foÙk ea=kky;

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

(lrdZrk vuqHkkx)

ubZ fnYYkh] 15 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2601.—fo'ks"k U;k;ky; (izfrHkwfr laO;ogkj vijk/

fopkj.k) vf/fu;e] 1992 dh /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (i) }kjk

iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]

Jh lat; 'kksjs] vkbZlh,y,l (1997) dk dsUæh; LVk¯iQx ;kstuk

ds varxZr foÙk ea=kky;] ubZ fnYyh ds v/hu vfHkj{kd dk

dk;kZy;] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx esa 3-9-2014 ds (vijkg~u) ls

mudh dsUæh; izfrfu;qfDr dh 'ks"k vof/ vFkkZr~ 2-12-2018 rd

ds fy, ;k vfHkj{kd ds dk;kZy; dks can fd, tkus rd ;k vxys

vkns'k rd] tks Hkh igys gks] 37400—67000 #- ds osrueku $

xzsM osru 8700 #- esa funs'kd ds in ij fu;qDr djrh gS A

[la- 21@3@2006&lrdZrk (Hkkx&II)]

e`R;qat; ¯lg] voj lfpo

3781 GI/2014

(6569)

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- 40]

ubZ fnYyh, flrEcj 28—vDrwcj 4] 2014] 'kfuokj@vkf'ou 6—vkf'ou 12] 1936

No. 40]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 28—OCTOBER 4, 2014, SATURDAY/ASVINA 6—ASVINA 12, 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 FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

(VIGILANCE SECTION)

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2014

S.O. 2601.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (i) of Section 3 of the Special Court (Trial of

Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992,

the Central Government hereby appoints Sh. Sanjay Shorey,

ICLS (1997) as Director in the pay scale of Rs. 37400—

67000 + Grade Pay of Rs. 8700 w.e.f. 3.9.2014 (A/N) in the

Office of the Custodian, Department of Financial Services

under the Ministry of Finance, New Delhi under the Central

Staffing Scheme for the balance period of his Central

deputation i.e. up to 2.12.2018 or till the office of Custodian

is wound up or until further orders, whichever event takes

place earlier.

[No. 21/3/2006-Vig. (Part-II)]

MRITUNJAY SINGH, Under Secy.

6570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr dk dk;kZy;] jktLFkku

t;iqj] 22 flrEcj] 2014

(la- 11@2014&15)

dk-vk- 2602-—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 (23 lh) dh mi/kjk (vi) ds }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] jkTkLFkku]

t;iqj ,rn~okjk fu/kZj.k o"kZ 2013&14 ,oa vkxs ds fy, dfFkr

èkkjk ds mn~ns'; ls ¶eS- ,u- ,e- f'k{kk lfefr] 236&237] tloUr

uxj] [kkrhiqjk] t;iqj¸ dks Lohd`fr nsrs gSaA

2- c'krsZ 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

(23 lh) dh mi/kjk (vi) ds izko/kuksa ds vuq:i dk;Z djsA

¹Øekad% izeqvkvk@vkv(rd-)@t;@10(23lh) (vi)@2014&15@3980]

LorU=k oqQekj] iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr

OFFICE OF THE PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX, RAJASTHAN

Jaipur, the 22nd September, 2014

(No. 11/2014-15)

S.O. 2602.—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 with rule 2CA of the Income-

tax Rules 1962, the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax,

Rajasthan, Jaipur hereby approves “M/s. N.M. Shiksha

Samiti, 236-237 Jaswanta Nagar, Khatipura, 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 Section

10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 2CA of the

Income-tax Rules, 1962.

[No. PCCIT/JPR/ITO(Tech.)/10(23C)(vi)/2014-15/3980]

SWATANTRA KUMAR, Pr. Chief Commissioner of

Income Tax

t;iqj] 22 flrEcj] 2014

(la- 12@2014&15)

dk-vk- 2603-—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 (23 lh) dh mi/kjk (vi) ds }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] jkTkLFkku]

t;iqj ,rn~okjk fu/kZj.k o"kZ 2013&14 ,oa vkxs ds fy, dfFkr

èkkjk ds mn~ns'; ls ¶eS- Jh fouk;d fe'ku esfMdy ,.M ,stwds'ku

lkslk;Vh] 1] egkohj uxj] ¶A¸] eqgkuk jksM] ekuljksoj] t;iqj¸

dks Lohd`fr nsrs gSaA

2- c'krsZ 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

(23 lh) dh mi/kjk (vi) ds izko/kuksa ds vuq:i dk;Z djsA

¹Øekad% izeqvkvk@vkv(rd-)@t;@10(23lh) (vi)@2014&15@3981]

LorU=k oqQekj] iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr

Jaipur, the 22nd September, 2014

(No. 12/2014-15)

S.O. 2603.—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 with rule 2CA of the Income-

tax Rules 1962, the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax,

Rajasthan, Jaipur hereby approves “M/s. Shri Vinayaka

Mission Medical and Education Society, 1, Mahaveer

Nagar, “A”, Muhana Road, Mansarover, 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 Section

10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 2CA of the

Income-tax Rules, 1962.

[No. PCCIT/JPR/ITO(Tech.)/10(23C)(vi)/2014-15/3981]

SWATANTRA KUMAR, Pr. Chief Commissioner of

Income Tax

t;iqj] 22 flrEcj] 2014

(la- 13@2014&15)

dk-vk- 2604-—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 (23 lh) dh mi/kjk (vi) ds }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] jkTkLFkku]

t;iqj ,rn~okjk fu/kZj.k o"kZ 2013&14 ,oa vkxs ds fy, dfFkr

èkkjk ds mn~ns'; ls ¶eS- ts- ds- y{ehir ;qfuo£lVh] ykfy;k dk

okl] ih-vks- egkiqjk] vtesj jksM] t;iqj¸ dks Lohd`fr nsrs gSaA

2- c'krsZ 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

(23 lh) dh mi/kjk (vi) ds izko/kuksa ds vuq:i dk;Z djsA

¹Øekad% izeqvkvk@vkv(rd-)@t;@10(23lh) (vi)@2014&15@3982]

LorU=k oqQekj] iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr

Jaipur, the 22nd September, 2014

(No. 13/2014-15)

S.O. 2604.—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 with rule 2CA of the Income-

tax Rules 1962, the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax,

Rajasthan, Jaipur hereby approves “M/s. J. K. Lakshmipat

University, Laliya Ka Vas, P.O. Mahapura, Ajmer Road,

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 Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with

Rule 2CA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

[No. PCCIT/JPR/ITO(Tech.)/10(23C)(vi)/2014-15/3982]

SWATANTRA KUMAR, Pr. Chief Commissioner of

Income Tax

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6571

t;iqj] 22 flrEcj] 2014

(la- 14@2014&15)

dk-vk- 2605-—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 (23 lh) dh mi/kjk (vi) ds }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] jkTkLFkku]

t;iqj ,rn~okjk fu/kZj.k o"kZ 2013&14 ,oa vkxs ds fy, dfFkr

èkkjk ds mn~ns'; ls ¶eS- chVyl bUVjus'kuy Ldwy] gSosUl xkMZu ds

ikl] lwesy jksM] vkxjk jksM] t;iqj eksrhjkt ,stwds'ku ,.M

oSyisQ;j lkslk;Vh }kjk lapkfyr¸ dks Lohd`fr nsrs gSaA

2- c'krsZ 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

(23 lh) dh mi/kjk (vi) ds izko/kuksa ds vuq:i dk;Z djsA

¹Øekad% izeqvkvk@vkv(rd-)@t;@10(23lh) (vi)@2014&15@3983]

LorU=k oqQekj] iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr

Jaipur, the 22nd September, 2014

(No. 14/2014-15)

S.O. 2605 .—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 with rule 2CA of the Income-

tax Rules 1962, the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax,

Rajasthan, Jaipur hereby approves “M/s. Beetle’s

International School, Near Heavens Garden, Sumel Road,

Agra Road, Jaipur run by Motiraj Education and Welfare

Society” 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 Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with

Rule 2CA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

[No. PCCIT/JPR/ITO(Tech.)/10(23C)(vi)/2014-15/3983]

SWATANTRA KUMAR, Pr. Chief Commissioner of

Income Tax

t;iqj] 23 flrEcj] 2014

(la- 15@2014&15)

dk-vk- 2606-—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 (23 lh) dh mi/kjk (vi) ds }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] jkTkLFkku]

t;iqj ,rn~okjk fu/kZj.k o"kZ 2013&14 ,oa vkxs ds fy, dfFkr

èkkjk ds mn~ns'; ls ¶eS- lasaV esjhl dkWUosaV Ldwy] ykylksV jksM]

nkSlk fueZyk f'k{kk laLFkk }kjk lapkfyr¸ dks Lohd`fr nsrs gSaA

2- c'krsZ 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

(23 lh) dh mi/kjk (vi) ds izko/kuksa ds vuq:i dk;Z djsA

¹Øekad% izeqvkvk@vkv(rd-)@t;@10(23lh) (vi)@2014&15@3984]

LorU=k oqQekj] iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr

Jaipur, the 23rd September, 2014

(No. 15/2014-15)

S.O. 2606.—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 with rule 2CA of the Income-

tax Rules 1962, the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax,

Rajasthan, Jaipur hereby approves “M/s. St. Mary’s

Convent School, Lalsot Road, Dausa run by Nirmala

Shiksha Sanstha” 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 Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read

with Rule 2CA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

[No. PCCIT/JPR/ITO(Tech.)/10(23C)(vi)/2014-15/3984]

SWATANTRA KUMAR, Pr. Chief Commissioner of

Income Tax

eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr dk dk;kZy;] tks/iqj

tks/iqj] 23 flrEcj] 2014

(la- @ @2014&15)

dk-vk- 2607-—vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1961 (1961 dk 43

oka) dh /kjk 10(23 x) ds [k.M (via) ds lkFk ifBr vk;dj

fu;ekoyh 1962 ds fu;e 2 x , }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] tks/iqj ,rn~}kjk ¶eS- 'kkfUr

fudsru ,T;wds'kuy lkslk;Vh] okMZ ua- 20] lat; pkSd] rglhy

Hkknjk¸ dks mDr /kjk ds iz;kstukFkZ fu/kZj.k o"kZ 2013&14 ls vkxs

rd fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu vuqeksfnr djrs gSaA

1- dj fu/kZfjrh mldh vk; dk iz;ksx vFkok mldh vk;

dk iz;ksx djus ds fy, mldk lap;u iw.kZr% rFkk

vuU;r% mu mís';ksa ds fy, djsxk ftuds fy, bldh

LFkkiuk dh xbZ A dj fu/kZfjfr lkslkbZVh }kjk ,d izfrc¼rk

(vaMjVs¯dx) dh xbZ gS fd laLFkk dk dk;Z dsoy f'k{kk

izlkj gh gksxk o blds vykok laLFkk dksbZ dk;Z ugha

djsaxs A laLFkk dks ;g lqfuf'pr djuk gS fd nh xbZ

vaMjVs¯dx dk mYy?kau u gks A

2- dj fu/kZfjrh mi;qZDr dj fu/kZj.k o"kks± ls laxr iwoZorhZ

o"kks± dh fdlh Hkh vof/ ds nkSjku /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk

(5) esa fofu£n"V fdlh ,d vFkok ,d ls vf/d <ax

vFkok rjhdks ls fHkUUk rjhdksa ls mldh fuf/

(tsoj&tsokfgjkr] iQuhZpj vkfn ds :i esa izkIr rFkk

vuqjf{kr LoSfPNd va'knku ls fHkUu) dk fuos'k ugha

djsxk vFkok mls tek ugha djok ldsxk A

3- ;g vkns'k fdlh ,slh vk; ds laca/ esa ykxw ugha gksxk]

tks fd dkjksckj ls izkIr ykHk rFkk vfHkykHk gks tc rd

,slk dkjksckj mDr dj fu/kZfjrh ds mís';ksa dh izkfIr ds

fy, izklafxd ugha gks rFkk ,sls dkjksckj ds laca/ esa

vyx ls ys[kk iqfLrdk,a ugha j[kh tkrh gksa A

4- dj fu/kZfjrh vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1961 ds izko/kuksa ds

vuqlkj viuh vk; fooj.kh fu;fer :i ls vk;dj

izkf/dkjh ds le{k iQkby djsxk A

6572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5- fo?kVu dh fLFkfr esa bldh vfrfjDr jkf'k;ka vkSj

ifjlaifÙk;ka leku mís';ksa okys /ekZFkZ laxBu dks ns nh

tk,xh vkSj mldk dksbZ Hkh Hkkx laLFkku ds fdlh lnL;

dks ugha fn;k tk,xk A

6- vk;dj vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10 (23 x) (via) ds lkFk

ifBr 115[k[kx esa ijUrqd 15 dh 'krks± esa vuke nkuksa

ds laca/ esa ;g vuqeksnu ykxw ugha gksxkA

7- ;g vf/lwpuk rc rd tkjh jgsxh tc rd bls okil u

fy;k tk, A

¹la- eq-vk-vk-@vk-v-(rd-)@tks/-@2014&15@1949]

,y- vkj- ¯lg] eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX, JODHPUR

Jodhpur, the 23rd September, 2014

(No. / /2014-15)

S.O. 2607.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (vi) of Section 10(23C)(via) of the Income-tax Act,

1961 (43 of 1961) read with rule 2CA of the Income-tax

Rules 1962, I, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,

Jodhpur hereby approve “Shanti Niketan Educational

Society, Ward No. 20, Sanjay Chowk, Teh. Bhadra, Dist.

