no.1 issued the charge sheet in Hindi and
as per the allegations in the charge sheet, he had withdrawn
a sum of Rs. 24350 from three accounts of the customers,
Shri Narayan Vitthal Petkar, Shri Anna Mahadrorao Vilutkar
and Shri Mansingh Laxman Singh Yadav and he had taken
the triplicate pass book of Mr. Petkar and duplicate pass
book of Mr. Vilutkar and retained the same with him willfully
and dishonestly to withdraw the amounts from the
accounts of the said two customers, by forging their
signatures and in the matter of Mr. Yadav, it was alleged
that though the account holder had expired, he made
withdrawal of the amount from his account and alongwith
the charge sheet, the party no.1 did not supply the list of
witnesses and documents relied upon by it, so on
01.03.1988, he moved an application seeking copies of the
documents, clearly mentioning in the said letter that he
would not be able to file his reply to the show cause notice
till the supply of the documents and on 27.04.1988, the
party no.1 issued a letter asking him to clarify about the
documents he had sought for and even though, copies of
the documents were not supplied, party no.1, by letter
dated 29.03.1988 asked him again to submit his explanation
to the charge sheet and by his letter dated 05.04.1988, he
reminded the party no.1 to supply the copies of the
documents and on 06.05.1988 and 24.05.1988, he again
issued letters giving details of the documents required by
him to the party no.1 and inspite of receipt of the letters,
party no.1 failed to supply the documents demanded by
him and due to non-supply of the documents, he was
seriously prejudiced in filing the reply to the show cause
notice and on 26.08.1988. The party no.1 supplied only
two documents, i.e. the complaint lodged in the Police
Station and his own statement and he was also asked by
the party no.1 to furnish his reply to the show cause notice
within two days, but important documents, such as copies
of the alleged withdrawal slips, passbooks, specimen
signature sheets of the customers, saving ledger sheets
etc were not supplied.
The further case of the workman is that on 27.08.1987,
Shri W.L. Bhople and shri M.J. Kureshi, officers of the
Bank visited the branch at Pulgaon and he was called for
from his house and the Branch Manager and the said two
officers tried to make him understand that incase of his
admission of the withdrawals, he would be spared and
exonerated of the charges by passing an order of censure
in his service record and he refused to admit the charges
and sought time to consider the same and thereafter, those
officers obtained his signatures on blank paper and the
blank paper seems to have been misused by the Branch
Manager with ulterior motive to implicate him in the alleged
offence and a bare reading of the document would reflect
that the same was scribed after his signature was obtained
and the writing of the said document does not relate to the
facts, so as to connect him with the offence and after
receipt of the charge sheet and the correspondence, he
sought assistant from his collogues and came to know
5980
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
that Sastry Award governs the service conditions of all
the employees of the Bank and clause 521 (3) of Sastry
Award provides that in case of trial of an employee for an
offence in the court, the departmental enquiry initiated
against the employee has to be stayed till the completion
of the trial.
It is also pleaded by the workman that, though time
and again, he demanded documents relied on by party
no.1, the documents were not supplied to him and on
07.08.2008, he was informed by party no.1 to collect the
copy of the report of the handwriting expert, Shri Fiske
and on 27.09.1988, he visited the Bank, but copy of the
said report was not given to him and the same was only
shown to him and as the report was in English, he could
not able to understand the contents of the same and
30.09.1988, he issued a letter to the party no.1 mentioning
the said facts and after receipt of the letter, the copy of the
report of the handwriting expert was given to him and due
to failure on the part of the party no.1 to supply the
necessary documents, he was unable to file his reply to
the show cause notice.
The further case of the workman is that on 24.01.1989,
he received a letter from one Shri P.A. Sharma about his
being appointed as the enquiry officer to enquire into the
charges levelled against him (workman) and fixing of the
enquiry to 30.01.1989 at 11 AM at Pulgaon Branch of the
Bank and he requested Shri Sharma to stay the
departmental enquiry, in view of the pendency of the
criminal cases, as per clause 521 (3) of Sastry Award and
the enquiry was stayed by party no.1 and on 05.01.1998,
party no.1 again informed him of holding the departmental
enquiry against him and on 02.02.1998, he made a
representation to stay the inquiry, but on 07.02.1998, party
no.1 rejected his prayer and directed him to attend the
enquiry and in the meantime, out of the three criminal cases
instituted against him, he was acquitted in two cases on
21.02.1998 and 23.02.1998 and the third case i.e. 343/90
was also decided on 08.01.2002 and in that case also, he
was acquitted by the court and on 10.02.1998, he was
informed by the enquiry officer to attend the enquiry on
23.02.1998 at 11. AM at Pulgaon and on 23.02.1998, he
attended the enquiry and requested the enquiry officer to
stay the departmental enquiry, in view of the pendency of
the criminal case no. 343/90 against him and the enquiry
officer adjourned the enquiry to 06.03.1998 and on
06.03.1998, he was informed by the enquiry officer orally
about the enquiry to be stayed and no further date of the
enquiry was given to him and thereafter, no further
communication was received by him either from the party
no.1 or the enquiry officer and on 17.07.1998, he wrote a
letter to the Branch Manager, Pulgaon Branch, asking him
as to whether any communication about the departmental
enquiry was received by him and the branch manager orally
informed him of his having no information regarding the
departmental enquiry and on 20.07.1998, a legal notice
through his advocate was issued by him for releasing of
the correct subsistence allowance and also for stay of the
departmental proceedings, but on 26.10.1998, he was
shocked to receive the show cause notice from the
disciplinary authority, calling upon him to show cause
within 7 days, as to why he should not be dismissed from
service under para 521 (5) (a) of Sastry Award, without the
copy of the report submitted by the enquiry officer and on
27.10.1998, he requested the party no.1 for supply of the
copy of the enquiry report, documents and the statement
recorded in the enquiry and on the same day, the copy of
the enquiry report was supplied to him, but party no.1
refused to supply the copies of the statements recorded
in the enquiry, on the ground of his not participating in
the enquiry.
It is further pleaded by the workman that the finding
of the enquiry officer is contrary to the documents on
record and the entire proceedings is vitiated, as the party
no.1 acted contrary to Sastry Award and Desai Award,
which are part and parcel of the service conditions of the
employees and the same was in gross violation of
principles of natural justice and nowhere, it was held by
the enquiry officer that any of the witnesses had stated
that he had seen him (workman) collecting money from
the account of the alleged complainants and the
management produced two persons as witnesses, with
whom, he had inimical terms and civil litigations were
pending between them in the civil court and such facts
reflects the approach of the department, which was bent
upon to throw him out and to make him a scapegoat of the
offence committed by some high level officers of the branch
and therefore, the entire inquiry report and the show cause
notice and the subsequent order of the Disciplinary
authority need to be set right and being aggrieved, he
filed writ petition 3432 of 98, before the Hon’ble High Court
on 04.11.1998 and after the receipt of the notices of the
writ petition, instead of waiting for the orders, on 18.11.1998,
the party no.1 issued the order of dismissal under clause
521 (5) of Sastry Award, thereby making the entire
proceeding as in fructuous and 02.01.1999, he preferred
on appeal against the order of dismissal, before the
Appellate Authority by registered Post with AD.
It is also pleaded by the workman that inspite of
various reminders by the criminal court, no record was
produced, which had delayed the trial against him and
party no.1 continued the departmental enquiry during the
pendency of the criminal trial and he was not responsible
for such delay and party no.1 issued the order of dismissal
during the pendency of the writ petition filed by him and
thereafter, filed the reply stating that he had already been
dismissed from services and finally rejected his appeal,
before passing of any order in the complaint filed by him
under section 2A of the Act and all these actions make it
clear that the party no.1 was not only interested to
terminate his services, but also, bent upon to throw him
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5981
out of service, without following due process of law and
he had not committed any offence or misconduct much
less as alleged and due to the failure of party no.1 to
supply the documents, he was unable to file his reply to
the alleged charges levelled against him and the actions
taken by party no.1 were nothing but a clear cut example
of victimization and the appointing authority as well as
the appellate authority should have been taken into
consideration that he had already been acquitted in two
criminal cases and the third criminal case had been fixed
for evidence on 28.12.1998 in the court of JMFC, Pulgaon
and in such circumstances, he could not have participated
in the departmental enquiry as it would have adversely
affected him in the criminal case and the departmental
enquiry was stayed for 12 years, but as soon as the bank
came to know that he was acquitted in two criminal cases,
the party no.1 started the departmental enquiry with a
malafide intention and vengeance against him, as he had
reported against Shri Ballal and therefore, the action of
party no.1 in re-starting the departmental enquiry without
waiting for the outcome of the third criminal case is an
unfair labour practice and since 06.03.1998, the enquiry
was stopped and it resumed on 25.07.1998 after a gap of
4 months, but the enquiry officer deprived him of the right
to cross-examine the witnesses and the enquiry officer
also conducted the enquiry on the basis of the Xerox
copies of the documents, as the original documents were
filed in the criminal case and the enquiry officer got the
document proved without examining the author of the
document and therefore, the enquiry was bad in law.
It is averred by the workman that the enquiry officer
relied on the statements recorded u/s. 161 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure by the Police and the statement under
section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be
used as evidence against the maker, unless, it is duly
proved and the enquiry officer relied on the evidence of
the passing officer, Sriram M. Billal, who was an interested
witness and the enquiry officer did not examine the
handwriting expert, Shri N.A. Fiske and thereby he was
not provided any opportunity to cross-examine him and
the same resulted in miscarriage of justice and the enquiry
officer conducted the enquiry with a bias against him and
since the date of termination of his services, he is not
gainfully employed.
The workman has prayed to quash and set aside the
order dated 18.11.1998 and to reinstate him in service with
full back wages.
3.
The party no.1 in the written statement has pleaded
inter-alia that the workman was working as a Farash-Cum-
Messanger at Pulgaon branch and he committed gross
acts of misconduct and he in his own handwriting made
an application for issue of triplicate pass book in the name
of one Shri Narayan Vithal Petkar who was maintaining a
saving Bank account in the bank and signed the said
application in the manner purported to be signed by
Shri Narayan Vithal Petkar and got the triplicate pass book
issued and thereafter signed the withdrawal slips
purported to have been signed by Narayan Vithal Petkar
and withdrew an amount of Rs. 12500 dishonestly and
with ulterior motive from the account of Shri Narayan Petkar
on various dates as mentioned in the charge sheet and the
workman also did the same acts of unauthorized making
of application for issuing of duplicate passbook in the
name of Shri Anna M. Vilotkar and Shri Mansingh Yadav
and dishonestly and with ulterior motive withdrew the
amount of Rs. 5960 and Rs. 5960 on various dates as
mentioned in the charge sheet from the saving accounts
of Shri Vilotkar and Shri Mansingh Yadav respectively, by
signing the withdrawal slips purportedly to have been
signed by the said account holders and upon noticing the
acts of misconduct, the workman was suspended vide
office order dated 27.01.1987, which was duly received by
him on 23.07.1987 and a Police complaint came to be lodged
against the workman in 1987 and the matter was under
investigation for considerable long period by the local
Police, for the reasons not known to the Bank and in the
mean while, it served the charge sheet dated 27.01.1988 on
the workman and the workman replied to the charge sheet
vide his reply dated 03.11.1988 by submitting the defence
of mere denial, without making any allegation against the
bank or its officers and the workman attended the enquiry
on 30.1.1989 and as no trial began within a year from the
date of the commission of the alleged offence, it was free
to initiate an enquiry and the criminal court took
cognizance of the offence around the year 1990 and
thereafter, the Bank stopped its hands under the impression
that it may not be permissible to continue the domestic
enquiry, though in the strict legal sense, it could have
continued the same and as the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
decision reported in 1996 Labour & Industrial cases 2750
(State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena) held that the delay in
conclusion of the criminal trial is itself a good ground to
continue with the domestic enquiry and after examining
the matter, it asked the new enquiry officer, Mr. Charbhai
to continue the enquiry and accordingly, the enquiry officer
issued the letter dated 19.02.1998 for restarting of the
enquiry and the workman appeared before the enquiry
officer on 23.02.1998 and sought 15 days time to prepare
for his defence and accordingly, the enquiry was adjourned
to 06.03.1998 and on 06.03.1998, the workman informed
the enquiry officer that he would not participate in the
enquiry on the alleged ground that Bank is not competent
to continue the enquiry and vide letter dated 07.02.1998,
the workman was duly informed by it about rejection of
his request for stay of the enquiry and he was advised to
participate in the enquiry and the enquiry officer also
adjourned the enquiry from 07.02.1998 to 23.02.1998, so
that the workman should participate in the enquiry, but as
the workman deliberately did not participate in the enquiry
the enquiry officer decided to conduct the enquiry exparte
5982
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and the workman is to be blamed for his non-participation
in the enquiry and it had fully complied with the principles
of natural justice, while conducting the enquiry against
the workman and out of the three criminal cases, two cases
were disposed of on 23.02.1998 and therefore, it was not
precluded from continuing with the enquiry and the enquiry
was held in two sittings on 15.07.1998 and 27.07.1998,
wherein the evidence of the witnesses were recorded by
the enquiry officer and the actual recording of the evidence
of the witnesses and the crucial part of the enquiry
commenced only after the disposal of the criminal cases
and basing on the evidence produced during the enquiry,
the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 16.08.1998,
holding the charges to have been proved against the
workman and after conclusion of the enquiry, a show cause
notice dated 17.10.1998 came to be issued to the workman
to submit his reply and the copy on the report of the
enquiry officer was also enclosed with the show cause
notice and a copy of the report was further given to the
workman on the alleged ground that the same was not
enclosed with the show cause notice and the punishment
of dismissal of each charge was proposed by the
disciplinary authority in the said show cause notice and
personal hearing was also given to the workman on
30.10.1998 and being in agreement with the findings of the
enquiry officer and independently examining the materials,
the disciplinary authority passed the final order dated
18.11.1998, imposing the punishment of “dismissal without
notice”.
It is also pleaded by party no.1 that though the
workman was given seven days time to give his reply to
the charge sheet, he took much more time for filing his
reply and filed the same on 03.11.1988 and in the
intervening period, the documents sought for by the
workman were given to him and the disposal of criminal
cases was delayed and as such, the workman was under
suspension for a period of more than eleven long years
and after one year of suspension, the workman started
receiving full salary and allowances and having regard to
the gross-misconduct of the workman, it has rightly
imposed the punishment of “dismissal without notice” on
the workman and the punishment is commensurate with
the gross-misconduct committed by him.
The further case of party no.1 is that the workman is
able to read and write in English and he has pleaded about
his ignorance with English language with malafide
intention and on 02.05.1987, no party was organized in the
Bank and no such incident took place as alleged by the
workman and the entire material in paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4
of the statement of claim has been cooked by the workman
in order to create a ground for getting his punishment of
dismissal without notice modified and the same are out
and out false and frivolous and the workman had
voluntarily given his statement to the officers of the bank
on 27.08.1987 and the allegations that the officers obtained
his signature on blank paper and the Branch Manager
misused the said blank paper are nothing but the concocted
story made by the workman and he had never raised the
story of taking of his signature on blank paper at earlier
point of time and as its action in dismissing the workman
is legal and justified, the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
4.
As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from
service, after conducting of the departmental enquiry, the
validity or otherwise of the departmental enquiry was taken
as a preliminary issue for consideration and vide order
dated 19.02.2014, the departmental enquiry conducted
against the workman was held to be legal, proper and in
accordance with the principles of natural justice.
5.
At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
Learned Advocate for the workman that the enquiry was
held in violation of the departmental Rules and natural
justice and the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse
and such findings are not supported by the documents
referred in the report and while imposing the punishment,
the disciplinary authority has failed to consider the
extenuating circumstances regarding the acquittal of the
workman in two criminal cases, though he was bound to
consider the same as provided in Sastry Award and so
also under the principles of natural justice and the
punishment imposed against the workman is not only
disproportionate, but also illegal.
6.
On the other hand, it was submitted by the Learned
Advocate for the party no.1 that the departmental enquiry
conducted against the workman has already been held to
be legal and fair, so, there is no scope for consideration of
the same again and the charges levelled against the
workman in the charge sheet submitted by the party no.1
and the charges in the criminal cases filed against the
workman were not exactly the same and though police
complaint came to be lodged in 1987, there was long delay
in the investigation, so, party no.1 served the charge sheet
on the workman and in view of the pronouncement of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments that it is not
necessary to stay the departmental enquiry till the
conclusion of criminal case, party no.1 proceeded with
the departmental enquiry. It was further submitted by the
learned advocate for the party no.1 that the enquiry officer
has given justifiable reasons for holding the charges
levelled against the workman to have been proved and
the findings of the enquiry officer are not perverse and
the disciplinary authority had duly considered the fact of
acquittal of the workman in the three criminal cases, in his
final order dated 18.11.1998 and party no.1 has lost
confidence in the workman and the punishment awarded
to the workman is proportionate to the misconduct
committed by him and the same cannot be said to be
shockingly disproportionate, warranting the interference
at the hands of the Tribunal.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5983
In support of the submissions, the Learned Advocate
for the party no.1 placed reliance on the decisions reported
in (2011) 4 SCC-584 (State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs.
Nemichand), (2006) 2SCC-255 (TNCS Corpn. Ltd and others
Vs. K. Meerabai), 2003 LAB IC-281 (The Commissioner of
Police, Hyderabad Vs. Rachakonda Ranga Subbaiah), 2003
LAB IC-286 (Union of India Vs. G.S. Shukla), AIR 2003 SC-
1571 (Chairman & MD, United Commercial Bank Vs.
P.C.Kakkar), AIR 2003 SC-1462 (Regional Manger,
UPSRTC, Etawah Vs. Hotilal), 2006 AIR SCW-5457 (State
Bank of India Vs. Ramesh Dinkar), AIR 1996 SC-1556 (Bharat
Forge Company Ltd. Vs. A.B. Zodge and 2010 (6) Mh. L.J.-
309 (General Secretary Vs. Noble Paints).
7.
It is to be mentioned here that at the time of deciding
the preliminary issue of the fairness or other wise of the
departmental enquiry, the question of proceeding with the
departmental enquiry during the pendency of the criminal
cases against the workman had been considered. Hence,
there is no scope of reconsideration of the same or the
other points raised regarding the fairness of the
departmental enquiry. The only points required to be
considered are the perversity of the findings of the enquiry
officer and the proportionality of the punishment imposed
against the workman.
8.
It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court and so
also by different Hon’ble High Courts in a number of
decisions including the decisions cited by the Learned
Advocate for the party no.1 that, “The court should not
interfere with the administrator’s decision unless it was
illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was
shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that
it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. The court
would not go into the correctness of the choice made by
the administrator open to him and the court should not
substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The
scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in
decision making process and not the decision. To put
difference unless the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks
the conscience of the court/Tribunal, there is no scope for
interference. Further to certain litigations it may, in
exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment
by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal
course it the punishment impose is shockingly
disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority to
reconsider the penalty imposed.
XX XX XX XX XX
When considering whether punishment of
termination from service imposed upon a bank employee
is shockingly excessive or disproportionate to gravity of
proved misconduct, loss of confidence in employee is an
important and relevant factor.”
9.
Judging the present case in hand, with the touch
stone of the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court and different Hon’ble High Courts in the decisions
cited by the Learned Advocate for the party no.1 as
mentioned above, it is found that this is not a case of “no
evidence”. It is also found that the findings of the enquiry
officer are based on the evidence adduced in the
departmental enquiry and not on any extraneous material.
The enquiry officer has dealt with the charges
chronologically and has analyzed the evidence adduced
in the enquiry. The enquiry officer has given cogent
reasons in support of his findings. The findings of the
enquiry officer are neither against the evidence on record
of the enquiry nor the same are as such, which cannot be
arrived at by a prudent man on such evidence. Hence, the
findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be
perverse.
10.
So far the proportionality of the punishment is
concerned, it is found that commission of grave
misconduct of dishonesty, act highly prejudicial to the
interest of the bank and causing loss to the bank have
been proved against the workman in a properly conducted
departmental enquiry. There is nothing wrong in losing
confidence in the workman by the party no.1. So, the
punishment of dismissal from services passed against the
workman cannot be said to be shockingly excessive or
disproportionate. So, there is no scope to interfere with
the punishment. Hence, it is ordered:-
ORDER
The action of the management of State Bank of India,
Nagpur in dismissing the workman, Shri Maruti Bapurao
Borkar, Ex-Messanger-cum-Farash from service w.e.f.
18.11.1998 is justified. The workman is not entitled to any
relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2371-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj oqQnzseq[k
vk;ju vksj daiuh fyfeVsM 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ lh-vkj- la[;k 02@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks]
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&26011@7@2008&vkbZvkj (,e)º
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th August, 2014
S.O.
2371.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
5984
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. C.R. No.
02/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of Kudremukh Iron Ore Company
Limited and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 19/8/2014.
[No. L-26011/7/2008-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
“SHRAM SADAN”, G G PALYA, TUMKUR ROAD,
YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE – 560 022.
DATED
: 1st AUGUST 2014
PRESENT
: Shri S N NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
C R No. 02/2009
I Party
The General Secretary,
Kudremukh Shram Shakti Sanghatan,
B-64, KIOCL Quarters,
Kavoor, MANGALORE – 575 010.
II Party
The Director (Production & Projects),
Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited, Panambur,
MANGALORE – 575 015.
Appearances
I Party
: Muralidhara, Advocate
II Party
: Mrs. Subha Ananthi, Advocate
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide order No. L-26011/7/
2008-IR(M) dated 23.12.2008 in exercise of the power
conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14
of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the
following schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of Kudremukh Iron Ore
Company Limited is justified in imposing the
punishment of reduction to a lower stage of Rs. 8440
in the time scale of Rs. 5500-170-7540-180-9800 w.e.f.
18/10/2005 on Shri P. Dadavali, Staff No. 4004,
Technician Gr. II (E), Mining Department? What relief
the workman is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the reference while registering it in CR
02/2009 when the notices were issued to both parties to
appear on 20.04.2010 both entered their appearance
through their respective advocates and I Party filed his
claim statement on 20.07.2011 and II party filed its counter
statement on 13.04.2012.
3.
After completion of the pleadings while raising a
Preliminary Issue as to “Whether the Domestic Enquiry
held against the I Party by the II Party is Fair and Proper”
after receiving the evidence adduced by both sides and
hearing their respective counsel on the said issue when
the same came to be answered in the affirmative i.e., the
Domestic Enquiry held against the I party by the II party
is fair and proper the Learned Advocate appearing for the
I Party while filing the affidavit of the I Party workman on
the point of victimization and examining him on oath as
WW 1 (V) when the matter was posted for arguments on
merits, today i.e., 01.08.2014 filed a Memo to the effect that
the concerned workman having expressed that he is no
longer willing to prosecute the case and has requested
the I Party Union not to press the dispute any further it
may be closed as Not Pressed. In view of the said Memo
filed by the learned advocate appearing for the I Party
Union which is also signed by the workman covered, I
have no reason to opine or come to the conclusion the
impugned action of the management of KIOCL in imposing
the punishment of reduction to lower stage of Rs. 8440/-
in the time scale of Rs. 5500-170-7540-180-9800/- w.e.f.
18/10/2005 on Shri P. Dadavali, Staff No. 4004, Technician
Gr. II (E), Mining Department being not legal or justified.
4.
Under the circumstance, the reference is liable to be
rejected as not pressed. In the result, I pass the following
ORDER
The Reference is Rejected as Not Pressed by the
Party raising the Dispute.
(Typed to my dictation by U D C, corrected and signed by
me on 1st August 2014)
S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2372-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e
dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] eqEcbZ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 11@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 19@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@46@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th August, 2014
S.O.
2372.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5985
Court No. 1, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 19/8/2014.
[No. L-30011/46/2013-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI
Present : JUSTICE S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/11 OF 2014
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
And
Their workmen
Appearances:
For the first party no. 1/ : Mr. R. S. Pai, Adv.
Management
For the second party/
: Mr. N. S. Karanje,
Union
General Secretary
State
: Maharashtra
Mumbai, dated the 12th day of June, 2014
AWARD
1.
The present reference has been made by the Central
Government by its order dated 21.2.2014 passed in exercise
of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1)
and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of reference as per the
schedule to the said order are as under:
“Whether the action of the management of Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai for deduction
of two days wages of 21st and 22nd August, 2012 of
the members of the Petroleum Employees Union,
Mumbai from their December 2012 month wages,
even though the workmen leave applications were
sanctioned by the Competent Authority and full
wages were paid for the month of August 2012 is
legal, just and proper? If not, what relief the workmen
concerned are entitled to?”
2.
Pursuant to the order dated 26.3.2014, notices were
issued to the parties by Registered Post AD fixing 2.5.2014.
3.
On 2.5.2014, despite service of notice, none was
present on behalf of the first party / Management nor was
anyone present on behalf of the second party / Union.
The case was accordingly adjourned to 10.7.2014 for filing
Statement of Claim.
4.
However, in the meantime, a Joint Application dated
6.6.2014 (in short “Joint Application No.I”) has been filed
on behalf of the first party/Management and the second
party/Union, inter-alia, praying for pre-poning the date
fixed in the case as the matter has been settled out-of-
Court.
5.
Further, another Joint Application dated 6.6.2014 (in
short “Joint Application No. II”) has been filed on behalf
of the first party/Management and the second party/ Union
wherein. It is, inter-alia, stated that the dispute between
the parties no longer survives in view of the Settlement
dated 9.1.2014, copy whereof has been filed with the said
Joint Application.
6.
Another application dated 6.6.2014 on behalf of the
second party / Union has also been filed. In paragraph 2
of the said application, it is, inter-alia, stated as under:
“As the issue involved in the above reference is
settled in terms of the aforesaid Memorandum of
Settlement, the dispute no longer survives and
therefore be disposed off accordingly”.
7.
In view of the filing of the aforesaid applications
and in view of the oral prayer made by Shri R.S.Pai, Learned
Counsel for the first party/Management and
Shri N. S. Karanje, General Secretary of the second party/
Union, the date fixed in the matter has been pre-poned
and the case has been taken up today.
8.
Shri R. S. Pai, Learned Counsel for the first party /
Management and Shri N. S. Karanje, General Secretary of
the second party/Union are present. They jointly state
that in view of the Settlement dated 9.1.2014 arrived at
between the parties, the dispute forming the subject-matter
of the reference no longer survives.
9.
In view of the averments made in the aforesaid Joint
Application No.II filed on behalf of the first party/
Management and the second party/Union and in the
aforesaid application dated 6.6.2014 filed on behalf of the
second party/Union, and in view of the statements made
by both the parties before this Tribunal, it is evident that
the dispute which was referred to this Tribunal in the
above reference no longer survives.
10.
In view of the above, the reference is answered by
stating that the dispute forming the subject-matter of the
reference no longer survives.
11.
Award is passed accordingly.
Justice S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2373-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e
dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
5986
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] eqEcbZ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 48@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 19@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@43@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th August, 2014
S.O.
2373.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court No. 1, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 19/8/2014.
[No. L-30011/43/2012-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI
Present : Justice S.P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/48 OF 2013
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
And
Their workmen
Appearances :
For the first Party/Management : Mr. R. S. Pai, Adv.
For the second Party/Union : Absent
State : Maharashtra
Mumbai, dated the 7th day of May, 2014.
AWARD
1.
The present reference has been made by the Central
Government by its order dated 30.1.2013 passed in exercise
of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1)
and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of reference as per the
schedule to the said order are as under:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s
BPCL, Uran in diminishing/lessening the rest
intervals causing change in the service conditions
being observed for more than 18 years without
following the statutory provisions in Section 9-A of
the ID Act, 1947 is justified and proper? If not, what
relief and other benefits the workmen are entitled
to?”
2.
By the order dt.15.2.2013, passed by the Tribunal,
Notice was directed to be issued to the parties. Notice
issued to the first party / Management by Registered Post
AD was duly served and the Acknowledgement Card was
received back. Similarly, notice issued to the second
party/Union was duly served and the Acknowledgement
Card was received back. However, on 25.3.2013, which
was the date fixed in the notice, none was present on
behalf of either of the parties despite service of Notice. In
the circumstances, the case was adjourned and was fixed
on 26.4.2013 for filing Statement of Claim on behalf of the
second party /Union.
3.
On 26.4.2013, both the parties were again absent. In
the circumstances, the case was fixed for 20.6.2013.
4.
On 20.6.2013, Shri R.S. Pai, Advocate appeared on
behalf of the first party / Management. However, none
was present on behalf of the second party / Union. In the
circumstances, the case was adjourned and was fixed on
8.8.2013 for filing Statement of Claim on behalf of the
second party / Union.
5.
On 8.8.2013, the post of Presiding Officer of this
Tribunal was vacant. Shri R.S. Pai, learned counsel for the
first party /Management was present. However, none was
present on behalf of the second party / Union. The case
was adjourned and fixed for 8.10.2013 for filing Statement
of Claim on behalf of the second party / Union.
6.
On 8.10.2013 the post of Presiding Officer of this
Tribunal was vacant. Shri Sanjay, Representative of
ShriR.S.Pai, learned counsel for the first party /
Management was present. However, none was present
on behalf of the second party / Union. The case was
again adjourned to 22.11.2013 for filing Statement of Claim
on behalf of the second party / Union.
7.
On 22.11.2013, Shri Sanjay, Representative of
ShriR.S.Pai, learned counsel for the first party /
Management was present. However, none was present
on behalf of the second party / Union. In the
circumstances, the case was again adjourned to 2.1.2014
for filing Statement of Claim on behalf of the second
party/Union.
8.
On 2.1.2014, Ms.M.Chatterjee, Representative for
the first party / Management was present. However, none
was present on behalf of the second party / Union. In the
circumstances, the case was adjourned to 6.2.2014 for
filing Statement of Claim on behalf of the second
party/Union.
9.
On 6.2.2014, Shri Sanjay, Representative of
ShriR.S.Pai, learned counsel for the first party /
Management was present. However, none was present
on behalf of the second party / Union. In the
circumstances, the case was again adjourned to 20.2.2014
for filing Statement of Claim on behalf of the second
party/Union.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5987
10.
On 20.2.2014, Shri Sanjay, Representative of Shri R.S.
Pai, learned counsel for the first party / Management was
present. However, none was present on behalf of the
second party/Union. In the circumstances, the case was
again adjourned to 2.4.2014 for filing Statement of Claim
on behalf of the second party/Union.
11.
On 2.4.2014, ShriR.S.Pai, learned counsel for the first
party / Management was present. However, none was
present on behalf of the second party/Union. In the
circumstances, the case was again adjourned to 7.5.2014
for filing Statement of Claim on behalf of the second
party/Union.
12.
Pursuant to the order dt.2.4.2014 the case is put up
today. Shri Sanjay, Representative of ShriR.S.Pai, learned
counsel for the first party/Management is present.
However, none is present on behalf of the second party/
Union. No Statement of Claim has been filed on behalf of
the second party/Union.
13.
From the above narration of facts, it is evident that
despite service of notice on the second party / Union,
none put up in appearance on behalf of the second
party/Union despite repeated adjournments and no
Statement of Claim was filed on behalf of the second party
/ Union. Today again, none is present on behalf of the
second Party / Union and no Statement of Claim has been
filed on behalf of the second party/Union.
14.
In view of the above, it is apparent that there is no
pleading or evidence filed on behalf of the second party /
Union in support of its claim. In the circumstances, no
relief can be granted to the second party / Union.
15.
The Reference made to this Tribunal is, therefore,
answered by stating that no relief can be granted to the
second party / Union.
16.
Award is passed accordingly.
Justice S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2374-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e
dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] eqEcbZ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 9@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 19@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@47@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th August, 2014
S.O.
2374.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 9/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court No. 1, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 19/8/2014.
[No. L-30011/47/2013-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 MUMBAI
Present : Justice S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/9 OF 2014
Parties :
Employers in relation to the management of
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
And
Their workmen
Appearances :
For the first Party no.1/ : Mr. R. S. Pai, Adv.
Management
For the second Party/
: Mr. Pravin Bondekar,
Union
General Secretary
State : Maharashtra
Mumbai, dated the 12th day of June, 2014
AWARD
1.
The present reference has been made by the Central
Government by its order dated 21.2.2014 passed in exercise
of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1)
and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of reference as per the
schedule to the said order are as under:
“Whether the action of the management of Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai for deduction
of two days wages of 21st and 22nd August, 2012 of
the members of the Petroleum Employees Union,
Mumbai from their December 2012 month wages,
even though the workmen leave applications were
sanctioned by the Competent Authority and full
wages were paid for the month of August 2012 is
legal, just and proper? If not, what relief the workmen
concerned are entitled to?”
2.
Pursuant to the order dated 26.3.2014, notices were
issued to the parties by Registered Post AD fixing 2.5.2014.
5988
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
On 2.5.2014, despite service of notice, none was
present on behalf of the first party/Management nor was
anyone present on behalf of the second party/Union.
The case was accordingly adjourned to 10.7.2014 for filing
Statement of Claim.
4.
However, in the meantime, a Joint Application dated
6.6.2014 (in short “Joint Application No.I”) has been filed
on behalf of the first party / Management and the second
party/Union, inter-alia, praying for pre-poning the date
fixed in the case as the matter has been settled out-of-
Court.
5.
Further, another Joint Application dated 6.6.2014 (in
short “Joint Application No. II”) has been filed on behalf
of the first party / Management and the second party/
Union wherein It is, inter-alia, stated that the dispute
between the parties no longer survives in view of the
Settlement dated 9.1.2014, copy whereof has been filed
with the said Joint Application.
6.
Another application dated 6.6.2014 on behalf of
the second party / Union has also been filed. In paragraph
2 of the said application, it is, inter-alia, stated as under:
“As the issue involved in the above reference is
settled in terms of the aforesaid Memorandum of
Settlement, the dispute no longer survives and
therefore be disposed off accordingly”.
7.
In view of the filing of the aforesaid applications
and in view of the oral prayer made by Shri R.S. Pai, learned
counsel for the first party/Management and Shri Pravin
Bondekar, General Secretary of the second
party/Union, the date fixed in the matter has been pre-
poned and the case has been taken up today.
8.
Shri R.S. Pai, learned counsel for the first party/
Management and Shri Pravin Bondekar, General Secretary
of the second party/Union are present. They jointly state
that in view of the Settlement dated 9.1.2014 arrived at
between the parties, the dispute forming the subject-matter
of the reference no longer survives.
9.
In view of the averments made in the aforesaid Joint
Application No.II filed on behalf of the first party/
Management and the second party/Union and in the
aforesaid application dated 6.6.2014 filed on behalf of the
second party/Union, and in view of the statements made
by both the parties before this Tribunal, it is evident that
the dispute which was referred to this Tribunal in the
above reference no longer survives.
10.
In view of the above, the Reference is answered by
stating that the dispute forming the subject-matter of the
Reference no longer survives.
11.
Award is passed accordingly.
Justice S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2375-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M
¯lèk 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;] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (1295@2007) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@170@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th August, 2014
S.O.
2375.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1295/
2007) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Punjab and Sind Bank,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 25/08/2014.
[No. L-12012/170/2002-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present : SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No.1295/2007
Registered on 9.1.2007
Smt. Kitabo W/o Sh. Subhash Chand,
R/o Balmiki Basti, Main Market,
Model Town, Karnal
... Petitioner
Versus
The Branch Manager,
Punjab and Sind Bank,
Main Branch, G.T. Road,
Karnal
... Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
: Sh. Bhagwan Dass, Adv.
For the Management
: Sh. J. S. Sathi, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 28-7-2014
Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/
170/2002 -IR(B-II) Dated 8.12.2006, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-
section (2 A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5989
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of Punjab
and Sind Bank in terminating the services of
Smt. Kitabo W/o Sh. Subhash Chand w.e.f. 6.2.2002
was just and fair? If not, what relief Smt. Kitabo is
entitled to?”
In response to the notice the workman appeared
and filed statement of claim pleading that she was
appointed as Peon by the respondent management on
daily wage basis w.e.f. 8.2.2001 when, two posts of Peon
were lying vacant in the office. It is pleaded that her
signatures were obtained on the back side of the credit
vouchers and sometimes bank used to get her signatures
on the vouchers as ‘Kavita and Kamlesh’ instead of her
own name i.e. Kitabo. After completion of one year of
service she raised claim to adjust her against vacant post
of Peon on regular basis and the management illegally
terminated her services w.e.f. 6.2.2002 without giving her
any notice or retrenchment compensation. That the
termination of her services is illegal and she is entitled to
reinstatement.
Management filed written statement controverting
the averments and pleaded that workman was never
appointed as Peon but was only engaged for short intervals
as casual labourer/sweeper and she worked only for
9 days and was paid Rs. 540 by way of different vouchers.
That she was never asked to sign as “Kamlesh” or “Kavita”
or any other co-workman. Since she worked only for nine
days, she cannot claim that she worked for a continuous
period of 240 days. That the claim raised by the workman
is baseless.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of her case Smt. Kitabo, workman
appeared in the witness box and filed her affidavit
reiterating the case as set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand the management has examined
Paramjit Singh, who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand
as taken by the management in the written statement.
I have heard Sh. Bhagwan Dass counsel for the
workman and Sh. J.S. Sathi, counsel for the management.
It was argued by the learned counsel for the workman
that workman joined as Peon on daily wage basis on
8.2.2001 and her services were illegally terminated on
6.2.2002 and since her services were terminated without
payment of any retrenchment compensation, the
termination is illegal. He has further carried me through
the photocopies of the vouchers Exhibit W1 to W6 to
submit that the signatures of the workman were obtained
under different names on the back of the vouchers as
Kamlesh and Kavita and actually it was she to whom the
payment was made. He has further submitted that since
the management has failed to produce the record despite
being ordered by the Court, adverse inference be taken to
hold that the workman actually worked for more than 240
days and vouchers were obtained wrongly by the
management. He has placed on reliance on Divisional
Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani Vs. The Presiding
Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and
another reported in 2010(4) RSJ 267, wherein it was
observed in para 11 of the judgment as follows :-
It is a known fact that the management is the
custodian of the records. It has not only to maintain
the records, but to preserve them also. The workmen,
who generally are daily wagers, are neither issued
appointment letters nor the termination orders. They,
therefore, have to depend on the records, which are
available with the management. When the workmen
make a request to the Labour Court for summoning
of the relevant records and a direction is issued by
the Labour Court to the management for the
production of the same, the management is obliged
to produce the same before the Labour Court. In
case, the records are relevant and are not produced
before the Labour Court and is stated by the
management witness that he could not produce the
records in future also, the Labour Court is left with
no option, but to draw adverse inference.
I have considered the contentions.
It is an admitted case that workman was engaged as
a daily wager and according to the management she was
engaged due to exigencies of service. Workman claimed
that she continuously worked from 8.2.2001 to 6.2.2002
and it was for her to prove this fact by leading cogent
evidence. According to her she was made payment
through vouchers but she placed only few vouchers
Exhibit W1 to W6 which are not legible except voucher
W1. The voucher Exhibit W4 and W5 do not relate to her.
If she has worked for one year, she would have been placed
all the remaining vouchers to prove that she actually
worked for more than 240 days. The management has
placed on record the photocopies of vouchers Exhibit R1
to R3 showing that she was paid Rs.180 for working on
24.7.2001 and 25.7.2001 and again for 8.10.2001 and
9.10.2001 and then for 22.10.2001 to 24.10.2001. Thus as
per these vouchers she did work intermittently and was
paid wages on daily basis. There is no other evidence on
the file except the bare statement of the workman that she
worked for more than 240 days and as stated above, she
even did not produce the vouchers except few that she
actually received the payments for more than 240 days.
The workman moved an application dated 16.10.2007
for a direction to the management to produce the payment
vouchers from February, 2001 to March, 2007 of female
casual labourers pleading that the management compelled
5990
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
her to sign the vouchers as Kavita and Kamlesh and to
see the conduct of the management the vouchers be
produced. Direction was issued to the management to
produce the vouchers vide order dated 14.2.2008 but it
failed to produce the same and its evidence was closed
vide order dated 17.6.2010. Thus the workman summoned
the record just to prove the fact that her signatures were
obtained as “Kamlesh” and “Kavita” and actually the
payment was made to her. Since the vouchers placed on
record were actually issued in the name of said Kamlesh, it
cannot be said that her signatures were obtained in place
of Smt. Kamlesh and even if an inference is drawn that her
signatures were obtained as ‘Kamlesh’ or ‘Kavita’, the
same do not go to prove that she actually worked for 240
days as the period calculated from the vouchers placed
on the file do not come to 240 days. Therefore the ratio of
above said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the
present case.
Thus the workman has failed to prove by leading
cogent and convincing evidence that she worked for 240
days with the management as daily wager.
Even if it is taken that she did work as a daily wager
for the period in question, the termination of her services
of daily wager do not amount to ‘retrenchment’ as held in
Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtak Vs. Jagat Singh and
Another reported in 2010(4) SLR 390 wherein it was
observed in para 4 of the judgment as follow:-
It may be noticed that the definition of retrenchment
in Section 2(oo) of the Act is applicable to the provisions
contained in Chapter VA containing Sections 25F and 25H
of the Act. The termination of daily wager is not
retrenchment failing within Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act.
Therefore, the workman who is a daily wager cannot be
reinstated as it does not amount to retrenchment within
the meaning of Sections 25F and 25G of the Act.
The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Himanshu Kumar
Vidyarthi and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported
in 1997(2) CLR 15 that the discontinuance of the service of
a daily wager is not a retrenchment and observed in para 3
of the judgment as follows:-
“Every department of the Government cannot be
treated to be “industry”. When the appointments
are regulated by the statutory rules, the concept of
“industry” to that extent stands excluded.
Admittedly, they were not appointed to the posts in
accordance with the rules but were engaged on the
basis of need of the work. They are temporary
employees working on daily wages. Under these
circumstances, their disengagement from service
cannot be construed to be a retrenchment under the
Industrial Disputes Act. The concept of
‘retrenchment’ therefore, cannot be stretched to such
an extent as to cover these employees. The learned
counsel for the petitioners seeks to contend that in
the High Court, the petitioners did not contend that
it is a case of retrenchment but termination of their
services is arbitrary. Since they are only daily-wage
employees and have no right to the posts, their
disengagement is not arbitrary.
Thus, the workman has failed to prove that she
worked for continuously for 240 days with the management
and since she herself claims to be as ‘daily wager’, the
termination of her services do not amount to
‘retrenchment’.
In result, it is held that the action of the management
in terminating the service of the workman was just and fair
and she is not entitled to any relief. The reference is
answered accordingly against the workman. Let hard and
soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government
for information and further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2376-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ
bafM;k 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; 2] /uckn ds iapkV (161@1999) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@214@98&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th August, 2014
S.O.
2376.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 161/1999)
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 Bank of India, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
25/08/2014.
[No. L-12012/214/98-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT : SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d)
of the I.D.Act, 1947.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5991
Reference No. 161 of 1999
PARTIES
: Mr. Ashok Kumar Sahu,
Ex-workman, C/o Radhey Raman Sharma
Bank of India, Nadim Medical Hall,
Islampur, PO & Distt: Gumla
Vs.
The Regional Manager,
Bank of India, Palkot Road, Gumla
Order No. L-12012/214/98/IR(B-II) dt.23.03.1999
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the Workman/
: Mr. M. N. Rewani,
Union
Ld.Advocate
On behalf of the Management : Mr. S. K. Chamaria,
Ld.Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Banking
Dated: Dhanbad, the 31st July, 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-12012/214/98/IR (B-II) dt.23.03.1999.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the termination of service of Shri Ashok
Kumar Sahu, Ex-workman by the Bank of India w.e.f.
2.6.1997 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to?’’
On receipt of the Order No. L-12012/214/98/IR (B-II)
dt.23.03.1999 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. 161-1999 of was registered on 01.04.1999 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 contested the case,
respectively.
2.
The case of ex-workman/applicant Ashok Kumar
Sahu as represented in his written statement is that he
having his date of birth as 5.7.1957 had began to work as
Budlee Sepoy in the Bank of India at Gumla Branch from
the 1981 while he was 24 years old. He also worked for 68
and 109 days at the Branches of Talo and Manjhatoli
respectively, and continued to work from 13.7.1993 in the
Regional Office, Palkot Road, Gumla. His name was
registered at Gumla Branch since 1981Despite the letter
dt.14.07.1995 of the Regional Manager,Gumla Region to
the Zonal Manager, Bihar (South)Zone Personnel
Department recommending the workman for duly
absorption, the Management had appointed the persons
including an outsider Tapan Kumar Das brought by
V.N.Shrma of the Zonal Office against the vacancy in the
Gumla region during the years 1982,1987 and 1996, but
aforesaid Tapan had never worked in any of the branches
of the Bank. On 30.1.1996, there were vacancies in the four
branches at Bano, Raidih,Chainpur and Dumri for which
the panel was prepared as per the letter dt.18.5.1996
showing the name of the applicant at the fourth place, as
the applicant had continuously worked for 286 days in the
year 1991 as per the letter dt.14.7.1995, which was sent to
the Zonal Manager, Bihar (South)Zone,Personnel
Department. The applicant put claim for justice from the
High Officers of The Bank even by publishing in the Daily
“Aaj” on 20.7.1996. He also sent the Advocate’s Notice
dt.13.8.1986 to the Bank, the D.C. Gumla as well as to the
A.L.C. as per the letter dt.23.6.1997. He had submitted his
papers called for in the office on 31.5.1996. He applied for
permission to join against the vacancy at Marria
Branch,Gumla just he had applied several times for payment
of Bonus and arrears as earlier paid to him by the Branches
of Gumla and Manjhatoli. As the Deputy Regional Manager
H.N.Mishra had verbally stopped the service of the
applicant since 2.6.1997, the applicant resorted to the Court
for consideration of his case. The file of the Budlee Sepoy
is maintained in the Bank which may be persused, as his
termination is not at all legal and valid, he is entitled to
reinstatement in his service.
3.
The ex-workman in his rejoinder has categorically
denied all the allegations of the O.P./Management, yet
re-represented his case as in his written statement itself.
4.
Whereas the case of the O.P./Management with
specific denials is that this reference is not maintainable in
law on facts, as the person concerned is not a workman
under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, nor ever employer-
employee relationship existed between the Management
and him at any time. The Management has to follow the
employment procedure in confirmatory with the
Constitutional Provision at the time of recruitment of
employee in the service of the Bank. Not any officer of the
Bank at the Branch level is empowered to select or recruit
any employee on the roll of the bank to his choice. Names
of the eligible candidates are called for from the Employment
Exchange. The person concerned was neither ever
engaged nor selected or recruited in the service of the
Bank by the Competent Authority in accordance with the
recruitment Rules and procedure . He has not any right to
claim for a regular employment on any substantive post or
for performing any substantive duties. Since he had no
5992
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
status of an employee of the Bank, neither question of
alleged termination of his service from 2.6.1997 nor that of
compliance of provision u/s 25(F) the Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 arises. Any illegal engagement by any Officer of
the Bank contrary to the recruitment rules and procedure
does not confer on such person the status of an employee/
workman, so he can not claim for any right over
employment in the service of the Bank. The person was
being engaged as a “Coolie” purely on temporary casual
basis as and when required. He was a daily wager in
different branches in exigencies only. He was never issued
by the Bank any letter of appointment, as he had availed
of the opportunity to apply against the vacancy, but he
could not be selected due to his failure in the written test/
Interview for it, resulting in not getting an employment.
He is still at liberty to apply in case, any vacancy is not
filled. His Writ petition: CWJC No.195/2001 filed before
the Hon’ble High Court, Patna, Ranchi Bench for re-
instatement on the ground of aforesaid oral termination in
1997 was declined to provide any such relief. On this score,
the reference is not maintainable. As such the action of
Management is legal and justified.
5.
The O.P./Management in their rejoinder has
specifically denied and alleged all the allegations of the
person concerned as false and misleading, further alleging
that one or more branches have already been closed. If
vacancies arise on different occasions, they are filled by
following the recruitment procedure. The candidates
successful at the Test/Interviews are taken in employment
to required number, and thereafter, the panel list stands
scrapped. The person concerned never raised any dispute
against it. So he is not entitled to any of the reliefs as
prayed for or otherwise.
FINDING WITH REASONS
6.
In them present reference, Ashok Kumar Sahu, the
ex-workman for himself, and MWI Rajesh Kumar, the Chief
Manager, the Bank of India at Gumla Branch for the O.P./
Management have been respectively examined.
On perusal of the pleading, evidences oral and
documentary, of both the parties, it indisputably appears
that the employment of the workman as Badlee Sepoy
casual worker by the O.P./Management was purely a daily
wager in exigencies for 64 days during the period from
16.1.1981 to 16.1.1984 as per his Experience Certificate
dt.15.4.1987 issued by the Manager, Bank of India, Gumla
Branch, Ranchi(Ext.W.2 with objection).It also seems
beyond any dispute that the Ex-workman was issued the
Interview Letter dt.22.1.1996 by the Regional Office,Gumla
Region(Ext.W/1 =Ext.M.3) for employment as Sepoy (Peon)
consequent upon the letters dt.1/4.7.1995 and 14.7.1995 of
the Regional Managers of Gumla and Bihar (Sangh) Zone
to the G.M.,Head Office, Personnel Department concerned
(The photocopies thereof as Extt.W.1 and 1/2 with
objection) in that regard. It can not be denied by the
ex-workman that his Writ petition:CWJC 195/2001 filed
against the O.P./Management based on his aforesaid same
working days was disposed of as declined to grant any
relief as per the Order dt.15.1.2001 of the Hon’ble
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi passed therein, with an
option for filing the Industrial Dispute, if permissible in
law (Ext.M.1).
Mr. N. M. Rawani, Learned Counsel for the Union/
workman that the workman has continuously worked for
286 days in the 1991 at Regional Office,Gumla, as stated
by himself to have filed it also, and despite his Experience
Certificate dt.15.5.1987 and two Admitted Management’s
letters dt.1/4.7.1995 & 14.7.1995(Ext.W.2,1/2 & 1 with
objection respectively), his termination verbally by the
Management w.e.f. 2.6.1997 is neither legal nor justified.
But the statement of the workman to have filed in the case
his appointment letter for the post of Budlee Sepoy and
the documents of his working for 286 days in the year
1991 apparently as a new base for this case appears to be
quite false and baseless, as none of them has been filed
by him.
So far as the photocopies of the Attendance Sheet
of three persons Sajit Oraon,Vim Oraon(dead now) and
workmen Ashok Sahu for the period of April,1995 to
March,1997 (Extt.W.4 series in 25 sheets with objection)
are concerned, these are unauthenticated as well as
unpleaded; hence these are entirely inadmissible in eye of
the Laws. The workman appears to have played his last
Trum Card for his claim.
On the other hand,Mr.S.K.Chamaria,the Learned
Advocate for O.P./Management has contended that the
workman was intermittently engaged as a coolie on casual
basis in different branches of the Bank in exigencies; he
had applied for and faced the interview in the year 1996 as
per his Interview letter dt 22.1.1996 (Ext.W.1/1 = Ext.M-3)
against the vacancies of Sepoy (Peon),but he was not
selected for it on account of his failure therein. He was
never engaged as a regular employee by the Management
according to the recruitments Rule and Procedure of the
Management. Nor he was ever a workman/employee of
the Management under Sec. 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. Since there was no relationship of Employer-
Employee between the Management and the alleged Ex-
workman. No question of his termination/retrenchment
from service by the Bank of India w.e.f. 2.6.1997 arises.
Further Mr.Chamaria has laconically submitted that
appointment made to a post not in consonance with
Statutory rules is illegal; irregular appointee even if
continued for a long time is not entitled to be regularized
as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Subedar
Singh Vs. District Judge, Mirzapur, 2001 Lab
I.C.64(SC).Underlining the reference under adjudication
having been barred,Mr.Chamaria relied upon AIR
2003(SC)4701, Pondichary Khadi & Village Industry Board
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5993
Vs. Kulothangan, and submitted as held therein, that the
dispute raised about termination of services of temporary
workman by way of Writ petition, the High Court passed
reasoned order on merits as a final order after contested
hearing, so reagitation of same before Labour Court is
barred by Res-judicata, more so when the ‘lesser relief’ of
re-instatement which was the subject matter of industrial
Dispute had already been claimed by respondent workman
in Writ petition (Para 10,11). But I disagree with the
contention of Mr. Chamaria at the point in the instant case,
because the ex -workman had earlier filed the reference for
the issue of termination in the year 1999 earlier than his
CWJC No.195/2001 against the Management before the
Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi for the same, but
even the Writ was not finally decided on merit by the
Hon’ble High Court, so the instant case is not barred by
Res-judicate’. The former ruling appears to be applicable
to the instant case of the workman irregularly engaged
as a casual worker in exigencies.
On consideration of the materials available on the
case record, I find that the workman clearly appears to
have failed to discharge the onus of proof over the point
of his continuous working for minimum 240 days during a
period of twelve calendar months preceding the date of
the reference as required u/s 25(B)(2)(a)(ii) of the Industrial
Dispute Act,1947. In lack of it, an unengagement of the
instant ex-workman as a casual/purely temporary one
amounts to no termination/retrenchment as defined under
Sec.2(oo) of the said Act.
In result it is, in the terms of the reference, hereby
awarded that in view of irregular engagement of the ex-
workman purely as a casual worker in exigencies for a few
days, an unengagment of him by the Bank Management
accordingly is not his termination/retrenchment from the
service of Shri Ashok Kumar Sahu as alleged, as he had
never been in continuous service as a casual worker for
minimum 240 days as required under the Sec.25 (B) of the
I.D. Act. So the alleged question of his termination w.e.f.
2.6.1997 whether legal or justified never arises. The
workman is not entitled to any relief, not even of any
compensation as well.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2377-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsUV cSad gkse
iQkbusal 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@Je U;k;ky;] y[kumQ ds iapkV (06@2006) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@111@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th August, 2014
S.O.
2377.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 06/2006) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Cent. Bank Home
Finance Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 25/08/2014.
[No. L-12012/111/2005-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–
CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 06/2006
Ref. No. L-12012/111/2005-IR (B-II) dated: 02.03.2006
BETWEEN
Ms. Purnima Shukla
R/o G-87, Sanjay Gandhi Puram,
Faizabad Road,
Lucknow.
AND
The Branch Manager
Cent Bank Home Finance Ltd.
Branch Office, B-54, Bhatia Complex
Kapoorthala Crossing, Mahanagar
Lucknow.
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-12012/111/2005-IR (B-II) dated:
02.03.2006 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 Ms. Purnima
Shukla, R/o G-87, Sanjay Gandhi Puram, Faizabad Road,
Lucknow and the Branch Manager, Cent Bank Home
Finance Ltd., Branch Office, B-54, Bhatia Complex,
Kapoorthala Crossing, Mahanagar, Lucknow for
adjudication to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“Whether it is fact that Ms. Purnima Shukla was
engaged by cent, Home Finance Ltd. Lucknow
dueing the period from 05-05-1998 to 20-09-2004? If
so, whether the action of the management of in
terminating her from service is justified and legal
and what relief is the disputant concerned entitled
to?’’
5994
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. The case of the workman, Ms. Purnima Shukla, in
brief, is that she was engaged/recruited temporarily by
the opposite party bank in clerical capacity since 05.05.1998
and worked as such continuously for more than six years
without any break; whereby completing more than 240
days of continuous working in a calendar year. It is stated
by the workman that while her period of service, she
received the cash from depositors/borrowers under her
signatures, prepared vouchers, maintained various ledgers,
registers, prepared evaluation sheets and periodical
statements etc. It is submitted by the workman that she
was paid salary in cash without taking her signatures
anywhere. It is stated that the management did not pay
her regular wages and other facilities at par with the regular
employees and in the starting she was paid Rs. 1600 per
month which was raised from time to time and was getting
Rs. 2370 per month from January, 2002. It is submitted by
the workman that the management asked her to get
payment through an agency viz. M/s. Bright Enterprises,
Bhopal. The workman did not accede to the directions of
the management and filed a complaint before Assistant
Labour Commissioner, which resulted into oral termination
of her services by the opposite party w.e.f. 20.09.2004. It
has been alleged by the workman that the action of the
management in terminating the services of the workman
was in violation to the provisions of Section 2 (oo) and
25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, it
has been prayed by the workman that her illegal termination
be set aside and she be reinstated with full back wages.
4. The management of the Cent Bank has filed its
written statement denying the claim of the workman and
has submitted that the applicant is not a workman within
the provisions of the Act and provisions of Section 2A is
not applicable in present case. It is specifically submitted
that the claimant was never engaged/appointed by the
opposite party at any point of time nor was paid any wages
and claimant is seeking back door entry into the services
of the Bank. It is submitted by the management that the
claimant worked with the opposite party as a representative
of the working agency viz. Bright Enterprises and there is
no relationship of employer and employee between the
bank and the claimant, therefore, their no termination or
violation of any of the provisions of the Act. Accordingly,
he management has prayed that the claim of the claimant
be rejected being devoid of any merit.
5.
The workman has filed its rejoinder; wherein apart
from reiterating the submissions already made in the
statement of claim, it has submitted that the Cent Bank is
a subsidiary of the Central Bank of India and works under
administrative control of the Central Bank, therefore, it is
an appropriate government as per provisions of Section 2
(A) of the Act. Further, it has been stated that the claimant
is workman under provisions of the Section 2 ‘s’ of the
Act. As regards engagement of the workmen through
agency viz. it has been submitted that the said agency
was established on 12.09.2000 and was registered before
Regional P. F. Commissioner only on 5.5.2003 whereas she
was working with the management since 05.05.1998.
6.
The parties have filed documentary evidence in
support of their case. The workman has examined herself
whereas the management has examined Shri Sudhir Kumar,
Branch Manager in support of their pleadings. The parties
availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each
other apart from forwarding oral arguments.
7.
Heard representatives of the both the parties and
perused entire evidence on record and gone through
respective pleadings of the parties.
8.
The authorized representative of the workman has
argued that the workman was appointed on the post of
Clerk-cum-Cashier by the then Branch Manager of the
Cent Bank Home Finance Ltd. On 05.05.98 and worked as
such up to 20.09.2004 when the opposite party terminated
her services orally without giving any notice or notice
pay, in violation to the provisions of Section 25 F of the ID
Act.
9.
In rebuttal, the management has come forward with
the case that the workman was never appointed/engaged
by the opposite party, therefore, there arise no question
of terminating her services. It is also contended that the
workman worked in the office of the opposite party as a
representative of the working agency and there was no
relationship of master and servant between the bank and
the workman. It has also taken the plea that the claimant is
not ‘workman’ within the provisions of Section 2‘s’ of the
Act and present dispute is not covered within the
provisions of Section 2(A) of the Act.
10.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
submissions of the authorized representatives of the
parties, their pleadings and entire evidence adduced,
documentary as well as oral.
11.
The management of the Cent Bank in its written
statement has taken objection regarding validity of the
reference order and jurisdiction of this Tribunal to
adjudication the present industrial dispute. It has also
pleaded that present dispute is not covered under Section
2(A) of the Act. In this regard it is well appreciated that
the present industrial dispute has been referred to this
Tribunal by the appropriate Government i.e. Central
Government, in exercise of powers conferred under Clause (d)
of the sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947 and this Tribunal has
to answer the schedule of reference, referred to it.
The Section 2A of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947
reads as under:
“2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be
deemed to be an industrial dispute. – (1) Where any
employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or
otherwise terminates the services of an individual
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5995
workman, any dispute or difference between that
workman and his employer connected with, or arising
out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or
termination shall be deemed to be an industrial
dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor
any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.”
The present dispute relates to the termination of the
services of the claimant and bare reading of Section 2A, it
comes out that the same is well covered within the
provisions contained in Section 2A, and also, the
management has never challenged the reference order
before competent Court. The reference has been referred
to this Tribunal by the Central Government to answer and
it has no power to refuse the same or to sit in appeal
against the order of reference. In Steel Authority of India
Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Steel Employees Union & Ors. 1998
(78) FLR 293 it has been observed as under:
“Court has to see substance and not form of order.
Formal defects in citation of reference order would
not oust jurisdiction of Tribunal. If the Government
inadvertently or wrongly or even deliberately
commits the dispute for adjudication under Section
2(K) of the Act, the Tribunal has still power for
adjudication if from material I could be said that the
dispute has come into existence under Section 2A
of the Act by operation of law. The Tribunal in
doing so, would not go beyond the term of reference
as the term of reference was whether the termination
of service was justified or not justified.
Hence, in view of the law cited and discussions made
hereinabove, I am of the opinion that the objection of the
management as regard validity of the reference order and
jurisdiction of this Court has no force and the present
industrial dispute is well within the provisions of Section 2(A)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
12.
The management has taken another objection that
the claimant is not workman within the provisions of
Section 2 ‘s’ of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has
been pleaded by the claimant that he performed duties
clerical in nature and received payment for the same;
whereas the management has come forward with the
pleading that the claimant was a representative of the
agency viz. Bright Enterprises. It has not come forward
with any pleading or evidence as to what was the nature
of the duties of the claimant to ascertain this Tribunal as
to whether she was a ‘workman’ within the provisions of
the Act or not. On the contrary the claimant has pleaded
that she has been appointed as clerk-cum-cashier and she
received the cash from depositors/borrowers under her
signatures, prepared vouchers, maintained various ledgers,
registers, prepared evaluation sheets and periodical
statements etc.
Section 2‘s’ of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
defines ‘workman’ which is as under:
2. “(s) “workman” means any person (including an
apprentice) employed in any industry to do any
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)
………….
(ii)
………….
(iii)
…………
(iv)
Who, being employed in a supervisory
capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten
thousand 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.”
In this regard the onus was on the management to
come forward with evidence such as details of work
liabilities in respect of the claimant and powers conferred
upon her to show that the claimant was actually engaged
in managerial or supervisorial work; but the management
has utterly failed to do so, in as much as, it could not make
specific pleadings regarding nature of duties of the
claimant. Also, it is not denied that the claimant did not
work with the opposite party; the onus is on the opposite
party to explain in what capacity she has been inducted
with the opposite party, which puts her out of the purview
of the definition of ‘workman’. Therefore, on the basis of
the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the
claimant is ‘workman’ as defined in the Section 2 ‘s’ of the
Act.
13.
Now coming to the merits of the case, admittedly,
the workman has worked with the opposite party. But the
management of the Cent Bank has denied very specifically
direct engagement or appointment of the workman by the
Bank; rather it has pleaded that she was a representative
of an agency viz. Bright Agency. The workman has
controverted this stand of the management that she has
been engaged through an agency viz. Bright Enterprises,
with submission that the said Agency was established
only on 12.09.2000 vide registration No. 19669/BPL/CE/
2000 dated 12.09.2000 of M.P. Shops and Establishment
Act, 1958 and was registered with the Regional P.F.
Commissioner, M.P. only on 05.05.2003 vide registration
No. MP/UP-KK/Bhopal/3588/Pr.K/151 dated 5.5.2003. The
workman has also filed photo copy of above registrations
in support of its pleadings.
5996
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
On scrutinizing the documents submitted by the
management it comes out that the management has not
filed any contract/agreement with the Bright Enterprises
regarding supply of men power. However, the workman
has filed photo copy of a letter dated 03.08.2004 from
M/s. Bright Enterprises addressed to the Branch Manager,
Cent Bank, Lucknow with submission that the agency is
in the business of supplying men power for last 05 years
and is interested to supply the men power in their Branch
also. This goes to show that the claimed agency viz.
M/s. Bright Enterprises first came into the picture on
03.08.2004 only while the workman had been engaged with
the Cent Bank w.e.f. 05.05.98. Hence, the contention of
the workman gets strengthened that she was engaged by
the then Branch Manager and later on she was forced to
receive payment through some agency. The management
has filed details of payments made to various agencies
vis. Creative Info Systems, Micro Systems, Tracer and
Investigator and Bright Enterprises. But in its pleadings
the management has pleaded that the workman as a
representative of M/s. Bright Enterprises only, it has not
mentioned the names of the other agencies nor has uttered
a word about engagement of the workman through other
agencies also. The details of payment made to the agencies
cannot be relied up for reasons firstly, in the absence of
any contract between the Cent Bank and Agencies it
cannot be said that alleged payments were made for men
power supply; and secondly, the details does not bear the
name of the workman or her receiving on it. Also, the
management could not produce any certificate regarding
registration as ‘Principle Employer’ before the competent
authority, therefore, again it could not be inferred that
there was any valid contract between the opposite party
and the agency for supply of the men power. In Secretary,
Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Suresh & others 1999
(81) 1016 Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that when the
workmen have worked for a year and completed 240 days,
there existed a relationship of employer and workmen. Also,
no genuine contract labour system prevailing with the
board and so called contractor was a mere name lender
with a contract license and even the Board was not
registered as principal employer the so called contract
system was a mere camouflage.
Hence, in view of the facts and case law cited
hereinabove, it can be well concluded that the workman
was an employee of the Cent Bank and there was a
relationship of employer and employee between the Cent
Bank and the workman.
14.
The management has pleaded that it has not
appointed the workman. It is also their case that the
workman did not undergo the prescribed procedure for
recruitment and is just seeking back door entry to the
services of the Bank. The management has pleaded that
the workman has been engaged through an agency viz.
Bright Enterprises; but could not substantiate its pleading
through evidence. On the contrary the workman has
pleaded that it has worked with the management for 240
days and their services have been terminated in violation
to the provisions of the Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947.
The workman has tried to corroborate her pleadings with
the details of certain payments made through cheques.
The management witness, Shri Sudhir Kumar, in his cross-
examination, has admitted that he made payment to the
workman, Purnima Shukla through cheque. The
management has pleaded that the workman was a
representative of the agency; but when it is established
that there was no valid contract between the management
of Cent Bank and the Agency for supply of men power
and there was no registration of the management as
principal employer. The workman could not be deemed to
be employee of the agency, as alleged by the management;
rather could be deemed to be the employee of the Cent
Bank as it has no where denied that the workmen never
worked with the management. Only it has been stated
that she was working in the management through agencies,
for which there is no reliable documents viz. contract
regarding supply of men power, registration of the bank
as principle employer. Thus, the only conclusion that can
be drawn in the above circumstances is that the workman
was in the services of the Cent Bank on the date of
termination i.e. 20.09.2004.
15.
There is no denial from the management that the
workman never worked with it; rather it has pleaded that it
worked through agencies; but when, for the want of
formalities in engaging labour through some agency, it
has got established that the workman was an employee of
the Cent Bank then it could be well appreciated that the
workman was in the services of the Bank since his initial
date of engagement i.e. 05.05.1998 and she worked
continuously till the alleged date of termination i.e.
20.09.2004 and she worked for more than 240 days in a
year preceding the date of alleged termination i.e.
20.09.2004. Furthermore, it can also be inferred that her
services have been terminated in violation of the
provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, without giving any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof
or any retrenchment compensation.
16.
Since there was no contract between the
management and the so called agency for supply of men
power; and the workmen worked with the management of
Cent Home Finance Ltd. and the services of the workmen
have been terminated in violation to the provisions of the
Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
17.
The workman has pleaded that she had been
appointed by the opposite party; but has not produced
any appointment letter etc. to substantiate her claim that
she was ever went through the prescribed procedure for
appointment. The services of the workman was terminated
on 20.09.2004.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5997
18.
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 along 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.”
19.
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 APVK
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
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.”
20.
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 as they were not
appointed with the opposite party, following due procedure
for recruitment. The ends of justice would meet by paying
compensation to the workman instead in place of relief of
reinstatement in service.
21.
Having regards to these facts that the workman was
not a regularly appointed employee of the Cent. Bank Home
Finance Ltd. and has worked after engagement on wages
of Rs. 2370 at the time of her 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.
22.
Accordingly, the management of Cent Bank Home
Finance Ltd. is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 85,000 (Rupees
Eighty Five Thousand only) to the workman as
compensation for termination of her services in violation
of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. The said amount shall be
paid to the workmen within 08 weeks of publication of the
award, failing which; the same shall carry simple interest
@ 6% per annum.
21.
The reference is answered accordingly.