Hanumangarh,” for the purpose of the said section for the

assessment year 2013-14 onwards, subject to the following

conditions:-

1. The assessee will apply its income, or accumulate

for application wholly and exclusively to

educational purpose only. The Society shall have

to adhere to its under taking that the activities of

the Society shall be confined only to educational

purpose. The Institute shall do no other activity

except education.

2. the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds

(other than voluntary contribution received and

maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture etc.)

for any period during the previous years relevant

to the assessment years mentioned above

otherwise than in anyone or more of the forms or

modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11;

3. this order will not apply in relation to any income

being profits and gain of business, unless the

business is incidental to the attainment of the

objectives of the assessee and separate books

of accounts are maintained in respect of such

business;

4. the assessee will regularly file its return of income

before the income-tax authority in accordance

with the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961;

5. that in the event of dissolution, its surplus and

the assets will be given to a charitable

organization with similar objectives and no part

of the same will go to any of the members of the

Institution.

6. The approval will not apply in relation to

anonymous donations in terms of the fifteenth

proviso to section 10(23C)(via) r. w.s. 115 BBC of

the Act.

7. This notification will remain in force until it is

withdrawn.

[No. CCIT/ITO(Tech.)/Jod./2014-15/1949]

L. R. SINGH, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014

CORRIGENDUM

S.O.

2608.—In continuation to this Department’s

Notification No. U-12012/557/2014-ME(P.II) dated 1st July,

2014 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section

(2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act,

1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to

the said Act, Namely :—

The name of University may be read as follows:

“Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara, Bihar” instead

of “Veer Kunwar Singh University, Sasaram, Bihar”

[No. U-12012/557/2014/ME(P-II) ]

SUDHIR KUMAR, Under Secy.

ukxj foekuu ea=kky;

(,,vkbZ vuqHkkx)

ubZ fnYYkh] 30 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2609.—Hkkjrh; foekuiÙku izkf/dj.k vf/fu;e]

1994 (1994 dk 55) dh /kjk 3 ds rgr iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnz ljdkj] Jh v#.k dqekj] la;qDr lfpo] ukxj foekuu

ea=kky; dks Jh ,e- dUuu] vk£Fkd lykgdkj] ukxj foekuu

ea=kky; ds LFkku ij rRdky izHkko ls Hkkjrh; foekuiÙku

izkf/dj.k ds cksMZ esa va'kdkfyd lnL; ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS

[la- ,oh- 24015@5@2013&,,vkbZ]

lrh'k pUnz] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

(AAI Section)

New Delhi, the 30th September, 2014

S.O.

2609.—In exercise of the powers conferred

Under Section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act,

1994 (No. 55 of 1994), the Central Government hereby

appoints Sh. Arun Kumar, Joint Secretary in the Ministry

of Civil Aviation, as part-time Member on the Board of

Airports Authority of India vice Shri M. Kannan, Economic

Advisor, Ministry of Civil Aviation, with immediate effect.

[No. AV. 24015/5/2013-AAI]

SATISH CHANDER, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6573

Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYYkh] 26 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2610-—dsUæh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

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

èkkjk 88 n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjr gSoh IysV~l

,.M oslsYl fyfeVsM] fo'kk[kkiVue ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds

fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/fu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh

gSA ;g NwV] vf/lwpuk tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/

ds fy, ykxw jgsxh A

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu gS_ vFkkZr~ %—

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

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

fn[kk;s tk;saxs_

(2) bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/fu;e ds

vèkhu ,slh izlqfo/k,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds

fy, os bl vf/lwpuk n~okjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Rr gksus

dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ lanRr va'knkuksa ds vk/kj ij gdnkj

gks tkrs gSa_

(3) NwV izkIr vof/ ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh

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

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

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/fu;e

(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vof/ dgk x;k

gS)izorZeku Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh

fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lkèkkj.k)

fofu;e] 1950 ds v/hu mls mDr vof/ dh ckcr

nsuh visf{kr gksrh Fkha_

(5) fuxe n~okjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e dh

/kjk 45 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu fu;qDr fd;k x;k

dksbZ lkekftd lqj{kk vf/dkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeRr

izkf/Ñr dksbZ vU; in/kjh_

(i) /kjk 44 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] mDr

vof/ dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh

fof'kf"V;ksa dks lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok

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

jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 n~okjk

;Fkk visf{kr jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/

ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k ugha_ ;k

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

fu;kstd n~okjk fn;s x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds

iQyLo:i bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu NwV nh tk

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

cuk gqvk gS ;k ugha_ ;k

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

vof/ ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/ esa

vf/fu;e ds miac/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha miacèkksa

dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k Fkk ugha] fuEufyf[kr

dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr gksxk%&

(d) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk

fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr

vf/dkjh ;k vU; in/kjh bl vf/fu;e

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

([k) ,sls iz/ku fu;kstd ds vf/Hkksxk/hu] fdlh

dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;Zky; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij izos'k djuk

vkSj mlds izHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk djuk fd

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

lank; ls lacaf/r ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj

vU; nLrkost] ,sls fujhf{kd ;k vU;

in/kjh ds le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh

ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls

os vko';d le>rs gSa_ ;k

(x) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds

vfHkdrkZ ;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh

O;fDr dks] tks ,sls dkj[kkusa] LFkkiuk]

dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa ik;k tk,]

;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k gS

fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k

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

ifjlj esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk]

cgh ;k vU; nLrkost dh udy rS;kj

djuk ;k m¼j.k ysuk_

(M-) ;Fkkfu/kZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

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

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

ljdkj dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA

[la[;k ,l&38014@7@2012&,l,l&I]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2014

S.O.

2610.—In exercise of the power conferred

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

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

Government hereby exempts the regular employees of

factories/establishments of Bharat Heavy Plates and

Vessels Limited, Visakhapatnam from the operation of

the said Act. The exemption shall be effective from the

date of issue of notification for a period of one year.

6574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely :—

(1)

The aforesaid establishments wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a

the exempted employees’;

(2)

Not withstanding this exemption, the employees

shall continue to receive such benefits under the

said Act to which they might have become

entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid

prior to the date from which exemption granted

by this notification operates;

(3)

The contributions for the exempted period, if

already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4)

The employer of the said factory/establishment

shall submit in respect of the period during

which that factory was subject to the operation

of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said

period), such returns in such forms and

containing such particulars as were due from it

in respect of the said period under the

Employees’ State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950;

(5)

Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under sub-section (1) of Section 45

of the said ESI Act or other official of the

Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,

for the purpose of :-

(i)

Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1) of

Section 44 for the said period; or

(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records

were maintained as required by the

Employees’ State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees

continue to be entitled to benefits provided

by the employer in cash and kind being

benefits in consideration of which

exemption is being granted under this

notification; or

(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions

of the Act had been complied with during

the period when such provisions were in

force in relation to the said factory to be

empowered to :

(a) require the principal or immediate

employer to him such information as

he may consider necessary for the

purpose of this Act; or

(b) at any reasonable time enter any

factory, establishment, office or other

premises occupied by such principal or

immediate employer at any reasonable

time and require any person found in

charge thereof to produce to such

inspector or other official and allow

him to examine accounts, books and

other documents relating to the

employment of personal and payment

of wages or to furnish to him such

information as he may consider

necessary; or

employer, his agent or servant, or any

person found in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises

or any person whom the said inspector

or other official has reasonable cause

to believe to have been an employee ;

(d) make copies of or take extracts from

any register, account book or other

document maintained in such

factory, establishment, office or other

premises,

(e) exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

(6)

In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically

cancelled and then the new entity will have to

approach the appropriate Government for

exemption.

[No. S-38014/7/2012-SS-I]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2611-—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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 281@2004)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-09-2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@284@99&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2014

S.O. 2611.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 281/

2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad 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 19.09.2014.

[No. L-12012/284/99-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6575

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 2nd June, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No-281/2004

Reference: (I.T.C) No-32/2000(old)

The Regional Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

Regional office, North Gujarat Zone,

Opp. Income Tax office, Ashram Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

...First Party

And

Their Workman

Smt. Jayaben Hasmukhlal Acharya

D/687/1, Priti Park,

Ambika Nagar, Odhav,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

....Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Kishor V. Gadhia,

Advocate

Shri Mahinder K. Patel,

Advocate

For the Second Party

Shri J.D. Chalishajar,

Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. 12012/284/99/IR(B-II) dated

28.02.2000, referred the dispute for adjudication to the

Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of

the matters specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bank

of Baroda in terminating/discontinuing Smt.

Jayaben Hasmukhlal Acharya, Part time Sweeper,

Odhav branch w.e.f. 30.06.1995 is legal and

justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman

is entitled to?”

The case of the workman as per statement of claim

(Ext.2) is that she had applied for part time Sweeper in

the Odhav branch of Bank of Baroda and the 1^st party

organisation accepted her application and she started

work as part time sweeper from 11.12.1989 and worked

up to 30.06.1995 and she was performing work of

sweeping etc. from 7:30 a.m. to 12 a.m. and she was

getting Rs. 175/- towards monthly wages. Her monthly

wages was raised to Rs. 325/- She worked in odhav

branch continuously for five years. Further case is that

she submitted application on 17.07.1995 to the 1^st party

organisation for regularisation of his service which was

received on 18.07.1995. She was doing work without

any complaint but she was not given appointment letter.

She was being given monthly wages through vouchers

she was demanding for regularisation in part time

sweeping job then she was terminated by oral order on

30.06.1995 without giving notice or one month notice

pay and retrenchment compensation and thus the 1^st

party management has contravened the provision of

Section 25F of the I.D. Act. On these grounds, prayer is

made that the action of oral termination from services

is illegal, unjustified and that she be reinstated as regular

Bank class (iv) staff and with full back wages and be

given all the benefit of regular sub staff and to grant

any other relief to which she is found entitle.

As against this the case of the 1^st party interalia as

per written statement (Ext.,9) is that the reference is not

maintainable and the workman has no valid cause of

action, and she (S.P.) is not workman as defined under

Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. The 1^st party has denied the

averments made in the statement of claim. It is the case

of the 1^st party that the 2^nd party Smt. Jayaben was

engaged at Odhav branch to sweep the premises of the

Bank as and when required for specific job and specific

work and for that she was being paid Rs. 175/- per

month. She used to work hardly two hours a day.

Earlier , the carpet area of Odhav branch for cleaning

purpose was 1200 sq. feet and in new premises where

the said Branch was shifted, the cleaning area is about

6600 sq. feet . Therefore as per norms of the Bank, the

full time sweeper Shri G.N. Patel was transferred from

Asarva Branch to Odhav Branch on 22.06.1995. The

2^nd party Smt. Jayaben was not appointed as per the

recruitment rules, she did not fulfill the criteria and

her name was not sponsored by the employment

Exchange for part time sweeper. She was not appointed

as per the recruitment rules of the bank. On these ground,

the prayer is to dismiss the reference since the 2^nd party

is not entitled to any relief.

In view of the pleadings of the parties, the following

issues are taken for determination:

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Whether the 2^nd party Smt. Jayaben has any

valid cause of action in this case?

(iii)

Whether there exists relation of master and

servant between the parties?

(iv)

Whether the 2^nd party Smt. Jayaben has put in

continuous part time service as claimed? Whether

she completed 240 days’ work in calendar year

preceding her oral termination/discontinuation

w.e.f. 30.06.1995?

6576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(v)

Whether the action of the management of Bank

of Baroda is legal and justified in terminating/

discontinuing Smt. Jayaben Hasmuklal Acharya

from part time sweeper work?

(vi)

Whether the 2^nd party is entitled to relief as

claimed?

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO.(iii) & (iv) : The 2 ^nd party has

submitted 12 documents as per list Ext.10. Ext.10/1 is

Xerox copy of S/B A/C pass book in the name of the

2^nd party Jayaben running in Odhav branch of Bank of

India having A/c No. 5402 opened on 03.02.1990. The

entries are from February 1990 and onward up to

09.07.1994. A perusal of entry go to show that monthly

wages of Rs. 175/- per month was being deposited in

her S/B pass book upto November,1992. Thereafter per

month salary was raised and from December 1992

monthly wages of Rs. 325/- was being deposited till the

last entry on 09.07.1994. So such pleading of the 2^nd

party is established that she was getting Rs. 175/- per

month for part time cleaning work of Bank carpet

area and that was raised to Rs. 325/- per month. The 1^st

party has not disputed that the 2^nd party was not working

as part time cleaner of bank premise of Odhav branch.

It has also not been disputed that her monthly wages

was raised from Rs. 175/- to 325/- . Ext.10/2 is Xerox

copy of filled up application form in the printed

application form of Bank of Baroda for lower grade post

other than clerk of the 2^nd party Smt. Jayaben dated

13.06.1994 applying for part time sweeper work at

Odhav Branch. Ext.10/3 is Xerox copy of application

dated 17.07.1995 of Smt. Jayaben addressed to Regional

Manager, Bank of Baroda, Ahmedabad City, Region-1 ,

Ahmedabad. On the subject of appointment as part time

sweeper works and its original copy was received with

seal of Bank on 18.07.1995. Likewise Ext.10/4 is Xerox

of her application dated 04.01.1996 . Ext. 10/5 is dated

24.05.1996 and Ext. 10/6 is her application dated

24.0.1996 to Regional Manager for part time

appointment as sweeper high lighting that she has

worked for more than 5 years as part time sweeper but

appointment letter was not given. Ext. 10/8 is her

application dated 20.01.1997 addressed to Regional

manager, BOB, Ahmedabad for appointing her as part

time sweeper in the bank incorporating her name, date

of birth and working as part time sweeper from

11.12.1989 to 30.06.1995 continuously at Odhav branch

of Bank of India. Ext.10/7 is Xerox copy of letter dated

02.08.1996 of senior Manager, Odhav Branch of Bank

of Baroda addressed to the Assistant General Manager,

BOB, ACH-1 on the subject request for employment in

the Bank as a part time sweeper by Mrs. Jayaben H.

Acharya. This letter corroborated statement of claim and

Ext. 10/1 in toto that she was engaged as a sweeper at

Odhav branch from 11.12.1989 to 30.06.1995, she was

paid from November1989 to February-1992 a

consolidated amount of Rs. 175/- per month and from

November-1992 to June-1995 she was paid Rs. 375/- per

month as advised vide your letter dated 24.12.1992. Ext.

10/9 is copy of demand notice given to the 1^st party by

Smt. Jayaben H. Acharya dated 27.08.1997. Ext. 10/10

is registration receipt and Ext. 10/11 is Xerox of

Acknowledgement in token of receiving demand notice

of (the 2^nd party) Smt. Jayaben by the 1 ^st party

(management). Ext. 10/12 is copy of letter of Asst.

General manager dated 07.07.1999 to A.L.C. (central)

Ahmedabad in connection with this industrial dispute

which was under conciliation.

The 2^nd party Smt. Jayaben H. Acharya in her oral

evidence (Ext.11) has supported her case in toto and stated

that she did part time sweeper job at Odhav branch of

bank of Baroda from 1989 to June 1995. Her such

evidence is corroborated by the 1^st party’s own

correspondence vide Ext.10/7 already discussed above.

It has only come in her cross examination by the 1^st

party’s lawyer that she was not given appointment letter.

But in cross examination the 1^st party has not gained any

thing to discredit her testimony of working as part time

sweeper at odhav branch of BOB from November 1989

to 30.06.1995. On the other hand, the 1^st party through

oral evidence of its witness Thakorlal Jamnadas Shah

(vide Ext.15) then senior branch manager Odhav branch

has stated that Smt. Jayaben was casual employee and

she used to sweep the bank premises. Since permanent

sweeper was appointed then there was no work for her

and that she was not recruited as per rules of the Bank.

The evidence of the 1^st party witness gather no much

confidence in discarding the claim of workman Smt.

Jayaben H. Acharya that she did not althrough worked

as part time sweeper from November-1989 to June 1995.

Rather documents of the 1^st party Ext. 10/7 go to the root

of the 1^st party case to bely the bank’s contention taken

in W.s as well as in evidence of its witness (ext.15). On

the other hand oral evidence of Jayaben (Ext.11) coupled

with Ext.10 series documents particularly xerox copy

of statement of pass book entry (Ext.10/1) and

correspondence letter of Sr. Manager Odhav branch

with Asst. G.M. Ahmedabad go to establish master and

servant relation between the 1^st party B.O.B. and the 2^nd

party(Smt. Jayaben since Smt. Jayaben was daily

performing part time sweeping job and was getting

monthly salary from employer (1^st party) and more so

her monthly salary was transferred per month in her

S.B A/c (Ext.10/1) and there is catena of decision that

part time worker also come under the definition of

workman u/s. 2(S) of the I.D. Act.

Such argument of the 1^st party as per written

argument (Ext.19) Para 3 has no leg to stand that Smt.

Jayaben was provided work as and when required for

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6577

specific period in view of Ext. 10/1 and Ext.10/7

supported by oral evidence of Smt. Jayaben (Ext.11).

The appointment letter was not given to her by Bank of

Baroda is not material for disproving the master and

servant relation. On the other hand the written argument

submitted on behalf of the 2^nd party( Ext.18) is more

convincing as per discussion and consideration of the

evidence in the foregoings.

Thus I find and hold that there was relation of

master and servant (employer and workman) relation

between the 1^st party an 2^nd party. I further find and

hold that 2^nd party Smt. Jayaben H. Acharya had worked

240 days every year from date of her engagement as

part time sweeper at Odhav branch of B.O.B. and has

also completed 240 days’ work in the calendar year

preceding her termination/discontinuation w.e.f.

30.06.1995. So these issues are decided in affirmative

in favour of the workman Smt. Jayaben H. Acharya . In

this context , the case law reported in 2009 (1) G.L.H.

503 Supreme Court is also applicable as relied upon

by the 2^nd party.

ISSUE NO. (v) : As per findings to issue No. (iii)

& (iv) in the foregoings, I am of the considered view

and therefore find and hold that the management of

Bank of Baroda without complying with the mandatory

provisions of section 25F of the I.D. Act viz not issuing

retrenchment notice not giving one month pay in lieu of

notice., not paying retrenchment compensation to Smt.

Jayaben H. Acharya have illegally terminated her from

part time sweeping work in the premises of Odhav

branch of bank of Baroda and so , the action of the 1^st

party is not legal and justified in terminating /

discontinuing Smt. Jayaben H. Acharya from part time

sweeper work w.e.f. 30.06.1995 . She was working under

control and supervision of employer and so she is entitled

to claim protection of section 25F of I.D. Act (2009 (1)

G.L.H. 503 Supreme Court (Supra).

10.

ISSUE Nos. (i) & (ii) : In view of findings to

Issue No. (iii), (iv) & (v) in the foregoings, I find and

hold that the reference is maintainable and the 2^nd party

workman Smt. Jayaben Hasmukhlal Achraya has got

valid cause of action to raise this industrial dispute.

11.

ISSUE No. (vi) : The 2^nd party workman has

claimed for reinstatement and regularisation/

permanently to sweeper job and with back wages. The

claim of regularisation has to be defeated in view of the

full bench decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs.

Umadevi and others (2006 II CLR 261). The case law of

Halvad Nagar Palika vs. Jani Dipabhai (2003 II GHJ

397) not applicable in the instant case to discredit the

claim of the workman Smt. Jayaben that she worked as

part time sweeper for more than five years and that the

employer bank was giving monthly consolidated salary

which was being deposited in her S/B A/C by employer

and that she was not kept as daily waged worker.

Likewise case law of Gujarat Housing Board vs.

Meenakshiben Bhanushankar Bhatt (2005 (105) F.L.R.

1012 Gujarat H.C is also not applicable because the

workman Sm. Jayaben after termination on 30.06.1995

started agitating the matter challenging her termination

and there was no delay of 5 years as per facts of the

given case laws. The Judgment of the Apex Court in

Civil Application No. 559 of 2009 dated 02.02.2009

is not applicable in the instant case when the relation

of employer and employee is established and the

employee’s action in terminating Smt. Jayaben is held

illegal . More so, the facts of the given case law are as to

treating the respondent’s No. 1 as an approved Assistant

Teacher. On the other hand the case law relied upon by

the lawyer of the 2^nd party Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs.

Kranti Junior Adhyapak Supreme Court case 324 is as

to issue appointment as a teacher in the primary

school and so not much helpful to decide the issue in

the instant case to what relief the workman Smt. Jayaben

H. Achraya is entitled when her termination/

discontinuation from part time sweeping work has been

held illegal as per findings to issue No. (v) in the

foregoing and she is entitled to claim the protection of

section 25F of the I.D. Act. But in view of case law of

senior superintendent Telegraph (traffic) Bhopal vs.

Santosh Kumar Seal and others (2010 III CLR 17) where

in it has been held by their Lordship of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court (Division Bench) “grant of reasonable

compensation to the workman instead of reinstatement

and back wages in case of termination of service is

found illegal will sub serve the ends of justice.” I find

that the 2^nd party workman Smt. Jayaben H. Achraya is

not entitled for reinstatement to part time sweeper work

with or without back wages. But she certainly is entitled

for reasonable compensation from the 1^st party/-

Considering the tenure of her part time service in the

Odhav branch of Bank of India. She is awarded

lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Five

Thousand Only) and the 1^st party (management of Bank

of Baroda) is directed to pay the compensation within

two months of receipt of copy of award failing which

the amount of compensation will carry interest @ 9%

P.A.

The reference is allowed with cost of Rs. 50,000/-

This is my award.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2612-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy

cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

6578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la- 1027@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

19-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@126@95&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2014

S.O. 2612.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1027/

2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad 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 19.09.2014.

[No. L-12012/126/95-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, AHMEDABAD

Present….

Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 26^th May, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No-1027/2004

Reference: (I.T.C) No-44/1996(old)

Reference Adjudication Order No. L-12012/126/95-

IR(B-II)

Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Namindas Chambers, Dhibar Road,

Rajkot (Gujarat)

...First Party

And

Their Workman

Shri Bharart B. Parmar,

Shamyuvi Society, Street-2,

Near Suryamukhi Hanuman,

Dedukea Naka,, Behind Gurukul,

Rajkot (Gujarat)

...Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Hitesh D. Kathrotia,

Advocate (given proxy to

appear on behalf

Shri D.D. Chhaya, Advocate

vide (Ext.74)

For the Second Party

:- Shri Murtuja Husen

H. Sanghariat, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. 12012/126/95/IR(B-II) dated

30.09.1996/16.10.1996, referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot(Gujarat)

in respect to the matters specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India , Rajkot in terminating/

discontinuing/ not taking on duties of Shri B.B.

parmar, Driver w.e.f. 31.07.1990 valid, just and

legal? If not to what relief the workman is entitled

to and what direction are necessary in the matter?”

The case of the 2^nd party B.B. Parmar as per

statement of claim (Ext.7) is that he was engaged as driver

of Regional Manager Mr. V.R.Dalal of Central Bank of

India, Rajkot. He was continuously paid wages/salary

from the allowance paid by Bank in the name of the

Regional Manager, Rajkot through Banker cheque and

said cheque were given to him by Regional Manager for

encashment. Thereafter he was receiving the salary

directly from the Bank. He served as driver of Regional

Manager’s car provided by Bank without any complaint

till April 1990. Thereafter regional Manager Mr. Sethana

offered salary of May, 1990 to him from his personal

accounts which was refused by him. But it was incited to

him to accept salary from his personal account. Then the

Bank manager deposited his salary of May 1990, June

1990 and July 1990 in his (workman) Bank S/B A/c from

personal account of A.R.M, Rajkot He made protest to

A.R.M. and thereafter he was not allowed to join duty as

driver from 31.07.1990 and his services were terminated

illegally without serving notice, or one month notice pay

and retrenchment compensation. Further case is that he

(workman) was receiving salary and travelling allowances

was also directly given to him by Bank for out station

duty. He was maintaining log book of (car) kept therein,

the car was maintained by him and salary was paid by

Bank and so there was relation of master and servant.

No written order of termination was given rather he was

orally terminated by Asst. Regional Manager Rajkot Mr.

Sethna. The duty of driver is being taken by new person

which is still continuing. The 1^st party has violated the

provision of section 25F of the I.D. Act. On these grounds

prayer is made for reinstement with full back wages and

treating him in continuous service and for cost of

litigation and for other reliefs to which he is found

entitled.

As against this the case of the 1^st party inter alia as

per written statement (Ext.8) is that the reference is not

maintainable, the 2^nd party has no valid cause of action,

there was no relation of master and servant between the

1^st party and the 2^nd party. The averments of the statement

of claim parawise have been denied statin that those are

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6579

untrue statements. It is the case of the 1^st party that the

2^nd party Shri Bharat B. Parmar was never employed by

the Bank, he was not given any appointment letter/order.

The 2^nd party was engaged as personal driver of Bank

Manager and the salary was paid by Bank manager from

the allowances received by Managerr from Bank. On these

scores, prayer is to dismiss the reference since the 2^nd

party (Shri Bharat B. Parmar) is not entitled to any relief.

As per rival contention in the pleadings the

following issues are taken for determination :

ISSUES

(I) Is the reference maintainable?

(II) Whether the 2^nd party (Bharat B. Parmar) has

valid cause of action to raise disputes?

(III) Whether the 2^nd party Shri Bharat B. Parmar

was engaged/appointed by the 1^st party Central

Bank of India as driver of the Bank’s owned

car? Or whether he was engaged as personal

driver of Asst. Regional Manager, Rajkot?

(IV) Whether the relation of the master and servant

exist between the 1^st party Bank and 2^nd party

B.B. Parmar?

(V) Whether the action of the Regional manager of

the 1^st party Bank is valid, just and legal in

terminating/discontinuing/not taking on duties

of Shri B.B. Parmar w.e.f. 31.07.1990?

(VI) Whether the 2^nd party (Shri B.B. Parmar) is

entitled for reinstatement as driver of Bank’s car

with back wages?

(VII) To what relief the workman is entitled to and

what directions are necessary in the matter?

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. (iii) & (iv):- The 2^nd party B.B. Parmar

has deposed in oral evidence vide Ext.11 in support of

case and has also submitted Xerox copy of 70 documents

with list Ext.10 which are Bankers cheque in the name

of S.M. Shah, Regional Manager indicating the amounts

towards salary and car washing charges for his driver.

The Bankers cheque are also directly in the name of Shri

Bharat B. Parmar , driver towards his salary, car washing

charges, T.A. bills amount for his out station journey

carrying Regional Manager for tour etc. The original pass

book S.B A/c of Bharat B. Parmar having Account No.

20280 of Central Bank of India, R.M.O., Rajkot is Ext.38.