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
LUCKNOW
25th July, 2014
ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2378-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr dh
,yvkbZlh 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 79@2000)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&17012@10@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th August, 2014
S.O.
2378.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 79/2000)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of LIC of India and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
25/08/2014
[No. L-17012/10/2000-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–
CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 79/2000
Ref. No. L-17012/10/2000 – IR(B-II) dated: 28.07.2000
BETWEEN
Sh. Virendera Kr., S/o Sh. Hori Lal
M. Cham Mahmood, Near Purana Shahar
Near Nawab Sahab Ki Kothi, Lohar Wali Gali
Bareilly (U.P.)
AND
The Zonal Manager
LIC of India, Zonal Office
35-D, Rampur Bagh,
Bareilly (U.P.) 243001
5998
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-17012/10/2000-IR(B-II) dated:
28.07.2000 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 Sh. Virendera Kr.,
S/o Sh. Hori Lal, M. Cham Mahmood, Near Purana Shahar,
Near Nawab Sahab Ki Kothi, Lohar Wali Gali, Barilly (U.P.)
and the Zonal Manager, LIC of India, Zonal Office, 35-D,
Rampur Bagh, Barilly (U.P.) for adjudication.
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER
THE
ACTION
OF
THE
MANAGEMENT OF LIC OF INDIA, BAREILLY IN
TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF SHRI
VIRENDRA KUMAR EX-CLASS-IV EMPLOYEE
W.E.F. 1.5.1999 IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT,
WHAT RELIEF THE CONCERNED WORKMAN IS
ENTITLED TO AND FROM WHICH DATE?”
3.
The case of the workman, Virendera Kuamr, brief is
that he was appointed as class – IV employee in the LIC of
India on 16.04.1991 and he worked continuously till
01.05.1999 when his services have been terminated by the
management without any notice or notice pay in lieu
thereof or any retrenchment compensation in violation to
the provisions contained in Section 25 F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. It has been alleged by the workman
that he worked with the management of LIC without any
break but it made artificial breaks in order to deprive him
the benefits of regularization; moreover it is also alleged
that he was made to put signatures and receive payment
in fictitious names viz. Kamlesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Viay,
Gopal, Harish, Naresh, Raju, Rajendera, Ramesh, Arvind,
Ajay and Mahendera which amount to unfair labour
practice on the part of the management. It has been
submitted by the workman that he worked for more than
240 days in each year preceding his termination and is
entitled for regularization and accordingly, has prayed that
his termination be declared illegal and he be reinstated
with consequential benefits including continuity in service
and back wages.
4.
The management of the LIC of India has filed its
written statement; wherein it has denied the claim of the
workman and has submitted that the workman was engaged
as casual labour on daily rate basis, in the exigencies and
his services come to an end automatically with the close
of office hours; as such, there was no termination of his
services at any point of time. The management has
submitted that since there was no formal termination,
therefore, there arise no question of violation of any of
the provisions of the I.D. Act. Accordingly, the
management has prayed that the claim of the workman be
rejected being devoid of any merit.
5.
The workman has field rejoinder whereby he has
only reiterated his averments already made in the statement
of claim and has introduced nothing new.
6.
The parties have filed documentary proof in support
of their respective cases. The workman has examined
himself whereas the management examined Shri A.K.
Sharma, Assistant Administrative Officer in support of their
case. The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine
the each other’s witnesses apart from putting oral
arguments.
7.
Heard representative of both the opposite party and
perused evidence on record.
8.
The authorized representative of the workman has
argued that the management of the LIC of India has
terminated the services of the workman without complying
the mandatory provisions of the Section 25 F of the Act,
though the workman has completed 240 days continuous
working. It has also argued that the management made
the workman work in different names and made payment
accordingly in fictitious names just to deprive the workman
of regularization.
9.
Per contra, the representative of the LIC of India has
argued that the workman was never appointed by the bank
following prescribed procedures for the recruitment in the
LIC. It has further contended that the workman was
engaged as casual labourer for specified time period and
his services automatically came to an end with the day
closure, therefore, this does not come within the
termination/retrenchment of the services of the workman.
He has also argued that the workman has failed to prove
his allegation that he received payments in fictitious
names.
10.
The parties have filed documentary evidence in
support of their case. The workman has filed photo copy
of the following documents:
(i)
Applications for making payment by the workman.
(ii)
Applications for making payment in the name of
Naresh Kumar.
(iii)
Applications for making payment in the name of
Ramesh.
(iv)
Applications for making payment in the name of
Ajay.
(v)
Applications for making payment in the name of
Vijay.
(vi)
Applications for making payment in the name of
Mahendera.
(vii)
Applications for making payment in the name of
Rajendera.
(viii) Applications for making payment in the name of
Harish.
(ix)
Attendance sheet.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
5999
In rebuttal, the management of the Bank has filed
photo copy of LIC of Inda (Staff) Regulations, 1960, which
provides details of norms and regulations followed in the
LIC of India, including recruitment process in various
categories.
11.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival contentions of the authorized representatives of the
parties and scanned entire evidence on record.
12.
It is the case of the workman that he worked with the
opposite party continuously for the period 16.04.1991 to
01.05.1999; but the management of LIC of India in order to
disturb his continuity made him to receive payment in
fictitious names. It is also alleged that the management
instead of regularizing his services, terminated his services
without any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof in
contravention of the provisions contained in the Section
25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947 instead of fact that he worked for
more than 240 days in each calendar year.
13.
It is settled law that when the workman comes
forward with the case that his services have been
terminated without following previsions of the Section 25
F of the Act, then burden of proof heavily lies upon him
that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding twelve
months from the alleged date of his termination. In his
cross-examination the workman has stated that he has
appointed by Shri Anand Mohan Saxena, Asstt.
Administrative Officer and that he worked continuously
from 1991 to 1999. It has also been stated that the received
payment in different names.
In rebuttal, the management witness, in cross-
examination, has stated that the workman was not
appointed as temporary or permanent employee; rather
was engaged as casual labour. It was denied that the no
payment was ever made to the workman in other persons’
name. It was further stated that the casual labours are
engaged as per need of the office and their engagement
comes to an end with the end of the work.
14.
It is the case of the workman that he worked for
more than 240 days in each year even then the management
of LIC of India has termination his services, in violation to
the provisions of Section 25 F of he Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. In Surenderanagar Panchayat and another v.
Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) Hon’ble
Apex Court came to the conclusion that in order to claim
the benefits of provisions of Section 25 F of the Act, the
burden is on the workman to prove by cogent evidence
that he was actually in employment for 240 days in twelve
months preceding the date of alleged termination; and
where the workman failed to prove that he had been in
employment with the employer for a period of 240 days
uninterruptedly in a year preceding the date of termination,
he is not entitled to the protection of section 25 F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that the scope of the enquiry before the
Labour Court was confined only to 12 months preceding
the date of termination to decide the question of the
continuous service for the purpose of section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court
has observed as under:
“The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not
produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary
or wages for 240 days or record of his appointment
or engagement for that year to show that he has
worked with the employer for 240 days to get the
benefit under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act. It is now well settled that it is for the claimant
to lead evidence to show that he in fact worked for
240 days in a year preceding his termination.”
Although the workman has claimed to having worked
for more than 240 days in each calendar year; but has
failed to substantiate the same with evidence. In view of
the case law cited hereinabove, the burden was on the
workman to prove that he had actually worked for 240
days in twelve months preceding the date of termination
i.e. between 01.03.1998 to 30.04.1999. The attendance sheet
he has filed pertains to year 1995 and 1996; whereas the
date of alleged termination is 01.05.1999; and the workman
was required to prove his continuous working for 240 days
during period 01.03.1998 to 30.04.1999. But he has utterly
failed to prove the same as there is no substantial
document on the record to carve the finding that the
workman actually worked for 240 days preceding the date
of alleged termination and his termination dated 01.05.1999
was illegal and unjustified.
15.
The workman has also pleaded that he was made to
work in different names and was compelled to receive
payment in different names; but could not prove the same.
The management has denied this allegation of the workman,
therefore, it was incumbent upon the workman to call for a
Hand Writing Expert report to substantiate his pleading
that the alleged signatures in different names were
incorporated by him only; but the workman failed to call
for any Hand Writing Expert.
16.
Thus, in view of the discussions made above, it
comes out that the workman was not engaged by the LIC
of India following the procedure; but rather he was engaged
as casual labourer in exigency. In case of casual labour in
order to get some relief he was required to prove that he
had worked continuously for 240 days uninterruptedly in
a year preceding his termination, as observed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Surenderanagar Panchayat and another
v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC). In the
present case, the initial burden of establishing the fact of
continuous work for 240 days in preceding twelve months
from the date of alleged termination i.e. 01.05.1999 was on
the workman; but he utterly failed to discharge this burden
that he had worked for 240 days. Thus, under the facts
6000
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the
alleged action of the management in terminating the
services of the workman w.e.f. 01.05.1999 was neither illegal
nor unjustified.
17.
Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against
the workman Virendera Kumar; and in my opinion he is
not entitled to any relief.
18.
Award as above.
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
LUCKNOW
12th August, 2014
ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2379-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy
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;&2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 680@2005)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@107@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th August, 2014
S.O.
2379.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 680/2005)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II,
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 25/08/2014.
[No. L-12012/107/2004-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
PRESENT : SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No.680/2005
Registered on 25.8.2005
Sh. Mohinder Kumar,
C/o Sh. J.G. Verma,
House No.3030/1,
Sector 44D, Chandigarh
....Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager,
Punjab National bank (North Zone),
Zonal Office, Sector 17,
Chandigarh
.....Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
: Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar, AR
For the Management : Sh. Vinod Dehal, Deputy Mngr
AWARD
Passed on- 18.7.2014
Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/
107/2004 IR(B-II)) Dated 29.9.2004, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-
section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of Punjab
National Bank in imposing penalty of dismissal on
Sh. Mohinder Kumar, Clerk-cum-Cashier is legal and
just? If not, what relief the concerned workman is
entitled to and from which date?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that he joined the respondent
management who terminated his services vide order dated
21.12.1999. He has challenged the said order on the ground
that the inquiry conducted in the present case is not proper
and no witness was examined. That the Inquiry Officer
submitted the report on 19.6.1998 and the disciplinary
authority remanded the case vide order dated 16.11.1998
and said order is illegal and thereafter the inquiry report
submitted by the Inquiry Officer in also illegal. That he
filed affidavits of the persons exonerating him of the
charges.
No legal evidence was led before the Inquiry Officer
and the findings recorded in the inquiry report are not
sustainable. On the basis of the inquiry report, his services
were terminated and the appeal preferred by him was also
dismissed which is illegal. That he be reinstated in service.
Management filed written reply controverting the
averments and pleaded that workman is guilty of gross
misconduct and after conducting the inquiry and serving
a show cause notice on him, his services were rightly
terminated. That the case was remanded by the disciplinary
authority after considering the request of the workman.
That the impugned order passed is legal and valid.
I have heard Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar, AR of the
workman and Sh. Vinod Kumar Dehal, Deputy Manager
for management.
The workman was charge-sheeted on account of
following charges –
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6001
CHARGE-SHEET
1.
On 27.5.1997 you withdrew a sum of Rs.25000/- from
SF A/c No.40 of Mrs. Sunita fraudulently without getting
the payment passed from the authorized official and the
customer has denied having taken any payment of
Rs.25000/- on the said date. Thus you misappropriated
the amount of Rs.25000/- of the customer.
2.
On 11.6.1997 you received a sum of Rs.44,500/- from
Sh. Om Prakash for deposit in his account No.48 and issued
receipt for the same and also made entry in his passbook
but there is no such entry in bank’s books thus embezzling
the amount of the customer. When account holder raised
this use and made complaint, you refunded the amount of
Rs.44,500/- to Sh. Om Prakash and thereafter influenced
him to withdraw his complaint.
3.
On 27.5.1997, you received Rs.3000/- and Rs.2500/-
from Sh. Anil Joshi for deposit in SF A/c No.36 and CA
No.11 respectively but did not enter in the Cashier’s long
book and other books. On 30.5.1997 you altered the date
on the pay-in-slips from 27.5.1997 to 30.5.1997 and
deposited the amount on 30.5.1997 thus misappropriating
the amount of Rs.5500/- for three days.
4.
On 3.4.1997 Sh. Khubi Lal deposited Rs.1000 in his
SF A/c No.175 and you made the entry of Rs.1000/- in his
passbook as well as ledger sheet. However there is no
such entry in cash book, long book etc. Thus you have
misappropriated Rs.1000/- of the customer.
5.
The following debit entry in the passbook of the
customer has been made by you :
A/C No.
Name
Date
Amount
SF 40
Sunita
10.6.1997
Rs.5000/-
There is no corresponding debit entry in the ledger
sheet, cash book and long book etc. which reflects your
malicious and fraudulent intention.
6.
On 15.5.1997 and 3.6.1997 you received Rs.6000/-
and Rs.7000/- respectively from Sh. Mohan Lal for deposit
in his SF A/c No.147 and made entries in the passbook.
Neither receipt was issued to the customers nor cash thus
misappropriating customer’s money.
7.
On 1.10.1996, while officiating as assistant cashier
at BO: Sector 7: Panchkula, you received a sum of Rs.15000/
- from Sh. Ajay bansal for deposit in SF A/c No.10816 but
did not enter the cash in the cashier long book and
deposited the amount on 3.10.1996 thus misappropriating
the amount of Rs.15000/- for two days.
He was also issued supplementary charge-sheet
dated 8.2.1999 to the effect that he caused overdraft in
certain accounts.
A lengthy argument was advanced to show that the
inquiry held is illegal and more particularly the order of
remand dated 16.11.1998 is illegal. Suffice it to say that
perusal of the said order dated 16.11.1998 shows that the
case was remanded on the request of the workman himself.
The inquiry has been held to be fair and proper by this
Court vide order dated 5.9.2011 and the said order has
attained finality and thus it cannot be said that the inquiry
held in the case is not legal and valid.
It was contended by the learned counsel that no
pecuniary loss has been caused to the bank and therefore
the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the
alleged misconduct and he be reinstated in service. Suffice
it to say that a bank Officer is required to exercise higher
standard of honesty and integrity and if he has not shown
due diligence in the discharge of duties, he cannot take
the defence that no loss has been caused to the bank by
his act. A perusal of the charge-sheet shows that he has
withdrawn amounts from the accounts of the depositors
and the punishment awarded cannot be held to be
disproportionate to his misconduct and do not call for
any interference.
In result it is held that the action of the management
in dismissing the workman is legal and just and the
workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is
accordingly answered against the workman.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2380-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkjiksjs'ku 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;] psUubZ ds iapkV (91@2012) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th August, 2014
S.O.
2380.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 91/2012) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Corporation Bank
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 25/08/2014.
[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
6002
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 31st July, 2014
PRESENT : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding
Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 91/2012
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Sub-
section 2A of Section-10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (as amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010).
between the Management of Corporation Bank and their
workman)
BETWEEN
Sri S. Velmayil
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Deputy General Manager : 2nd Party/Respondent
Corporation Bank
Zonal Office, Whites Road
Royapettah,
Chennai-600014
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
: Sri S.D. Srinivasan,
Petitioner
Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/
: M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,
Management
Advocates
AWARD
This is an Industrial Dispute taken for adjudication
on the file under Sub-section 2A of Section-10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended by Act-24 of
2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010).
1.
The averments in the Claim Statement in brief are as
below :
The petitioner was working as Clerical Staff at
Eraiyur Branch of the Respondent Bank. By order dated
04.02.2009 he was placed under suspension by the
Disciplinary Authority. The suspension of the petitioner
was not in compliance with the guidelines or the
memorandum of settlement. The petitioner was alleged to
have committed certain misconducts. The Charge Sheet
against the petitioner was issued with inordinate delay.
An enquiry was conducted on the allegations made against
the petitioner. The enquiry officer did not deal with the
preliminary objections raised in the enquiry proceedings.
The documents which are not having evidentiary value
were relied upon by the Enquiry Officer. The findings of
the Enquiry Officer are based on assumptions and not on
oral or documentary evidence. The charges leveled against
the petitioner were not established in the enquiry
proceedings. In spite of this, the Enquiry Officer has held
that the charges against the petitioner are proved. The
Disciplinary Authority did not consider the representation
submitted by the petitioner and imposed the punishment
of dismissal from service on the petitioner. The appeal
filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was
dismissed after expiry of the period prescribed in the
Memorandum of Settlement. The petitioner has raised the
Industrial Dispute consequently. The allegation against
the petitioner that he misused the pass words of the
officials, manipulated accounts and withdrew amount from
the accounts of the customers is not correct. There is no
justification in dismissing the petitioner from the service
of the Respondent. An order may be passed setting aside
the punishment imposed on the petitioner and directing
the management to reinstate the petitioner in service with
all attendant benefits.
2.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as follows
The Respondent Bank has computerized all its
branches. Eraiyur branch in the Vellore Circle was
computerized in 2008. After introduction of Core Banking
System accounts are maintained by the system in which
entries are to be made by the Clerical Staff who will log
into the system using his unique USER ID and secret
passwords for making entry and such entries are to be
authenticated by the Branch Manager or the Authorized
Officer using his USER ID and secret password. An SB
account holder can withdraw money from his account
otherwise than by issue of cheque also for which he should
go to the branch personally with a Pass Book, obtain a
withdrawal slip or loose cheque leaf by means of a
requisition and by signing the relevant register and
thereafter present the withdrawal slip or the loose cheque
leaf for payment alongwith the Pass Book. There is an
Information System Audit System at a site away from the
branches, for the Respondent. If any transaction is found
abnormal or unusual those transaction would be taken up
for close scrutiny and verification. If any irregularity is
suspected it would be reported to the controlling office
for detailed verification. Towards the close of 2008
Information Audit System noticed certain transactions or
Eraiyur branch put through by the petitioner to be abnormal
and they were referred for detailed investigation. An
investigation was carried out to find out if there is any
nexus between the petitioner and the fraudulent
transactions. The Investigating Officer who carried out
the investigation had listed out the irregularities committed
by the petitioner in Eraiyur Branch. As per the investigation
report as many as 14 fraudulent transactions were carried
out by the petitioner by unauthorizedly transferring funds
from one account to another to derive undue pecuniary
gain for himself. The total amount involved in these
fraudulent transactions was Rs. 4.18 lakhs. In all these
transactions the relevant entries and authorization of
entries were made in the computer system by the petitioner,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6003
either under his own User ID or by using the User IDs of
other officials of the branch by abusing his official position
and by taking advantage of the negligence of the other
officials or the confidence reposed by other officials in
him. Regarding these transactions, either there were no
vouchers or the vouchers were forged. Apart from the
above 14 transactions, during the period from 23.05.2008
to 11.11.2008, the petitioner carried out 7 irregular
transactions for an aggregate amount of Rs. 1.58 lakhs in
the sundry creditors account, local bank account and in
the accounts of the branch constituents under his own
User ID or User ID of some other officials and embezzled
funds. On 03.09.2007, the petitioner unauthorizedly raised
a demand loan for Rs. 0.30 lakh against a Fixed Deposit
holder even if there was no loan application and the deposit
was under lien to an education loan. On 30.01.2008, the
petitioner delinked the lien without any authority and
transferred the Fixed Deposit to the overdue deposit
account though the loan was still outstanding. On
30.06.2008, the petitioner made a cash credit entry of
Rs. 46,972/- into an agricultural demand loan misusing the
User ID of an Officer of the Branch and closed the account
without the bank actually receiving any cash towards
closure of the said account. The cash amount of
Rs. 46,972/- was got adjusted from out of 24 imaginary
cash payments aggregating Rs. 73,117/- of unconnected
accounts. On 03.11.2008, the petitioner fraudulently availed
the housing loan for Rs. 3.50 lakhs by misrepresentation
and without creation of simple mortgage even though he
had purchased the property much earlier, on 15.10.2008
for a consideration of Rs. 0.90 lakhs. The proceeds of the
housing loan were misused by the petitioner. On 15.10.2008,
the petitioner withdrew Rs. 50,000/- from his account by
unauthorizedly allowing overdrawals, though the balance
in his account was only Rs. 76.50. He regularized the
overdrawal by availing employees jewel loan. The petitioner
was indulging in chit fund business in his village. A charge
sheet was issued to the petitioner listing out all the charges
in details. He did not give any explanation to the charge
sheet. An enquiry was conducted on the charges and
the Enquiry Officer gave his report holding that all
the charges against the petitioner are proved. The
petitioner was furnished with the copy of the enquiry report
and he has given comments on the report. A Second Show
Cause Notice was issued to him proposing punishment of
dismissal. The petitioner had given a written representation
in answer to this. The Disciplinary Authority passed orders
of punishment of dismissal after considering the
representation. The domestic enquiry conducted against
the petitioner was in fair and proper manner. If for any
reason the enquiry is found to be vitiated the Respondent
may be given an opportunity to lead evidence in proof of
the charges against the petitioner. There is no reason to
interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer or the
punishment imposed on the petitioner. Before framing
charges against the petitioner the Investigation reports
against him had to be studied carefully. There was no
delay in framing the charges. The petitioner is not entitled
to any relief. The petition is to be dismissed.
3.
In answer to the Counter Statement the petitioner
has filed a rejoinder denying the allegations made against
him in the Counter Statement and also reiterating his case
in the Claim Statement.
4.
The evidence in the case consists of documents
marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W20 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M82. No
oral evidence was adduced on either side.
5.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the Respondent had succeeded in
establishing the charges made against the petitioner.
(ii)
Whether the Management is justified in imposing
the punishment of dismissal from service on the
petitioner?
(iii)
What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is
entitled?
The Points
6.
The petitioner was appointed in the Clerical Cadre
of the Respondent Bank on compassionate grounds in
August 2006. He was working at Eraiyur Branch of the
Bank when he was suspended from service pending
enquiry, on 04.02.2009, According to the Respondent,
certain irregularities were noticed in the work done by the
petitioner in the Bank. Initially, the Information Audit
System had detected some abnormality in the transactions
dealt with by the petitioner. A Special Audit had confirmed
the irregular transactions and based on the Special Audit
investigation was carried out to find out if the petitioner
has anything to do with those irregular transactions. On
investigation, the Investigation Officer has listed out the
irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner. On the
basis of the said report, and other materials the petitioner
was placed under suspension and charge sheet was issued
to him. The said charge sheet runs as follows:
“2.1
That while working as Clerk at
Koothanur (Eraiyur) Branch during the period
between 30.04.2008 and 03.01.2009, you carried out
a series of unauthorized and/or irregular transactions
in the accounts of certain constituents of the branch
by entering/authorizing the related entries thereof
in the computer system either in your own User ID
and/or by misusing the User IDs of other Officers/
Clerks at the Branch, as detailed in Table-I furnished
here below and more detailed thereafter:
6004
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
TABLE-I
Sl.
Date
A/c to
Particulars and
Amount
A/c to which
Entry entered
Entry authorized
No.
which
Cheque/With-
Rs.
credited
by (As shown
by (As shown
debited
drawal Slip No.
by system
by system)
1.
30.04.08
SB3602
To SB No. 5880
40,000/-
SB 5880
S. Velmayil
R. Rajagopalan
No Voucher
2.
30.04.08
SB 5880
To Cash 598554
40,000/-
Cash Withdrawn
S. Velmayil
R. Rajagopalan
3.
14.05.08
SB3602
To Self 598767
10,000/-
Cash Withdrawn
S. Velmayil
R. Rajagopalan
4.
10.06.08
SB3602
To Self 599068
70,000/-
Cash Withdrawn
S. Velmayil
J.T. Rao
5.
10.07.2008
SB3602
To Self 599437
40,000/-
Cash Withdrawn
S. Velmayil
J.T. Rao
6.
25.07.08
SB3602
To Self 599644
60,000/-
Cash Withdrawn
S. Velmayil
J.T. Rao
7.
10.10.08
SB3602
To Self 838624
1,000/-
Cash Withdrawn
J.T. Rao
S. Velmayil
S. Velmayil
8.
05.07.08
SB5200
3432
13,000/-
To ECODF 060004
S. Velmayil
J.T. Rao
9.
03.01.09
SB5200
To Self 839914
10,000/-
Cash Withdrawn
S. Velmayil
J.T. Rao
10.
24.10.08
ACC 22/5 Debt Waiver
18,226/-
SB 3442
KK Rajendran
R. Rajagopalan
Scheme
11..
24.10.08
SB 3442
To Self 838836
18,226/-
Cash Withdrawn
KK Rajendran
R. Rajagopalan
12.
29.10.08
SB 113
To Self 838889
26,616/-
Cash Withdrawn
S. Velmayil
R. Rajagopalan
13.
14.06.08
Cash
By Cash
70,000/-
SB3602
KK Rajendran
J.T. Rao
14.
25.11.08
Cash
By Cash (KCC int.) 679/-
SB3602
S. Velmayil
R. Rajagopalan
2.2
That Sri P. Kannan has been maintaining Savings
Bank A/c No. 3602 at the Branch since 10.03.2004. That on
30.04.2008, without preparing the related vouchers, you
unauthorizedly debited SB A/c No. 3602 of Sri P. Kannan
with a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and credited the said amount to
SB A/c 5880 of Sri A. Rajendran maintained with the Branch
as mentioned at S.No. 1 of Table-I here above, without
consent of the latter. That the entries pertaining to the
aforesaid transaction were entered in the system by you
and the same were authorized by you in the User ID of Sri
R.Rajagopalan, the Branch Manager without his consent/
knowledge. That thereafter, using withdrawal slip bearing
No. 598554 dated 30.04.2008, you unauthorizedly withdrew
like amount of Rs. 40,000/- from the said SB A/c No. 5880
of Sri A. Rajendran as mentioned at S.No. 2 of Table-I
supra and misappropriated the said amount. That the
entries related to the said withdrawal were also entered by
you in computer system and that the said entries were
authorized by you in the User ID of Sri R. Rajagopalan, the
Branch Manager without his consent/or knowledge. That
by carrying out aforesaid unauthorized and irregular
transactions as also by misusing the User ID of Sri R.
Rajagopalan, as aforesaid, you derived pecuniary gain to
the extent of Rs. 40,000/-.
2.3
That on 14.05.2008 and 10.06.2008, without the
knowledge of account holder, you unauthorizedly
withdrew Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- respectively from
SB A/c No. 3602 of Sri P. Kannan and misappropriated the
said amounts. That the aforesaid amounts were withdrawn
by means of withdrawal slips as stated in S.No. 3 & 4 of
Table-I here above. That the entries related to aforesaid
transaction at S.No. 3 were entered by you in the system
and the same were authorized by you in the User ID of
Sri R. Rajagopalan, the Branch Manager without his
consent and knowledge. That the entries related to
transactions at S.No. 4 of the Table were authorized by
you in the User ID of Sri J.T. Rao. That no entries were
made in the Withdrawal Slip Issued Register. That the
withdrawal slip No. 598767 was written by you and the
payment thereof was received by you. That, the aforesaid
withdrawals were effected by means of withdrawal slips
though use of withdrawal slips has been discontinued
long back in terms of HO Circular No. 219/05 dated
02.05.2005. That in the aforesaid manner, by misusing the
User ID of the Branch Official, you unauthorizedly withdrew
amounts aggregating Rs. 80,000/- from SB A/c 3602 and
misappropriated the said amount.
2.4
That on 10.07.2008 and 25.07.2008, without the
knowledge of the account holder, you unauthorizedly
withdrew Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- respectively in cash
from SB A/c 3602 through withdrawal slips bearing
numbers 599437 and 599644 as mentioned at S.Nos. 5 and
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6005
6 of Table-I here above and misappropriated the said
amounts. That the signatures appearing on the withdrawal
slips do not match with the signature of the account holder
held on record. That the account holder disputed the
aforesaid withdrawals. That the entries related to the
aforesaid transactions were entered by you in the system.
2.5
That on 10.10.2008, without the knowledge of the
account holder, you withdrew a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from
the SB Account 3602 of Sri P. Kannan as mentioned at
S.No. 7 of Table-I here above and misappropriated the
said amount. That the entries related to aforesaid
transaction were authorized by you in the system. That
the account holder disputed the withdrawal. That, the said
withdrawal was effected by means of withdrawal slip even
after use of such withdrawal slips has been stopped/
discontinued long back in terms of HO Circular No. 219/05
dated 02.05.2005. That in the aforesaid manner, you
unauthorizedly withdrew Rs. 1,000/- from SB A/c 3602 and
misappropriated the said amount.
2.6
That Ms. Gowri, holder of the SB A/c No. 5200 had
issued a cheque No. 3432 dated 05.07.2008 for Rs. 13,000/
-, written in Tamil language in favour of Sri P. Babu S/o
Perumal. That, with an intent to derive pecuniary gain for
yourself and without the knowledge of the account holder,
you clandestinely added your name as an additional payee
on the cheque in English language and debited the cheque
to said SB A/c No. 5200 and credited the proceeds thereof
to your ECOD account No. 060004 maintained at the Branch
as mentioned at S.No. 8 of Table-I above and you
misappropriated the said amount. That you entered the
entries related to the aforesaid transaction in the system
with misleading narration as “To ECOD 060002” (i.e.,
Account standing in the name of the Branch Manager) to
avoid easy detection of your misdeed. That in the aforesaid
manner, you embezzled the funds of the constituent and
derived undue pecuniary gain for yourself.
2.7
That on 03.01.2009, a withdrawal slip bearing No.
839914 dated 03.01.2009 for Rs. 10,000/- drawn on SB A/c
No. 5200 of Smt. B. Gowri was presented for payment at
the branch. That you entered the particulars of the
withdrawal slip in the system as mentioned at S.No. 9 of
Table-I above, without verifying the signature of the
drawer. That thereafter, without any authority and in gross
negligence, you made payment of the amount thereof, even
before the said withdrawal slip was passed for payment
by the supervisory official. That subsequently, Ms. B.
Gowri, the account holder disputed the signatures
appearing on the said withdrawal slip and demanded refund
of the amount so debited to her account. That forgery of
drawer’s signature was also confirmed by the Government
Examiner of Questioned Documents, Hyderabad. That by
you aforesaid unauthorized and negligent acts and
omissions, you exposed the Bank to financial risk thereby
jeopardized the interest of the Bank.
2.8
That Sri V. Murugesan has been maintaining a SB
A/c No. 3442 at the Branch since 18.03.2004. That he had
also availed an Agricultural Loan bearing No. ACC 22/05
at the Branch. That consequent upon applying the debit
waiver scheme, on 27.06.2008, an amount of Rs. 18,226/-
was credited by you to the aforesaid ACC 22/05 and as
such the loan account was showing a credit balance of
Rs. 18,226/-. That, on 24.10.2008, with an ulterior motive to
derive undue pecuniary gain, you made a transfer debit to
the aforesaid ACC A/c with an amount of Rs. 18,226/- and
credited the amount to SB A/c 3442 of Sri Murugesan,
misusing the User IDs of Sri KK Rajendran, Clerk and
Sri R. Rajagopalan for entering and authorizing the related
entries respectively in the system as mentioned at S.No.
10 of Table-I supra. That, thereafter, on the same day, you
clandestinely withdrew Rs. 18,226/- from SB 3442 by means
of a withdrawal slip bearing No. 838836 and
misappropriated the said amount. That the entries related
to the aforesaid transaction were entered into the system
by you in User ID of Sri KK Rajendran which were modified
by you in your own User ID and thereafter the said entries
were authorized by you in the User ID of Sri R. Rajagopalan
as mentioned at S.No. 11 of Table-I above. That in the
aforesaid manner, by misusing the User IDs of the officials
of the Branch, you unauthorizedly debited the account of
the constituent of the Branch and derived undue pecuniary
gain.
2.9
That Sri K. Narayanan has been maintaining a SB
A/c No. 113 with the Branch since 08.04.1985. That on
29.10.2008, misusing the User ID of Sri R. Rajagopalan,
you debited a sum of Rs. 26,616/- to aforesaid SB A/c 113
of Sri K. Narayanan by means of a withdrawal slip bearing
No. 838889 and misappropriated the said amount. That
the entries related to the aforesaid transaction were entered
by you in the system and thereafter the same were
authorized by you in the User ID Sri R. Rajagopalan,
without knowledge as mentioned at S.No. 12 of Table-I
supra. That in the aforesaid manner, you debited the
account of the constituent of the branch with a sum of
Rs. 26,616/- and derived undue pecuniary gain, by
misusing the User ID of the Branch Official.
2.10
That, on 14.06.2008, without the knowledge of the
account holder, you credited a sum of Rs. 70,000/- by cash
to SB 3602 as mentioned at S.No. 13 of Table-I by borrowing
like amount from Sri C. Veeran, holder of SB A/c No. 5327
at the Branch. That the entries related to aforesaid irregular
transaction was authorized by you in the USER ID of Sri
J.T. Rao. That the aforesaid amount was credited by you
to the said SB account in order to make good the amount
of Rs. 70,000/- unauthorizedly withdrawn by you from the
said account as mentioned at para-2.3 here above. That
thus by indulging in borrowing from the constituent of
the Bank and by manipulation of Branch records, you
carried out the aforesaid unauthorized and irregular
transactions to the detriment of Bank’s interest.
6006
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.11
That on 25.11.2008, with an intent to mislead the
depositor that his KCC bearing No. KCC/60/080018 dated
25.11.2008 for Rs. 1.00 lakh was opened earlier as per his
request and earned interest, without the knowledge of the
account holder, you credited a sum of Rs. 679/- in cash to
the Savings Bank account no. 3602 of Sri P. Kannan with
the narration “By KCC int.” That you entered the related
cash entry in the system and authorized the same in the
USER ID of Sri R. Rajagopalan, the Branch Manager without
his consent/or knowledge as mentioned at S.No. 14 of
Table-I above.
2.12
That, in the last week of June 2008, Sri P. Kannan,
requested you to invest a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh in term
deposit by withdrawing the like amount from his aforesaid
SB A/c 3602. That you did not carry out the said
instructions of the constituent of the branch. That
subsequently, on 10.07.2008 and 25.07.2008, you
unauthorizedly withdrew amounts aggregating to Rs. 1.00
lakh as mentioned in para 2.4 here above and
misappropriated the said amount. That on 25.11.2008,
Sri P. Kannan approach the Branch to collect the Receipt
of the Term Deposit of Rs. 1.00 lakh that he had requested
you to open in the last week of June 2008. That on that
day with the intention to hide unauthorized withdrawals
made by you in the SB account of Sri P. Kannan as stated
in para 2.4 above and to make him believe that you had
opened the Term Deposit as request by him, you
unauthorizedly issued a KCC Receipt bearing No. 819166
for Rs. 1.00 lakh to Sri P. Kannan (KCC/60/080018) with
your single signature. That, in order to get the aforesaid
KCC receipt printed, on the said day at around 11.00 AM,
you made a false cash entry in the computer system
showing acceptance of cash deposit of Rs. 1.00 lakh
towards opening of the said KCC deposit, without factually
depositing/receiving said amount in cash and authorized
the said entry in the User ID of Sri R. Rajagopalan, without
his knowledge and /or consent. That further, to make Sri P.
Kannan belief that the KCC deposit was opened earlier as
per his request, on the same day, you passed on a credit
entry by depositing a sum of Rs. 679/- in cash, into the
Savings Bank account no. 3602 of Sri P. Kannan with the
narration “By KCC Int.”. that you entered the related cash
entry in the system and authorized the same in the USER
ID of Sri R. Rajagopalan, the Branch Manager without his
consent/or knowledge as mentioned at S.No. 14 of Table-
I above. That thereafter, to avoid detection of unauthorized
withdrawals made by you on 10.07.2008 and 25.07.2008,
you took back the old pass book from Sri P. Kannan and
issued him a new pass book to the account holder. That
subsequently, on the same day, at around 1.56 pm, in
violation of the circular instructions prohibiting/restricting
financial dealings with the clients of the branch/bank, you
borrowed sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh from Sri P. Kannan, holder
of SB A/c No. 4767 at the Branch and made good the
physical shortage of cash that was persisting in the actual
cash holdings of the branch on account of opening and
issuance of aforesaid KCC receipt to Sri P. Kannan. That
in the aforesaid manner, you misutilized the banking
channels to cover-up your misdeeds and exposed the Bank
to financial risk and consequences.
2.13
That, during the period between 23.05.2008 and
11.11.2008, you carried out inter-se irregular transactions
in Sundry Creditors Account, Local Bank Account and in
the accounts of the branch constituents, by entering/
authorizing the entries related to the said transactions in
the computer system either in your own User ID and /or
by misusing the User IDs of other Officers/Clerks at the
Branch, as detailed here below in Table-II:
TABLE-II
S.
A/c to which
A/c to
Date
Particulars
Amt. Rs.
Entry entered
Entry authorized
No
debited
which
by (as shown
by (as shown by
credited
by system)
system)
1.
Sundry Crs.
SB 3602
23.05.08
Transfer entry
50,000/-
KK Rajendran
R. Rajagopalan
Nom. A/c 17/08
shown as cash
entry
2.
Sundry Crs. Nom.
Local
23.10.08
Transfer entry
32,436/-, 5,417/-,
KK Rajendran
R. Rajagopalan
A/c 57/08, 54/08,
Bank A/c
12,147/-, 7,000/-
59/08, 17/08
3.
Sundry Crs. Nom.
SB 3221
11.11.08
Transfer entry
24,036/-
S. Velmayil
J.T. Rao
A/c 53/08, 55/08
and 65/08
2.13.1 That, on 054.05.2008, a sum of Rs. 57,000/- was
credited/-laced in Nominal Account No. 17/08 under Sundry
Creditors Account – Others by debit to Local Bank account
with the narration “To OBCO amt realized” at the branch,
on account of non-availability of the particulars. That on
23.05.2008, without any authority and misusing the User
ID of Sri KK Rajendran, you debited a sum of Rs. 50,000/-
to the said Nominal Account No. 17/08 under Sundry
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6007
Creditors Account (GL 402003/000016) and credited the
said amount to SB A/c No. 3602 of Sri P. Kannan as shown
in S.No. 1 of Table-II supra, without the knowledge of
Sri P. Kannan thereby repaid/re-credited the amount of
Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- that were unauthorizedly
withdrawn from the said account by you and the amount
owed by you to Sri P. Kannan, respectively. That the entries
related to aforesaid transaction were clandestinely made
by you in the computer system in the User ID of Sri KK
Rajendran. That to avoid detection of the aforesaid
unauthorized transfer entries made by you, you entered
the particulars of the entry as “By Cash” even though the
said transaction was effected by means of a transfer entry
by debit to Nominal A/c No. 17/08 under Sundry Creditors
Account. That in the aforesaid manner, you embezzled
Bank funds to serve your vested interests to the detriment
of Bank’s interest.
2.13.2 That, consequent upon your carrying out
unauthorized transaction mentioned at para 2.131 above,
the amount available in the Nominal Account No.17/08
stood reduced to Rs.7000/- as
against the original
balance of Rs.57,000/-. That, to cover up the aforesaid
unauthorized and irregular transaction carried out by you,
while reversing the said entry on 23.10.2008, you without
any authority and clandestinely debited unconnected
Nominal Account Nos. 57/08, 54/08 and 59/08 with the
some of Rs.32,436/-, Rs.5,417 and Rs.12,147/- respectively
in addition to debiting Nominal Account No.17/08 with
the available amount of Rs.7000/- and got reversed the
entry dated 05.05.2008 for Rs.57,000/- to Local Bank
Account. That the entries related to aforesaid transaction
were entered by you in the User ID of Sr. K.K. Rajendran
as mentioned at Sl. No.2 of Table –II here above. That in
the aforesaid manner, you embezzled the Bank funds to
serve your vested interests to the detriment of Bank’s
interest.
2.13.3 That on 29.10.2008, without any authority
whatsoever and misusing the User ID of the Branch
Manger Sri. R. Rajagopalan, you transferred amount
aggregating Rs.26,616/- from Sundry Creditors Account
by debiting three different unconnected Nominal Account
Nos. 53/08, 55/08 and 65/08 and credited the amounts
thereof to SB a/c.113 of Sri. Narayanan as stated at Sl.
No.3 of Table-II above. That the entries related to aforesaid
transactions were entered and authorized by you in the
system in you User ID and in the User ID of Sri Rajagopalan
respectively. That, to avoid easy detection of the aforesaid
unauthorized and irregular transaction, you gave different/
contradictory narrations in the Sundry Creditors Account
and in SB a/c of Sri. Narayanan as ‘To waiver a/c amt.
reversed SB’ and ‘By loan amount reversed’ respectively.
That thereafter, you withdrew the said sum of Rs.26,616/-
unauthorizedly as stated in para 2.9 here above and derived
undue pecuniary gain for yourself, to the detriment of
Bank’s interest.
2.13.4 That on 19.04.2008, the Branch had sent certain
instruments deposited for collection in SB A/c 3221 of
TNEB and TWAD, to SBI, Periyasevalai under OBCO
No.162/08. That, without receipt of the proceeds of the
said instruments from the said branch of SBI, on 11.11.2008,
without any authority and in abuse of your official position,
you debited a sum of Rs.24,036/- to Local Bank Account
(GL501001) and credited the amount to SB a/c No.3221 of
TNEB & TWAD as mentioned at Sl. No. 4 of Table – 2
supra and thereby you unduly accommodated the said
constituent of the branch and exposed the Bank to financial
risk and consequences.
2.14
That on 03.09.2007, without any authority and
without obtaining the signature of the depositor in Form
No.ID 903, i.e., Memorandum of Charge/lien over deposits,
you sanctioned and released a SDL bearing No.9/07 of
Rs.0.30 lakh Ms. Gomathi, holder of SB a/c 4898 at the
branch, against the security of KCC bearing No.93/05 for
Rs.1.00 lakh which was already held as security to Corp
Vidya loan bearing No.50002 of Rs.1.49 lakh sanctioned to
the said constituent in February 2006. That you also failed
to obtain prior permission or Deposit Receipt and thereby
to safeguard the interest of the Bank, in violation of the
procedural guidelines. That you also failed to obtain prior
permission or approval either from the Branch Manger or
from the Zonal Office Chennai to sanction SDL on the
encumbered KCC referred to above. That further, on
31.03.2008, without any authority, you de-linked/cancelled
the lien that was noted in the system against the said KCC
and transferred the KCC to overdue deposit account,
though the SDL account was outstanding, in violation of
the laid down procedures, to the detriment of bank’s
interest.
2.15
That on 30.06.2008, misusing the User ID of Sri. J.
Thirumala Rao, Officer, you made a case credit entry of
Rs.46,972/- into the AGDL a/c No.1/05 in the name of Sri A.
Narayanan and closed the said AGDL account without
the Bank actually receiving any case towards closure of
the said account. That the said cash towards closures of
the said account. That the said amount of Rs. 46,972/- was
got adjusted from out of the 24 imaginary cash payments
aggregating Rs.73,117/- of unconnected CCCK a/cs and
thereby misused your official position besides exposing
the Bank to financial loss.
2.16
That, on 03.11.2008, without obtaining prior
permission and/or No Objection Certificate from Personnel
Administration Division Head Office, as required, you
availed a CHOME loan bearing No.CHOME/01/80012 for
Rs.3.50 lakh purportedly for purchase of land admeasuring
90 cents situated at Periya Kurukkal Village, Kallakurichi
Taluk, Villupuram District, purportedly valued at Rs.7.20
lakh by misrepresentation and suppressing the fact that
the said landed property was already purchased by you
for a sale consideration of Rs.0.90 lakh on 15.10.2008 and
6008
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
without creation of simple mortgage on the said property
as stipulated in the legal opinion, in violation of Corp
Home Scheme guidelines. That the proceeds of the
aforesaid CHOME loan was withdrawn in cash through
SB A/c 4023 and the same was mis-utilized by you. That
by knowingly making false statement and by suppression
of facts, you derived undue financial accommodation
besides exposing the Bank to financial risk and
consequences.
2.17
That on 15.10.2008, you withdrew a sum of
Rs.50,000 by means of cash debit voucher from your SB
A/c No.4023 maintained at the branch when the balance in
the said account was insufficient to meet the said debit,
by unauthorisedly allowing overdrawal to the extent of
Rs.49,923.50 in the said SB account. That the said
overdrawal was subsequently regularized by you on
16.10.2008 by availing Employees Jewel Loan bearing No.
EJL/02/80002. That in the aforesaid manner, you derived
undue financial accommodation by abusing your official
position to the detriment of Bank’s interest.
2.18
That, you indulged in Chit Fund business at
Koothanur village for an amount of Rs.60,000 per month
having a duration of 60 months without obtaining written
permission from the Bank. That you were collecting monthly
contribution at the rate of Rs.2000 per member without
issuing any receipt therefore and that the chit would be
auctioned every month by you which was used to be
bid by the members who were in urgent need of money,
thereby you indulged in trade/business outside the scope
of your duties, in violation of the service conditions
applicable to you.
3.
That by carrying out the aforesaid irregular
transactions mentioned at Para 2.1 to 2.18 here above, you
indulged in:
(a)
Unauthorized transfer of amount from one account
to another;
(b)
Withdrawal of amount from SB account without the
knowledge of the account holder and
misappropriation of the same;
(c)
Depositing cash into SB account without the
knowledge of the account holder;
(d)
Making false case credit entry without paying-in-
slip/without receiving physical cash and issuance
of deposit receipt under your single signature;
(e)
Unauthorized crediting of proceeds of customer’s
Cheque to your ECOD account;
(f)
Unauthorized closure of loan accounts through cash
module without receiving cash and
(g)
Unauthorized debits to sundry creditors account
and local bank account.
4.
That the above acts and omissions reported against
you, if proved, would tantamount to;
(i)
Breach of any rule of business of the bank or
instruction for the running of any department;
(ii)
engaging in any trade or business outside the scope
of your duties without the permission of the Bank;
(iii)
willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the
property of the Bank or any of its customers and
(iv)
doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank or
gross negligence or negligence involving or likely
to involve the bank in serious loss;
Minor misconduct under clause 7 (d) and Gross
misconducts under clause 5 (a), 5(d) and 5(j)
respectively of the Memorandum of Settlement on
Disciplinary Procedure dated 10.04.2002 applicable
to you, besides involving moral turpitude”.
7.
Before the Enquiry Officer the Management had
examined four witnesses. MW1 is the Officer of the
Vigilance Division who conducted the investigation and
submitted the report. Apart from him, the Manager of the
branch wherein the alleged incident had taken place,
another officer who was working there and the only Clerk
other than the petitioner who was working in the branch
at the time of the incident are those examined.
8.
The Enquiry Officer had found the petitioner guilty
of all the charges raised against him. Rather than going by
the charge framed by the Management the Enquiry Officer
had framed several issues based on the charge sheets
served on the petitioner and dealt with each of the issues
separately. Rather than going by these issues framed by
the Enquiry Officer I will be going by the Charge Sheet
served on the petitioner.
9.
For coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is
guilty of all the charges the Enquiry Officer, apart from
referring to the evidence of the witnesses and the
documents before it had also referred to the statements
given by some persons to MW1 the Investigating Officer.
Reference is also made to the discussion made by the
Investigating Officer with some of the persons involved.
It has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner
that in the absence of examination of those persons before
the Enquiry Officer, it was not proper for the Officer to
refer to the statements to bring home the guilt of the
petitioner. Certainly there is justification in this submission
made by the Counsel. It would not be proper to refer to the
statements of those persons who were not examined before
the Enquiry Officer and I will be refraining from doing so.
Another aspect that is pointed out by the Counsel is that
the Enquiry Officer has relied upon the report of the
preliminary investigation conducted by Vishwanath
immediately after detection of the alleged incidents. This
also could not be referred to, the Officer who is the author
of the report having not been examined. Another argument
that is being advanced by the counsel is that the very
report of MW1 is based on the report of Vishwanath and
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6009
for this reason this report also could not be taken into
account. This argument is without any basis. MW1 has
conducted investigation on his own and his report is not
based on the report filed by Vishwanath. He has been
before the Enquiry Officer as a witness and has been
elaborately cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner also.
10.
Before discussing the case on merits there is one
more aspect that requires reference. Regarding seven of
the transactions the details of which are given in two
tables in the charge sheet which is extracted earlier, the
case of the Management is that even though the User ID
of some others were used for the transactions the petitioner
is the one who had entered these transactions in the system
and he is the one who is liable Unless it is established by
the Management specifically that the petitioner had been
using the User ID of others and also the User ID of the
Branch Manager for authorizing the entries, the petitioner
could not be made responsible for those entries. In so far
as there is no proof to show that the petitioner himself had
been responsible for those entries, the natural presumption
is that the entries were made by those persons in whose
name the User ID or the Authorization ID as the case may
be stands. This must be true with respect to the petitioner
also regarding the transactions which came under his User
ID.
11.
The allegations in the Charge Sheet pertains to
transactions in respect of the accounts of different account
holders or in respect of certain sundry accounts. It will be
convenient to discuss the charges in respect of particular
account or a particular account holder together. According
to the Management several irregularities were done with
respect to SB A/c No. 3602 which stood in the name of one
P. Kannan. The irregularities in this respect are shown as
S. No. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 and 14 of Table-I in the Charge
Sheet. Again they are explained under heads 2.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12 and 2.13.1 in the Charge Sheet. As seen
from Charge 2.2 on 30.04.2008 the petitioner had
unauthorizedly debited account of P. Kannan with
Rs. 40,000 without preparing relating vouchers and credited
this amount to the SB Account of one A. Rajendran. The
entries regarding the transaction was allegedly made by
the petitioner and authorized by him itself in the User ID
of the Branch Manager without his consent or knowledge.
After this, on the same day the petitioner withdrew the
amount and misappropriated the amount. In the same
manner on 14.05.2008 the petitioner is said to have
unauthorizedly withdrew Rs. 10,000/- and on 10.06.2008,
Rs. 70,000/- from the account of Kannan and
misappropriated these amounts. The authorization
regarding these also is said to have been done by the
petitioner in the User ID of the Branch Manager and that
of J.T. Rao, another Officer. The withdrawal slips in respect
of these transactions are said to be in the handwriting of
the petitioner. In the same manner the petitioner allegedly
withdrew Rs. 40,000 on 10.07.2008 and Rs. 60,000 on
25.07.2008 from the account of P. Kannan and
misappropriated these amounts. It is alleged that the
signature in the withdrawal slips pertaining to these
transactions do not match with the signature of the account
holder. On 10.10.2008 the petitioner allegedly made one
more withdrawal, this time of Rs. 1,000/- from the account
of P. Kannan. On 14.06.2008, the petitioner is said to
borrowed Rs. 70,000/- from one Veeran, an account holder
of the same branch and credited the amount to the
account of Kannan. On 25.11.2008, the petitioner issued a
KCC Receipt for Rs. 1,00,000/- to Kannan who approached
him at the branch on the day. He also obtained the old
Pass Book of Kannan and retained it and issued a new
Pass Book to him. Though the KCC Receipt was issued on
25.11.2008, on the said date itself he credited a sum of
Rs. 679/- to the account of Kannan as interest towards the
KCC Deposit. According to the Management, Kannan had
even earlier instructed the petitioner to invest Rs. 1,00,000
in Term Deposit by withdrawing this amount from his SB
Account. But rather than investing the amount, he
withdrew Rs. 1,00,000/- in instalments of Rs. 40,000/- on
10.07.2008 and Rs. 60,000/- on 25.07.2008 but failed to invest
the amount. But when Kannan approached him on
25.11.2008 he issued deposit receipt to Kannan on that
date and credited Rs. 679/- as interest to make him believe
that the investment has been made earlier. Though a
Deposit Receipt was issued to Kannan, actually no cash
was deposited towards this investment. For this purpose
he had been using the User ID of the Branch Manager
without his knowledge also. On the same date,
subsequently, the petitioner allegedly borrowed amount
from one K. Kannan, another account holder of the branch
and made good the physical shortage of cash in the actual
holdings of the branch on account of issuance of the KCC
Receipt to Kannan. On 23.05.2008 the petitioner allegedly
debited a Sundry Nominal Account of a sum of Rs. 50,000/-
and credited this also to the account of P. Kannan.
12.
Regarding the entries pertaining to the transactions
referred to above, it has been argued by the petitioner’s
counsel that there is no evidence to show that the entries
pertaining to the transactions were made by the petitioner
himself, even though most of them are shown in the system
as entered in his User ID, by him. The argument of the
counsel has been based on certain revelations made by
the witnesses during their examination. It has come out
during the evidence of MW4, the Branch Manager and
also MWs 2 and 3 who were working in the relevant branch
that there was the practice of using the User ID of one
person in more than one terminal. According to MW4, the
Branch Manager he even used to leave his system open
with his User ID. His explanation was that there used to
be continuous power failure and failure of link connectivity
and if the system is logged out it would take more than 15
minutes to log on as the UPS was not working properly.
MW3, the other Clerical Staff in the branch alongwith the
6010
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
petitioner has deposed that the Branch Manager used to
advise him to open the terminal other than the one in which
he was using also in his own User ID for entering
transactions, because of power and link failure. The
argument that was advanced by the counsel for the
petitioner is that if such practice was there the entries
referred to earlier pertaining to the account of P. Kannan
could have been made by some other staff of the bank
also and need not have been by the petitioner himself.
However, there is the admission made by the petitioner
himself pertaining to many of the above transactions to
the effect that the entries were made by him. So there is no
scope for advancing such an argument. The file pertaining
to the enquiry proceedings contain copy of the letter that
has been written by Vishwanathan who conducted the
preliminary investigation, to the petitioner. This letter refers
to several transactions with respect to which malpractices
were allegedly conducted. Though the investigation report
of Vishwanathan itself could not be referred to, there could
not be any objection in referring to the letter written by
Vishwanathan which finds a place at Page-98 and has been
marked as MEX-4 in the enquiry proceedings. Page-135
contains the explanation of the petitioner to this letter.
There is no case for the petitioner that this is not the letter
written by him. It is clear from this very reply that he had
received the letter from Vishwanathan. The letter by
Vishwanathan refers to the KCC Deposit in the name of P.
Kannan, entry of Rs. 679/- towards interest, debiting of
Rs. 40,000/- of the account of Kannan on 30.04.2008 and
withdrawal of this amount on the same day. There is no
case for the petitioner that the debiting of Rs. 40,000/-
from the account of P. Kannan was not done by him. So
also it is admitted by him that the entry pertaining to the
withdrawal of Rs. 40,000/- was made by him even though
through User ID of Rajendran. The explanation given by
him is that it was done as per the instructions from the
Branch Manager and the same has been authorized by the
Branch Manager. Even assuming that there was possibility
of others making entries in the User ID of a particular
employee unless it is established that it was not done by
the person holding the USDR ID himself the presumption
is to be that it was done by him.
13.
Regarding the KCC Deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- the
petitioner has stated in his reply that he had obtained a
hand loan of Rs. 1.00 lakh from P. Kannan the customer
and that when he returned the amount to Kannan he asked
to invest the amount in KCC and it was accordingly the
investment was made. He has further stated that the
interest for the amount for one month i.e. Rs. 679/- was
credited by him to the SB Account of Kannan and he has
returned the narration, KCC interest for his understanding.
He has also stated that since earlier Pass Book was
complete, he has given a new Pass Book and that the new
Pass Book was written by him manually as the Pass Book
Printer has been under repair.
14.
P. Kannan, the holder of SB Account 3602 has not
been examined before the Enquiry Officer even though
several alleged unauthorized transactions are pertaining
to his account. MW1 seems to have discussed with him
during his investigation. However, the Management did
not think it necessary to examine this person and the
Management is handicapped to this extent also. In spite
of this, the available evidence coupled with the admission
of the petitioner would show that the case of the
Management that a hasty deposit of Rs. 1.00 lakh in the
name of Kannan was made by the petitioner even without
making any physical payment of cash for the purpose and
a receipt was issued by petitioner to Kannan. The very
letter written by the petitioner would show that the Deposit
Receipt was issued by him to Kannan. According to him
he has delivered the receipt to Kannan and asked him to
get the signature of the Manager as soon as the Manager
arrived since he was away from the Branch at that time.
This admission itself would show that the receipt was
issued in the absence of the Manager, without any
signature by the Manager. The entry pertaining to the
deposit shows that it was authorized by the Manager. The
explanation given by the petitioner itself would show that
the entry regarding deposit receipt was generated when
the Manager was not there. At the same time authorization
regarding the entry is seen done in the User ID of the
Manager. It is clear from this that the petitioner had
unauthorizedly used the User ID of the Branch Manager
without his knowledge or consent. It is clear that deposit
receipt was issued by him without actual cash deposit
and without authority. The amount was shown to have
accrued interest also though it did not. It has been pointed
out by the counsel that KCC Deposit is one for which
interest will go with the corpus. So interest could not have
been shown in the SB account of Kannan. So it is clear
that it is a clandestine transaction entered by the petitioner.
15.
So far as the charge that the receipt was issued
without making any actual cash deposit, the petitioner
has not given any explanation in his reply. It is seen from
the entry pertaining to the payment scroll of 25.11.2008
(Page-479 of Respondent’s typed set) that the shortage
that has occurred on account of issuing the receipt without
receipt of physical cash was made good only subsequently,
though on the same day.
16.
If actually, the account holder Kannan was made to
know at that point of time itself that the investment is
being done on 25.11.2008 only, the petitioner need not
have shown the entry crediting Rs. 679/- towards interest
on the same date. In all probability the petitioner made the
account holder believe that the investment had been made
on a much earlier date itself. Otherwise such crediting of
interest need not have been made at all. This probabalizes
the case that some malpractices must have been done by
him earlier pertaining to the account of Kannan. The
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6011
issuance of a New Pass Book also must have been with
the purpose of covering the malpractice.
17.
The petitioner had admittedly debited a sum of
Rs. 40,000/- out of the account of P. Kannan on 30.04.2008.
The same amount was credited to the account of one
Rajendran. The explanation given by him in the reply is
that this was done at the instance of the Branch Manager.
He has justified his act stating that the same is authorized
by the Branch Manager. The stand of the Manager is that
he has not authorized any of the disputed entries including
this one. It is clear from my earlier discussion pertaining
to issuance of KCC Receipt for Rs. 1.00 lakh that the
petitioner has been liberally using the User ID of the Branch
Manager with or without his consent. Even assuming that
there is basis for the stand of the petitioner that his debiting
of Rs. 40,000/- was authorized by the Branch Manager
there could not be any justification for this act of the
petitioner for the reason that this was done by him without
complying with the procedure. There is no voucher
pertaining to this transaction so there is nothing to show
that this debiting was done with the consent of the account
holder even if it was authorized by the Manager. In the
absence of any voucher the debiting of the account is to
be treated as unauthorized. The statement of account of
Kannan shows that though the amount is actually credited
to the account of Rajendran the account number is not
shown, but merely shown as credited to SB. It is clear that
intentionally the petitioner tried to conceal things. All this
would show that the transaction was without the
knowledge of the account holder. Even if authorization of
the transaction was done by the Manager, the petitioner
will not be absolved of the charge.
18.
On the same day, on 30.04.2008 itself the amount of
Rs. 40,000/- which was credited to the account of one
Rajendran had been withdrawn. According to the
Management, the amount was unauthorizedly withdrawn
by the petitioner himself. This withdrawal was by using
withdrawal slip. Though according to the Management,
the user of the withdrawal slip was stopped long ago, the
petitioner had resorted to this. However, the Bank seems
to have been continuing this practice liberally and so the
use of withdrawal slip could not be to the disadvantage of
the petitioner. Though it is alleged that this amount has
been withdrawn and misappropriated by him, there is no
evidence available to show that the amount was not
withdrawn by the account holder but by the petitioner
himself. The entry in the withdrawal slip seems to have
been made in the handwriting of the petitioner. However,
this would not show that the withdrawal was not made by
the account holder. The concerned account holder has
not been examined. I have been making off hand
comparison of the specimen signature of Account Holder
Rajendran found in Page-608, volume-III of Respondent
Set with the signature of the account holder found in
Ext.M77, the withdrawal slip pertaining to the transaction
and I do not find much of a difference in between the two.
In the absence of any material to show that the petitioner
has withdrawn the amount such a conclusion cannot be
made. So this charge of the Management stands not
proved.
19.
The case of the management is that the petitioner
had withdrawn amounts from the account of Kannan on
other dates also unauthorizedly and misappropriated them
and it was because of this he had to issue a Deposit Receipt
without any physical payment of the amount in the name
of Kannan. However, the lacunae that there is no proof
regarding withdrawal by the petitioner from the account
of Kannan holds good regarding the other transactions in
respect of account of Kannan also. There is an allegation
that he had withdrawn Rs. 10,000/- on 14.05.2008,
Rs. 70,000/- on 10.06.2008, Rs. 40,000/- on 10.07.2008,
Rs. 60,000/- on 25.07.2008 and Rs. 1,000/- on 10.10.2008.
All these withdrawals are through withdrawal slips. The
concerned account holder has not been examined. He has
not stated before the Enquiry Officer that none of these
withdrawals were made by him. Though there is a reference
to sending documents to the handwriting expert and a
report in the Charge Sheet, any such report is not available.
All the above transactions are certainly under the USER
ID of the petitioner and authorized either by the Branch
Manager or MW2. During his Cross-Examination, MW2
has stated that the signature in the withdrawal slips
pertaining to the transactions authorized by him looked
similar to the signature of the account holder. A comparison
of the specimen signature of Kannan obtained at the time
of opening of account (Ext.M61, Page-617 of Volume-II of
Respondent Set) with the signatures of the account holder
found in the withdrawal slips in respect of withdrawals of
Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 70,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- shows
that they look similar. So it is not without basis MW2 has
stated that they look similar. No doubt there is no entry of
these in the Cheque Issue Register. However, on going
through the register it is found that there are undisputed
withdrawals also which are not entered in the register. So,
for this reason alone the petitioner could not be said to
have withdrawn the amount. The Management has not
proved that the signature in the withdrawal slip are not
that of Kannan. So far as withdrawal of Rs. 1,000.00 is
concerned this is in the User ID of MW2 and could not be
attributed to the petititioner at all. The charge that the
petitioner debited Rs. 50,000/- out of the nominal account
no. 17/2008 and debited this to the account of Kannan
also is not proved. This entry being in the User ID of
MW3 it could not be attributed to the petitioner. So the
case that the above withdrawals were made by the
petitioner unauthorizedly without the knowledge of the
account holder stands un-established.
20.
There is a case for the Management that on
14.06.2008 the petitioner had borrowed Rs. 70,000/- from
Veeran, an account holder of the bank and remitted this
6012
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
amount to the account of P. Kannan to make good the
earlier withdrawal. However, this entry is made in the User
ID of MW3 and was authorized by MW2. The case is that
the entry as well as the authorization are done by the
petitioner. There is evidence given by both these
witnesses in this respect. However, MW2 has stated that
he has presumed the authorization to have been done by
the petitioner in the User ID kept open by him since he
himself has not done it. However he has stated during his
cross-examination that such authorization could have been
done by someone else also. It was only an assumption on
his part that it was done by the petitioner. The fact that
the entry pertaining to this transaction is in the User ID of
MW3 goes very much against the Management. In the
absence of evidence to show that entry was made by the
petitioner himself, the act cannot be attributed to him.
21.
There is also a charge against the petitioner that on
23.05.2008, without any authority and misusing the USER
ID of KK Rajendran, another staff he debited a sum of
Rs. 50,000/- to the nominal account no. 17/2008 under
Sundry Debtors Account and credited this amount to SB
A/c 3602 of P. Kannan without the knowledge of P. Kannan
and thereby re-credited the amounts of Rs. 40,000/- and
Rs. 10,000/- that were unauthorizedly withdrawn by the
petitioner from this account. It is stated that the
transactions was clandestinely made in the User ID of
Rajendran and to avoid detection he entered the
particulars of entry “BY CASH” even though the
transaction was effected by transfer entry by debiting
nominal account no. 17/2008.
22.
The above charge against the petitioner also stands
unproved. The very case in the charge is that the
transaction was entered in the User ID of KK Rajendran.
There is of course evidence given before the Enquiry
Officer by Rajendran that he is not the one who made the
entry. Even assuming that Rajendran did not make the
entry, how can the responsibility for the entry be
attributed upon the petitioner, in the absence of any
concrete evidence? Even MW2 Tirumal Rao who was an
Officer of the Bank has stated that it was only his
assumption that the petitioner was using his User ID.
Rajendran himself has stated that the Manager has
instructed to open User ID in more than one systems. So
any one among the staff could have entered the
transaction. The case of the Management is that it was to
repay the amount debited from the account of P. Kannan
that the petitioner has done the above transaction. As
stated P. Kannan himself has not come forward to give
evidence against the petitioner. So it would be difficult to
attribute the authorship of the transaction upon the
petitioner.
23.
Two charges are made against the petitioner in
connection with the account of a customer by name Gowri.
Gowri had issued a cheque for R. 13,000/- in the name of
her husband Babu on 05.07.2008. The cheque was written
in Tamil. The petitioner is said to have clandestinely added
his name as an additional payee on the cheque in English
language and debited the cheque to the SB A/c of Gowri
and credited the proceeds to his own ECOD Account
maintained at the Branch. To avoid easy detection of the
misdeed he is said to have given a misleading narration as
if it was credited to ECOD A/c of the Branch Manager.
Gowri herself did not give evidence in the enquiry
proceedings. However, there is the extract of account of
Gowri as well as extract of account of the petitioner
available for perusal. This would show that the cheque
amount has been debited from the account of Gowri and
credited to the account of the petitioner. The petitioner
has not explained how his name happened to be there in
the cheque alongwith the name of the husband of the
customer. He has not come forward with any explanation
for the same. He has not given any evidence before the
Enquiry Officer. At least regarding this charge that his
name has been added by himself in a cheque issued to
someone else, the petitioner was bound to give an
explanation since the amount as per the cheque has been
credited to his own account. The materials available would
indicate that the petitioner has committed the misdeed as
described in the charge. Another charge in respect of
Gowri is that on 03.01.2009 a withdrawal slip for Rs. 10,000/-
drawn on the account of Gowri was presented for payment
at the branch and the petitioner entered the particulars
of withdrawal slip without verifying the signature of Gowri
and without any authority made payment of the amount
even before the slip was passed for payment by the
Supervisory Official. Gowri is said to have subsequently
disputed the signature appearing on the withdrawal slip
and demanded refund of the amount debited to her
account. The forgery of the signature is said to have been
confirmed by the Govt. Examiner of Questioned
Documents, Hyderabad. In the absence of any evidence
by Gowri and in the absence of report on the Examiner of
Documents, there is no way to ascertain if the signature
appearing on the withdrawal slip is not of Gowri. Gorwi
who is said to have disputed the signature was not brought
before the Enquiry Officer. Even assuming that the
signature in the withdrawal slip is not of Gowri it cannot
be assumed that it was put by the petitioner. Anyhow, the
relevant documents produced by the Bank would show
that amount was paid as per the withdrawal slip even before
it was passed by the Supervisory Official. To this extend
the charge is proved.
24.
Still another charge against the petitioner is that
Murugesan, a SB Account holder of the Bank had availed
an agricultural loan, that consequent upon applying the
Debt Waiver Scheme, an amount of Rs. 18,226/- was
credited by the petitioner to the account of Murugesan
on 21.02.2008, that this was done misusing the User ID of
Rajendran for entering the transaction and misusing the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6013
User ID of Manager for authorizing the transaction. The
petitioner is said to have clandestinely withdrawn this
amount of Rs. 18,226/- from the SB A/c of Murugesan by
means of withdrawal slip and misappropriated the amount.
25.
In the above case also the entry of the transaction is
under the User ID of Rajendran and authorizations under
the User ID of Manager. The entry is said to have been
modified by the petitioner in his own User ID. However,
the entry having been made in the User ID of Rajendran,
the reason earlier given is applicable to this charge also. It
could not be assumed in the absence any other evidence
that the entry and authorization were made by the petitioner
himself.
26.