Xerox copies of Banker’s cheques for the period from

1986,87,88,89 and 90 are marked Exts. 12 to 37 and 39

to 71. The driver Shri B.B. Parmar in his evidence has

stated that he worked as driver continuously from 1985

to 31.07.1990. He claims that his salary was paid by Bank

owned Ambassador Car No. 4396 which was allotted to

Regional Manager of Bank at Rajkot. He also has to go

for outstation duty by driving car and he was being paid

additional T.A. D.A. by the Bank. He was also

maintaining log book kept in the car and was writing in

the log book. He was also given debit vouchers of his

name and amount mentioned in the voucher was credited

in his Bank’s S/B A/C. He was given three pairs of

uniform and charges of uniforms was paid by Bank. In

cross-examination by the 1^st party’s lawyers he fairly

admitted that no appointment order was given to him by

Bank, there was no any advertisement for vacancy of

driver in Bank and he was not interviewed nor he gave

any examination and he was not given letter of

appointment by the Bank. From examining the mode of

payment of salary etc. to the 2^nd party Shri B.B. Parmar,

it appears that till April 1987 the amount of salary and

allowances were given to B.B. Parmar by Regional

Manager and the amount was being reimbursed by R.M/

A.R.M. used to reimburse the salary other charge through

Bankers cheque in his the R.M./A.R.M. used to reimburse

the salary and other charge through Bankers cheque in

is his name. But thereafter mode of payment was changed

from May, 1987 and onward and the payment was made

in the name of Shri Bharat B. Parmar directly by Bank.

This mode of payment directly in the name of the 2^nd

party Shri B.B. Parmar up to April 1990 speaks a volume

as to relation of master and servant between the 1^st party

and the 2^nd party. More so, the oral and documentary

evidence adduced on behalf of the parties go to prove

more than 240 days work as workman driver of the 1^st

party in calendar year preceding his alleged

discontinuation/ termination from 31.07.1990.

On behalf of the 1^st party no any witness has been

examined. Only some documents with a list Ext.73 has

been submitted. Ext .73/1 is letter dated 26.05.2000

(confidential) of Zonal office central Bank of India,

Ahmedabad addressed to Shri R.S Shah, Regional

Manager, Rajkot by which Shri Shah have been allowed

to engage personal driver for the car provided by Bank

and fixing of remuneration of personal driver to be paid

from time-to-time and also other payments to be made to

them if their services are utilised for out of station duties.

Through this letter information was asked urgently in

format (1) Name of personal driver (2) working as

personal driver (3) Remuneration being paid per month

(4) other charges paid from 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000

and 01.04.2000 to 31.05.2000-batta for out station duties

others if any. Ext. 73/2 is extract of Regulation Para 26

(13) speaks-Drivers employed by the bank will be

available to all Top Executives and Zonal Manager, Asst.

General Manger and Chief Manager having bank’s car

may employ their personal drivers for which they would

be entitled to reimbursement of salary paid by them to

drivers/cleaner subject to the limits as decided by the Bank

on production of receipt. Ext. 73/3 is circular dated

25.08.2003 of central Bank of India on the subject

6580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

reimbursement of payment made by the Executive to their

personal drivers –indicating payment in grade wise cities

limit of salary per month car washing allowances etc.

Ext. 73/4 is circular dated 07.06.1995 towards revised

limits of remuneration w.e.f. 01.06.1995. Ext. 73/5 is

circular regarding revised remuneration of personal

drivers w.e.f. 01.09.1993. From perusal of these

documents at Ext. 73 it is obvious that Bank’s top

executives and Zonal Manager, Asst. G. Manager, Chief

Manager have been given clearance to keep personal

driver of their choice and what they pay to their personal

driver according to limit which are from time to time

revised they are to reimburse from bank.

So considering all these evidences oral and

documentary adduced on behalf of the 2^nd party workman/

driver and the documentary evidence of the 1^st party Bank

it is clear that up to April 1987 as per mode of payment

to Shri B.B. Parmar was as that of personal driver of the

Regional Manager, Rajkot as reimbursement was made

in the name of Regional Manager, Rajkot but thereafter

payment of monthly remuneration towards salary, T.A.

D.A. washing charges etc. were being paid to him in his

name by the Bank through Bankers cheque, Vouchers

etc. So though no appointment letter was given to Shri

Bharat B. Parmar but direct mode of payment to him by

Bank go to prove master and servant relation and working

for more than 240 days in calendar year and also in

calendar year preceding his alleged oral discontinuation

from works. In that view of the mate retrenchment notice

was must to be given to Shri Bharat B. Parmar by the 1^st

party(Bank) but was not complied with. The case law of

Bank of Baroda vs. Ghemarbhai Harjibhai Rabari (2005

Lab I.C. 2279 Supreme Court) is applicable in the instant

case to support the claim of the workman Shri Bharat B.

Parmar.

Thus on consideration of the evidence and material

in the foregoings, I am of the considered view and

therefore find and hold that though Shri Bharat B.

Parmar was not appointed by the 1^st party Central Bank

of India as driver of the Bank’s owned car but he was

also not treated as personal driver of Bank’s executive

Asst. Regional Manager, Rajkot, rather by own action of

the 1^st party Bank in directly making payment of monthly

salary T.A.D.A. and also depositing salary in his S.B. A/C

clearly go to connect relation of master and servant

between the parties and so their exist relation of master

and servant between the 1^st party and the 2^nd party

workman Shri Bharat B. Parmar. So Issue Nos. (iii) and

(iv) are decided accordingly in favour of the 2^nd party.

ISSUE NO. (v) : In view of the findings to issue

Nos. (iii) & (iv) in the foregoings, I find and hold that

the workman Shri B.B. Parmar had completed 240 days’

work in calendar year preceding his oral termination/

discontinuation w.e.f. 31.07.1990. So, the 1^st party

employer was duty bound to give retrenchment notice or

one month notice pay and retrenchment compensation

under the provision of section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947.

So the action of the 1^st party is illegal, unjustified and

not proper in discontinuing/terminating/ not taking on

duties of Shri Bharat B. Parmar as driver of Bank’s owned

car w.e.f. 31.07.1990. This issue is answered in negative

against the 1^st party.

10.

ISSUE NOs. (i) & (ii) : The reference is

maintainable and the 2^nd party Shri Bharat B. Parmar

has valid cause of action.

11.

ISSUE NOs. (vi) & (vii) : Usually in the past in

case of violation of the provision of Section 25F of the

I.D. Act, the workman was being reinstated with

percentage of back wages according to merit of each case.

But now due to change of view of the Hon’ble Apex Court

in Catena of decision that casual workers since do not

hold a post as that of regularly appointed employee so

instead of reinstatement they should be compensated

reasonably. In the instant case, there is no scope of

reinstatement of Shri Bhart B. Parmar because since after

his discontinuation another person has been kept as

personal driver of Regional Manager/Asst. Regional

Manager, Rajkot under the scheme and the payment of

remuneration to personal driver are being reimbursed by

bank’s executive. So, Shri Bharat B. Parmar cannot be

reinstated by removing the new incumbent deployed as

personal driver. More so, as per full bench decision of

Umadevi case Shri Bharat B. Parmar cannot claim for

regularisation merely on proof of master and servant

relation. Rather as per case law of senior superintendent

Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and

others (2010 III CLR 17 wherein it has been held by their

Lordship of Hon’ble Supreme Court (D.B.) “grant of

reasonable compensation to the workman instead of

reinstatement and back wages in case of termination of

service is found illegal will sub serve the ends of justice.”

So in the instant case the workman Shri Bharat B. Parmar

is not found entitled for reinstatement and back wages

rather he is found entitled for reasonable compensation

which will subserve the ends of justice.

12.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

the workman who was driving the Bank’s car allotted to

R.M./A.R.M., Rajkot is awarded compensation of

Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only)

due to discontinuing him from the services of driver.

The reference is accordingly allowed with cost of

Rs. 5000/-

The 1^st party is directed to pay the compensation of

Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only to Shri Bharat B.

Parmar within two months of receipt of copy of award,

failing which the amount of compensation will carry

interest @ 9% per annum.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6581

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2613-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe 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;] vgenkckn ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la- 666@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 19-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17013@5@98&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2014

S.O. 2613.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 666/

2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad 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 19.09.2014.

[No. L-17013/5/98-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 8^th August, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No-666/2004

The Divisional Secretary,

LIC of India,

Vadodara Division,

7^th Floor, Suraj Plaza-II, Sayajiganj,

Vadodara (Gujarat) 390005

... First Party

And

Their Workman

Through The General Secretary,

Vadodara Divisional Insurance Employees

Union, Vadodara,

19 Soordham Atahar Society, Near Nalanda-3

Vaghodia Road,

Vadodara (Gujarat)-390005

...Second Party

For the 1^st party

Ms. Meenaben Shah,

Advocate

For the Second Party :

None

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide order [No. L-17013/5/98-IR (B-II)] dated

19.04.1999 referred the dispute to Industrial Tribunal,

Vadodara for adjudication in respect of the matters

specified in the schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of LIC of

India, Vadodara Division, Vadodara through the

Divisional Manager, Vadodara in imposing the

minor penalty of censure and wage cut for two days

to approx. 200 employees for not attending HRD

training, is legal justified and proper? If not, to

what relief the Union/concerned employees are

entitled to and what other directions are necessary

in the matter?”

The parties to the case appear and filed respective

pleadings viz. the 2^nd party (union) its S/c (Ext.5) on

04.09.2000 and the management of the 1^st party (L.I.C.)

its W/s on 23.03.2001. The matter remain pending before

Industrial Court, Baroda till the end of December-2010

and the matter was pending for leading evidence by the

2^nd party but the 2^nd party (Union) failed to lead evidence.

There after the record was received back in this C.G.I.T.

by the order of MOL. Fresh notice were issue to the

parties. .The 1^st party appear through lawyer by putting

its fresh power whereas the 2^nd party (Union) failed to

appear and to lead evidence. It appears that the 2^nd party

(Union) has slept over the matter and has got no interest

to make contest. By pursis (Ext.21) the lawyer of the 1^st

party prayed for passing necessary order for disposing

this reference case. On that pursis order was passed as to

closure of rate of the 2^nd party to lead evidence and that

record was put up for award.

In facts and circumstance of the case, there is no

justification for carrying on adjournments in this case.

Right of the 2^nd party to lead evidence have already been

close as such there is no merit in this reference and so

the terms of reference as per schedule is answered in

favour of the management of the 1^st party L.I.C. of India

justifying its action in imposing minor penalty of censure

and wage cut for two days to approx. 200 employees for

not attending HRD training. So the union/concern

employees are not entitled to any relief in this case.

Accordingly the reference is dismissed. No order

of cost.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2614-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkaMyk

iksVZ VªLV ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

6582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 92@2011)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-09-2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&37011@02@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2014

S.O. 2614.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 92/

2011) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Kandla

Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19.09.2014.

[No. L-37011/02/2011-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 7^th August, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No-92/2011

The Chairman,

Kandla Port Trust,

Post Box No.-50,

Gandhidham, Kutch (Gujarat)

... First Party

And

Their Workman

Through The Vice President,

Kandla Port & Dock SC/ST Employees Union,

S.G.X. 36-37, Ward 2B,

Adipur, (Kutch)-370205

... Second Party

For the 1^st party

Shri K.V.Gadhia, Advocate

Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide order [No. L-37011/02/2011-IR (B-II)]dated

22.11.2011 referred the dispute for adjudication in respect

of the matters specified in the schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Kandla

Port Trust in non-payment of higher benefits to the

families of the deceased employees/workers of

Cargo Handling Division, erstwhile Kandla Dock

Labour Board, as per new GSLI scheme w.e.f.

01.05.2007 at par with K.P.T. workers, after merger

of KDLB and KPT through settlement w.e.f.

24.01.2007 in the light of clause 5 of the said

settlement and applicability of new GSLI scheme

to KPT workers w.e.f. 01.05.2007 is justified? What

remedy the beneficiaries are entitled to?”

Notice were issued to the parties. The 1^st party

appear through lawyer by executing Vakalatnama

(Ext. 5) whereas the 2^nd party failed the appear and to

submit statement of claim. Several adjournments were

granted for filing the statement of claim. The 2^nd party

appears to have lost interest. In such view of the matters.

The terms of reference as per schedule is answered in

the affirmative that the action of the management of

Kandla Port Trust in non-payment of higher benefits to

the families of deceased employees/workers of Cargo

Handling Division erstwhile Kandla Dock Labour Board,

as per new GLSI scheme w.e.f. 01.05.2007 at par with

K.P.T. workers, after merger of KDLB and KPT through

settlement w.e.f. 24.01.2007 in the light of clause 5 of

the said settlement and applicability of new GSLI

Scheme to KPT workers w.e.f. 01.05.2007 is justified.

So, the workman/beneficiaries are not entitled to any

remedy.

Accordingly, the reference is dismissed. No order

of cost.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2615-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1057@2004) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@384@96&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2014

S.O. 2615.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1057/

2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Dena

Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19.09.2014.

[No. L-12012/384/96-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6583

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 17^th July, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No-1057/2004

Reference: (I.T.C.) No-39/1997(old)

Adjudication Order No. L- 12012/384/96-IR (B-II)

The Regional Manager,

Dena Bank, Laxmi Chambers,

1^st Floor, Station Road,

P.B. No. 16,

Bhuj (Kutch) -370001

...First Party

And

Their Workman

Sh. Mahendra I. Tilak,

Dr. Mehta Street, Nagarchakla,

Bhuj (Kutch)

...Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

Shri Mahendra I. Tilak

(2^nd party himself)

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. L-12012/384/96-IR (B-II) dated

29.08.1997, referred the dispute for adjudication to

Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in respect of the matters

specified in the Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Dena

Bank, Bhuj in terminating instead of regularising

the services of Sh. Mahendra I. Tilak w.e.f.

17.04.1996, who has worked as badli sepoy with

the management since 1985 on wards is legal and

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

entitled?”

The case of the 2^nd party as per statement of claim

(Ext.4) dated 15.06.1999 is he was engaged as badly sepoy

in the Darbargadh branch of Bank at Bhuj since

07.01.1985 and he was working as peon on permanent

post. His name was sponsored by Employment Exchange

in the year 1983 and on the basis his interview was

conducted and he was successful in interview.

Appointment letter as badly sepoy was issued. He was

working from 10:15 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on the working

days and he was getting daily rated wages of Rs .101/-

seniority list was prepared by Bank and his name was

entered in the panel list and he worked continuously

from 1985 to 1996. But he was illegally terminated from

the services of badly sepoy w.e.f. 25.04.1996 and in his

place other person was engaged and thus bank has

violated the provision of I.D. Act. The work of peon to

which he was being performed in the bank is still

continuing. Further case is that after the dispute was

raised by him and reference was made for adjudication,

the management of Bank engaged him for work in

instalments from 08.09.1997 to 26.04.1999 and that he

completed 240 days’ work in the year 1998. From

26.04.1999 he is completely unemployed. On these

grounds prayer made that the action of Bank management

in terminating him from 25.04.1996 is illegal and

improper which is in contravention of Sections 25 A, G

and H of I. D. Act. Further prayer is made for his

reinstatement and back wages from 25.04.1996 and also

to grant any other relief to which he is found entitled.

As against this the case of the 1^st party (Dena Bank)

pleading interlia in the written statement (Ext.6) dated

29.04.2000 is that the claim of the 2^nd party is baseless,

unfounded and the reference is not maintainable, the

2^nd party has no cause of action to raise dispute against

the bank. The averment of para 1 to 6 of the statement of

claim are not true and denied and the 2^nd party is put to

strict proof to prove the same. It is not true that the Bank

has terminated the services of the 2^nd party w.e.f.

25.04.1996. 2^nd party is not a permanent employee of

Bank rather he is a badli sepoy and he is on the panel

list of Bank . Bank has not favoured anybody out of turn

and it is not true that the bank has deprived legal right of

the 2^nd party. Bank has not violated any provisions of

I.D. Act. 2^nd party had made baseless allegations against

bank that other person was engage on work after

termination of the 2^nd party. The 2^nd party has himself

admitted that Bank has given work even after present

reference raised by him. It is denied that the 2^nd party

has completed 240 days in the year 1998. Since the

2^nd party himself has admitted that Bank has given him

the work even after present reference and so on this

single count and ground reference of the 2^nd party

deserves to be dismissed. On these scores, prayer is made

to dismiss the reference since the 2^nd party is not entitled

to any relief as claimed in para 7(1) and (2) of S/c.

As per rival contention of the parties, the following

issues are taken for determination:

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Has the 2^nd party any valid cause of action to

raise dispute?

(iii)

Whether the 2^nd party completed 240 days’ work

in calendar year preceding his termination w.e.f.

17.04.1996?

6584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iv)

Whether the 1^st party (management of Dena

Bank) has violated the provision of I.D. Act?

Whether the action of the management of Dena

Bank, Bhuj in terminating instead of

regularising the services of Shri Mahendra I.

Tilak w.e.f. 17.04.1996 who has worked as badli

sepoy with the management since 1985 on wards

is legal and justified?

(v)

Whether the 2^nd party Mahendra I. Tilak is

entitled to the relief as claimed?

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. (iii) & (IV) : The 2^nd party had filed

an application (Ext.9) for production of documents by

the 1^st party (Dena Bank). An order was passed by the

tribunal on 23.06.2005 (Ext.10) directing the 1^st party

Dena Bank to produce 3 years’ service record- muster

roll, payment register, vouchers regarding the 2^nd party

preceding the date of termination and to submit the

seniority list exhibited at the time of retrenchment of

the 2^nd party. Also directing to give names and to submit

the record of the persons who are employed on the

post of the 2^nd party after his termination. Then on

13.12.2005 the 2^nd party submitted his affidavit in lieu of

examination in chief (Ext.11). At that time Shri Hitesh

D. Kathrotia, Advocate was 2^nd party’s lawyer who

subsequently retired from this case on 20.04.2011 (Ext.19)

and thereafter the 2^nd party did not engage any other

lawyer on his behalf. However, the 1^st party’s lawyer could

not turn up to cross examine the 2^nd party on his affidavit

(Ext.11). Then vide closing pursis Ext.12 of the 2^nd party

his evidence was closed on 27.02.2006 and the matter

was being adjourned for evidence of the 1^st party and the

right to lead evidence by the 1^st party was closed on

19.03.2009 vide order passed below Ext.14. The case

record was pending before the state Industrial tribunal

which was transferred back to this tribunal (CGIT-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad) by order of M.O.L., New

Delhi and the record was received on 20.04.2011 and

fresh notice (Ext.15) was issued to the parties.

Subsequently, the 1^st party’s lawyer Shri M.K. Paul

appeared on 27.09.2011 and submitted application

(Ext.21) for opening the right of the 1^st party for cross

examination of the 2^ndparty and to lead evidence and order

was passed below Ext.21 allowing the prayer of the 1^st

party and 15.11.2011 was fixed for cross examination of

the 2^nd party. Again on adjournment application (Ext.22)

matter was fixed for cross examination of the 2^nd party

on 01.12.2011, but P.O. had gone to Surat for urgent

work and so 27.12.2011 was fixed for cross examination

of the 2^nd party. On 27.12.2011 , 1^st party and its lawyer

Shri M.K. Paul was present for cross exam of 2^nd party

but 2^nd party was not present and so 08.02.2012 was

fixed for cross of workman (2^nd party) on 07.02.2012

2^nd party, Mahendra send an application Ext.23 through

registered letter to put the matter for order and did not

appear on the fixed date 08.02.2012. Again last chance

was given on 15.03.2012 to 2^nd party Mahendra I. Tilak

to present himself for cross examination by the lawyer of

the 1^st party on 12.04.2012. But on 12.04.2012 and

20.04.2012 P.O. was in camp court and do 08.08.2012

was fixed for cross examination of the 2^nd party on his

affidavit (Ext.11). On 08.08.2012 Shri M.K. Paul,

Advocate for the 1^st party (Dena Bank) was present in

the court but 2^nd party Mahendra I. Tilak did not attend

the court for his cross examination and one more chance

was given to Mahendra I. Tilak (2^nd party) directing to

be present on 25.09.2012 for cross examination. On

25.09.2012, the 1^st party’s lawyer Shri M.K. Paul was

present in the court for cross of 2^nd party Mahendra but

he (Mahendra I. Tilak) did not present himself for cross.

Then an application under order 16 rule 20 and order 17

rule 2/3 of C.P.C. was filed (Ext.24) and order was

passed below Ext.24 that let it be kept on the record

since the 2^nd party is not keen to attend the court for his

cross examination and the case was fixed for leading

evidence by the 1^st party. However, the 1^st party also failed

to lead oral evidence inspite of number of adjournment.

Thus, the situation in this reference case is that

the 2^nd party failed to attend the court on dates for his

cross examination on affidavit (Ext.11) so the affidavit

of Mahendra I. Tilak (S.P) Ext.11 has got no evidentiary

value and so will be deemed to be expunged. Now

situation is this that there is no oral evidence of the parties

in support of pleadings. The 2^nd party who brought this

reference has failed to substantiate his statement of claim,

(Ext.4) by oral evidence, likewise the 1^st party failed to

substantiate its contention of written statement. The

pleadings of the parties are not substantive piece of

evidence.

On behalf of the 2^nd party 4 certificate dated

31.03.1986, 10.10.1990, 31.03.1992 and 21.07.1995

granted by branch manager of Darbangadh Chouk branch

of Dena Bank have been filed that only go to show that

Shri Mahendra I. Tilak has worked as Budli Sepoy in

our branch on various occasions. This go to show that

Mahendra was not working permanently rather his

services were taken in absence of regular sub staff that

remained on leave. So these certificates do not connect

continuous and uninterrupted service of the 2^nd party. His

designation as budli sepoy speaks clearly that he was

being engaged intermittently and for limited period, in

absence of permanent staff.

The 2^nd party Shri Mahendra I. Tilak remained

playing hide and seek policy in not attending the court

on dates for his cross examination and was in the habit

of sending application/letters addressing to the tribunal

by registered post praying for early hearing whereas a

matter of fact he himself was avoiding to attend the

court to prevent him from being cross examined for

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6585

testing his veracity in the affidavit (Ext.11) which is

expunged due to his deliberate absent on dates. Thereafter

on 17.06.2014 the 2^nd party Mahendra filed some

documents including list with endorsement that the

1^st party lawyer is not available whereas on early

occasions when 1^st party’s lawyer remained present on

date 2^nd party Mahendra was no giving his attendance

by adopting hide and seek policy. The approved panel

list (Xerox copy) only go to show that name of Mahendra

was at Sl. No.4 for 09.DC, Bhuj, 10 Vijaynagar II. R.O.

in General category. The 2^nd party has failed to show that

after his alleged termination on 24.04.1996 his junior or

third person was deployed as budli sepoy for work at

Darbangadh branch of Dena bank, Bhuj.

10.

On the contrary the 2^nd party’s own admission at

para 6 of the statement of claim gives a complete go bye

to the dispute raised by the 2^nd party Mahendra I. Tilak

that he was terminated w.e.f. 24.04.1996. He admits that

even after reference made by Central Government for

adjudication he was given work by the 1^st party Bank

from 08.09.1997 to 26.04.1999. That goes to disprove as

to his alleged termination on 24.09.1996 or w.e.f.

17.04.1996 as it is narrated in the terms of reference.

That go to show that employer of the 2^nd party was so

generous that even reference pending he was engaged

for works intermittently up to 26.04.1999. Though he

claims that he completed 240 days’ work in the year 1998

to which the 1^st party has denied in w.s. (Ext.6) para -7.

So there is no acceptable evidence on behalf of the

2^nd party that he completed 240 days’ work in the

calendar year preceding his alleged termination on

25..041996 or in the year 1997, 1998 or 1999 during

pendency of this reference case when he was engaged

from 08.09.2997 to 26.04.19999 admitted by him at

para-6 of statement of claim. More so, there is no scope

for drawing adverse inference against the 1^st party if it

did not comply with direction of this tribunal in the order

dated 23.06.2005 (Ext.10). On the contrary adverse

inference has to be drawn against the 2^nd party that he

raised a false and baseless dispute against the 1^st party

Dena Bank that he was terminated w.e.f. 25.04.1996

whereas the real fact is that the 1^st party Bank had

engaged him for intermittent work up to 26.04.1999

and he never completed 240 days’ work in calendar

year. More so, I also find and hold that the 2^nd party has

failed to show that the 1^st party has violated the provision

of I.D. Act. In such view of the matter I further find and

hold that the action of the management of Dena Bank,

Bhuj in terminating instead of regularising the services

of Shri Mahendra I. Tilak w.e.f. 17.04.1996 who has

worked as badli sepoy with the management since 1985

onwards is legal and justified because the 2^nd party never

completed 240 days’ work in calendar year and more so

he was a daily rated budli sepoy engaged for work when

requirement exist and he does not hold a post as that of

permanent/regular workman and even working as budli

Sepoy since 1985 intermittently he did not acquire any

right for regularisation through back door entry in regular

cadre of sub staff. So issue No. (iii) is answered in negative

against the 2^nd party and Issue No, (iv) is answered in

affirmative in favour of the 1^st party.

11.

ISSUE NO. (i), (ii) & (v) : The reference is not

maintainable and the 2^nd party has no cause of action in

this case and so the 2^nd party Shri Mahendra I. Tilak is

not entitled to any relief in this case.

Accordingly the reference is dismissed. No order

of any cost.

This is my award.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2616-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe 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;] vgenkckn ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la- 665@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 19-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17013@6@98&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2014

S.O. 2616.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 665/

2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad 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 19.09.2014.

[No. L-17013/6/98-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR

COURT, AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 8^th August, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No-665/2004

The Divisional Secretary,

LIC of India,

Vadodara Division,

6586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7^th Floor, Suraj Plaza-II, Sayajiganj,

Vadodara (Gujarat) 390005

...First Party

And

Their Workman

Through The General Secretary,

Vadodara Divisional Insurance

Employees Union- Vadodara,

19 Soordham Atahar Society,

Near Nalanda -3,

Vaghodia Road,

Vadodara (Gujarat)-390005

...Second Party

For the 1^st party

Ms. Meenaben Shah,

Advocate

For the Second Party :

None

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide order No. L-17013/6/98/(IR (B-II)) dated

19.04.1999 referred the dispute to Industrial Tribunal,

Vadodara for adjudication in respect of the matters

specified in the schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union to restart the

Guest House of Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Vadodara Division situated at ‘Vaishali Society,

Karelibaug, Baroda’ for the class-III & Class-IV

employees of LIC of India is legal, proper and

justified? If so, what relief the union is entitled to

and what other directions are necessary in the

matter?”