It is also alleged that on 29.10.2008, the petitioner
misused the USER ID of the Branch Manager and
transferred amounts aggregating Rs. 26,616/- from Sundry
Creditors Account crediting three different unconnected
nominal account nos. 53/2008, 55/2008 and 65/2008 and
credited the amount to the account of Narayanan. It is
clear from the extract of the above accounts and the
account of Narayanan that the above transactions were
carried out in the User ID of the petitioner. He has admitted
it in his explanation (Page-135 of Respondent’s set) All
the three accounts that were debited were Sundry
Creditors Account. This could have nothing to do with
the account of Narayanan. The petitioner has not explained
why this accounts were debited and the amount credited
to the account of Narayanan. It is true that authorization
is seen done in the User ID of the Manager himself.
However, the petitioner is bound to explain under what
circumstances this transaction has been carried out by
him, whether authorized by himself in the User ID of the
Manager or authorized by the Manager himself. This is
particularly so since different contradictory narrations are
given in the Sundry Creditors Account and in the SB A/c
of Narayanan. This charge stands proved.
27.
Another charge in respect of transactions allegedly
carried out through the account of Narayanan is that on
29.10.2008, the petitioner debited Rs. 26,616/- to the account
of Narayanan through withdrawal slip and misappropriated
the amount. The transaction was entered in the User ID of
the petitioner himself and allegedly authorized by him in
the User ID of Rajagopalan without his knowledge. The
Account Holder Narayanan was not examined. One does
not know if Narayanan has got a case that any amount
from his account has been withdrawn by the petitioner
without his knowledge. So also there is no evidence to
show that the petitioner himself has authorized the
transactions in the User ID of Rajagopalan, the Branch
Manager. A comparison of the specimen signature (Page-
604 VII of Respondent’s typed set) with the signature in
the withdrawal slip (Page-945 VIII of Respondent’s set)
does not reveal much. Though there is a gap of 28 years in
the two signatures they look similar. So it could not be
made out if petitioner is the one who withdrew the amount.
The charge is not proved.
28.
On 30.06.2008 the petitioner is said to have made a
cash credit entry of Rs. 46,972/- to the loan account in the
name of one A. Narayanan misusing the User ID of Officer
Tirumal Rao and closed the account without the bank
actually receiving any cash towards closure of the said
account. The amount was got adjusted from out of 24
imaginary cash payments aggregating Rs. 73,170/- of
unconnected CCK Accounts. There is no specific charge
against the petitioner for adjusting the unconnected
accounts. The account numbers are not given in the
charge. Apart from this is the fact the cash credit entry is
made in the USER ID of Tirumal Rao. One does not know
if the entries were made by the petitioner himself. There is
no evidence to this effect. So this charge also is not proved.
29.
Another charge against the petitioner is that
consequent to the petitioner crediting Rs. 50,000/- to the
account of P. Kannan by debiting Sundry Creditors
Account, the account stood reduced by Rs. 7,000/- against
the original amount of Rs. 57,000/- and in order to cover
up these transactions he clandestinely debited
unconnected nominal account numbers 57/2008, 54/2008
and 59/2008 with sums of Rs. 32,436/-, Rs. 5,417/- and Rs.
12,1437/- respectively and reversed the entry dated
05.05.2008. As could be seen from the charge itself the
transactions were entered in the User ID of KK Rajendran.
There is no evidence to show that the petitioner is the one
who entered these transactions using the User ID of
Rajendran. The mere version of Rajendran that he is not
the one who made these entries will not suffice to fasten
the responsibility upon the petitioner.
30.
Still another charge against the petitioner is that on
account of the transaction carried out by the petitioner in
nominal account no. 17/2008, the amount in the account
stood reduced to Rs. 7,000/- from the original balance of
Rs. 57,000/- and in order to cover up this transaction he
debited connected nominal account nos. 57/2008, 54/2008
and 59/2008 with the sums of Rs. 32,436/-, Rs. 5,417/- and
Rs. 12,147/- respectively and reversed the entry in nominal
account no. 17/2008. I have already found earlier that this
debiting of amount from nominal account no. 17/2008 by
the petitioner is not established. Again, the debiting from
the unconnected nominal accounts referred to above is in
the User ID of MW3, KK Rajendran and could not be
attributed to the petitioner in the absence of and acceptable
evidence to this effect. This charge also is not proved
against the petitioner.
31.
The charge under Clause-2.14 of the charge sheet is
that loan was sanctioned to one Gomathi, holder of SB
A/c 4898 without obtaining the signature of the depositor
in the concerned form against the security of KCC Deposit
of Rs. 1.00 lakh in her name even though this deposit was
held as security for a Vidya Loan sanctioned to her earlier.
6014
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The petitioner is said to have failed to note the lien on the
KCC Deposit Receipt and failed to safeguard the interest
of the bank. He is said to have failed to obtain prior
permission or approval from the Branch Manager or from
the Zonal Office to sanction loan also. He is said to have
delinked the lien on 31.03.2008 and transferred the KCC to
overdue deposit account though the loan account was
still outstanding. In the written argument submitted on
behalf of the Respondent it is stated that this charge against
the petitioner is not so serious as the primary responsibility
for the sanction of the loan is on the Manager. It has been
pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that in his
investigation report marked as Ext.W3, MW1 the
Investigating Officer has stated that the voucher slip
relating to the SDL transactions were signed by the Branch
Manager and the sanction of SDL against deposit was
also made by the Branch Manager and the lien was marked
under the authorization of the Branch Manager. The
cancellation of the lien was authorized by one Karpagavalli
who was earlier working in the branch as seen from the
report of the Investigating Officer. So in any case this
transaction cannot be attributed to the petitioner.
32.
Another charge against the petitioner is that on
03.11.2008, without obtaining prior permission or no
objection certificate from the Personnel & Administration,
Divisional Head Office, he availed a CHONE Loan for Rs.
3.5 lakhs purportedly to purchase a land measuring 90
cents valued at Rs. 7.2 lakhs. By misrepresentation and
suppressing the fact that the property was already
purchased by him for a sale consideration of Rs. 90,000/-
on 15.10.2008 and that too also without creation of single
mortgage on the property as stipulated. The petitioner is
said to have derived undue financial accommodation by
making a false statement. It is not disputed that the loan
has been obtained by the petitioner. The primary
responsibility for sanctioning a loan is on the Branch
Manager. According to the counsel for the petitioner when
it was realized that the loan has been falsely sanctioned,
the petitioner was asked to remit the entire amount and he
has done so. He has closed the loan account by paying
Rs. 3.20 lakhs on 22.01.2009 and the balance amount on
24.01.2009. According to the petitioner’s counsel the
sanction of the loan could be termed as a procedural lapse
only. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has
applied for loan by misrepresentation. He has asked for
loan purportedly for purchasing property even though he
has already purchased the property. To this extent the
charge is established also.
33.
On 15.10.2008, the petitioner is said to have
withdrawn Rs. 50,000/- by means of Cash Debit Voucher
from his SB Account No. 4023 by unauthorizedly allowing
overdrawal to the extent of Rs. 49,923.50 in the said account.
The overdrawal was regularized by him on 16.10.2008 by
availing employee’s jewel loan from the bank. It is clear
from the statement of account of the petitioner that he had
withdrawn the amount of Rs. 50,000/- though he had less
than Rs. 100/- available in his account as balance at that
time. The fact that he has regularized the overdrawal on
the next day will not justify the misdeed. He has committed
the misconduct alleged.
34.
Another charge against the petitioner is that the
petitioner had been conducting chit fund business at his
village for an amount of Rs. 60,000/- per month having a
duration of 60 months without obtaining written
permission from the Bank. He is said to have been
collecting monthly contribution @ Rs. 2,000/- per
subscriber without issuing any receipt. Thus the petitioner
is said to have indulged in trade / business outside the
scope of his duties in violation of the service conditions
applicable to him. In fact no material is available at all to
show that the petitioner has been conducting chit fund
business. This misconduct is alleged against the petitioner
on the basis of a statement (Ext.M27) given by a person
who is said to be a relative of the petitioner to MW1, the
Investigating Officer. None of the witnesses examined
knows anything about the business said to have been
conducted by the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has found
this charge also proved on the basis that Anbazhagan
who has given statement to MW1 has stated so. This
person who is said to have given statement was not
examined before the Enquiry Officer. It was not proper for
the Enquiry Officer to consider the statement as the author
of the statement was not examined. So this charge remains
un-established.
35.
As per my discussion above, I have found that the
first limb of Charge Nos. 2.2, 2.11, 2.12, 2.6, 2.13.3 and 2.17
are established and Charge Nos. 2.7 and 2.16 are partly
established.
36.
It is clear that the petitioner had acted in breach of
rules of business of the bank. It is also clear that he was
causing damage to the property of the bank and its
customers. Certainly, meddling with the accounts standing
in the names of customers in the bank is damaging the
property of the bank and its customers. The petitioner has
also been acting in a way prejudicial to the interests of the
bank. Though many of the charges against the petitioner
are not established, I find that those charges which are
proved are sufficient to sustain the punishment of dismissal
from service. I do not find any reason to interfere with or
modify the punishment imposed on the petitioner.
37.
The reference is answered against the petitioner. An
award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 31st July, 2014)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6015
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 1st Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
-
Suspension
order
dated
04.02.2009
Ex.W2
-
Charge Sheet dated 13.04.2010
Ex.W3
-
Enquiry Proceedings
Ex.W4
-
Defence submissions dated
18.10.2010
Ex.W5
-
Enquiry report dated 09.11.2010
Ex.W6
-
Representation dated 20.12.2010
on enquiry report
Ex.W7
-
Second Show Cause Notice dated
31.01.2011
Ex.W8
-
Reply dated 05.03.2011 to Second
Show Cause Notice
Ex.W9
-
Punishment
order
dated
21.03.2011
Ex.W10
-
Appeal dated 01.05.2011
Ex.W11
-
Representation dated 05.09.2011
to the Appellate Authority
Ex.W12
-
Letter dated 05.09.2011 advising
for personal hearing before
Appellate Authority
Ex.W13
-
Submissions dated 21.09.2011
before the Appellate Authority
during personal hearing
Ex.W14
-
Appellate Authority’s order dated
14.02.2012
Ex.W15
-
Claim Statement dated 27.06.2012
made before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Chennai
Ex.W16
-
Notice of Conciliation dated
25.07.2012
Ex.W17
-
Counter dated 28.08.2012 of the
Respondent Bank to the claim
made before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner ©
Ex.W18
-
Rejoinder statement dated
27.09.2012
Ex.W19
-
Certificate no. 7/07/2012-PDY
dated 27.09.2012 of Conciliation
Officer
Ex.W20
-
Memorandum of Settlement dated
10.04.2012 on Disciplinary Matters
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.M1
12.01.2009
Special Report of S. Viswanathan,
Senior Manager, ZAO, Chennai,
enclosed as Annexure-I, to the
Investigation Report (172 sheets)
Ex.M2
-
Unauthorized/disputed transaction
details in SB A/c No. 3602 of Sri P.
Kannan enclosed as Annexure 2,
to the Investigation Report
(7 sheets)
Ex.M3
-
Proceedings dated 11.02.2009 on
the discussion held with Sri P.
Kannan – SB A/c No. 3602 and
KCC/60/0800108 enclosed as
Annexure-3 to the Investigation
Report (2 sheets)
Ex.M4
-
Letter dated 12.02.2009 given by
Sri P. Kannan – S a/c No. 3602 and
KCC/60/080018
alongwith
specimen signature enclosed as
Annexure-4, to the Investigation
Report (4 sheets)
Ex.M5
-
Proceedings dated 16.02.2009 and
17.02.2009 on the oral clarification
given by Sri S. Velmayil, E.No.
12349, Clerk (under suspension)
enclosed as Annexure 5, to the
Investigation Report (13 sheets)
Ex.M6
-
Proceedings dated 18.02.2009 on
the oral clarification given by Sri
K.K. Rajendran, E.No. 12673,
Clerk, enclosed as Annexure 6, to
the Investigation report (4 sheets)
Ex.M7
-
Written clarification dated
14.02.2009 given by Sri J. Tirusala
Rao, E.No. 12025, Officer, enclosed
as
Annexure
7,
to
the
Investigation Report (5 sheets)
Ex.M8
-
Written clarification dated
14.02.2009 given by Sri R.
Rajagopalan, E.No. 5613, then
Branch Manager, Eraiyur Branch,
enclosed as Annexure 8 to the
Investigation Report (14 sheets)
Ex.M9
-
Certified photocopy of deposit
receipt of KCC a/c No. 60/080010
dated 25.11.2008 for Rs. 1.00 lakh
in the name of Sri P. Kannan,
enclosed as Annexure-9 to the
Investigation Report (1 sheet)
Ex.M10
-
Certified photocopy of page no. 1
and 2 of withdrawal slip issued
6016
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
register, enclosed as Annexure 10
to the Investigation Report
(1 sheet)
Ex.M11
-
Proceedings dated 19.02.2009
drawn on the discussion held with
Sri K. Kannan – SB A/c No. 4767
alongwith specimen signatures,
enclosed as Annexure-11 to the
Investigation Report (1 sheet)
Ex.M12
-
Letter dated 19.02.2009 given by
Sri K. Kannan – SB A/c No. 4767
alongwith specimen signatures,
enclosed as Annexure-12 to the
Investigation Report (2 sheets)
Ex.M13
-
Proceedings dated 10.02.2009 on
the visit made to the customers’
place, enclosed as Annexure-13 to
the
Investigation
Report
(2 sheets)
Ex.M14
-
Certified photocopy of letter
dated 23.02.2009 given by Smt. B.
Gowri – SB A/c No. 5200, enclosed
as
Annexure-14
to
the
Investigation Report (2 sheets)
Ex.M15
-
Proceedings dated 23.02.2009
drawn on the discussion held with
Smt. B. Gowri – SB A/c No. 5200
enclosed as Annexure-15 to the
Investigation Report (1 sheet)
Ex.M16
-
Written clarification dated
25.02.2009 by Sri J. Tirumala Rao,
E.No. 12025, enclosed as
Annexure 16 to the Investigation
Report (3 sheets)
Ex.M17
-
Proceedings dated 18.02.2009
drawn on the discussion held with
Sri V. Murugesan – SB A/c No.
3442 with specimen signatures,
enclosed as Annexure-17 to the
Investigation Report (2 sheets)
Ex.M18
-
Written clarification dated
23.02.2009 given by Sri R.
Rajagopalan, E.No. 5613, then
Branch Manager, enclosed as
Annexure 18 to the Invesgigation
report (4 sheets)
Ex.M19
-
List of loan accounts with credit
balance closed and amount
transferred to Sundry Creditors
a/c – others (GL 402003-016)
enclosed as Annexure 19 to the
Investigation Report (2 sheets)
Ex.M20
-
List of loan waiver amounts credit
to Sundry Creditors account –
others without details of loan
accounts (GL 402003-016)
enclosed as Annexure 20 to the
Investigation report (1 sheet)
Ex.M21
-
List of 24 agricultural loan
accounts with credit balance
closed on 30.06.2009 by imaginary
case payments enclosed as
Annexure 21 to the Investigation
Report (2 sheets)
Ex.M22
-
List of 9 agricultural loan account
with debit balance closed on
30.06.2009 by imaginary cash
receipts enclosed as Annexure 22
to the Investigation Report
(1 sheet)
Ex.M23
-
List of loan accounts where
recovery made and amount held
in Sundry Creditors account –
others/credited to loan account
enclosed as Annexure 23 to the
Investigation Report (1 sheet).
Ex.M24
-
Details of instance credit given
against DBCOs by debit to local
bank account enclosed as
Annexure 24 to the Investigation
Report (3 sheets)
Ex.M25
-
Proceedings dated 11.02.2009
drawn on the borrower/site visit
made, enclosed as Annexure 25
to the Investigation Report
(1 sheet)
Ex.M26
-
Proceedings dated 25.02.2009
drawn on the discussion held with
Sri Marimuthu enclosed as
Annexure-26 to the Investigation
report (1 sheet)
Ex.M27
-
Proceedings dated 25.02.2009
drawn on the discussion held with
Sri Anbazhagan, enclosed as
Annexure-27 to the Investigation
Report (1 sheet)
Ex.M28
-
Investigation Report dates
26.09.2009 submitted by Sri
K .
Prasad, Manager Vigilance,
Division Head Office, Mangalore
Ex.M29
-
Proceedings dated 25.02.2009 on
the borrower visits made, enclosed
as Annnexure-29
to
the
Investigation Report (1 sheet)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6017
Ex.M30
-
Proceedings dated 26.02.2009 on
the discussion held with Sri Veera
enclosed as Annexure-30 to the
Investigation Report (1 sheet)
Ex.M31
-
Statement of account of Savings
Bank Account No. 3602 of Sri P.
Kannan for the period 01.01.2008
to 05.02.2009 (2 sheets)
Ex.M32
-
Statement of account of Savings
Bank Account No. 4767 of Sri K.
Kannan for the period 01.04.2007
to 09.02.2009 (2 sheets)
Ex.M33
-
Statement of account of Savings
Bank account no. 5327 of Sri C.
Veeran for the period of 01.01.2008
to 05.02.2009 (2 sheets)
Ex.M34
-
Statement of account of Savings
Bank account No. 5880 of Sri A.
Rajendran for the period
01.01.2008 to 05.02.2009 (2 sheets)
Ex.M35
-
Statement of account of Savings
Bank account no. 5200 of Smt. B.
Gowri for the period 01.04.2008 to
31.03.2009 (4 sheets)
Ex.M36
-
Statement of account of Savings
Bank account No. 3442 of Sri V.
Murugesan for the period
01.04.2007 to 07.02.2009 (2 sheets)
Ex.M37
-
Statement of account of ACC
account No. 050022 of Sri V.
Murugesan for the period
01.04.2007 to 07.02.2009 (2 sheets)
Ex.M38
-
Statement of account of SB
Account No. 3221 of the payment
of TNEB&/DR TWAD BOARD
for the period 01.04.2008 to
31.03.2009 (2 sheets)
Ex.M39
-
Statement of Account of CHDME
account No. 080012 of Sri S.
Velmayil for the period 01.11.2008
Ex.M40
-
Statement of account of SDL
070009 of Ms. M. Gomathi for the
period 03.09.2007 to 26.02.2009
and from 01.04.2009 to 09.06.2009
and SB A/c No. 4898 for the period
01.04.2007 to 24.02.2009 and from
01.04.2009 to 11.09.2009 (6 sheets)
Ex.M41
-
Statement of account of CVDYU
a/c No. 050002 of Ms. M. Gomathi
for the period 01.04.2007 to
26.02.2009 and from 01.04.2009 to
11.09.2009
Ex.M42
-
Statement of account of SB
Account No. 4023 of Sri S.
Velmayil for the period 01.04.2007
to 16.02.2009
Ex.M43
-
Statement of account of ECOD
account no. 060004 of Sri S.
Velmayil for the period 01.04.2007
to 16.02.2009 (10 sheets)
Ex.M44
-
Statement of account of EJL
account no. 080002 of Sri S.
Velmayil for the period 06.10.2008
to 25.02.2009 (1 sheet)
Ex.M45
-
GL Detailed Report – Sundry
Creditors – Others (GL Code No.
402003-016) for the period
01.05.2008 to 05.02.2009
(24 sheets)
Ex.M46
-
GL Detailed Report – Branch
Account (GL Code No. 500811) for
27.06.2008 (1 sheet)
Ex.M47
-
GL Detailed Report – Sundry
Debtors – Others (GL Code No.
803001-009) for the period
01.04.2008 to 05.02.2009 (1 sheet)
Ex.M48
-
Nominal account outstanding
entries under Sundry Creditors, as
on 05.05.2008, 23.05.2008,
27.06.2008, 30.06.2008, 03.07.2008,
30.09.2008, 23.10.2008, 29.10.2008,
19.01.2009, 21.01.2009, 24.01.2009,
28.02.2009 (32 sheets)
Ex.M49
-
GL Detailed Report – Balance with
other Banks in Current A/c – (GL
Code 501001 – 002) free 01.06.2007
to 31.01.2009 (30 sheets)
Ex.M50
-
Cash Receipts/Payments Scroll
for 30.06.2008, 23.05.2008,
25.11.2008 and 12.02.2009
(14 sheets)
Ex.M51
-
Register of Sanctions in respect
of CHDME Loan A/c No. 080012
of Sri S. Velmayil (1 sheet)
Ex.M52
-
Letters reference no. VIG: COMP:
1470:08-09 dated
05.03.2009,
No. VIG:COMJP:18:08:09:09-10
dated 02.04.2009 addressed to the
Deputy General Manager, Zonal
Office, Chennai (2 sheets) and
their reply letters No. ZO/CHEN/
DGM/200809 dated 11.03.2009 and
ZO/CHEN/CRMD/DR/10-09
dated 08.04.2009 with enclosures
(14 sheets)
6018
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex. M53
-
Letter having reference No.
VIG:COMP:1506:08-09 dated
12.03.2009 addressed to Eraiyur
Branch (E-Mail) with delivery and
read receipts, letters having
reference No. VIG:COMP:1572:08-
09 dated 24.03.2009 No. VIG:
COMP:18:08:29:2009-10 dated
08.04.2009 No. VIG:COMP:
18:08:29 :2009-10 dated 16.05.2009
with enclosures; No. VIG:COMP:
18:08:262:09-10 dated 27.05.2009;
Branch Letter No. CB385:OR:
Nil:09-18 dated 23.05.2009 with
enclosures; Branch letter No.
OR17:09-10 dated 17.06.2009 with
enclosures;
letter
having
reference No. VIG:COMP:18:08-
09:328:2009-10 dated 20.06.2009
and Branch letter having reference
No. DR:26:09-10 dated Nil with
enclosures (56 sheets)
Ex. M54
-
Letter having reference No.
VIG:COMP:157:08-09 dated
24.03.2009
addressed
to
Bangalore PPC:VIG:COMP:60:09-
10 dated 15.04.2009; VIG:COMP:
266:09-10 dated 01.06.2009; and
their reply having reference No.
OR 1581:09 dated 01.06.2009
(6 sheets)
Ex. M55
-
Letter having reference No.
IAD:INS:Sec-01/HO/120/08-09
dated 23.04.2009 with enclosures
(4 sheets)
Ex. M56
-
Letter having reference No. VIG:
COMP:18-09:OR 579:09-10 dated
04.08.2009 with enclosures and
No. VIG:COMP:18:08-09:OR
654:09-10 dated 20.08.2009
addressed to Sri M.S.V. Raghavan
and his reply dated 24.08.2009
(6 sheets)
Ex. M57
-
Letter having reference No.
VIG:COMP:18:08- 09:133:09-10
dated 06.05.2009 addressed to
Eraiyur Branch and Branch reply
having reference No,. CB:385: OR:
09-10 dated 19.05.2009 with
enclosures (13 Sheets)
Ex. M58
-
Letter having reference No.
VIG:COMP:18:08-09:245:0910
dated 25.05.2009 with enclosure,
reference No. VIG:COMP:18:08-
09:343:0910 dated 22.06.2009,
reference No. VIG:COMP:18:08-
09:462:09-10 dated
11.07.2009
addressed to the Chief Vigilance
Officer, Punjab National Bank,
H.O., New Delhi and their reply
letter No. CO:CHN:I&A:2009
dated 17.07.2009 with enclosure
(9 sheets)
Ex. M59
-
Letter having reference No.
VIG:COMP:18:08-09:OR 794:09-10
dated 14.09.2009 addressed to
Eraiyur Branch and its reply letter
No. OR 120:2009 dated 18.09.2009
(3 sheets)
Ex. M60
-
Branch letter having reference No.
OR/011/08-09 dated 06.02.2009
addressed to the Investigating
Officer (1 sheet)
Ex. M61
-
Account opening forms of SB
A/c No. 3602 of Sri P. Kannan with
enclosure; KCC a/c no. 080018
dated 25.11.2008 of Sri P. Kannan;
specimen signature card
o n
SB A/c No. 5327 of Sri C. Veeran;
specimen signature card on SB A/c
No. 5880 of Sri A. Rajendran;
specimen signature card of SB a/c
No. 4767 of Sri K.
K a n n a n ;
Account opening form of SB A/c
No. 5880 of Sri A. Rajendran with
enclosures; Account opening
form of SB A/c No. 3442 of Sri V.
Murugesan with specimen
signature card; Account opening
form of SB A/c No. 113 of Sri K.
Narayanan with specimen
signature card (13 sheets)
Ex. M62
-
Branch letter no. OR 10:08-09
dated 26.02.2009 regarding
fraudulent withdrawal in SB A/c
No. 5200-
Smt. B. Gowri with
enclosures (8 sheets)
Ex. M63
-
Cheque Book issued Register/
withdrawal slip issued register –
Page No. 82, 83, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69,
74, 77, 78, 80, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 17 (16 sheets)
Ex. M64
-
CRS Book dated 03.09.2007 with
Double Lock Register dated
03.09.2007, 25.04.2008, 29.04.2008,
30.04.2008, 05.05.2008, 14.05.2008,
23.05.2008, 10.06.2008, 14.06.2008,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6019
27.06.2008, 05.07.2008, 10.07.2008,
25.07.2008, 10.10.2008, 24.10.2008,
29.10.2008, 03.11.2008, 06.11.2008,
11.11.2008, 25.11.2008, 23.12.2008,
03.01.2009, 19.01.2009, 20.01.2009,
22.01.2009, 24.01.2009 (27 sheets)
Ex. M65
28.07.2008
Letter from Eraiyur Branch to
DGM-ZO-Chennai
Ex. M66
-
Statement of Debt Waiver to
Farmers
Ex. M67
-
Waiver Register – Sub Day Book
Ex. M68
-
Return no. 21 Quarterly Statement
and Reconciliation check-up
alongwith local bank account –
operation for the between
30.06.2007 and 31.01.2009
Ex. M69
-
Statement of account of current –
a/c no. 11221956112 of SBI
Tirukoilur covering the period
from 01.05.2007 to 29.01.2009
Ex. M70
-
Loan documents of Home Loan
A/c No. 080012 dated 03.11.3008
of Sri S. Velmayil (42 sheets)
Ex. M71
-
Loan documents of ABJL A/c
080110 dated 22.01.2009 of Sri K.
Ramasamy (3 sheets)
Ex. M72
-
Loan documents of EJL a/c no.
080002 of Sri S. Velmayil
disbursed on 16.10.2008 (2
sheets)
Ex. M73
-
Loan documents of SDL a/c no.
070009 of Smt. M. Gomathi
disbursed
on
03.09.2007
(3 sheets)
Ex. M74
-
Loan documents of CVDYU loan
a/c no. 050002 dated 24.02.2006
of Smt. M. Gomathi and Sri
Marimuthu (40 sheets)
Ex. M75
-
Register of Attendance for the
months of September 2007, April
2008, February 2009
Ex. M76
-
Copy of letter dated 26.02.2009 of
Sri K. Prasad, Manager, Vigilance
Cell, HO., duly acknowledged by
the Joint Custodians of Eraiyur
Branch, to keep the listed
vouchers, cheques, withdrawal
slips, loan documents, registers
and files, under joint custody
(7 sheets)
Ex. M77
-
Photocopies of Vouchers/
Withdrawal
Slips/Cheques
(38 sheets)
Ex. M78
-
Transaction checklists
Ex. M79
-
List of Manuals and Circulars
relied upon:
(i)
Resource Mobilization
Division, HO Circular No.
219/2005 dated 02.05.2005
(1 sheet)
(ii)
Resource Mobilization
Division, HO Circular No.
1124/08 (Index No. 15.03/3/
2008) dated 20.12.2008
(1 sheet)
(iii) Information Technology
Division, HO Circular No.
471/2004 (Index No. 17.00/
14/2004) dated 18.10.2004
(4 sheets)
(iv) Manual on Savings Bank –
Manual No. 40/2003 –
Chapter No. 5 – Page no. 53
to 59 and Page No. 80 to 83
(6 sheets).
(v)
Personnel Administration
Division, HO Circular No.
523/2003 (Index No. 19.00/
37/2003) dated 20.12.2003
(2 sheets)
(vi) Manual of Instructions on
Housing Loans – Manual
No. 24/2005 – Chapter No.
7.0 – Page No. 58 to 61 ( 2
sheets)
(vii) Credit Division, (CPPS) HO
Circular No. 226/2008 (Index
No. 11.00/09/2008) dated
17.03.2008 (1 sheet)
Ex. M80
28.09.2010
Presenting Officer’s summing up
Ex. M81
05.03.2011
Proceedings of Personal hearing
in the personal hearing before
Disciplinary Authority (Written
Submission dated 05.03.2011, filed
by petitioner for personal hearing
before the Chief Manager – I.R.
Wing (D.A.) – vide S. No. 8 in
petitioner’s typeset dated
27.11.2012
Ex. M82
29.09.2011
Proceedings of Personal Hearing
before the Appellate Authority on
29.09.2011 (representation of
petitioner dated 21.09.2011
addressed to Appellate Authority
filed by petitioner – vide
petitioners’ typeset Page No.
152).
6020
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2381-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ
bafM;k 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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (11@2002) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@218@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th August, 2014
S.O.
2381.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2002)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Central Bank of India and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
25/08/2014.
[No. L-12012/218/2001-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/11/2002
Date: 28.07.2014.
Party No. 1 : The Regional Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Adrash Colony,
Mangesh Mangal Karyalaya,
Akola (M.S.)
Versus
Party No. 2 : Shri Sunil, S/o Bhikaji Verulkar,
C/o C.G.Shukla,
Plot No.1-C, 1st Floor,
Tilak Nagar,Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated : 28th July, 2014)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Central Bank of India and their workman,
Shri Sunil Bhikaji Verulkar, for adjudication, as per letter
No.L-12012/218/2001-IR (B-II) dated 20.03.2002, with the
following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of Central
Bank of India, through the Regional Manager, Akola
in terminating the services of Shri Sunil S/o Bhikaji
Verulkar w.e.f. 04.12.2000 is justified, legal and
proper? If not, what relief the said workman is
entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Sunil Bhikaji
Verulkar, (‘the workman” in short), filed the statement of
claim and the management of Central Bank of India (“Party
No. 1” in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of the
party no.1 and he worked in its Jalgaon-Jamod branch and
he was getting Rs. 120/- per day towards his wages and he
used to take payment on register maintained by party no.1
or on vouchers, as per the desire of party no.1 and he is a
non-matriculate and his name was enrolled in the
Employment Exchange and he was performing the duty of
class-IV employee and he was a workman and he had
completed 240 days of work in each and every year and as
he demanded for his regularisation in service, party no.1
being enraged, terminated his services w.e.f. 04.12.2000,
without issuing any notice or making payment of the wages
in lieu of the notice and the retrenchment compensation
and there was violation of the provisions of the Act.
It is further pleaded by the workman that from time
to time, the party no.1 used to issue certificate showing
the number of days of his employment and he was called
for interview by party no.1, as per the circular issued by it
from time to time and the certificate dated 22.07.2000 issued
by party no.1 clearly shows that he had completed more
than 240 days continuous service with party no.1 and
vide letter dated 16.10.2000, the Regional Manager had
asked about completion of 240 days of continuous service
and vide letter 17.08.2000, the Regional Manager had also
asked all Branch Managers to submit informations about
engagement of employees on casual as well as temporary
basis and vide letter dated 03.10.2000, the Branch Manager
submitted information about him, stating that he had put
up 244 days of continuous service from 12.10.1998 to
11.10.1999 and on the basis of the information received
from the branch manager, he was called for by party no.1
for interview, vide letter dated 14.10.1998 and though he
performed well in the interview, it appears that as he had
completed more than 240 days of service against the wish
of party no.1, he was not given the appointment and party
no.1 retained the service of his juniors, namely, Mangesh
Haribhau Karangde and Gajanan Baliram Khodke and
partyno.1 also gave employment to Nitin Rajput, after
termination of his services and party no.1 made colourable
exercise of employer’s right and the action of party no.1
was not in good faith, but by way of victimization and the
same was arbitrary and illegal.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6021
It is also pleaded by the workman that he
approached the party no.1 repeatedly for his reinstatement
and continuance in service and he was informed that the
matter was under consideration and that his request would
be considered soon, so he waited till 25.08.2001 and even
then, when no action was taken by party no.1, he
approached the Labour Commissioner for redress and vide
letter dated 22.08.2000, he had submitted an application
alongwith all necessary documents to party no.1 for
regularisation of his services.
The workman has prayed for a direction to party
no.1 for his reinstatement in service with continuity, full
back wages and all consequential benefits.
3.
The party no.1 in the written statement has pleaded
inter-alia that the workman was never in its regular
employment and he was engaged by it, at its Jalgaon-
Jamod Branch on daily wages, as and when work was
available in the said branch and he was paid wages on
vouchers and he had never completed 240 days of service
in any year and all the records for the actual period for
which the workman had worked on daily wages at Jalgaon-
Jamod branch would be placed at the appropriate stage
and as per the records maintained by the said branch, the
workman had completed 240 days of service during the
period from 12.10.1998 to 11.10.1999 and as the workman
was engaged as a daily wager, depending upon the
availability of work, the question of his termination from
services from 04.12.2000 does not arise at all and he did
not complete 240 days of continuous service in the
preceding year of 04.12.2000 and during the said period of
12 months, he had actually worked for 138 days as full
time safai karmachari and 18 days as part time safai
karmachari and due to non-availability of work, he was
discontinued as a daily wager on and from 04.12.2000 and
the workman was given to understand in specific terms
that he would be paid wages for each day’s work and that
he would not be entitled for permanency or regularisation
in its employment and his employment in the branch used
to commence on each day, on which work was provided to
him and it used to come to an end, at the end of the working
hours of the same day and otherwise also, the workman
cannot refer to the total number of days of work to claim
permanency and although he worked intermittently over a
period of a time, he never raised any grievance about the
wages offered to him by the Bank and by way of an
afterthought, he has alleged that he was not paid wages
for Sundays/weekly offs and government holidays and he
was not entitled to any wages for the days on which he
did not physically work at the branch and a desperate
attempt is being made by the workman to bring his case
within the purview of Section 25-F of the Act and if it is
assumed for the sake of argument, without admitting the
same, that the workman had completed 240 days of
continuous service in a particular period of 12 months, it
does not and cannot ipso facto give any right to him for
permanency.