The parties to the case on receive of notice appeared

and filed respective pleadings viz. the 2^nd party (Union)

its S/c (Ext.3) on 23.09.1999 and the management of the

1^st party (L.I.C.) its W/s (Ext.7) on 21.02.2000 contending

therein that the reference is not maintainable and the 2^nd

party is not entitled to any relief. The matter remained

pending before the Industrial Court, Baroda till the end

of December-2010 and the matter was being adjourn for

their leading evidence by the 2^nd party but the 2^nd party

failed to lead evidence, thereafter the record received back

in this C.G.I.T. on transfer by MOL’s order. Fresh notice

were issued. The 1^st party (management of L.I.C) appeared

through lawyer by executing fresh power whereas the 2^nd

party (Union) failed to appear to lead evidence in this

Tribunal. The lawyer of the 1^st party filed pursis (Ext.27)

on 04.08.2014 praying for disposing of the reference. An

order was passed below as Ext. 27 as to closure of right

to lead evidence and to put up the record for award.

The onus was upon the 2^nd party (Union) to prove

its claim its demand as per terms of reference but the 2^nd

party (Union) has failed to do so. The terms of reference

as per schedule is answered in negative that the demand

of the Union as per terms of reference is not legal, proper

and justified and the 2^nd party (Union) is not entitled to

any relief . So no any direction is necessary in the matter.

Accordingly the reference is dismissed. No order

of cost.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2617-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

chek fuxe 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 650@2004)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-09-2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@61@96&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2014

S.O. 2617.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 650/

2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad 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 19.09.2014.

[No. L-17012/61/96-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR

COURT, AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 8^th August, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No-650/2004

The Divisional Secretary,

LIC of India,

Vadodara Division,

7^th Floor, Suraj Plaza-II, Sayajiganj,

Vadodara (Gujarat) 390005

...First Party

And

Their Workman

Through The Secretary,

Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh,

Shastri Pole,

Kothi Char Rasta,

Vadodara (Gujarat)-390001

...Second Party

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6587

For the 1^st party

Ms. Meenaben Shah,

Advocate

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide order No. L-17012/61/96-(IR (B-II)) dated

05.09.1997 referred the dispute to Industrial Tribunal,

Vadodara for adjudication in respect of the matters

specified in the schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of LIC of

India in terminating the services of 8 workman

Sh. S.V. Pote, B.K.K. Rajpriya, A.G. Shaikh A.R.

Macchi, J.D. Makwana, V.C. Bulbule, P. Pandya,

D.P. Makwana w.e.f. 31.07.1996 is justified? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

In response to the notice the parties to the reference

appeared and filed respective pleadings viz the 2^nd party

(Union) its S/c (Ext.4) on 19.04.1997 and the

management of 1^st party (L.I.C.) its W/s. (Ext.6) on

11.08.1998. The 1^st party had also produced documents

as per list on 25.07.2000. The Union (2^nd party) also

demanded documents from the 1^st party (L.I.C.) on

05.12.2000 and the 1^st party submitted its reply and

produced some documents on 29.04.2003. Thereafter the

matter remained pending in the Court of Industrial

Tribunal, Baroda for leading evidence by the Union/ 2^nd

party but for the period April-2003 to October-2009 the

union nor any terminated employees remained present

for their representation. The Industrial Court of Baroda

issued again notice for intimation of hearing intimating

dated 05.11.2011 but neither the Union nor any

terminated employee appeared to lead evidence till the

end of 2010 before the Industrial Court, Baroda.

Thereafter the case record was received back in this

C.G.I.T. as per the order of MOL. Again fresh notice were

issued to the parties to appear and also notice to the 2^nd

party/Union to lead evidence but neither the Union nor

the terminated 8 workmen has appeared to have any

interest to the terms of reference as per schedule and are

interested to contest this reference. So on the pursis

(Ext.25) submitted by the 1^st party on 04.08.2014 order

has been passed as to closure of right of 2^nd party to lead

evidence and put up the record for award. Considering

all the facts and circumstances of the case narrating above,

it is held that this reference case is devoid of merit. As

such the terms of reference as per schedule is answered

in affirmative justifying the action of the management of

L.I.C. in terminating the services of 8 workmen. The 2^nd

party Union/concern workmen are not entitled to any

relief.

Accordingly the reference is dismissed. No order of cost.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2618-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkaMyk

iksVZ VªLV 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 49@2010)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-09-2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&37011@01@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2014

S.O. 2618.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

2010) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Kandla

Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19.09.2014.

[No. L-37011/01/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 5^th August, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No-49/2010

The Chairman,

Kandla Port Trust,

Post Box No.-50,

Gandhidham, Kutch (Gujarat)

...First Party

And

Their Workman

Through The General Secretary,

Transport & Dock Workers Union,

21, Yogesh Building, Plot No. 586,

12-C, Gandhidham,

Kutch-370201

...Second Party

For the 1^st party

Shri K.V.Gadhia, Advocate

Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate

For the Second Party

None

6588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide order No. L-37011/01/2010-(IR (B-II)) dated

16.03.2010 referred the dispute for adjudication in respect

of the matters specified in the schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the chairman, Kandla Port

Trust, P.O. Box No. 50, Gandhidham in not paying

Split Duty Allowance to the Para-Medical Staff of

K.P.T. Hospital, Gandhidham is legal and justified?

What relief the workman is entitled for?”

The parties were issued notice to appear and to

submit the S/c and W/s respectively with documents. The

1^st party appear through lawyer by executing

Vakalatnama (Ext.5). But inspite of several notices issued

from the Industrial Court, Gujarat as well as from this

Tribunal, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad after

receiving case record on transfer by MOL’s order, the

2^nd party Union failed to make appearance and failed to

submit statement of claim. It is upon the 2^nd party Union

to prove the case since raise dispute against the

management of Kandla Port Trust. The 2^nd party appears

to have lost interest. In such view of the matter, the terms

of reference as per schedule is decided in affirmative in

favour of the management of Kandla Port Trust (the

1^st party) that the action of Chairman, Kandla Port Trust,

Gandhidham in not paying spilt duty allowance to the

para medical staff of Kandla Port Trust Hospital,

Gandhidham is legal and justified. The 2^nd party Union/

workman is not entitled to any relief.

Accordingly the reference is dismissed. No order

of cost.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2619-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe 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;] vgenkckn ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la- 673@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 19-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17011@15@97&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2014

S.O. 2619.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 673/

2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad 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 19.09.2014.

[No. L-17011/15/97-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR

COURT, AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 8^th August, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No.-673/2004

The Divisional Secretary,

LIC of India,

Vadodara Division,

7^th Floor, Suraj Plaza-II, Sayajiganj,

Vadodara (Gujarat)-390005

...First Party

And

Their Workman

Through The General Secretary,

Vadodara Divisional Insurance

Employees Union- Vadodara,

19 Soordham Atahar Society,

Near Nalanda-3,

Waghodia Road,

Vadodara (Gujarat)

...Second Party

For the 1^st party

Ms. Meenaben Shah,

Advocate

For the Second Party :

None

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide order No. L-17011/15/97/(IR (B-II)) dated

14.06.1999 referred the dispute to Industrial Tribunal,

Vadodara for adjudication in respect of the matters

specified in the schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of LIC of

India in respect of the postings of Class III & Class

IV employees on promotion made in the month of

October 1997/November 1997 in contravention of

the set convention rather unwritten policy adopted

during the last 10 years amounts to any change in

the conditions of service of the concerned

employees as per provisions of Section 9-A of the

I.D Act, 1947 or the said action of the management

amounts to unfair labour practice’ as specified in

the Fifth Schedule of I.D. Act, 1947? If so, what

directions are to be issued to the management of

LIC of India?”

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6589

Upon notice the parties appear and filed respective

pleadings. The 2^nd party (Union) filed S/c (Ext.4) whereas

the management (1^st party) filed its W/s (Ext.9). S/c

was filed on 04.09.2000 whereas W/s was filed on

26.06.2001. The case remain pending in the Industrial

Court, Baroda till the end of 2010 but the 2^nd party

(Union) did not adduce any evidence. There after case

was received back on transfer in this C.G.I.T. as per the

order of MOL. Fresh notice were issued to the parties,

the 1^st party through its lawyer appear and filed fresh

Vakalatnama. But the 2^nd party (Union) inspite of fresh

notice from this court failed to appear whereas the matter

remain pending for leading evidence by the 2^nd party.

Only pleading (S/c) is not substantive piece of evidence.

The onus is upon the 2^nd party (union) who made this

reference to prove the claim as per terms of reference.

The 2^nd party has no interest to contest in this reference.

A pursis (Ext.19) was filed on 04.08.2014 by the lawyer

of the 1^st party. Narrating about long absence of the 2^nd

party and as to having no interest in this reference. Order

was passed closing right of the 2^nd party to lead evidence

and the matter to be put up for award.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the terms

of reference as per schedule is answered in favour of the

management of the 1^st party LIC. The 2^nd party (Union)/

workman are not entitled to any relief and there is no

need for issuing direction to the management of the

1^st party.

Accordingly the reference is dismissed. No order of

cost.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2620-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkaMyk

iksVZ VªLV 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 7@2011)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-09-2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&37011@06@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2014

S.O. 2620.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.

7/2011) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Kandla

Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19.09.2014.

[No. L-37011/06/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 6^th August, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No-7/2011

The Chairman,

Kandla Port Trust,

Post Box No.-50,

Gandhidham, Kutch (Gujarat)

...First Party

And

Their Workman

Through The President,

Kandla Port Karmachari Sangh,

TCX-5-94,

Gandhidham,

Kutch-370201

...Second Party

For the 1^st party

Shri K.V.Gadhia, Advocate

Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide order No. L-37011/06/2010-(IR (B-II)) dated

04.01.2011 referred the dispute for adjudication in respect

of the matters specified in the schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether Shri Kishan Kachu is entitled to

employment in Kandla Port Trust after merger with

Kandla Dock Labour Board in place of his deceased

father, Kachu Jakhu Ex-R.P. Worker Wage No. 75/C

working in Kandla Dock Labour Board. If so, to

what relief Shri Kishan Kachu is entitled for?”

The notice were sent to the parties for appearance

and for filing pleadings/Statement of claim and W/s. with

documents. The 2^nd party failed to appear and also failed

to submit W/s inspite of number of adjournment given in

this case whereas the 1^st party through lawyer remain in

appearance. It is upon the Union to prove its claim but

has palpably failed. The 2^nd party appear to have lost

interest. In such view of the matter, the terms of reference

as per schedule is answered in negative that the workman

Shri Kishan Kachu is not entitled to employment in

6590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Kandla Port Trust after merger with Kandla Dock Labour

Board in place of his deceased father, Kachu Jakhu, Ex-

R.P. worker Wage No. 75/C working in Kandla Labour

Board. The concern workman is not entitled to any relief.

Accordingly the reference is dismissed. No order

of cost.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2621-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ts-,e-

csDlh ,.M daiuh] lsok lnu&II 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;] vgenkckn ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la- 129@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 19-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&37011@9@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2014

S.O. 2621.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 129/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of J.M. Baxi

and Company, Seva Sadan-II and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 19.09.2014.

[No. L-37011/9/2013-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 23rd June, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No.-129/2013

Adjudication Order No. L-37011/9/2013/IR-(B-II)

The senior General Manager,

J.M. Baxi & Company, Sevasadan-II,

New Kandla-370210

GUJARAT

...First Party

And

Their Workman

Through the General Secretary,

Kandla Port workers Union,

A-15, 1^st floor, Ganesh Building,

Near Police Station,

Gandhidham (Kutch) 370201

...Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Bhushan K.

Vachharajani, Advocate

For the Second Party :-

Shri G.K. Parmar, President,

All India Gujarat Kamdar

Karmachari Union

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of labour, New

Delhi vide its order no. L- 37011/9/2013-(IR (B-II)) dated

10.07.2013, referred the dispute existing between the

employers in relation to the management of J.M. Baxi

& Company, Seva Sadan-II and their workman for

adjudication to this Tribunal (C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad) in respect of the matters specified in the

Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of M/s. J.M. Baxi & Company,

Kandla in retrenching these 07 workers along with

Shri Karshan Vaghela, watchman w.e.f. 15.06.2012

violating the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947 is

justified? What relief these workmen are entitled

to?”

The notice to the parties were issued to submit

statement of claim/written statement and the supporting

documents etc. by appearing in the case. The 1^st party

appeared on 17.01.2014 and executed Vakilpattra in

favour of Shri Bhushan K. Vachhrajani, Advocate vide

Ext.3. This case is running for submitting statement of

claim by the 2^nd party by the date 12.08.2014.

In the mean time both parties appeared on

23.06.2014 with a memorandum of settlement (Ext.7)

and the 2^nd party filed withdrawal application (Ext.5) with

authority letter of workman Karshan Vaghela in favour

of Shri G.K. Parmar, President, All Gujarat Kamdar

Karmachari Union (Ext.4). Also a joint application on

23.06.2014 (Ext.6) was filed by the parties to take the

matter on board since the parties have arrived at

settlement outside court and they intend for disposal of

this reference.

Heard Shri Yogesh Shah, Sr. G.M. of M/s. J.M.

Baxi & Company and its lawyer Shri Bhushan B.

Vachhrajani, Advocate for the 1^st party and Shri Karsan

Vaghela, concerned workman and Shri G.K. Parmar for

the 2^nd party. Perused the memorandum of settlement

(Ext.7), withdrawal application (Ext.5) and the

application praying (Ext.6) for taking the matter on board

which is fixed on 12.08.2014. As per prayer, the

application (Ext.6) is allowed and the matter is taken on

board.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6591

As per memorandum of settlement duly signed by

the parties, Advocate and Union representative has been

pressed that the parties have amicably settled their

dispute outside the court and the concerned workman

Shri Karsan has been paid total of Rs. 2,09,800/- towards

full and final settlement by the 1^st party employee which

was accepted by the workman Shri Karshan Vaghela. As

per withdrawal application (Ext.5) out of 7 workman

involved six workman (employees) had settled the dispute

with the company and obtained their dues before the

reference was made and actually remaining one

workman (employee) Shri Karsan Vaghela had not earlier

settled the dispute before the reference was made. But

now this workman (2^nd party) has also settled the dispute

with the 1^st party company outside the court resulting in

filing of memorandum of settlement (Ext.7) and

withdrawal application (Ext.5) by the 2^nd party.

Thus there remains no dispute between the parties

in this reference and so no need to adjudicate upon, the

terms of reference specified in the schedule.

So the withdrawal application of the 2^nd party

(Ext.5) is accepted in view of memorandum of settlement

(Ext.7). Accordingly, the reference is dismissed as

withdrawn. No order of any cost.

This is my award.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2622-—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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 464@2004)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-09-2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@188@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2014

S.O. 2622.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 464/

2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad 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 19.09.2014.

[No. L-12012/188/2001-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 6th June, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No.-464/2004

Reference: (I.T.C) No.-14/2002(old)

Adjudication order No. 12012/188/2001-IR(B-II))

The Zonal Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

North Gujarat Zone,

Opp. Income Tax office,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) 380014

...First Party

And

Their Workman

Shri Osman Aba Padya

C/o Mehmoodbhai Painter,

Near Rathkhana Masjid,

Sukhnath Chowk,

Junagadh (Gujarat)

...Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Vikram K. Mashar,

Advocate

For the Second Party

Shri P.S. Mehta, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. L-12012/188/2001-IR (B-II)

dated 15.02.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to

the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect

of the matters specified in the schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bank

of Baroda, Ahmedabad in removing Shri Osman

Aba Padya from the service w.e.f. 22.12.2000 is

legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman

concerned is entitled for?”

The facts of the case of the workman as per

statement of claim (Ext.3) in narrow compass is that

the workman Osman Aba Padya was serving as peon

(sub staff) at college Road branch, Junagadh during the

period from 17.09.1984 to 16.06.1990. His misconduct

came to picture that one Mr. Dhirajlal Madanlal

Khachhadia closed his current Account at College Road

branch of Bank of Baroda, Junagadh on 10.12.1998

and surrendered unsigned cheques bearing No. 78720

to 78750. On closure of said current Account the unused

cheques was handed over to the workman Osman (sub

6592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

staff ) for destruction but he stole one cheque leaf No.

78725 and entered into conspiracy with Mr. Mohamed

Safi Abdul Gani who was maintaining his S/B Account

No. 2486 with Union Bank of India, Junagadh and the

said stolen cheque No. 78725 fraudulently drawn for

Rs. One lakh was deposited in the said Union Bank of

India, Junagadh for the credit of S/B A/C No. 2486 of

Mr. Abdul Gani and on 17.04.1990 said amount of

Rs. One lakh was withdrawn by Abdul Gani by entering

into criminal conspiracy with Osman Aba Padya for

cheating and defrauding the Bank of Baroda. The duty

of the workman Osman (sub staff) was to go to main

branch Junagadh of Bank of Baroda to deliver out

ward clearing cheques in the morning and to come

back and again to go to the main branch to receive

inward clearing cheques. When inward clearing

cheques were sorted out by Mr. Vinaybhai, concerned

clerk then Osman Aba Padya called Vinaybhai to attend

a person in the Bank premises and said Vinaybhai

went away to attend the person in the meantime the

workman Osman Aba Padya managed to steal away

the said forged cheque of Rs. One Lakh from the bunch

of cheques pertaining to College Road branch of Bank of

India, Junagadh and destroyed the same. Such fraudulent

transaction was detected. Police case was instituted,

workman Osman Aba Padya was arrested with other

accused involved in fraudulent transaction. The workman

Osman Aba Padya was suspended. Departmental

proceeding was initiated by issuing charge sheet.

Domestic enquiry conducted, management produced

witnesses as well as documentary evidence to

substantiate charges before enquiry officer. The stand

of the workman is that he was falsely implicated in the

case and he is innocent and he has nothing to do with

unutilised cheque book leaf No. 78725 of current

Account holder Mr. Dhirajlal, he has nothing to hatch

up conspiracy with Mr. Mohmed Safi Abdul Gani.

Further stand taken is the 1st party Bank in order to save

skin of real faulty staff, falsely fastened liability upon

him. Further stand is that he was acquitted in criminal

trial and so there is no ground in holding him guilty

of gross negligence under the charge sheet in the

domestic inquiry, principles of natural justice not

followed, the punishment of removal imposed upon

him is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of

misconduct.

On the other hand, the case of the 1^st party (B.O.B.)

interlia as per written statement (Ext.7) is that the

principles of natural justice was followed in holding

domestic inquiry, delinquent workman was given equal

opportunity to defend himself. The contention of the

Bank (1st party) is that the workman was sub staff at

College Road branch, appointed in the year 1980 and

was placed under suspension vide letter dated

11.06.1990, pending departmental enquiry for his alleged

fraudulent acts of misconduct during his tenure at

College Road branch, Junagadh. On workman’s request

that the criminal case is pending against him. So,

departmental inquiry for the charge of fraud was kept in

abeyance and not conducted immediately. Thereafter

independent departmental inquiry was conducted by

appointing inquiry officer for the charges levelled against

him. His guilt’s of gross miss conduct was proved in

the departmental inquiry proper and reasonable

punishment order of removal from the services of

Bank with superannuation benefits was passed by the

Disciplinary Authority dated 20.12.2000 and the appeal

before the appellate authority was also rejected after

due consideration of the proved misconduct of the

delinquent workman. On these ground, the prayer is

made to reject the reference on merit since the delinquent

workman is not entitled to any relief.

At the very outset it has to be mentioned that the

propriety of domestic inquiry held against the

delinquent workman was decided as preliminary issue

vide order dated 10.10.2011 (Ext.29) and it has been

held that the principles of natural justice was followed,

the workman was given opportunity to defend himself

against the memo of charges levelled against him, the

findings of inquiry officer are not perversed and the

domestic inquiry held against the delinquent workman

is fair valid and proper, so the matter in the case was

fixed for evidence if any on gainful employment and

argument on quantum of punishment awarded to the

delinquent by the Disciplinary Authority.

The 2^nd party (delinquent workman) Shri Osman

Aba Padya adduced documentary evidence by submitting

20 documents with list Ext.32 marked exhibits 35 to

54. He also submitted his affidavit in chief (Ext.33)

which is on point of non-employment since after

removal from the services of the Bank. He was also

cross examined by Shri V.K. Mashar, Advocate for the

1st party Bank. The 1^st party (Bank) also examined a

witness (ext.58) Shri Basudeo D. Parmar, Chief manager

, H.R.M. Bank of Baroda, Jamnagar on point of

justification of the order of punishment to the delinquent

since due to misconduct of fraud by the workman the

image of the Bank was maligned and denying the

suggestion given to him in cross-examination by the

workman’s Advocate Shri P.S. Mehta, it is not true that

punishment imposed upon the workman is too harsh.

The following issues are taken up for determination

in this case.

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Has the 2^nd party workman Shri Osman Aba

Padya any valid cause of action?

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6593

(iii)

Whether the punishment order dated 22.12.2000

awarded to the delinquent by the Disciplinary

Authority is proportionate to the gravity of

misconduct?

(iv)

Whether the action of the management of Bank

of Baroda (1^st party) in removing the 2^nd party

from the service w.e.f. 22.12.2000 is legal and

justified?

(v)

Whether the 2^nd party is entitled to any relief ?

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. (iii) & (iv): Ext.22 is memo of charge

dated 27.02.1999 against the delinquent workman O.A.

Padya. Ext.23 is second show cause cum proposed

punishment memo given to the delinquent dated

12.10.2000. Ext.24 is order of punishment of removal

from the service with superannuation benefit with

immediate effect dated 22.12.2000. The following charge

had been levelled against the workman (2^nd party):-

(i)

Doing acts prejudicial to the interest of bank

(ii)

Gross negligence in performing duties

(iii)

has not taken possible steps to ensure and

protect the interest of Bank but has committed

such act(s) of ommission and commission as

were contrary and detrimental

(iv)

Caused or committed act(s) likely to cause

financial loss to the tune of Rs. One lakh to the

Bank.

I have gone through the evidence oral and

documentary produced against the workman Osman

during course of domestic enquiry. There is abundance

evidence that the customer of college road branch of Bank

of Baroda Mr. Dhirajlal M. Kacchdia had closed his

current A/c on 10.12.1988 and surrender his unused

cheques bearing No. 78720 to 78750. After closure of

current A/c of that customer, the workman was handed

over the unused cheque book contain those cheque’s

No’s for destruction but the delinquent fraudulently

pick out a cheque leaf No.. 78725 and by use of that

cheque Mr. Gani credited Rs. One lakh in his S/B/ A/c at

Union Bank of India. The very act of the delinquent in

fraudulently removing one unused blank cheque speaks

a volume about dishonest intention on part of him. How

that blank cheque was passed on by him to Mr. Gani his

paramour has also come in evidence of enquiry witness.

Admitted position is also that the said stolen cheque

leaf was handed over by the workman to Mr. Gani for

ulterior motive to defraud the college Road branch of

Bank of Baroda with the help of workman O.A. Padya.

Admittedly due to gross negligence of the workman the

bank was put to loss of Rs. One Lakh. Bank service to

customer is to maintain confidence among its customer

but such act of omission and commission on part of

the workman in stealing away one unused cheque

handing over to Mr. Gani for its fraudulent use and

during course of duty of handing over and bringing

back outwards and inwards clearance paper including

questioned cheque. Participated in destruction of cheque

from detection of fraud further speaks a volume about

lack of integrity, loyalty to bank service as sub staff by

the concerned workman.

It has been submitted in the written argument on

behalf of the 2^nd party (Ext.16) that the workman and co-

acussed Mr. Gani were acquitted in the criminal trial for

the offence u/s. 120B, 381,409,467,474 and 477 of the

I.P.C. by the trial Magistrate (C.J.M) in criminal trial

No. 8891/90 by Judgment dated 30.05.2002 vide Ext.59

and the state went in appeal against acquittal before

the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court but the appeal was

rejected by the Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated

29.06.2010 passed in criminal Appeal No. 915 of 2002

vide Ext.60 and so in view of the matter action on part

of the management of Bank in passing punishment of

removal from services of the workman by order dated

22.12.2000 is illegal and is fit to be set aside by this

tribunal by invoking the power u/s. 11 A of the I.D.

Act, 1947 and the workman deserves reinstatement

with back wages etc.

10.

On the other hand, it has been vehemently argued

that proof of charges of misconduct in departmental

inquiry is based upon preponderance of evidence and

no need as to prove of charges beyond reasonable shadow

of doubts as required in criminal trial. It has been

further pointed out that the workman was not

honourably and cleanly acquitted of the criminal

charges rather was given benefit of doubts and was

acquitted. It has been further submitted that there is no

bar in conducting and concluding departmental inquiry

during pendency of protracted criminal trial. Such

argument adduced on behalf of the 2^nd party that there

is inordinate delay in serving /issuing charge sheet

upon the delinquent workman has no leg to stand

because police case had been instituted and that was

pending for long period and the delinquent had been

put under suspension and so in that view of the

matter issuing of charge sheet in the year 1999

(27.02.1999) and passing of punishment order dated

22.12.2000 during pendency of criminal trial is not at

all illegal and unwarranted. Because there is catena of

decision that criminal trial and domestic inquiry can

proceed independently.

11.

The case law of Anil Dogre vs. Secretary (Labour)

and another (2012-IV-LLJ-7 Delhi H.C.) is not applicable

in the instant case. Another case law is Laxmi Barat

Bavisi (widow) and another vs. Permanent Magnets Ltd.

And others (2012-IV-LLJ 129 Bombay HC) is not also

fit in the facts and circumstance of the case and the gravity

6594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of misconduct of the 2^nd party workman. The oral evidence

of workman that he remained unemployed after removal

from service and had applied at several places for job

are not tenable in the proved misconduct of the

delinquent workman. More so, passing punishment by

removal from service has not caused economic death

of the workman because his removal was with

superannuation benefits. More so, his two sons are

earning and maintaining the family and so there is no

question of economic death or even financial hardship

to him in view of superannuation benefits. The case law

of Divisional controller, GSRT, Rajkot vs. Maganbhai G.

Patel (199 Law suit (Guj) 525 is also not helpful to

delinquent in the instant case.

12.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the

1^st party has also cited case law reported in 2003 law

Suit (s) 167 on point of quantum of punishment that

punishment awarded by the disciplinary Authority

should not be interfered. Other case laws cited 212 Law

Suit (Kerala) 1598, 2009 Law suit (S.C) 107 on quantum

of punishment usually should not be interfered u/s 11-

A of the I.D. Act. The case law of management K. Tea

Estate Vs. ABC Mazdoor Sangh (2004 Law Suit (S.C)

1003. On the point that the approach and objective in

the criminal proceeding and disciplinary proceeding is

altogether distinct and different .The case law of Eastern

Electric and Trading Com. Vs.. Baldevlal (1975 Law

Suit (SC) 265 is on the point-Employer whose business

with the customer is lost because of behaviour of one of

his employee can have no use for the services of that

employee.