It is further pleaded by party no.1 that it is a
nationalized bank and a government undertaking and it
has to carry out the recruitment, if any, by following the
Rules, Regulations and the norms laid down in this regard
by the Central Office and the workman was called for
interview, vide letter dated 14.10.1998, as per the circular
issued by the Regional Manager of the Bank at Akola and
when the bank had decided to carry out the recruitment,
the District Employment and Self Employment Guidance
Centre had informed it that it was mandatory for the bank
to notify the vacancies and to fill up the vacancies through
the Employment Exchange only and as “No Objection
Certificate” was not issued by the Employment Exchange,
it could not go ahead with the recruitment of the candidates
and for that, not only the workman, but also, several other
candidates could not be regularized and it did not commit
any illegality in the matter, but for that no vested right
accrued in favour of the workman to claim permanency
and vide letter dated 17.08.2000, the Regional Manager at
Akola had asked all the Branch Manager working under
him to submit information about the persons working on
daily wages in different branches and the letter dated
03.10.2000 addressed by the Branch Manager, Jalgaon-
Jamod branch to the Regional Manager, Akola is a matter
of record and the workman had been paid his remuneration
by it, for the services rendered by him and nothing was
due to him from the bank and the question of payment of
retrenchment compensation to him in the circumstances
does not arise.
The further case of party no.1 is that Shri Mangesh
H. Karangale was appointed in its service as sub-staff on
compassionate ground and his father was a permanent
staff of the Bank and was working as a “Daftari” at Jalgaon-
Jamod branch and he suffered from an attack of Paralysis
and was unable to work any longer in the Bank, so his
son, Mangesh was appointed on compassionate ground
vide appointment letter dated 26.07.2000 and therefore,
the case of the workman cannot be compared with Shri
Mangesh and Shri G.B. Khodke (and not G.B. Thodge as
mentioned in the statement of claim) and Shri Nitin Rajput
were also a daily wagers like the workman and as such, the
question of relative seniority amongst themselves does
not arise at all and unless and until a person is made
permanent in the employment of the bank against a clear
vacancy, there is no question of the bank maintaining any
separate record about the relative seniority of the daily
wagers and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
4.
Besides placing reliance on documentary evidence,
both the parties have led oral evidence in support of their
respective claim. The workman has examined himself as a
witness in support of his case, whereas, the party no.1
has examined two witnesses, namely, Kailash Brijlal
Nagpure and Prakash Vishnu Sonane in support of its
claim.
6022
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
In his examination-in-chief on affidavit, the workman
has categorically stated that he had completed more than
240 days of service with party no.1, before his oral
termination on 04.12.2000. In his cross-examination, the
workman has admitted that he was working on daily wages
basis at Jalgaon-Jamod branch and his name was not
mentioned on the muster roll and he was paid on vouchers
and no written appointment order was issued by the Bank.
6.
The evidence of the two witnesses examined on
behalf of the party no.1 on affidavit is in the same line, as
taken in the written statement by party no.1. Both of them
have stated that as per the records available with the bank,
the workman was never in the regular employment of party
no.1 and he was engaged at Jalgaon-Jamod branch on
daily wages as and when required and as per records,
during the period of 12 months from 04.12.1999 to
04.12.2000, the workman had actually worked for 138 days
as a full time safai karmachari and 18 days as part time
safai karmachari and since work was not available, he was
discontinued as a daily wager on and from 04.12.2000.
In his cross-examination, witness, Kailash B.
Nagpure has stated that the workman was working from
12.10.1998 to 04.12.2000 at Jalgaon-Jamod branch of Central
Bank of India as per the records of the Bank and no
document has been filed by the bank regarding the
engagement of the workman during the period from
12.10.1998 to 04.12.2000 and as there was vacancy of a
post of sub-staff in Jalgaon-Jamod Branch on 12.10.1998,
the workman was engaged by the Bank. This witness has
further admitted that one Mangesh Karangale was
engaged by the Bank on daily wages basis as a sub-staff
on 26.07.2000 and at present also, the post of office peon
at Jalgaon-Jamod Branch is vacant and one Ritesh Rajput
has ben engaged by the bank on daily wages and Ritesh
was engaged after the disengagement of the workman.
Likewise, in his cross-examination, witness, Prakash
V. Sonane has stated that the workman was working from
12.10.1998 to 04.12.2000 at Jalgaon-Jamod branch and the
workman had worked for 244 days from 12.10.1998 to
11.11.1999 and no document has been filed by the bank, in
support of the plea that the workman did not complete 240
days of continuous service during the period of 12 months.
7.
At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the workman that the workman was
in the employment of the party no.1 at its Jalgaon-Jamod
branch and he had completed more than 240 days of work
in a year i.e. from 12.10.1998 to 11.10.1999 and party no.1
orally terminated the service of the workman on 04.12.2000,
without paying the statutory dues or retrenchment
compensation and though the services of the workman
were terminated, juniors to the workman in service were
retained by party No.1 and the action of the party no.1 is
unjustified, arbitrary and illegal and the evidence on record
clearly establishes that the workman infact had completed
240 days of work in preceding 12 calendar months of
04.12.2000, the date of his termination and as such, it was
necessary for the party no.1 to comply with the mandatory
provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and therefore, the
termination of the workman from services was illegal and
it is quite clear from the evidence of the witnesses for the
management that the workman was engaged against a
permanent vacant post and the post of peon is still vacant
and therefore, the workman is entitled for reinstatement in
service with continuity and full back wages.
It was further submitted by the learned advocate for
the workman that the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Umadevi is distinguishable in its application
to the facts of the present case and the workman has not
claimed relief of absorption in post and the other judgments
cited by the learned advocate for the party no.1 are also
not applicable to the present case.
8.
Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the party No.1 that the workman was never in the
regular or permanent employment of the Bank and he was
engaged by the Bank at its Jalgaon-Jamod branch on daily
wages as and when required and he did not complete 240
days of work in the preceding 12 calendar months of
04.12.2000 and actually, during the said period, he worked
for 138 days as full time safai karmachari and 18 days as
part time safai karmachari and since work was not available,
he was discontinued as daily wager on and from 04.12.2000
and as such there is no question of termination of his
services and he is not entitled to the benefits of Section
25-F of the Act and as the workman was engaged on daily
wages, as and when required basis, he was paid the wages
only for the days he actually worked and the engagement
of the workman was not in accordance with the Rules of
recruitment and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
In support of the contentions, the learned advocate
for the party No.1 placed reliance on the decisions reported
in 2006-II-LLJ-722 (Secretary,State of Karnataka Vs.
Umadevi),AIR 2005 SC-4065 (Rajasthan State Ganganagar
S.Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan), AIR 1996 SC-1565
(State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kumar Verma), AIR
2010 SC-2140 (Senior Superintendent, Telegraph Vs.
Santosh Kumar Seal), 2006-III-LLJ-152 (H.U.D.A. Vs.
Jagmal Singh), 1997 LAB I C-2075 (Himansu Kumar
Vidyarthi Vs. State of Bihar), 2008 I CLR-784 (General
Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mahesh Chand),
2008 II CLR-658 (Dnyandeo Vs. Executive Engineer), 2009
III CLR-210 (Dena Bank Vs. Ashraf Yunus ) and 2008-II-
LLJ-997(Pat) (Sanjay kumar Tiwary Vs. State of Bihar).
9.
It is clear from the principles enunciated by the
Hon’ble Apex Court and different Hon’ble High Courts in
the decisions cited by the learned advocate for the party
No.1 that to claim the benefits of Section 25-F of the Act,
the workman has to show that in fact he had worked for
240 days in the preceding year of the date of his alleged
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6023
termination and filing of the affidavit by the workman
cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or
Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the workman
had worked for 240 days in a year.
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble High Courts in the
decisions relied on by the Party No.1, now, the present
case in hand is to be considered.
10.
In this case, it has been claimed by the workman
that he worked on daily wages basis at Jalgaon-Jamod
branch of the bank from 12.10.1998 to 04.12.2000
continuously without any break and his services were
terminated by oral order on 04.12.2000 and the dispensation
of his services amounted to retrenchment, since the
provisions of 25-F of the Act were violated. The party
No.1 has refuted the allegations. It is specifically stated
that the workman did not work continuously as pleaded
and he was engaged as and when required basis and he
worked for 156 days from 04.12.1999 to 04.12.2000, i.e. in
the preceding year of the alleged date of termination.
As the claim of the workman about his working for
more than 240 days in the preceding year of 04.12.2000
has been denied by the party No.1, it is for the workman to
show that in fact he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination.
In support of his claim, the workman has filed his
evidence on affidavit.
Apart from his own evidence on affidavit, the
workman has filed the document, Ext. W-I, the copy of the
letter dated 03.10.2000 submitted by the Branch Manager,
Jalgaon-Jamod branch to the Regional Office. In Ext. W-I,
it has been mentioned that the workman had completed
244 days of work from 12.10.1998 to 11.10.1999. Party no.1
has also admitted such fact in the written statement. Such
fact has also been admitted by the two witnesses examined
on behalf of the party of 1.
The two witnesses examined by the party no.1, in
their evidence have admitted that the workman worked in
Jamgaon-Jamod branch from 12.10.1998 to 04.12.2000.
They have volunteered that the workman was working
intermittently as and when required.
It is to be mentioned here that in the written
statement itself, party no.1 has pleaded to produce the
documents relating to the actual days of engagement of
the workman in the branch. Moreover, an application was
filed on behalf of the workman on 19.09.2006 for production
of some documents including the register regarding
payment of wages to the workman for the period from
1994 to 04.12.2000 and the said application was allowed
on 12.10.2006, directing the party no.1 for production of
the said documents. In spite of the undertaking given by
the party no.1 in the written statement for production of
documents and the direction of the Tribunal for production
of documents, party no.1 did not file the documents relating
to the actual days of the engagement of the workman for
the period from 05.12.1999 to 04.12.2000, i.e. the preceding
year of the date of termination of the services of the
workman. Due to non-production of the relevant
documents, adverse inference has to be drawn against
the party no.1 and it can be presumed that the workman
had worked for 240 days in the preceding year of 04.12.2000.
Admittedly, party no.1 neither served one month’s notice
nor paid one month’s wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation to the workman, at the time of
termination of his services and as such, the termination
amounted to retrenchment and is illegal.
11.
Now, the question remains for consideration is as to
what relief or reliefs, the workman is entitled to.
Admittedly, the workman was engaged by the party
no.1 on daily wages basis about 14 years back and he
worked for 2 years.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in
AIR 2010 SC-2140 (Supra) have held that, “Held, it has
been consistently held by SC that relief by way of
reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if
termination of an is found to be illegal or is in contravention
of the prescribed procedure and that monetary
compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in
cases of such nature may be appropriate. In the present
case, fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers
about 25 years back and they worked for 2 or 3 years, relief
of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said
to be justified and instead monetary compensation would
sub serve the end of justice- Compensation to each of the
workman shall meet the ends of justice- Order accordingly.
XXX XXXX XXX XXXX
It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions
in recent time, this court has clearly laid down that an
order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F
although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement
should not, however, be automatically passed. 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 wages
has not been found to be proper by this court and instead
compensation has been awarded. The court has
distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a
post and a permanent employee.”
In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact
that the workman was engaged as a daily wager about 14
years back and he worked for 2 years, relief of reinstatement
and backwages to him cannot be said to be justified and
instead monetary compensation would sub serve the ends
of justice. In my considered view, the compensation of
Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) shall meet the ends
of justice. Hence, it is ordered:-
6024
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDER
The action of the management of Central Bank of
India, through the Regional Manager,Akola in terminating
the services of Shri Sunil S/o Bhikaji Verulkar w.e.f.
04.12.2000 is unjustified, illegal and improper. The workman
is entitled for monetary compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh only) in lieu of reinstatement. He is not
entitled for any other relief.
The party no.1 is directed to pay the compensation
of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the workman
within one month from the date of Publication of the award
in the official gazette failing which the said amount will
carry interest @ 8% per annum till the date of actual
payment of the sais amount to the workman.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2382-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u 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;] psUubZ ds iapkV (5@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@26@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th August, 2014
S.O.
2382.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/2013)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Indian Bank and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
25/08/2014.
[No. L-12011/26/2012-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Friday, the 25th July, 2014
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 5/2013
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between
the Management of Indian Bank and their workman).
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary,
: 1st Party/
Indian Bank Employees Union
Petitioner Union
No. 6, Moore Street,
Mannady Corner
Chennai-600001
AND
The Asstt. General Manager (HRM) : 2nd Party/
Indian Bank HO, HRM Department
Respondent
66, Rajaji Salai
Chennai-600001
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/
: Sri J. Thomas Jeyaprabhakaran,
Petitioner Union
Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/
: M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.,
Respondent
Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/26/2012 (IR(B-II))
dated 02.01.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the management of Indian
Bank, Chennai in fixing the reduced pension to Sri P.
Arunachalam, Ex-PTS and similarly placed cases are
legal and justified? What relief the workmen are
entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 5/2013 and issued notices to both
sides. The petitioner has entered appearance through his
Authorized Representative and the Respondent through
his counsel and has filed Claim and Counter Statement
respectively. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder after the
counter statement was filed.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement in brief are as
below:
The payment of pension to the employees of the
Respondent Bank is governed by Pension Regulations,
1995. The regulations was notified subsequent to the
Bipartite Settlement dated 29.10.1993 on Pension and
Computerization. Some of the clauses in the regulations
were against the interests of the employees. When the
union pointed out the anomalies some of them have been
rectified. However, some of the anomalies in the Pension
Regulations still subsists. P. Arunachalam and some other
employees are affected because of the anomalies. As per
Clause-27(2) of the Regulations, in respect of a part-time
employee who was initially recruited on a lower scale wage
and later fitted on higher scale wages including full-scale
wages the length of the qualifying service for pension
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6025
shall be determined crippling the actual service based on
the scale wages drawn. Because of this crippling of service
for arriving at the qualifying service of pension, even after
33 years of service, a part-time employee is sanctioned a
very small pension as if he had rendered 11 years of service
only. It was after the union had pointed out the anomaly,
Clause-27(2) and (3) were incorporated in the regulations.
As per Clause-27(3), in respect of a part-time employee
who continues to be in the same scale wages since their
recruitment, for the purpose of calculating the amount of
pension, the actual service put in shall be taken as
qualifying service. In such cases, the actual pay drawn on
scale wages at the time of retirement shall be reckoned for
the purpose of average emoluments. However, even after
incorporation of regulation 27(2), the anomaly in respect
of those elevated to higher wages from lower wages
continue to persist. So this section of employees is granted
a small pension only, far below to which they are actually
entitled. Now the position is that the part-time employees
who continue to be in the same scale wages would be
getting a higher pension than in the case of those elevated
to higher scale wages from lower scale wages. In the case
of fitment of salary on elevation from 1/3 to ½ or ¾ or from
½ to ¾ scale the increments earned in the lower
proportionate wage scale should be notionally converted
into higher proportionate wage scale to which the
employee is elevated. For the purpose of calculating
pension in respect of part-time employees like Arunachalam
who were initially recruited on a lower scale wage and
later fitted on higher scale wage including full scale wage,
the actual service put in as the qualifying service without
any crippling of service as contemplated in regulation 27(2)
shall be taken into account. Salary and pension should be
calculated on the above basis. An order may be passed
directing the Respondent to work out the salary and
pension as per the above norms and disburse the difference
to those employees who are affected.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as follows:
For each of the nationalized banks including the
Indian Bank Pension Regulations were framed with the
approval of Government of India and they are statutory in
character. If any change is to be made in the Pension
Regulations the proposal for change has to be sent to the
Government of India and only after getting approval of
the government the pension regulations could be
amended. Ever since the pension regulations were framed,
the claim for pension in respect of the employees of the
Respondent Bank was determined and paid as per the
regulations. Arunachalam referred to in the Claim Statement
joined the services of the bank on 01.04.1980 and retired
on 31.08.2008. He had put in 7 years of service on 1/3rd
scale of wages and this period of service is reckoned as 2
years and 4 months. He had put in 20 years and 8 months
of service on ½ scale wages and service for this period is
reckoned as 10 years and 4 months for the purpose of
pension. Thus the total service reckoned as 12 years, 8
months was rounded off to 13 years and his Basic Pension
was fixed at Rs. 825/-. The present demand was not raised
during the period of operation of the 9th Bipartite Settlement
and is not maintainable. The petitioner is not entitled to
any relief.
5.
In the rejoinder filed, the petitioner has reiterated
his case in the Claim Statement.
6.
The evidence in the case consists of documents
marked as Exts.W1 to Exts.W6 and Ext.M1. No witness
was examined on either side.
7.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the management in fixing
reduced pension to Sri P. Arunachalam, Ex-PTS and
similarly situated persons are legal and justified?
(ii)
What is the relief to which the workmen are entitled?
The Points
8.
The dispute is in respect of the anomaly that is said
to be existing in the Pension Regulations of the Respondent
Bank. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Respondent
had corrected certain anomalies in the regulations but some
of the anomalies still persists as the Respondent had
refused to correct them even after they were pointed out.
It is stated that Arunachalam and similarly situated
employees who have been initially recruited on a lower
scale wage and later fitted on higher scale wage including
full scale wage were adversely affected because of the
anomaly that is subsisting in the Pension Regulations. It
is stated that because of this anomaly, while those part
time sweepers who continued to be in the same scale wages
since their recruitment gets a higher amount as pension,
those who were initially recruited on lower scale wage and
later fitted on higher scale wage are getting only lesser
amount as pension. This is said to be because of the
unscientific manner in which service is crippled and for
the purpose of calculation of pension.
9.
Regulation-27 of the Pension Regulations is in
respect of counting of service rendered on permanent part-
time basis. It would be convenient to refer to the regulations
and the same is extracted below:
(a)
27(1) in case of an employee who was employed
on scale wages and on permanent part-time
basis in the service of the bank and was
contributing to the PF, such services
rendered by him on permanent part-time basis
from the date he became a member of the PF
shall be counted as qualifying service.
(2)
For the purpose of calculating the amount of
pension in respect of a part-time employee
who was/is initially recruited on a lower scale
wage and later fitted on higher scale wages
6026
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
including full scale wages, the length of
qualifying service shall be determined in
accordance with Appendix-IV.
(3)
In respect of part-time employee who
continues to be in same scale wages since
their recruitment for the purpose of calculating
the amount of pension, the actual service put
in shall be taken as qualifying service. In such
cases, the actual pay drawn on scale wages at
the time of retirement shall be reckoned for
the purpose of average emoluments.
10.
There is no dispute regarding those employees
coming under Clause-3 above. There is no dispute
regarding the manner in which their pension is calculated
also. The case is that while those employees who continue
in the same scale wages get a higher amount as pension,
those coming under Clause-2 above i.e. those who were
initially recruited on a lower scale wage and later fitted on
higher scale wage including full scale wage are affected
since their qualifying service is determined on the basis of
Appendix-IV. As per Appendix-IV the service of those
persons who had worked for below 13 hours a week for
one year will be treated as 1/3 of a year. For those who are
working more than 13 hours but below 19 years, service
will be reckoned as ½ of a year. For those who are working
for more than 19 hours but upto 29 hours in a week, service
of 1 year will be reckoned as ¾ of a year. Only if they have
worked for more than 29 hours in a week, one year service
will be treated as one year itself.
11.
Because of the above mode of calculation of service
for the purpose of pension those who had been fitted with
a higher scale will be getting lesser amount of pension
while those who remained in the same scale will be getting
a higher amount. This is demonstrated by the petitioner in
the Claim Statement by an example as given below:
Arunachalam who had joined the service of the Bank
on 01.12.1980 with 1/3 scale wages was elevated to half
scale wages on 01.12.1987 and retired on superannuation
on 31.08.2008. His seven years of service of 1/3 scale wages
was reckoned as service of 2 years and 4 months and his
service of 20 years and 8 months at ½ scale wages was
reckoned as 10 years and 4 months. The total service of 12
years and 8 months had been rounded off to 13 years and
his pension has been fixed at Rs. 825 against the last drawn
salary of Rs. 4,185. If this person had remained in 1/3
scale wages for all the 28 years, his service would have
been calculated as 28 years itself and he would have got
a pension of Rs. 1,260. If the service of the same person
has been taken as 28 years at ½ scale wages, he would
have obtained more higher amount of Rs. 1775 as pension
i.e. Rs. 4185 x 28 = 1775
2 33
12.
The above is certainly an anomaly. It is not proper
that a person who has put in service in a higher wage
scale is getting less pension than a person who was on a
lower wage scale.
13.
It has been admitted by the counsel for the
Respondent that Regulation-27(2) is an anomaly in the
statute. The argument that is advanced by the counsel is
that Pension Regulations being statutory in nature, this
Tribunal is not competent to go against what is stated in
the statute, make a calculation against what is provided in
the statute and give a direction accordingly. The counsel
has referred to the decision in BANK OF BARODA VS.
S.K KOOL AND ANOTHER reported in CDJ 2013 SC 1082.
In the above case while considering the Pension
Regulations of Bank of Baroda, the Apex Court has held
that the regulation in question is statutory in nature. The
Authorized Representative of the petitioner has referred
to the decision in PONNAMMAL VS. INDIAN BANK in
Writ Appeal No. 453/2007 (Unreported) in this respect.
However, in the above decision the subject matter for
consideration was the manner in which increment was fixed
and dispute was based on the clauses in the Bipartite
Settlement relating to increment. The statutory nature of
the Pension Regulations was not considered in the above
case.
14.
Though there is anomaly in the Pension Regulations
of the Respondent, it being in the nature of a statute, this
Tribunal is not competent to make a calculation against
the clauses in the regulations. The proper procedure is to
amend the regulation itself. The petitioner has stated in
the Claim Statement itself that certain of the anomalies
were pointed out and these were corrected. It is upto the
petitioner to take steps to see that the correction is done
in the statute. The Respondent, even without any action
on the part of the petitioner can take steps to correct the
anomaly and give relief to those employees who will
otherwise be deprived of the benefit to which they are
actually entitled. I expect the Respondent to take hasty
steps in this respect.
15.
With the above observation, the reference is
answered against the petitioner.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 25th July, 2014)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management :
None
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6027
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
29.11.2011
ID raised over the reduced
pension paid to Part-Time
Employees.
Ex.W2
15.09.2011
Counter to the above ID
Ex.W3
30.09.2008
Pension Payment Order of Sri P.
Arunachalam, PTS, Velur Branch
Ex.W4
19.04.2002
Letter from IBA over pension
payable to PTS
Ex.W5
12.09.2013
Pension payment details to Ms.
Yashoda Bai, PTS Cubbonpet
including Pension Payment Order
Ex.W6
22.03.2002
Letter from Federation of Indian
Bank Employees’ Union, Chennai
to Indian Bank Association,
Mumbai
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.M1
1995
(i)
Indian Bank (Employees’)
Pension Regulation 1995
(ii) Extract of Page Nos. 1 to 6
(iii) Regulation-15, Page No. 9
(iv) Regulation-27, Page No. 12 &
13
(v) Appendix – IV (Extract of
Page 43) Amendment dated
06.07.2010-M3-S.304
ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2383-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ
cM+kSnk 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;] eqacbZ 2 ds iapkV (ds-l-vkS-v-&64@2003)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@141@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th August, 2014
S.O.
2383.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 64/2003) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Bank of Baroda and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
25/08/2014.
[No. L-12012/141/2003-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/64 of 2003
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE
MANAGEMENT OF BANK OF BARODA
The Dy. General Manager
Bank of Baroda, Regional Office
Mumbai Metro South Region
3, W.C. Marg, Ballard Pier,
Mumbai 400 038.
AND
Their Workmen
1.
Shri Shashikant Pitale, Shiv Shakti Bhayyachi Chawl
Sambhaji Nagar, Sahar Rd., Andheri(E), Mumbai-69.
2.
Shri Anant Ramachandra Bawkar, Vakola Bridge,
Dhobi Ghat, Radheshyam Chawl, Santacruz (E),
Mumbai-69.
3.
Shri Hemant M. Mhatre, Post Sopara, Nala Padai,
Datta Mandir Road, Nalasopara (W) 401 203.
4.
Shri Amrut S. Bhosale Bank of Baroda Quarters (Old)
Room No.32, NES Marg, Bhandup (W), Mumbai 78.
5.
Shri Devdas Gaikwad, 14/56, New B.D.D. J.K. Road,
Dadar, Naigaon, Mumbai-400 014.
6.
Shri Sanjay B. Patil, Shantanu Vikas Mandal, Golibar
Road, Behind Mahata Society, Santacruz (E),
Mumbai.
7.
Shri Shailandra J. Tajane, 501/519, Ashirwad Part-2,
N.M. Joshi Marg, Mumbai-11.
8.
Shri Mahesh Tukaram Sawant, 1/18, Agwane Chawl,
Jawahar Nagar, Khar (E), Mumbai-400 051.
9.
Shri Praveen S. Namarkar, 2/287, BMC Colony, Marve
Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-95.
10.
Shri Prakash M. Anchan, 16, Vithal Krupa No.3,
3rd floor, New Aurey Road, Dombivli (E) 421 201.
11.
Shri Vikas Subhash Kadam, Malpai Hill No.3, Thakur
Chawl, Andheri (E), Mumbai-93.
12.
Sunil M.D. Britto, Mother Vellankani, Post Nirmal,
Tal Vasai, Distt. Thane 401 304.
13.
Shri Madhukar Sudhakar Ghodke, D-18, Room No.5,
Vikhroli Park Site, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-79.
14.
Shri Suresh Tukaram More, Contractor Building,
Room No.7, V.P.Road, 2nd Dubash Lane, Girgaum,
Mumbai-400 004.
6028
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15.
Shri Tukaram Keshav Mahadik, R.P. Krushle Chawl,
Dattamandir Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-55.
16.
Shri Sunil Raghunath Jangam, Khetwadi, 6th Galli,
Angre Chawl, Room No.2, Mumbai-400 004.
17.
Shri Sanjay Dhuria Kumar, Tanaji Nagar, Birla Mandir
Road, Near Maratha Mitra Mandal, Block No.88,
Ulhasnagar-422 001.
18.
Shri Santosh N. Gabhane, Acholay Road, Naminath
Nagar, A-wing, Room No.4, Nalasopara (E), 401 602.
19.
Shri Vijay Amrut Katale, Hari Niwas Building, Room
No.1, Rambaug No.4, Kalyan (W).
20.
Shri Yogesh Manohar Lokhande, Goraknath Pandey
Chawl, Golibar, 4th floor, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-55.
21.
Shri Mahesh K. Pujare, Ganesh Nagar, Mahal Chawl,
1/1, Behrambaug, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai.
22.
Shri Rajendra P. Wainganakar, 1/31, Dropati Niwas,
Shai Hill, T.P. Road, Bhandup (W), Mumbai-78.
23.
Shri Prabhakar P. Mahadik, K.S. Pawar Chawl, New
Dherley, Dr. Ambedkar, 19th Road, Khar (W),
Mumbai-52.
24.
Shri Pradip B. Gowalkar, 3/14, Sunanda Surve Chawl,
Kajupada, Bhatwadi, Ghatkopar, Mumbai-84.
25.
Shri Gajanan Kale, Laxman Nagar, Matru Niwas, Near
Jay Coach Khalip Chawl, Bandrekar Wadi,
Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-60.
26.
Shri Eknath Dattaram Kadam, Janta Niwas, Room
No.1, Ganesh Nagar, Near Navjeevan School,
Bhandup (W), Mumbai-78.
27.
Shri Mahesh S. Khetle, Laxman Nagar, Matru Niwas,
Near Jay Coach, Khalip Chawl, Bandrekar Wadi,
Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-60.
28.
Shri Shivaji Narayan More, 504, Jaibajrang Building,
Near Mafatlal Mill, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mumbai-13.
29.
Shri Mahendra Mahakal, 3/14, Sunanda Surve Chawl,
Kajupada Bhatwadi, Ghatkopar, Mumbai-84.
30.
Shri Nitin C. Lad, Nehru Nagar, 6/5, J.K. Marg, Worli,
Mumbai.
31.
Shri Latesh Shankar Surve, 13, Gururaj Housing
Society, Panchapakadi, Thane (W)-2.
32.
Shri Sanjay C. Mohite, RPF Railway Quarters,
Building No.30/27, Mithagar Road, Mulund (E),
Mumbai-81.
33.
Shri Rajesh J. Dabholkar, Nensey Colony, Cottage
No. A/7, Borivli (E), Mumbai-66.
34.
Shri Naresh G. Pawar, Ramkaran Yadav Chawl,
Krishna Nagar, 3/ 4, Behrambhag, Jogeshwari (W),
Mumbai.
35.
Shri Prashant B. Mhatre, Post Sopara, Nala Padai,
Datta Mandir Road, Nalasopara (W) 401 203.
36.
Shri Sunil Bhivaji Patil, Naik Wadi, Room No.11,
Samarth Nagar, Bhandup (W), Mumbai-78.
37.
Shri Narayan B. Talekar, Shivneri Chawl, Dattamandir
Road, Vakola Pipe Line, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-55.
38.
Shri Vishwambar J. Pednekar, C/o. N.D. Gaikwad
Chawl, Siddharth Nagar, Vakola Pipe Line, Santacruz
(E), Mumbai-55.
39.
Shri Umesh Dhruva Patil, J-12, Adi Janata C.H.S.
Sion (E), Mumbai-22.
40.
Shri Santosh D. Kalambe, 301, Vaishav Sai C.H.S.,
Plot No.37, Sector-23, Nerul, Navi Mumbai.
41.
Shri Damodar Janardhan Thool, Sidhivinayak Chawl
No.6, Room No.2, Devi Pada, Borivli (E), Mumbai-66.
42.
Shri Chandrakant C. Mohite, RPF Railway Quarters,
Bldg. No.30/27, Mithagar Road, Mulund (E),
Mumbai-81.
43.
Shri Sachin Bhau Ghag, 2/1, Ambika Vijay Mandal,
Chawl No.2/1, Adarsh Nagar, Kanjur Marg (E),
Mumbai-42.
44.
Shri Sachin Ramchandra Lokhande, Nahur Road,
Gavan Pada, Ish Chhaya Society No.3, Mulund (W),
Mumbai-80.
45.
Shri Roshan Ramesh Bhatkar, Gurukul Housing
Society, 2nd floor, Room No.20, Bhatwadi, Kajupada,
Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-84.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER :
Mr. L. L. D’Souza,
Representative.
FOR THE WORKMEN:
Mr. S.B. Shetty, Advocate.
Mumbai, dated the 18th June, 2014
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No.L-12012/141/2003-IR (B-II),
dated 29.09.2003 in exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred
the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of Bank of
Baroda in terminating the services of 45 workmen
(list enclosed) is justified? If not, what relief these
45 workmen are entitled to?”
List of workmen
1.
Shri Shashikant Pitale
2.
Shri Anant Ramachandra Bawkar
3.
Shri Hemant M. Mhatre
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6029
4.
Shri Amrut S. Bhosale
5.
Shri Devdas Gaikwad
6.
Shri Sanjay B. Patil
7.
Shri Shailandra J. Tajane
8.
Shri Mahesh Tukaram Sawant
9.
Shri Praveen S. Namarkar
10.
Shri Prakash M. Anchan
11.
Shri Vikas Subhash Kadam
12.
Shri Sunil M.D. Britto
13.
Shri Madhukar Sudhakar Ghodke
14.
Shri Suresh Tukaram More
15.
Shri Tukaram Keshav Mahadik
16.
Shri Sunil Raghunath Jangam
17.
Shri Sanjay Dhuria Kumar
18.
Shri Santosh N. Gabhane
19.
Shri Vijay Amrut Katale
20.
Shri Yogesh Manohar Lokhande
21.
Shri Mahesh K. Pujare
22.
Shri Rajendra P. Wainganakar
23.
Shri Prabhakar P. Mahadik
24.
Shri Pradip B. Gawalkar
25.
Shri Gajanan Kale
26.
Shri Eknath Dattaram Kadam
27.
Shri Mahesh S. Khetle
28.
Shri Shivaji Narayan More
29.
Shri Mahendra Mahakal
30.
Shri Nitin C. Lad
31.
Shri Latesh Shankar Surve
32.
Shri Sanjay C. Mohite
33.
Shri Rajesh J. Dabholkar
34.
Shri Naresh G. Pawar
35.
Shri Prashant B. Mhatre
36.
Shri Sunil Bhivaji Patil
37.
Shri Narayan B. Talekar
38.
Shri Vishwambar J. Pednekar
39.
Shri Umesh Dhruva Patil
40.
Shri Santosh D. Kalambe
41.
Shri Damodar Janardhan Thool
42.
Shri Chandrakant C. Mohite
43.
Shri Sachin Bhau Ghag
44.
Shri Sachin Ramchandra Lokhande
45.
Shri Roshan Ramesh Bhatkar
2.
After receipt of the reference, notices were sent to
both the parties. In response to the notice, the second
party workmen filed their statement of claim at Ex-48-A.
This statement of claim has been filed by the 45 workers.
According to them the management of Bank of Baroda
(first party) has employed these 45 workmen as Peon in its
various branches in Mumbai and Thane District to perform
the work of Peon in the Bank. The management was
paying monthly wages to them directly. These workmen
were attending full time work of the management. These
workmen were in continuous service of the management
till their services were terminated by the management orally.
In the eye of law the workmen were permanent employee
of the management. However management was paying
them wages at a very low rate and these workmen were
deprived of the rights and benefits available to the
permanent workmen of the management attending the
same, similar and identical work. They were aspiring for
their permanency in the service of the management.
However management terminated their services in violation
of Section 25 F of I.D. Act and in violation of Principles of
Natural Justice, so also in violation of Industrial
Employment (Standing) Order Act and other service
regulations. The action of the management is illegal and
by way of victimization the management indulged in unfair
labour practice. Therefore the workmen have raised
industrial dispute. As conciliation failed on the report of
ALC (C), the Ministry sent the reference to this Tribunal.
3.
The second party workmen are entitled to receive
benefits of memorandum of settlement dt.18/03/2008 on
the principle of equity. The second party has given names
of the workmen who ought to have been covered under
the pages stated in the memorandum of settlement. It is
the case of the second party that first party has made
discrimination amongst the workmen by not extending
benefit of the settlement to these workmen. The second
party workmen therefore, pray that, the action of
management terminating the services of these 45 workmen
be declared illegal and unjustified. They also pray that
management be directed to reinstate them except workman
at sr. no.4 late Amrut Bhosle in service with full back wages
and all other consequential benefits to the L/Rs of Late
Shri Amrut Bhosle treating the period upto date of his
death as period on duty for all purposes.
4.
The first party management resisted the statement
of claim vide their written statement at Ex-52 & 52- A.
According to them these workmen were engaged as casual
employees on need basis and they were not regular
employees of the Bank at any point of time. Thus they
have no right of employment. Therefore non-employment
of such workmen does not amount to termination/
discharge/dismissal. Therefore the reference is not tenable.
The first party Bank is Government Undertaking. They
have to follow the recruitment rules while recruiting their
employees. These employees were not recruited by
6030
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
following the recruitment procedure prescribed therefor.
These workmen were not sponsored by Employment
Exchange. Services of such employees thus cannot be
regularized. They further submitted that the settlement
dt. 18/03/2008 in respect of absorption of casual /
temporary persons working in the Bank is not applicable
to the persons under reference as they were not working
with the Bank on the date of said settlement. Therefore
they cannot get the benefit under the memorandum of
said settlement. Therefore they pray that the reference be
rejected.
5.
The second party filed its rejoinder at Ex-54. They
denied the averments made in the written statement and
reiterated the pleadings made in their statement of claim.
6.
Following are the issues framed by my Learned
Predecessor for my determination. I record my findings
thereon for the reasons to follow:
Sr.
Issues
Findings
no.
1.
Are the workmen involved in the
reference employees of the first
party?
Yes.
2.
Do they prove that they were
illegally terminated?
Yes.
3.
Are they entitled to reinstatement
and full back wages?
As per
order below.
4.
What order?
As per
final order.
REASONS
Issue no. 1:-
7.
According to the first party these workmen were
engaged as casual employees as and when required for.
Therefore they cannot be called employees of the first
party and there exists no employee-employer relationship
between them. In this respect according to the second
party, these workmen were working as Peons. They were
not engaged for any incidental or casual work. Neither
they were engaged for a particular period nor as substitute
in the absence of regular employees. Therefore these
employees cannot be called casual workers. Furthermore
the ld. adv. for the second party pointed out that as per
the rules of the first party there are only two classes of
employees. They are temporary employees and permanent
employees. In the rules there is no class as casual
employees as such. The ld. adv. for the second party rightly
argued that, the work of Peon is not a casual work on the
other hand it is perennial type of work in the Bank and
these workmen were engaged to work as Peons. Therefore
in my opinion they cannot be called casual employees as
contended by the first party. They were engaged by the
bank to work as Peons in the various branches of the first
party bank and they have also worked for number of year
and were receiving the wages. Therefore I hold that they
are employees of the first party and there exists employee-
employer relationship between them.
Issue no. 2 :—
8.
It is the case of the workmen that, they worked
continuously as Peon in the respective branches from the
date of their appointments till the date of termination of
their services i.e. till August, 2002. Some of the workmen
were appointed since 1991. Some since 1992 and some
were appointed from 1994, 1995 to 2000. They have worked
for more than 2 to 11 years respectively as mentioned.
9.
According to them they had worked continuously
for the period they were employed with the first party till
August 2002. The witness of the first party has no personal
knowledge about the engagement and period of work of
these respective workmen. He has admitted the same in
his cross examination at Ex-281 that he has no personal
knowledge about these facts. They have also produced
the documents with list Exh.- 49. The fact is also not
disputed by the first party that these workmen were
employed and were working at various branches as Peons.
Thus there is no reason to discard the version of these
respective workmen that they were working at the
respective branches from 1991 onwards upto August 2002,
till their services were terminated by the first party. Some
workmen have worked for more than 11 years. Some have
worked for 10 years, 9 years, 8 years and some have worked
minimum for 2 years. All of them have claimed that they
have worked continuously for 240 days in each calendar
year. There is no reason to discard the version of these
workmen that they had worked for 240 days in each
calendar year.
10.
In this respect the ld. adv. for the first party
submitted that when the initial appointment itself is void
then provisions of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act are not
applicable while terminating the services of the workman.
In support of his argument the ld. adv. resorted to the
Apex Court ruling in Rajasthan Tourism Development Ltd.
& Anr V/s. Itejam Ali Jaffrey 2006 (110) FLR 773 (SC) in
para 4 of the judgement the Hon’ble Court on the point
observed that;
“….it is the settled proposition of law that when
initial appointment itself is void, then the provisions
of Section 25 F of the industrial Dispute Act are not
applicable while terminating the services of the
workman.”
11.
In that case the workman therein had not completed
240 days in a calendar year. Therefore on that ground the
Hon’ble Court held that provisions of 25 F of the I.D. Act
are not attracted to this case. While deciding the said
point the Hon’ble Court had made the above observations.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6031
Therefore these observations of Hon’ble Court cannot be
called ratio decidendi. These observations are mere obiter
dicta. In this respect I would like to point out that even
mere obiter dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court has also binding
effect. However in this respect the ld. adv. for the second
party submitted that the said observation is against the
Statute of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. He pointed out that
there is no such classification of workmen either in the
definition of workman under Section 2 (s) or 25-F of I.D.
Act, such as casual, temporary or ad-hoc etc. Therefore
the ld. adv. for the second party submitted that the said
dictum need not be followed being against the Statute.
On the point the ld. adv. for the first party also submitted
that, these workmen were not appointed to the post in
accordance with the rules but were engaged on the basis
of need of the work. They are temporary employees
therefore they cannot claim protection under Section 25 F
of I. D. Act. In support of his argument the ld. adv. resorted
to another Apex Court ruling in Himanshu Kumar Vidhyarthi
V/s. State of Bihar & Ors. 1997 FLR (76) 237 (SC) wherein
the Hon’ble Court observed that;
“Admittedly they were not appointed to the posts
in accordance with the rules but were engaged on
the basis of need of the work. They are temporary
employees working on daily wages. Under these
circumstances, their disengagement from service
cannot be construed to be a retrenchment under the
Industrial Disputes Act.”
12.
In this respect the ld. adv. for the second party
submitted that now the law is settled by catena of recent
decisions of the Apex Court that, once a workman has
completed continuous service of 240 days, he is entitled
to the protection under Section 25-F irrespective of the
fact that he was casual or temporary workman. In support
of his argument ld. adv. resorted to a recent Apex Court
ruling in Ramesh Kumar V/s. State of Haryana 2010 – I –
LLJ- 841 (SC) wherein the workman was employed as a
Mali on casual basis in Public Works Department (B & R)
Haryana. He worked from December 1991 till 31/01/1993
when his services were terminated without following the
retrenchment procedure. On the point Hon’ble Apex Court
in para 10 of the judgement observed that;
“It is not in dispute that the appellant is a workman
as defined under Section 2 (s) and ‘retrenchment’ if
any, it should be in accordance with Section 25 F of
the Act. Admittedly in the case on hand, the
workman was not given any notice pay or pay in
lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation at the
time of his retrenchment. In view of the same the
Labour Court has correctly concluded that his
termination is in contravention of the provisions of
Section 25 F of the Act.”
13.
In this respect the ld. adv. for the second party also
cited following rulings:
(i)
Anoop Sharma V/s. Executive Engineer, Public Health
Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana) 2010- III LLJ- 1
(SC) wherein the Hon’ble Court observed that;
“Termination without following Section 25-F of
Industrial Disputes Act 1947 cannot be sustained.”
(ii)
Krishna Bahadur V/s. Purna Theatre & Ors. 2004 III
LLJ wherein the Hon’ble Court on the point in para
13 of the judgement observed that;
“The requirement to comply with the provision of
Section 25-F (b) has been held to be mandatory
before retrenchment of a workman is given effect to.
In the event of any contravention of the said
mandatory requirement, the retrenchment would be
rendered void ab-initio.”
14.
The ld. adv. also cited few more rulings wherein the
same principle is laid down. Therefore it is unnecessary
to refer and discuss them all. Furthermore the ld. Adv. for
the second party in this respect submitted that, by way of
amendment in the statement of claim, the second party
has pleaded and also proved that, the management has
regularised the services of some other similarly placed
employees, some of them are junior to them. By the said
act the management has also violated the provisions of
Section 25-G of I.D. Act. This fact is not denied by the first
party that, some other similarly placed workmen are
regularised in the service of the Bank. However according
to them their services are regularised as per the settlement
entered into with their union. According to them services
of these workmen were already terminated and at the time
of the said settlement these workmen were not in the
service of the management. Therefore it cannot be said
that, the management has violated the provisions of
Section 25 G of the I.D. Act. In this respect it is clear that
the management has not prepared seniority list while
retrenching these workmen. It was essential and they were
required to follow the settled rule of ‘last come, first go’
and ‘first come last go’. The management has not followed
the said rule at the time of retrenchment and had not
considered the seniority. Therefore it is clear that, the
management has also violated the provisions of Section
25- G of I.D. Act.
15.
In short in this case it is clear that, these workmen
were entitled to the protection under Section 25 F of the
I.D. Act. Admittedly while terminating the service of these
workmen from time to time, the first party has not followed
the procedure of retrenchment as prescribed under
Section 25-F (a) and (b) of I.D. Act. So also they have
violated the provisions of Section 25 -G of I. D. Act, as
neither they have prepared seniority list nor retrenchment
was in accordance thereto. Therefore the termination of
services of these workmen cannot be called legal and valid.
Accordingly I decide this issue no.2 in the affirmative
that, the second party has proved that their services were
terminated illegally.
6032
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Issue no. 3:-
16.
On the point of reinstatement, the ld. adv. for the
first party submitted that as these workmen were not
recruited by following the recruitment procedure
prescribed therefor. In the circumstances he submitted that,
though their services were terminated illegally, neither such
employees can be reinstated in service nor their services
can be regularised. In support of his argument the ld. adv.
resorted to the Land Mark Constitutional Bench ruling of
Apex Court in The Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s. Uma
Devi & Ors. 2006 – II – LLJ – 722 (SC) wherein in para 34 of
the judgement the Hon’ble Court observed that;
“It has also to be clarified that merely because a
temporary employee or a casual wage worker is
continued for a time beyond the term of his
appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed
in regular service or made permanent merely on the
strength on such continuance, if the original
appointment was not made by following a due
process of selection as envisaged by the relevant
rules.”
17.
The ld. adv. for the first party also cited number of
other rulings they all are based on the above referred
Constitutional Bench ruling. Therefore it is unnecessary
to refer and discuss them all. In this respect the ld. adv. for
the first party submitted that, these workmen were not
recruited as per the procedure of recruitment. Therefore
though their termination is held illegal, they cannot be
reinstated in service. Instead of that some compensation
would serve the purpose. In support of his argument the
ld. adv. cited Apex Court ruling in Madhya Pradesh
Administration V/s. Tribhuban 2007 AIR SCW 2357. In
that case a temporary employee appointed from time to
time was disengaged from service. He raised industrial
dispute. The Industrial Court merely directed to pay the
amount of compensation to the workman to which he was
entitled to, had the provisions of Section 25-F been
complied with. In Writ Petition, High Court had directed
reinstatement of the workman with full back wages. In the
circumstances the Hon’ble Apex Court in this case
observed that;
“We are of the opinion that interest of justice would
be sub-served if appellant herein be directed to pay
a sum of Rs.75,000/- by way of compensation to the
respondent.”
18.
In this ruling also the Hon’ble Court has referred the
aforesaid Constitutional Bench ruling of Uma Devi (Supra).
The ld. adv. for the first party also cited another Apex
Court ruling in Mehboob Deepak V/s. Nagar Panchayat,
Gajraula & Anr. 2008 I CLR 324. In that case there was
illegal termination of a daily wager, who was reinstated
and regularised in service by Labour Court, in that respect
the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 10 of the judgement
observed that;
“Applying the legal principles as noticed herein
before, the relief granted in favour of the appellant
by the Labour Court is wholly unsustainable. The
same also appears to be somewhat unintelligible.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court instead of reinstatement
with back wages directed to pay compensation. On
the point in para 12 of the judgement Hon’ble Apex
Court observed that ;
“It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of
this Court that in a situation of this nature, instead
and in place of directing reinstatement with full back
wages, the workman should be granted adequate
monetary compensation.”
19.
The ld. adv. also resorted to another Apex Court
ruling in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. V/s. Ravinder
Singh 2008 I CLR 1 wherein in respect of regularisation of
services of a daily wager who was not recruited through
Employment Exchange and no procedure of recruitment
was followed. In the circumstances in the light of the
leading Uma Devi case verdict the Hon’ble Court observed
that;
“There was a mere back door entry. They were not
selected in the manner as applicable to regular
employees…”
The Hon’ble Court in para 9 of the judgement
further observed that;
“In the background of what has been stated the
directions given for regularisation in the post of Clerk
being indefensible are set aside.”
20.
The ld. adv. for the first party also referred the Apex
Court ruling in Official liquidator V/s. Dayanand & Ors.
2009 III LLJ 305 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Court in respect of
absorption / regularisation in Govt service observed that;
“….recruitment to regular cadre is governed by the
Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution
and it would be highly detrimental to public interest
to issue direction for wholesale absorption/
regularisation of the company paid staff and there
by abrogate/ stultify opportunity of competition to
younger generation comprising more meritorious
persons who may be waiting for a chance to apply
for direct recruitment.”
21.
The ld. adv. for the first party also referred to the
Bombay High Court ruling in Dena Bank, Mumbai V/s.
Ashraf Yunus Sheikh 2010 II LLJ 91 (Bom). In that case
services of a daily rated casual employee were terminated
in violation of Section 25 F of I.D. Act. In that case instead
of reinstatement, the Hon’ble Court held that he did not
get right to continue in service and compensation in terms
of Section 25 F was ordered to be paid.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6033
22.
The ld. adv. also cited the Apex Court ruling in
Telecom District Manager & Ors. V/s. Keshab Deb 2008 II
CLR 492 wherein in respect of termination of a casual labour
in violation of Section 25 F, the Hon’ble Court in para 20 of
the judgement observed that;
“We are therefore of the opinion that grant of
compensation instead of direction of reinstatement
with back wages would meet the end of justice.”
23.
In the light of these rulings the ld. adv. for the first
party submitted that, in case the termination of these
employees is found to be illegal, and in violation of Section
25 F or G, instead of reinstatement, they be awarded
compensation as held in the catena of above referred
decisions.
24.
On the point, the ld. adv. for the second party
submitted that all the rulings referred on behalf of the first
party are in respect of illegal termination in violation of
Section 25- F of the I.D. Act. In this respect the ld. adv. for
the second party submitted that, case on hand is not the
case of mere violation of provisions of Section 25 F to
grant mere compensation. On the other hand in this case,
there was also violation of Section 25-G of the I.D. Act,
thereby the right of equality and equal opportunity to
these workmen was denied. Therefore the workmen are
entitled for the relief of reinstatement with full back wages.
25.
In the circumstances he submitted that the above
rulings in respect of mere violation of Sec 25-F are not
attracted to the set of facts of the present case as the
termination herein is also in violation of Section 25 G. of
the Act. It is the case of the second party that the
management has neither prepared seniority list nor followed
the rule ‘last come first go’ while effecting the retrenchment.
According to the second party many similarly placed
workmen, some of them junior to the workmen under
reference were not only retained in the services, but they
are also made permanent. It is in violation of Section 25 G
of the I.D. Act. Therefore he further submitted that when
the retrenchment is effected in violation of Section 25-G,
they are entitled to be reinstated and regularised in the
services as like the similarly placed some other workmen
who are regularised in the services.
26.
The fact is not disputed that the management has
regularised the services of some other similarly placed
workmen. However according to the first party, their
services were regularised as per the settlement. According
to them the settlement took place afterwards when the
workmen under reference were not in service as they were
already terminated. Therefore they are not entitled to the
benefit of the settlement. That apart, the fact remains that
the workmen under reference were retrenched without
seniority list and without following the rules ‘ last come
first go’. Some similarly placed workmen junior to these
workmen remained in service. They were not retrenched
and subsequently they were made permanent.
27.
In this respect the ld. adv. for the second party also
submitted that the argument on behalf of the first party is
devoid of merit that the rule of seniority is not applicable
to daily wagers or temporary employees. In support of his
argument the ld. adv. for the second party resorted to the
Apex Court ruling in Harjindersingh V/s. Punjab State
Warehousing Corporation 2010 I CLR 884 wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court on the point in para 5 of the judgement
observed that;
“High Court was not correct in stating that rule of
seniority is not applicable to daily wagers. There is
clear violation of Section 25- G of the Act. Appellant
is entitled for re-appointment.”
In this judgement Hon’ble Court also observed that;
“For attracting the applicability of Section 25 G of
the Industrial Disputes Act, the workmen is not
required to prove that he had worked for a period of
240 days during 12 calendar months preceding the
termination of his service and it is sufficient for him
to plead and prove that while effecting retrenchment
the employer violated the rule of ‘Last come, first
go’ without any tangible reason.”
28.
In that case the service of workman therein was
terminated in violation of Section 25-G of the I. D. Act.
The Labour Court set aside the termination and directed
the management therein to reinstate the workman. High
Court set aside the said award and instead of reinstatement
awarded compensation. The Hon’ble Apex Court in this
respect in para 16 of the judgement observed that;
“In view of the above discussions we hold that the
ld. Single Judge of High Court committed serious
jurisdictional error and unjustifiably interfered with
the award of reinstatement passed by Labour Court
with compensation of Rs.87,582/- by entertaining a
wholly unfounded plea that the Appellant was
appointed in violation of Article 14 & 15 of the
Constitution and the Regulations.”
29.
In the light of the fact and circumstances, it is clear
that the management herein has violated the provisions
of Section 25 G and retrenched these workmen without
considering their seniority. The management did not follow
the rule of “first come last go” or “last come first go”.
Therefore in the light of above referred Apex Court ruling
in Harjinder Singh, I am of the opinion that the workmen
under reference are entitled to be reinstated. The ruling
referred on behalf of the first party are not attracted as
they are not in respect of Section 25- G of the I. D .Act. In
the ruling of Harjinder Singh referred above, in para 17 of
the judgement the Hon’ble Court further observed that;
“High Courts are duty bound to keep in mind that
the Industrial Dispute Act and other similar
legislative instruments are social welfare legislations
and the same are required to be interpreted keeping
6034
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
in view the goals set out in the preamble of the
constitution and the provisions contained in part-
IV. Therefore in general an Article 38, 39 (a) to (e), 43
and 43 –A in particular, which mandate that the state
should secure a social order for the promotion of
welfare of people, ensure equality between men and
women and equitable distribution of material
resources of the community to sub serve the
common goal and also to ensure that workers get
their dues.”
30.
The ld. adv. for the first party had pointed out that
the constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case of Uma
Devi (Supra) held that when initial appointment is not as
per the recruitment rules prescribed therefor, such
workmen cannot be made permanent or regularised. On
the point the ld. adv. for the second party submitted that
the said ruling is not attracted to the case on hand as
management herein has violated the provisions of Section
25-G of the I.D. Act. The ratio to that effect is laid down by
Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent ruling in H.S. Rajashekhara
V/s. State Bank of Mysore and Anr 2012 (2) MHLJ 570. On
the point Hon’ble Court observed that;
“The appeal preferred by the petitioner, assailing
the order passed by the Ld. Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.22324 of 2005, was adjudicated upon
with reference to the decision rendered by this Court
in Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s. Uma Devi &
Ors. (Supra) even though the same had no relevance
to the prayer made by the petitioner. The simple
question raised by the petitioner was with reference
to the decision of the Bank in absorbing Shri
Devaraju as a permanent employee. The claim of
the petitioner was founded under Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India. Unfortunately the
aforesaid issue was not considered even in the
second round of litigation.”
31.
In short, the ratio laid down by Apex Court in the
case of Uma Devi (referred supra) is not attracted to the
case on hand as this case is in respect of the point of
violation of Sec. 25-G of I.D. Act which was not the issue
before the Hon’ble Court in the case of Uma Devi. In the
light of the above recent Apex Court ruling which is directly
on the point of violation of Sec. 25-G of the Act, I hold
that these workmen are entitled for reinstatement as regular
employees at par with the other similarly placed employees.
32.
In respect of back wages the ld. adv. for the first
party submitted that ‘no work no wage’ is the settled
principle. He further pointed out that most of the workmen
after the retrenchment are working somewhere else and
earning to meet the two ends. Some of the workmen have
also admitted in their cross that, they are working and
earning some amount for their survival. In the
circumstances, he submitted that they are not entitled for
back wages. As against this the ld. adv. for the second
party submitted that these workmen were retrenched
illegally and they are made to suffer a lot. They are not
employed anywhere permanently. Therefore they are
entitled to full back wages.
33.
I consider the facts and circumstances on record,
some of the workmen have admitted in their respective
cross-examinations that after retrenchment they are
working and doing some work and earning some meagre
amount. It is also but natural that they must be working
somewhere for their livelihood. Furthermore awarding full
back wages to these 45 workmen for about last 9-10 years,
would no doubt create heavy burden on the public
establishment for the mistake of some of their officials.
Considering all these circumstances to meet the end of
justice, I think awarding 30% back wages would serve the
purpose. Accordingly I decide this issue No.3 partly in
the affirmative and proceed to pass the following order;
ORDER
(i)
Reference is partly allowed with no order as to cost.
(ii)
The retrenchment of the workmen under reference
is declared to be in violation of Section 25 F & G of
the I.D. Act 1947.
(iii)
The management is directed to reinstate these
workmen in the service with 30% back wages and all
other consequential benefits and continuity of
service.
(iv)
Services of these workmen be regularised at par
with the other similarly placed workmen as per their
seniority and in accordance with the settlement.
Date : 18.06.2014
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2384-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
fMfotuy bathfu;j] VsyhdkWe izkstsDV~l] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM]
èkeZ'kkyk 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
1367 of 2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
22@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40011@59@2007&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 27th August, 2014
S.O.
2384.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No.
1367/2008) of the Central Government Industrial
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6035
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-2, Chandigarh now as shown
in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Divisional
Engineer, Telecom Projects, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Dharamshala and their workman, which was received by
the Central Government on 22/8/2014.
[No. L-40011/59/2007-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 1367/2008
Registered on 14.3.2008
Sh. Girish Kumar,
311-Old Tehsil Lane,
Wellesly Ganj, Mirzapur (UP).
.....Petitioner
Versus
The Divisional Engineer,
Telecom Projects,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Dharamshala.
.....Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
: Ex parte.
For the Management
: Sh. Kailash Sharma Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 14.7.2014
Central Government vide Notification No. L-40011/
59/2007-IR(DU) Dated 10.3.2008, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-
section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Kullu to struck off the name
of Sh. Girish Kumar from the strength of the regular
staff of Bharat Sanchar Nigam limited, Kullu vide
order dated 7.11.2000 is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled to and from
which date?”
In response to the notice, the workman appeared
and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was
engaged as daily rated mazdoor on 1.1.1996 and worked at
different places with the respondent management. He was
granted temporary status w.e.f. 15.4.1999 and was
appointed as regular mazdoor and was posted at Keylong
vide order dated 30.8.2001. However his name was struck
off from the strength of the staff of Keylong vide order
dated 2.11.2001 which is illegal. That he be reinstated in
service with continuity of service.
Respondent management filed written reply
controverting the averments and pleaded that the workman
did not serve the Department and got wrong verification
as TSM worker prior to 15.4.1999. Since his verification of
work as TSM was forged and fabricated, he was not entitled
to be inducted as regular mazdoor. After proper verification
of the record, he was asked to report with District Manager,
Kullu. Since he did not serve the department at any point
of time, he is not entitled to any relief. That he filed a writ
petition before the Hon’ble High Court claiming the same
relief and the same was dismissed.
Initially the workman appeared through an Advocate
but later on neither the workman nor his counsel appeared.
Consequently, notice was again ordered to be issued to
him through registered cover for 3.12.2013 vide order dated
1.10.2013. The workman did not appear on 3.12.2013 and
was proceeded against ex parte.
The management closed its evidence.
Since the workman was proceeded against ex parte,
no evidence has been led on his behalf that he ever joined
the department as daily-rated mazdoor. It is the definite
case of the department that he wrongly procured a
verification report for working as TSM and on the basis of
that, he was given the status of regular mazdoor. In this
situation, it was incumbent upon the workman to prove
that he actually worked as a daily-rated mazdoor and he
was rightly given temporary status. In the absence of any
evidence on the file, it cannot be said that he worked as a
daily-rated mazdoor and thereafter he was given the status
of temporary mazdoor and in the absence of these facts,
he was not entitled to be appointed as regular mazdoor.
Being so, the action of the management to struck off his
name from the strength of regular staff of its office at
Kullu vide order dated 7.11.2000 cannot be termed as illegal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
In result, the reference is accordingly answered
against the workman.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2385-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
ps;jeSu&de& eSus¯tx Mk;jsDVj] ¯gLrku iQksVks fiQYEl eSU;qiSQDp¯jx
daiuh fyfeVsM 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 96@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
22@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@83@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
6036
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 27th August, 2014
S.O.
2385.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 96/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
22/8/2014.
[No. L-42012/83/2012-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 14th August, 2014
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI , Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 96/2012
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between
the Management of Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd.
and their workman)
BETWEEN
Smt. A.N. Sahayamary
:
1st Party/
Petitioner
AND
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director
:
2nd Party/
Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Respondent
Indu Nagar (PO)
Udhagamandalam-643005
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
: Sri G. Gunaseelan, P.G. Devraj,
Petitioner
: Authorized Representatives
For the 2nd Party/
: M/s Aiyar & Dolia, Advocates
Respondent
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/83/2012-IR (DU)
dated 04.12.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the Management of
Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd., Ooty regarding
the termination of services of the petitioner i.e. A.N.
Sahayamary as Casual Worker without following the
provisions of Section-25F and N of Industrial
Disputes Act is justifiable or not? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 96/2012 and issued notices to both
sides. The petitioner has entered appearance through
Authorized Representative and the Respondent through
the counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement
respectively.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner was appointed in the Horticulture
Department of Respondent Company on daily wages in
the year 1995. Initially she was paid @ Rs. 57/- per day
later this was revised to Rs. 77/- per day. The petitioner
was enrolled as a member of ESI Corporation and was
issued with an Identity Card in 1996. In 2007, a new Identity
Card was issued by the ESI Corporation. The petitioner
was continuously employed with the Respondent from
1995 till May, 2007 and thereafter till February, 2010. The
work of the petitioner was supervised and controlled by
the Company officials. During the entire period of
employment the petitioner was employed as Helper at the
residence of the Managing Director of the Company. The
petitioner was kept in service on daily wages for more
than 16 years and she was denied all statutory benefits.
Though the rate of wages of others were revised to Rs.
146/-, the petitioner was paid @ Rs. 77/- per day only. The
petitioner had represented to her superior officers to revise
her wages. The Respondent had given permanent status
to 55 workers in the year 2010, the petitioner had requested
to grant permanent status to her also. She was assured
that this can be considered during revival of the Company.
The petitioner was paid wages every month by the
Accounts Department obtaining her signatures in the
vouchers and some other forms. The Respondent has
disbursed wages through a stranger. During April, 2011
the petitioner was prevented from attending her regular
work. The change of mode of payment of wages amounts
to removal of the name of the petitioner from the Muster
Roll of the Respondent. It is termination of the petitioner
from service with mala fide intention. There is no
justification for the termination. The termination is
retrenchment in violation of Section-25F and N of ID Act.
The petitioner has raised the dispute on account of this.
An order may be passed holding that the termination of
the petitioner is illegal and unjustified and also directing
the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with
back wages and continuity of service.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as follows :
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6037
The ID itself is not maintainable as there is no master
and servant relationship between the Petitioner and the
Respondent. The petitioner was engaged as a Maid
Servant at the residence of the Chief Executive through a
registered contractor and was paid on daily wage basis. It
is incorrect to state that she was engaged in the
Horticulture Department. Issue of an Identity Card does
not entitle the petitioner to claim permanency or
regularization. The Respondent had no control over the
payment of wages to workmen engaged through
Registered Contractors. The work of the petitioner was
not supervised by the officials of the Respondent. It is
incorrect to say that the Officers of the Respondent had
forcibly stopped the petitioner from attending work. The
petitioner had abandoned the work in January 2007 and
had again approached the Respondent Company to
engage her service through a Contractor. She had worked
under different contractors at different points of time as
daily wager.
5.
The evidence in the case consists of the oral
evidence WW1 and WW2 and documents marked as
Ext.W1 to Ext.W21. No evidence oral or documentary were
adduced on the side of the Respondent.
6.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the termination of service of the petitioner
by the Respondent is legal and justifiable?
(ii)
What is the relief, if any to which the petitioner is
entitled?
The Points
7.
The petitioner has claimed in her Claim Statement
that she had started to work with the Respondent as a
daily wager in the year 1995 and that she continued to
work so till May 2007 and thereafter till Feb. 2010.
According to her initially she was paid @ Rs. 57/- per day.
This was later raised to Rs. 77/- per day. She has alleged
that though the wages of other daily workers were revised
she had to satisfy with Rs. 77/- that was paid to her. Though
in the initial paragraph of the Claim Statement she has
stated that she was appointed as Helper in Horticulture
Department, her case in the later part of the Claim Statement
is that she was employed as Helper in the Managing
Director’s residence. It is alleged by the petitioner that
she was wrongfully turned out from the Respondent
institution by some Officers of the Respondent. According
to her, this termination from service was after she has
completed 16 years of continuous service.
8.
In the Counter Statement the Respondent has not
denied the case that the petitioner was working for it.
However according to the Respondent she was engaged
through a Registered Contractor and she was always
working as Maid Servant in the residence of the Chief
Executive.
9.
In the Proof Affidavit filed, the petitioner has
reiterated her case in the Claim Statement. However, the
period of joining with the Respondent is shown as 1996
against 1995, the year shown in the Claim Statement. There
is also the evidence of WW2, an ex-employee of the
Respondent Company. This witness has stated that he
was given permanent status in the establishment under
Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment to
Permanent Status to Workman) Act on the basis of order
of Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories. He has also stated
that the petitioner was engaged as Casual Labourer in the
Horticulture Department of the Respondent. The order of
the Chief Inspector of Factories and other documents
pertaining to the service of this witness with the
Respondent also is marked through him.
10.
Coupled with the admission of the Respondent, the
documents produced by the petitioner would show that
she has been working with the Respondent. Even as stated
by the petitioner in her Claim statement she was not aware
how the number of days worked by her each month were
maintained or calculated. However, she was paid by the
Accounts Department by obtaining her signatures in the
vouchers. This practice is said to have continued till
October, 2010. Ext.W1 is the ESI Identity Card that was
issued to the petitioner in February 1996. Ext.W2 is the
second ESI Identity Card that was issued in June 2007.
Ext.W3 is the Casual Labour Entry Permit issued to her in
1998. Ext.W4 is another such permit issued in 2000. Ext.W6
is the Bus Pass Bill for June 2006 which shows that the
petitioner has remitted some amount towards bus pass.
Ext.W5 is the bus pass bill issued in March 2011. These
documents certainly show that the petitioner had started
to work in the Respondent Company at least in the year
1996 and had worked till 2011.
11.
Though the actual number of days the petitioner
had worked in the Respondent are not available the
documents produced would show that she was working
with the Respondent all along, even if there was some
gap. Ext.W11 (series) are work order forms during the
period between May 2000 and August 2005. This would
show that she had worked for 29 days in April 2000. She is
seen to have worked in January 2001, January 2002, March
2002, February, 2003, March 2003, March 2004, January
2005, August, 2005 and August 2008, though the number
of days worked during these months are not shown.
Though the above documents would not show that she
was working continuously, Ext.W12 abstract gives an
indication of the manner in which she was working. This
shows that the petitioner was paid more than Rs. 25,000/-
for the period between September 2004 to August 2005.
The note given below the abstract shows that she was
working throughout all the months during the period.
Another set of documents showing employment of the
petitioner are the Half-Yearly ESI returns submitted to ESI
Corporation marked as Ext.W13 to Ext.W15, pertaining to
6038
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the period from 2008 to 2010. In Ext.W13 the name of the
petitioner is shown as S.No. 81, in Ext.W14 as S.No. 172
and in Ext.W15 as S.No.76. The monthly amount paid to
the petitioner as wages and returns submitted to the ESI
Corporation would give a glimpse of the manner in which
she must have been working. It is true that documents are
not available to show that the petitioner was working
continuously. However, if the cumulative effect of the
documents produced by the petitioner are taking into
account it could be concluded that the petitioner had been
working with the Respondent from the year 1996 and
continued to do so until the year 2011.
12.
The claim advanced on behalf of the petitioner is
that she was unjustly terminated from service and is liable
to be reinstated. What is stated by the Respondent in the
Counter Statement is that there was no termination from
service but she has stopped attending the job. There is
also a contention for the Respondent that all along the
petitioner was engaged through a Contractor and there
was never employer – employee relationship between her
and the Respondent. In spite of the claim that her
engagement was through Registered Contractor, no
document to this effect is produced by the Respondent.
On the other hand, the documents produced by the
petitioner would show that the payment was made to her
by the Respondent directly. All the documents pertaining
to the engagement would show that she was employed
directly. Though there is a column for the name of the
Contractor in the work order form, in most of the forms the
Column is left unfilled and at times the name of the
petitioner itself is shown against the name of the Contractor
also. All these would indicate that the petitioner was
employed directly.
13.
What is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?
Is she entitled to reinstatement in view of the fact that she
was working with the Respondent though as a daily wager
for a considerably long time? WW2 was brought in to
advance the case that he also was also working with the
Respondent on daily wages and was conferred permanent
status and therefore the petitioner also should have been
given permanent status in the establishment. The
Authorized Representative of the petitioner has also
referred to decisions including the decision of the Apex
Court in HARJINDER SINGH VS. PUNJAB STATE
WAREHOUSING CORPORATION reported in 2010 1 SCC
(L&S) 1146. Here it was held that for the principle of first
come last go under Section-25N, one need not prove that
he had worked for 240 days during 12 calendar months
preceding termination. In this respect the counsel for the
Respondent has referred to the recent legal
pronouncements of the Apex Court laying down the
dictum that award of reinstatement and back wages does
not follow automatically on setting aside the order of
retrenchment. In the decision in JAGBIR SINGH VS.
HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING
BOARD AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 15 SCC 327 it
has been held that instead of reinstatement, compensation
could be awarded. Reference was also made to the decision
in ASSISTANT ENGINEER VS. RAJASTHAN
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER VS.
GITAM SINGH reported in 2013 5 SCC 136. Here it has
been held that before exercising its judicial discretion
under Section-11A of the ID Act the Labour Court has to
keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and
manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of
service, the ground on which the termination has been set
aside and the delay in raising the Industrial Dispute. It
has also been held that a distinction has to be drawn
between a daily wager and an employee holding the regular
post for the purpose of consequential relief.
14.
The petitioner though worked for a long time was
only a daily wager and was not an employee holding the
regular post. Considering these aspects rather than
reinstatement, compensation will be the proper relief to
the petitioner. The compensation payable to the petitioner
is quantified as Rs. 3.00 lakhs.
15.
Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to pay the
petitioner Rs. 3.00 lakhs as compensation, within a month
of the award. In default of payment within the prescribed
time the amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of the award.
The reference is answered accordingly
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 14th August, 2014)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/
: WW1, Smt. AM Sahayamary
Petitioner
WW2, Sri A. Antony
For the 2nd Party/
: None
Management
Documents marked
On the side of the petitioner
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
12.02.1996
ESI Identity Card
Ex.W2
26.06.2007
ESI Identity Card
Ex.W3
15.08.1998
Casual Labour Entry Permit
Ex.W4
11.09.2000
Entry Permit
Ex.W5
15.03.2011
Bus Pass Pay Bill
Ex.W6
19.07.2006
Bus Pass Pay Bill
Ex.W7
11.02.2011
Representation
to
the
Management
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6039
Ex.W8
-
Petition u/s 2A1 of the Industrial
Disputes Act
before
the
Conciliation Officer
Ex.W9
-
Counter Statement filed by the
Management
Ex.W10
-
Reply Statement filed before the
Conciliation Officer by the
Petitioner
Ex.W11
31.05.2000
(series)
Jan. 2001
Jan. 2002
March 2002
Feb. 2003
HRD / Engineering Division Work
March 2003
March 2004
Jan. 2005
Aug. 2005
Ex.W12
-
Abstract Estimate of Civil
Engineering Planning for the
period from September 2004 to
August 2005
Ex.W13
-
Half-Yearly ESI Returns submitted
to ESI Corporation for the period
from 01.10.2008 to 31.03.2009
Ex.W14
-
Half-Yearly ESI Return submitted
to ESI Corporation for the period
from 01.10.2009 to 31.03.2010
Ex.W15
-
Half-Yearly ESI Returns submitted
to ESI Corporation for the period
from 01.04.2010 to 30.09.2010
Ex.W16
-
Salary Bill of A. Antony for the
month of July 2011
Ex.W17
-
Copy of the order of Dy. Chief
Inspector of Factories dated
26.05.2011 issued to A. Antony
and others
Ex.W18
-
Copy of the order of Dy. Chief
Inspector of Factories issued to
P. Krishnamoorthy and 12 others
Ex.W19
-
Relieving order dated 12.03.2012
Ex.W20
-
Computation Petition No. 258 of
2011 filed by A. Antony before the
Hon’ble
Labour
Court,
Coimbatore
Ex.W21
-
Counter Statement filed by the
Management in the CP No. 258 of
2011
On the side of the Management
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2386-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
iqjLdkj izdkf'kr djrk gS (lanHkZ la[;k 15@2006) Mk;jsDVj]
izlkj Hkkjrh czkMdk¯LVx dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k] nwjn'kZu dsanz 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 ,oa
Je U;k;ky;] y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 15@2006) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@03@2006&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 27th August, 2014
S.O.
2386.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 15/2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour
Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of Director, Prasar Bharati, Broadcasting
Corporation of India, Doordarshan Kendra and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 19/8/2014.
[No. L-42012/03/2006-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 15/2006
Ref. No. L-42012/3/2006-IR(DU) dated: 15.06.2006
BETWEEN
Shri Saleem Ahmad, C/o Naseem Ahmad
Jawahar Nagar, Colony No. 202A/37
Opp. Hathi Partk, Daliganj
Lucknow
AND
The Director, Prasar Bharati
Broadcasting Corporation of India
Doordarshan Kendra
24, Ashok Marg
Lucknow
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-42012/3/2006-IR(DU) dated:
15.06.2006 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by
6040
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 Saleem Ahmad, C/o
Naseem Ahmad, Jawahar Nagar, Colony No. 202A/37, Opp.
Hathi Partk, Daliganj, Lucknow and the Director, Prasar
Bharati, Broadcasting Corporation of India, Doordarshan
Kendra, 24, Ashok Marg, Lucknow for adjudication to this
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“Whether the action of the management
Doordaharshan Kendra Lucknow/New Delhi in
terminating the services of Shri Saleem Ahmad,
casual floor assistant w.e.f. 22.7.2001 is just and
legal? if not to what relief the workman are entitled?”
3.
The case of the workman, Saleem Ahmad, in brief, is
that he was engaged by the opposite party as Casual
Programme Staff in Group ‘C’ category on 11.04.1986 and
he worked regularly up to 21.07.2001. It has been submitted
by the workman that there had been a scheme for
regularization of the casual employees dated 09.06.1992,
17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994; but the management did not
regularize his services. It has been alleged by the workman
that the management terminated his services on 21.07.2001
without following the due procedure as contained in
Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Accordingly, the workman
has prayed that the action of the management in denying
him regularization be declared illegal and he be regularized
into the services.
4.
The management of the Doordarshan has denied
the claim of the workman by filing its written statement;
wherein it was submitted that the workman had never been
appointed as a casual artist adhoc or otherwise, no
appointment letter was issued to the workman, therefore,
there is no question of termination or retrenchment of his
services w.e.f. 21.07.2001. It was submitted that the
workman was engaged for short spells to carryout casual
nature of work purely on the basis of actual requirement
of programme production for not more than 10 days in a
month. It was further submitted that the workman’s case
was considered for regularization, in terms of regularization
scheme dated 09.06.1992 as well as the modified scheme
dated 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994, but he was found
ineligible being over age by 11 months 08 days in terms of
scheme dated 09.06.1992, therefore, he could not be
regularized. It is also submitted that all those who were
regularized by the management were regularized in
accordance with regularization scheme dated 09.06.1992
and 17.03.1994. Accordingly, the management of the
Doordarshan has prayed that the claim of the workman be
rejected being devoid of merit.
5.
The workman has filed its rejoinder wherein he has
stated that his date of birth is 10.07.1958 as per his
matriculation certificate and as per Rules the age limit for
the post of Production Assistant is 21-30 years. It was
further stated that the case of Smt. Dixit whose date of
birth and date of initial engagement was 26.07.61 and
12.02.91 respectively, was considered for regularization,
in terms of scheme dated 09.06.92, as per direction of
Hon’ble CAT, Lucknow in O.A. No. 500/95 vide order dated
08.11.2001 and she was given age relaxation of one year.
Rest is mere reiteration of the averments already made in
the statement of claim.
6.
The parties have adduced documentary evidence in
support of their respective cases. The workman after filing
documentary evidence did not turn for its oral evidence in
support of its stand in spite of ample opportunity was
granted to the workman, which led to presumption that
the workman does not want to lead any evidence and his
opportunity to lead evidence was closed vide order dated
29.10.2009. The management filed affidavit of Shri G.P.
Pandey, Senior Administrative Officer in support of their
pleadings. The workman again failed to cross-examine
the management’s witness and his opportunity to cross-
examine the management’s witness vide order dated
26.07.2010. Thereafter, various dates i.e. 27.08.2010,
06.10.2010, 30.11.2010, 23.12.2010, 15.03.2011, 12.05.2011,
17.06.2011, 18.08.2011, 14.11.2011, 05.12.2011, 24.02.2012,
17.04.2012, 01.06.2011, 13.08.2012, 04.10.2012, 14.12.2012,
07.02.2013, 11.04.2013, 13.06.2013, 08.08.2013, 07.10.2013,
24.12.2013, 11.02.2014, 10.04.2014, 07.05.2014 and 21.07.2014
were fixed for arguments; but the parties refrained from
arguing their case. Accordingly, the case was reserved
for award, keeping in view the reluctance of the parties
and long pendency of the case since year 2006. .
7.
I have gone through entire evidence available on
record.
8.
The workman has pleaded that he has been engaged
as Casual Programme Staff by the opposite party on
11.04.1986 and worked as such till 21.07.2001 regularly
when his services have been terminated by the opposite
party without assigning any rhyme or reason or any notice
pay or any notice pay in lieu thereof in contravention to
the provisions contained in the Section 25 F of the I.D.
Act. He has also pleaded that when he was in service the
management devised a scheme for regularizing the casual
artists, vide dated 09.06.92 and thereafter modified scheme
vide dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94, who worked as casual
artists with the opposite party as on 31.12.1991; but the
management did not regularize his services in spite of the
fact that he was fully eligible within the terms and
conditions of the said regularization schemes. The
workman has taken stand that the management did not
extend the benefits of the regularization to him taking
excuse that he was over age; but he was well under age
when joined the opposite party and also after giving him
age relaxation as provided in the regularization scheme
his services would have regularized. It is also the case of
the workman that the management was required to
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6041
regularized the seniors first and for this the management
was ought to maintain seniority list/muster roll as
envisaged under the provisions contained in the Section
25 D of the Act; but the management not only failed to
comply with the provisions of the Section 25 D of the Act;
but also regularized many juniors viz. Shri Umesh Chandra
Mihra, Mo. Nasir, Rakesh Kumar Kukreti, Ramesh Chandra
Shukla, Mueen Ansari, Sishir Kumar Singh, Atul Mishra,
Smt. Rekha Gupta, Smt. Seem Kazmi and Anjali Dixit,
ignoring the workman.
9.
Per contra, the management’s case is that the
workman was never appointed by it; rather he was engaged
by the management to perform the work of casual nature
as and when required, in short spells. His engagement
ended with the end of work/engagement period; therefore,
there is no question of terminating his services at any
point of time. It was further pleaded that the case of the
workman was considered for regularization, within the
terms and conditions provided under the regularization
schemes dated 09.06.92, 17.03.94 and 05.07.94; but he could
not qualify for the same, even after giving him permissible
age relaxation.
10.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival pleadings of the parties.
11.
In the present case, admittedly, there was no regular
appointment of the workman and he was engaged by the
opposite party management on casual basis to work as
Casual Programme Staff for specified time period on fixed
payment. He was also given breaks and or his engagement
used to come to an end with the end of the specified work/
period. Moreover, the workman has not turned to
substantiate his pleading by way of oral evidence; rather
the management has well proved its pledings by the way
of oral evidence.
12.
It has come into the pleadings and evidence of the
management that in pursuance to the directions of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi vide their order dated 14.02.92 in O.A. No. 563/86
between Anil Kumar Mathur vs Union of India, a scheme
for regularization of casual artists in Doordarshan was
launched vide Office Memorandum dated 09.06.1992,
which was further modified vide office memorandum dated
17.03.94 and 05.07.94. All the Casual Artists who were
employed on casual basis on 31.12.1991, including those
who were on the rolls of the Doordarshan, though they
may not be in services at that time were eligible for
consideration. In this regard the workman’s case is that
the management regularized other juniors, sparing him in
spite of the fact that he fulfilled the eligibility criteria of the
scheme; and in rebuttal the management witness has stated
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.03.2002
in Civil Appeal No. 1122-1136 directed the management to
decide the cases of the casual artists in accordance with
the regularization scheme dated 09.06.92 and thereafter
modified scheme vide dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94. The
workman was a party in the said SLP; and accordingly, his
case was taken up by the management in terms of scheme
dated 09.06.92; but he was not found eligible for
regularization even after giving him age relaxation.
13.
The workman in his pleadings has relied on order of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1122-1136 of
1999 between Union of India & Others vs. Rakesh Kumar
Kukreti & Others; wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed that the question s raised in the appeals are
squarely covered by a decision of the Court in Director,
Doordarshan Kendera, Trivandrum and Others vs.
S. Kuttan Pillai and others (1998) 8 SCC 736. Hon’ble Apex
Court in Kuttan Pillai case, while deciding the case, where
norms for relaxation of age for the purpose of regularization
and for the purpose of recruitment were different in respect
of respondent Floor Assistants engaged on casual basis
in the Doordarhsan Kendra, Trivandrum seeking
regularization, held that the relaxation in age could be
granted to the respondents only in accordance with the
scheme notified by the OM dated 09.06.1992 as modified
by OMs dated 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994.
14.
Thus, the point for consideration is whether the
workman was eligible for regularization in terms of the
regularization scheme dated 09.06.92 ad thereafter modified
vide dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94. For apt appreciation of
the case of the workman regularization on merit it would
be necessary to quote the salient features of the relevant
regularization schemes dated 09.06.92, 17.03.94 and
05.07.94.
“No. 1516/2(3)
Dated: 09.06.1992
Office Memorandum
Subject :
Scheme for Regularization of Casual Artists in
Doordarshan.
Annexure to the above OM.
Scheme for regularization of casual erstwhile staff
Artists in Doordarshan as per the judgment in OA No.
563/86, dated 14.2.1992 in M/s Anil Kumar Mathur vs UoI
case.
1.
This scheme would be applicable to all those Casual
Artists who were employed on Casual basis on
31.12.1991 including those who were on the rolls of
the Doordarshan, though they may not be in
services now will be eligible for consideration.
Those who are engaged on casual basis after
31.12.1991 will not be eligible for consideration.
2.
Only those Casual who had been engaged for an
aggregate period of 120 days in a year (calendar
year) will be eligible for regularization. The broken
period in between the engagement and
disengagement will be ignored for the purpose. The
number of days is to be computed on the basis of
6042
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
actual working days in the muster rolls or attendance
sheets or Q-sheets.
3.
Separate eligibility panels will be prepared for each
category of posts, Kendra-wise, depending upon
the length of service of Casual Artists. They will be
considered for regularization in the order of their
seniority against the available vacancies in that
particular Kendra. The seniority will be determined
from the date of their initial engagement by the
Kendra.
4.
The persons who are in the eligibility panel of one
Kendra will have no right for claiming regularization
in another Kendra as these are generally Group ‘C’
posts and selection is made Kendra-wise.
5.
The Casual Artists who are to be regularized should
possess the requisite educational qualification and/
or experience as stipulated in the Recruitment Rules
of other administrative instructions (in the absence
f Recruitment Rules) existing for the post when the
casual worker was initially engaged.
6.
The upper age limit would be relaxed to that extent
of service rendered by the Casual Artists at the time
of regularization. A minimum of 120 days service in
the aggregate, in one year, shall be treated as one
year’s service rendered for this purpose. The service
rendered for less than 120 days in a year will not
qualify for age relaxation.
7.
The regularization of Casual Artists would be from
prospective date and the Casual Artists on the
eligibility panel who fail to qualify for regularization
in accordance with the recruitment rules and
instructions issued there under for the post, shall
be removed from the panel.
8.
If a Casual Artist on an eligibility panel commits a
misconduct and the same is ………………………
would not be eligible for regularization.
9.
Till all the Casual Artists ………………..no panel of
eligible Casual Artists.”
“No. 2(J)/-S.1
Dated: 17.03.1994
Office Memorandum
Subject :
Scheme for regularization of Casual Artists in
Doordarshan
The undersigned is directed to invite attention
to DG:D O.M. of even number dated 09.06.92 on the above
subject, with which a copy of the scheme for regularization
of Casual Artists of Doordarshan was circulated.
According to condition in para 2 of the scheme, the number
of days for the purpose of regularization is to be computed
on the basis of actual working days in the Muster Rolls or
Attendance Sheets or ‘Q’ sheets.
2.
It has been brought to the notice of this Directorate
that although these Casual Staff Artists were
engaged for 10 days or have been working on 2-3
assignments in a month on a consolidated amount
of Rs. 400-500 per assignment, but in actual practice,
they have been working throughout the month. This
aspect has been examined by the Directorate in
consultation with Ministry of I&B and procedure to
be followed for arriving at the number of days of
casual working will be as under.
3.
The number of days for the purpose of regularization
will be computed on the basis of actual wages given
to the prevalent in the State during the relevant time
of working. For example, if a Casual Staff Artist has
been paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 1500 in a month
whether for working for 10 days or for 2-3
assignments in a month and the minimum wage
prevalent in the State at the relevant time was Rs.
50, the staff artists would be deemed to have worked
for 30 days in a month (i.e. Rs. 1500 divided by 50)
subject to the condition that the days so computed
would not exceed 25 days in a month.
4.
It has also been noticed that certain staff artists
were engaged initially when they were over-age
according to the Recruitment Rules. All such cases,
with the number of days they worked on casual basis
according to the formula laid down in Para 3, should
be referred to the Directorate for taking a decision
on merit.”
“No. 4(1)/94-S.I.
Dated: 05.07.94
Office Memorandum
Subject :
Regularization of Casual Artists as per revised
Scheme dtd.13.-.94
The attention of all Doordarshan Kendras is invited
to this Directorate’s Memo No. 2(3)/86-S.I., dated
17.03.1994, copy enclosed, on the above subject. Various
Doordarsan Kendras have sought certain clarifications
on a number of points in regard to Revised Scheme, these
points are clarified as under:-
(a)
Kendras are competent to prepare the eligibility list
of Casual Artist in accordance with Para 3 of the
Revised Scheme and regularize them against
available vacancies in their respective category on
the basis of seniority.
(b)
………………….
(c)
The crucial date for the purpose of calculation of
age is the same as in 1992 Scheme, i.e. 09.06.92 and
there is no change in it.
(d)
For the purpose of age relaxation, the number of
days engagement should be taken into account up
to 09.06.92. The period of engagement, if any, beyond
09.06.92 in the year 1992 should not be counted for
the purpose of age relaxation.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6043
(e)
Casual Artists who have worked for 120 days in any
calendar year as per revised scheme too up to the
period ending on 31st December, 1991 should be
considered for regularization. The casuals who have
completed 120 days after 31.12.1991 are not currently
counted for regularization.
(f)
………….
(g)
…………
(h)
The rates of wages prevalent by the State
Government from time to time by way of minimum
wage Act in which Kendra concerned falls, are to be
taken for calculation of number of days of Casual
Artists at that Kendra. The total amount paid to an
individual Casual Artist during the month are to be
divided by per day rate of payment of minimum wage
for calculation of number of days in a month. The
classification in different scales of pay/fee in Group
‘C’ and ‘D’ etc. is not required. The maximum number
of days so calculated should be restricted to 25 days
in a month.
(i)
…………..
(j)
Where the minimum wage Act prior to 01.05.1989 are
not prescribed and available, the computation of
number of days should be done by the following
formula:-
Total amount paid during the month/30 = Amount
for one day.
The maximum number of days so arrived at should
be restricted to 25 days in a month only.”
A bare perusal of the above office memorandums
shows that the benefit of the regularization scheme dated
09.06.92 was available to those casual artists who were
employed on casual basis as on 31.12.1991 and were
engaged for an aggregate period of 120 days in a calendar
year. Also, the casual artist should have been in
possession of requisite education qualification and
experience. Also, they should have been within the upper
age limit, which was relaxable to the extent of services
rendered by the casual Artist at the time of relaxation i.e.
on 31.12.1991. However, the modifications to the scheme
dated 09.06.92 were issued vide scheme dated 17.03.94
and 05.07.1994; but the crucial date for eligibility and for
the purpose of calculation of age and age relaxation etc.
remained same as that in the scheme dated 09.06.92.
15.
Now, entering into the merit of the case, the matter
has to be examined as to whether the workman was eligible
for regularization within the terms and conditions of the
above quoted schemes. In this regard the case of the
workman is that he was engaged on 11.04.1986 as Casual
Programme Staff, when he was well within the age as
prescribed in the Rules. He has filed photocopy of his
matriculation certificate wherein his dated of birth is
mentioned as 10.07.58. He has also filed photocopy of
advertisement seeking application for the post of
Production Assistant; wherein the prescribed age limit for
the post has been mentioned as 21-30 years. Therefore, it
comes out that when the workman was engaged initially
he was well within the prescribed age for the post; but
when the scheme for regularization dated 09.06.92 came
into force he had become over age on the crucial date of
eligibility i.e. on 31.12.91 when he was approximately of
33 years and 05 months’ age. Moreover, it is the case of
the management that the case of the workman was
considered within the terms of scheme dated 09.06.92,
17.03.94 and 05.07.94; but he could not get the benefit of
regularization being overage by 11 months and 08 days.
In this connection, it is pertinent to mention here that as
per age relaxation clause provided in the scheme, a casual
artist can get age relaxation with respect to the upper age
limit, to the extent of services rendered by him at the time
of regularization. As per scheme, for upper age relaxation,
a minimum of 120 days service in the aggregate, in one
year, was required to be treated as one year’s service
rendered for this purpose, service rendered for less than
120 days in a year were not be considered for age
relaxation. The workman has alleged that the management
did not give any weightage for the services rendered by
him for considering age relaxation, which resulted into his
disqualification for the regularization. In this respect, the
management of the Doordarshan in its evidence has stated
that the workman was provided age relaxation of three
years even then he could not qualify the terms of
regularization being over age.
16.
The workman in his pleadings, pleaded that he was
within the age limit when initially engaged; but got over
age during his engagement. He has further pleaded that
had he been given age relaxation, he would have come
within the ambit of the regularization scheme. This
pleading of the workman has been denied by the
management through pleadings as well as in its evidence
with specific statement that the workman was given three
years’ age relaxation since he had completed 120 days in
the year 1987, 1988 & 1989; even then he failed to qualify
for regularization as per regularization schemes. As per
settled law, the initial burden was on the workman to prove
before this Tribunal that he was eligible for age relaxation
and for this he was required to prove, through cogent
evidence, that he actually worked for 120 days in aggregate
in a calendar year for seeking age relaxation in order to
come within the purview of terms of regularization scheme.
In this regard it is noteworthy to mention that from
the advertisement of the post it is clear that the prescribed
upper age limit for the post is 30 years and as per
matriculation certificate, filed by the workman, his date of
birth is 10.07.1958, which goes to show that his age on the
cutoff date as per regularization scheme i.e. 31.12.1991
was 33 years and 05 months. Therefore, it is apparent that
6044
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the workman was over age by 03 years and 05 months
only. Also, as per pleadings and statement of the
management witness, the workman was permitted 03 years
age relaxation as he worked for 120 days in the years 1987,
1988 & 1989. As per OM dated 05.07.94. Thus, it comes
out that the workman fell short of relaxation for 09 months
only.
17.Admittedly, the workman worked with the
management, intermittently; but the workman has neither
given any detail for his working nor any reliable proof for
payments made to him during different calendar years of
engagement as contended by him. He has even not turned
up to substantiate his pleading by oral evidence. For
calculating 120 days working a formula has been
enumerated in the scheme dated 17.03.1994 vide para 03
as under:
“3.The number of days for the purpose of
regularization will be computed on the basis of actual
wages given to the prevalent in the State during the
relevant time of working. For example, if a Casual
Staff Artist has been paid an aggregate sum of
Rs. 1500 in a month whether for working for 10 days
or for 2-3 assignments in a month and the minimum
wage prevalent in the State at the relevant time was
Rs. 50, the staff artists would be deemed to have
worked for 30 days in a month (i.e. Rs. 1500 divided
by 50) subject to the condition that the days so
computed would not exceed 25 days in a month.
The above method of calculating the working days
is based on the monthly payment made to a casual artist
divided by minimum wages prevalent in the State at the
relevant time. The workman has not provided the details
of his working days or monthly payment made to him by
the management. He has not even tried to summon the
relevant documents from the management i.e. engagement
letters, payment slips or vouchers or attendance sheets or
‘Q’ Sheets as envisaged in the scheme itself. Since the
workman has not filed any details regarding the payments
received by him in different years of his engagement it is
not possible to calculate the number of working days in a
calendar year to grant age relaxation to the workman.
Moreover, the workman has not entered the witness box
to corroborate his pleadings before this Tribunal.
Per contra, the case of the management is quite clear
in this regard; whereby it has pleaded in para 04 of its
written statement that the services of the workman were
obtained in different spells as per details given hereunder:
Year
No. of days worked
1986
114
1987
206 days
1988
193 days
1989
212 days
From perusal of the above working details given by
the management, it comes out that the management has
granted three years’ age relaxation in terms of scheme for
regularization. Hence, in view of the specific pleading and
evidence of the management, regarding working of the
workman, which makes him entitled for age relaxation for
only three years, it was incumbent upon the workman to
prove, through cogent evidence that he actually worked
for 120 days in successive years of his engagement to
grant him further age relaxation as proved in the schemes
dated 09.06.92 specifically the scheme dated 17.03.94.
The workman utterly failed to establish that he
actually worked for 120 days in aggregate in more than
three calendar years to give him benefit of age relaxation
as per scheme dated 09.06.92, he even did not turn up to
corroborate his pleadings by the way of his oral evidence;
and in the absence of any proof it is hard to carve any
finding that the workman was entitled for regularization in
terms of scheme dated 17.03.94, after giving age relaxation
of approximately more than three years.
18. As regard termination of the workman on
21.07.2001, the management has pleaded that the workman
was never appointed by the opposite party; rather he was
engaged for short spells on casual basis as and when
required by it. This fact is admitted by the workman in
pleadings. Moreover, the workman himself has filed offer
letters which goes to show that he was engaged by the
management for specified time, therefore, the end of
engagement on completion of task or engagement does
not amount to termination of services.
19. The workman pleaded that the management has
terminated his services without complying with the
provisions of Section 25 F of the Act. In this regard the
burden lies upon the workman to prove that he has worked
for 240 days in preceding one years from the date of alleged
termination as per provision of the Act and as per law laid
down in 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) Surenderanagar
Panchayat and another v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai ; wherein
Hon’ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that where
the workman failed to prove that he had been in
employment with the employer for a period of 240 days
uninterruptedly, he is not entitled to the protection, in
compliance of section 25 – F of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that
the scope of the enquiry before the Labour Court was
confined only to 12 months preceding the date of
termination to decide the question of the continuous
service for the purpose of section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed as under:
“The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not
produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary
or wages for 240 days or record of his appointment
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6045
or engagement for that year to show that he has
worked with the employer for 240 days to get the
benefit under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act. It is now well settled that it is for the claimant
to lead evidence to show that he in fact worked for
240 days in a year preceding his termination.”
Therefore, in view of the above referred case law, in
order to take any relief for non-compliance of mandatory
provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Act, it is
necessary for the claimant to lead evidence to the effect
that he was actually in employment of the opposite party
for 240 days in the year preceding his termination and he
was actually paid for it. In the instant case although there
is pleading that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act,
have not been complied with, there is no piece of evidence
either documentary or oral to show that the workman
worked for 240 days with the management of Doordarshan
in twelve calendar months preceding the date of
termination. It is pertinent to mention here that the
workman has failed to substantiate this fact that the
workman worked for 240 days in a year preceding the date
of termination.
20.
Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the
case and the case laws laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, I am of the considered opinion that the workman’s
claim for regularization in the services of the Doordarshan,
is not sustainable in the eye of law being beyond the
ambit of regularization schemes dated 09.06.1992 and the
modified schemes dated 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994.
Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against the
workman, Saleem Ahmad; as such he is not entitled for
any relief.
21.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW
11th August, 2014
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2387-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk lc
fMfotuy viQlj] VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] xqjnkliqj 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 ,oa
Je U;k;ky;&2 paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 675@2005 vkSj
676@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
22@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@132@96&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
¹la- ,y&40012@135@96&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 27th August, 2014
S.O.
2387.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 675/
2005 & 676/2005) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh now as shown
in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of Sub-Divisional
Officer, Telecommunication, Gurudaspur and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 22/8/2014.
[No. L-40012/132/96-IR(DU)]
[No. L-40012/135/96-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present : SRI A. K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer
1.
Case No. I.D. 675/2005
Registered on 25.8.2005
Shri Radha Kishan, C/o General Secretary,
P.S.E.B Workers Union, 280,
Ludhiana Mohala, Dhariwal-143519,
Distt. Gurdaspur (Pb.).
2.
Case No. I.D. 676/2005
Registered on 25.8.2005
Sh. Sulakhan Chand C/o General Secretary,
P.S.E.B Workers Union,
280, Ludhiana Mohala,
Dhariwal-143519,
Distt. Gurdaspur (Pb.)
...Petitioners
Versus
The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Telecommunication,
Gurdaspur (Pb).
...Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
:
Sh. Sardool Singh Sarai.
For the Management
:
Sh. G.C. Babbar Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on 10-10-2012
Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/
135/96- IR(DU) and No.L-40012/132/96-IR(DU) both Dated
16.4.1998, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub
section (1) Clause (d) and Sub section (2-A) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has
referred the following Industrial Disputes for adjudication
to this Tribunal:-
6046
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ID No. 675/2005
“Whether the action of the management of
Telephone Department in terminating the services
of Sh. Radha Kishan Son of Sh. Bishamtar Dass
w.e.f. 31.3.1992 is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
ID No. 676/2005
“Whether the action of the management of
Telephone Department in terminating the services
of Sh. Sulakhan Chand Son of Sh. Taggu Ram w.e.f.
from 13.2.1989 is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
Since in both the cases a common question of law
and fact is involved hence, they are being decided by this
common award.
According to the claimants workman Radha Kishan
remained in the employment of the management from
1.2.1987 to 31.3.1992 and Sulakhan Chand from 1.3.1986 to
13.2.1989. There services were terminated without notice,
charge-sheet and inquiry etc. and while terminating their
services junior were retained and new hands were engaged
subsequently. They have claimed their reinstatement with
continuity of service and full back wages.
The claims were contested by the management.
According to the written statements the workman Radha
Krishan worked from 9.10.1987 to 31.1.1989 for 74 days
and left the job of his own w.e.f. 1.2.1989. While Sulakhan
Chand worked intermittently from 15.3.1986 to 31.1.1989
for 278 days. The details of working days of both the
workmen have been submitted as Annexure R2 of the
written statements. According to the management the
appointment of the workmen was need based and they
were casual mazdoors on muster roll. They remained absent
for about 7 years after their leaving job and there is no
explanation for filing the claim belatedly. The claims are
time-barred. There is ban on engagement of casual
labourers, hence, the claimants have no case for
reinstatement.
Workmen filed replications in their respective cases
but nothing new was said.
In support of their cases workmen examined
themselves and one Ashwani Kumar of the Department as
their witness in both the cases. On behalf of the
management K.K. Gulati the then SDO(T) Gurdaspur was
examined. The parties relied on certain papers also which
will be referred at proper place.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the evidence on record.
It is nobody’s case that services were terminated as
a punishment. No charge-sheet or enquiry therefore was
needed in the cases. Termination of service, for any reason
whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by
way of disciplinary action is retrenchment. Retrenchment
in violation of Section 25 of the Act is invalid and to avail
the protection of the said provision a workman should
have completed one year’s continuous service. The
workmen in the present cases have not even pleaded that
they have completed one year’s continuous service before
their alleged termination. Hence there is no case of illegal
termination.
The learned counsel for the workmen argued that
the department did not produce the muster roll on the
ground of being not traceable. In both the cases the
Department has filed letters in this regard. The learned
counsel argued that a presumption should be drawn
against the Department. But the question is whether have
the workmen alleged to have completed 1 year’s
continuous service, for availing the protection of Section
25-F of the Act? Against it workmen Radha Krishan in his
statement has admitted that from 1.3.1988 to 19.2.1989 he
worked only for 169 days while according to the statement
of Sulakhan Chand (workman) he worked for 119 days
from 1.3.1988 to 19.2.1989. Thus none completed 240 days’
service within one year preceding to the date of their
termination. It may be mentioned that according to the
management the workmen left the job of their own.
Management-witness has deposed about it.
The workmen therefore failed to prove their illegal
termination. They have therefore no case.
On the basis of the above going discussion the
reference in ID No.675/2005 Radha Kishan and No.676/
2005 Sulakhan Chand are decided against the workmen.
Their services were not terminated by the management.
They left the job of their own and they are not entitled to
any relief. Let two copies of each award be sent to Central
Government for further necessary action and one copy
each be placed on the record of ID No.675/2005 and ID
No.676/2005.
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2388-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
,uVhihlh fyfeVsM vkSj vU; 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 266@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@162@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
6047
New Delhi, the 27th August, 2014
S.O.
2388.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 266/
2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum
Labour Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of NTPC Ltd. & Others and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 22/8/2014.
[No. L-42011/162/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 266 of 2013.
Reference No. L-42011/162/2013-IR(DU)
Dated : 05/03/.2014
Shri Brij Lal S/o Shri Tulsi Ram
C/o Sunder Singh Sippi (AR),
House No. 100/3, Raoura,
Sector-2, Bilaspur (H.P.)
.....Workman
Versus
1.
The Chief Manager, NTPC,
Kol Dam, Office Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Manager, Utility Power Tech. Limited,
A-6, NTPC Colony Jamthal,
P. O. Jamthal Distt.- Bilaspur, (H.P.)
3.
The President,
M/s. Koldam Oastees Cooperative Shramik &
Nirman and Supply Society Limited Kasol,
P. O. Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, Bilaspur
...Respondents.
Appearances :
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management
: Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Vineet Kumar
AWARD
Passed On:-5.8.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-42011/162/2013-IR(DU) dated 05/03/2014
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
Term of Reference:
“Whether the action of the management NTPC-
Koldam/Powertech Limited M/s Koldam Oastees Co-
operative Sharmik and Nirman and Supply Society
Ltd. In terminating the services of Sh. Brij Lal, Ex-
Helper (Daily Wage basis) w.e.f. 16-06-09 without
any notice and without any payment of retrenchment
compensation is just, valid and legal? If not, to
what relief the workman are entitled for and what
directions are necessary in the matter?”
2.
Case repeatedly called. Despite repeated
opportunities, none appeared for the workman nor has
any claim statement been filed. Representatives of the
respondents are present. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of
the above the present is disposed off and answered against
the workman as no claim has been lodged on behalf of the
workman.
3.
Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt.
be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
5.8.2014
S. P. SINGH, 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.