13.

After careful consideration of the punishment order

of removal with superannuation benefit imposed by the

management of the 1^st party against the workman (2^nd

party). I find that such punishment imposed upon the

2^nd party workman is not at all disproportionate to the

gravity of proved misconduct of gross negligence. I do

not find any ground to make interference in the quantum

of punishment u/s. 11-A of the I.D.Act. So the 1st party

has justified its action in removing from service of

Shri Osman A. Padya with superannuation benefits. Thus

issue No. III is answered in negative and Issue No.iv is

answered in affirmative and both decided in favour of

the 1^st party (Bank).

14.

ISSUE No. (i) & (ii) : In view of the findings to

issue No. (iii) & (IV) in the foregoings. I further find

and hold that the reference is not maintainable and the

2^nd party Shri Osman Aba Padya has no cause of action

in this case.

15.

ISSUE No.(v) : In view of the findings in the

foregoings, I am of the considered view and therefore

find and hold that the 2^nd party Shri Osman Aba Padya

is not entitled to any relief since the reference is devoid

of merit.

Accordingly the reference is dismissed. No order

of any cost.

This is my Award.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2623-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad

vkWiQ egkjk"Vª 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-

87@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-09-

2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@26@95&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2014

S.O. 2623.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 87/

2002) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of

Maharasthra and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19.09.2014.

[No. L-12011/26/95-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/87/2002

Date: 18.08.2014

Party No. 1

Assistant General Manager,

Bank of Maharashtra,

Maha Building,

Munje Chowk, Sitabuldi,

Nagpur.

Versus

Party No. 2

The vice President,

Union of the Maharashtra

Bank Employees,

542, Congress Nagar,

Nagpur.

AWARD

(Dated: 18th August, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government had referred the industrial

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6595

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Bank of Maharashtra and the Union of

the Maharashtra Bank Employees, for adjudication, to

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour

court, Jabalpur, as per letter No.L-12011/26/95-IR (B-

II) dated 30.12.1996, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Bank

of Maharashtra, Nagpur in reducing the H.R.A. and

stopping of C.C.A. w.e.f. September, 1994 and

further intending to give it retrospective effect from

01.03.1991 for the employees working in the

Kamptee Branch of the Bank is proper, legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

workmen are entitled?”

Subsequently, the reference was transferred to

this Tribunal for disposal in accordance with Law.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the Union, “Union of the

Maharashtra Bank Employees” (“ The union” in short )

filed the statement of claim and the management of Bank

of Maharashtra, (“Party No. 1” in short) filed their

written statement.

The case as presented in the statement of claim by

the union is that the service conditions of the employees

of Nationalized bank are governed by the provisions of

Sastry Award, Desai Award and different settlements

signed between the representatives of the Banks through

Indian Bank Association and trade unions of the

employees and also settlements signed under the

provisions of the Act and the party no.1 is a nationalized

bank and the Awards and Settlements mentioned above

are binding on the party no.1 and party no.1 had entered

into settlements with the union/ unions on different

subjects, which also govern inter-alia the service

conditions of the employees working with party no.1 and

party no.1 is categorized as ‘A’ class bank and in order

to alleviate the financial sufferings of the employees,

posted in and around large cities, Bipartite Settlements

were signed by the party no.1 and the unions for payment

of City Compensatory Allowance (“CCA” in short) and

House Rent Allowance (“HRA” in short) and the said

allowances are paid to the employees to partially

neutralize the divesting impact of the cost of living

associated with certain places and party no.1 vide circular

dated 14.10.1983 started paying CCA & HRA to the

employees working at its Kamptee branch with

retrospective effect from 01.03.1981 and the employees

posted in the said branch became entitled for such

allowances on the basis of the 1981 census and on the

factual premise that the said branch being totally

dependent on Nagpur, ought to be treated at par with

Nagpur for the purpose of payment of CCA and HRA

etc. and almost majority of the staff of Kamptee branch

is living and residing in Nagpur, since residential

arrangements have not been made for them at Kamptee

by party no.1.

The further case of the union is that the Branch

Manager, Kamptee branch in the salary paid and credited

in the salary accounts of the employees on 24.10.1994

for the month of October,1994 did not calculate and pay

CCA at all and paid HRA in reduced rate and on

25.10.1994, the employees made a joint representation

to party No.1 stating inter-alia that they are entitled for

the aforesaid allowances and the action of the

management in not paying the same is illegal and on

receipt of the said representation by it (union), it gave a

demand notice to party no.1, pointing out the patent

illegality committed by the management and requested

for restoration of the allowance deducted from the salary

of the staff members and the Branch Manager, Kamptee

Branch informed them that the action was taken by him

at the instance of party no.1 and party no.1 also intended

to recover the amount of CCA and related HRA already

paid to the employees working at Kamptee Branch w.e.f.

01.03.1991 and as such, they filed industrial dispute

before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),

Nagpur under the provisions of the Act and in view of

the same, party no.1 decided not to give retrospective

effect to the order of recovery of the amount of CCA and

related HRA from 01.03.1991 and it is clear that after

adjudication of the dispute, the party no.1 intend to make

recoveries of the said amount from the salary of the staff

w.e.f. 01.03.1991.

It is also pleaded by the union that Kamptee Branch

has been treated by party no.1 as one of the branches of

Nagpur city for all the purposes and the said branch is

also a member of clearing house run by Reserve Bank of

India, Nagpur and party no.1 had entered into a settlement

dated 13.04.1987 on the subject of allotment of special

allowance posts, wherein, the criteria of city seniority

had been introduced for the first time and in the said

settlement, in the definition of “City”, Kamptee branch

was included and while allotting posts attracting special

allowance, seniority of employees working at Kamptee

branch was considered and not only that but also,

employees holding special allowance post in the branches

of Nagpur city were transferred to Kamptee branch and

vice versa and party no.1 had transferred many employees,

who had applied for their transfer to Nagpur city as per

the settlement entered by it under the policy of “ request

transfer of employees” to Kamptee branch and such facts

go to demonstrate that Kamptee Branch for all the time

has been treated as one of the Branches of Nagpur city

and the officers working at Kamptee branch are also

categories as officers of Nagpur City branch and their

working at Kamptee branch is not counted as Rural

Branch for the purpose of promotion/ elevation etc, as

per the policy of party no.1 and the said fact establishes

6596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that party no.1 is still treating Kamptee branch as one of

the Branches of Nagpur city and in such identical

situation, other banks, such as, State Bank of India, Bank

of India etc. and Central Government employees

especially all the departments related with the Ministry

of Finance and Defence working at Kamptee are getting

CCA and HRA on par with the employees working in

Nagpur city.

It is further pleaded by the union that in identical

situation and identical set of facts, the party no.1 had

stopped payment of CCA and HRA to employees working

at its Hingna Industrial Estate Branch, Nagpur from 1981

and recovered the amount of the same from the said

employees after service of notice u/s. 9-A of the Act to

the employees and the unions, as per the Rules and the

matter came to be challenged by raising industrial dispute

by them (union) and the dispute was referred to the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bombay for

adjudication and the Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal

set aside the notice of change and the action impugned

vide the award dated 20.08.1993 and the facts of the

present dispute are identical with the issues of the

aforesaid case and the ratio of the said award is squarely

applicable to the present case and the matter involved in

the instant dispute is covered by items 3 and 8 of Fourth

Schedule of the Act, which deal with requirement of

notice as stipulated under section 9-A of the Act and as

party no.1 stopped the payment of CCA and HRA to the

employees of Kamptee branch, which they were getting

since last more than 10 years, from October, 1994, such

action amounted to illegal change of service conditions

of the said employees and party no.1 failed to give any

notice u/s. 9-A of the Act, as required by law, before

stopping of payment of CCA and HRA to the employees

of Kamptee branch and the action of party no.1 is neither

justified nor legal.

The union has prayed to direct the party no.1 not

to make recovery w.e.f. 01.03.1991 and to pay CCA and

HRA to concerned employees w.e.f. September, 1994 with

interest, after holding the action of party no.1 in reducing

the HRA and stopping of payment of CCA as improper,

illegal and unjustified.

The party no.1 in the written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that payment of CCA and HRA was stopped by

it, to the employees working at Kamptee Branch, as

Kamptee was classified as “C” class town, after being

segregated from Nagpur city urban agglomeration, as per

Government of India Circular OM No. 2(2) 93-E.II (B)

dated 14.05.1993 and vide memorandum No. 23 E-13

(24)-19 Estt. Dated 14.10.1993 and accordingly, CCA

and HRA were required to be paid to the employees of

Kamptee branch, at the rates applicable to ‘C’ class city

and though the employees not working within the city

were entitled for CCA/HRA, the payment of the same

was subject to agreement between the parties and the law

in that regard and the entitlement of CCA/HRA was not

absolute, but was subject to the changed circumstances

and the employees working in Kamptee branch were

getting the HRA and CCA by virtue of Sastri and Desai

Awards and modified version of Bipartite settlements,

entered into by it with the unions and modified from time

to time and as per para 8.4 of the settlement dated

19.10.1966, it was agreed that, “For the purpose of house

rent allowance, the latest available official figures of

All India census shall be taken into account” and as per

para III (1) A (iii) of Bipartite settlement dated 17.09.184,

it was agreed that, “For the purpose of CCA, the latest

available official figures of All India Census shall be taken

into account.” and the employees working at the branches

are entitled to receive CCA & HRA as per the population,

to be declared by the census authority and the township

of Kamptee was included in Nagpur urban Agglomeration

as per 1981 census and therefore, the employees working

at Kamptee branch became entitled to receive HRA and

CCA on par with Nagpur Agglomeration area and the

employees of Kamptee branch were accordingly paid the

appropriate CCA and HRA as per the above mentioned

Bipartite Settlements and the Branch Manager issued the

communication as per the changed situation and the

representation made by the employees of Kamptee branch

was of no consequence and therefore, it did not act upon

the same and similar was the case regarding the demand

notice and in view of the change in the census of 1991

and in view of the agreement between the parties and the

law in this regard, the employees were not entitled for

CCA and HRA w.e.f. 01.03.1991 and as there was no

change of any service condition and as Kamptee was

segregated from Nagpur agglomeration area and

categorized as ‘C’ class city by the census authorities,

the provisions of the Bipartite settlement regarding

payment of HRA and CCA automatically became

operative, for which, no separate notice was required to

be issued to the unions and the payment of CCA/HRA is

strictly regulated, guided and decided as per the

classification made by the latest available census figures

and payment of CCA & HRA by certain other banks or

institutions on par with Nagpur city to their employees

working in Kamptee cannot be made a basis for

demanding payment of CCA and HRA by its employees

working at Kamptee Branch, as it would amount to breach

of service condition and the transfer policy has no

relevance with the payment of CCA/HRA and it withdrew

the CCA/HRA as applicable to ‘B’ class city to employees

working in Kamptee branch as per the directive of the

Central Government dated 14.05.1993 and in the

subsequent circular dated 21.03.1994, there is no

direction by the Government to the bank to pay CCA/

HRA on par with Nagpur city and the dispute relating to

Hingna Industrial Branch has no relevance the same was

based on entirely different facts and notice of change is

required to be given as per section 9-A of the Act only for

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6597

change in service condition made otherwise than as

provided in the Bipartite settlement and as the non-

payment of CCA/HRA to the employees of its Kamptee

Branch on par with Nagpur city was as a consequence of

categorization of Kamptee as ‘C” class town, as per the

provisions of Bipartite settlement, no notice of change

was required to be given and as such, the reference is

liable to be answered against the union and the union is

not entitled to any of the claims as prayed for.

In order to prove their respective claims, both the

parties have adduced oral evidence, besides placing

reliance on documentary evidence. One Sudhir Anant

Gupte has been examined as a witness on behalf of the

union, whereas, one Umesh B. Shinde has been examined

as a witness on behalf of party no.1.

In the evidence on affidavit, the witness for the

union has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement

of claim. However, in his cross examination, this witness

has stated that the rate of payment of CCA and HRA to

its employees working in different branches is not the

same and the same is different according to the situation

of the branches and the rate of payment of CCA and HRA

depends upon the classification of the towns as classified

by the census authority of Government of India, basing

on the population and he cannot say if Nagpur has been

declared as a B-1 city and Kamptee has been declared as

a ‘C’ type town by census authority and the service

conditions of the employees of the Bank of Maharashtra

are governed by the Bipartite settlements and in the

Bipartite settlement of 1966, it was agreed that payment

of CCA and HRA would be made to the employees of the

Bank according to the latest available figures of All India

census and he cannot say if the Bank withdraw the

payment of CCA and HRA to the employees of Kamptee

branch at the same rate payable to the employees working

in Nagpur city in view of the direction of the Government

of India dated 14.05.1993.

The witness examined on behalf of the party no.1

in his evidence on affidavit has reiterated the facts

mentioned in the written statement by party no.1. This

witness in his cross-examination has stated that payment

of CCA and HRA to the employees of Kamptee branch

started again in August, 2000.

At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the union that the employees of party

no.1 working in Kamptee branch were getting CCA and

house rent at par with the employees of the Bank working

in the branches of Nagpur city since 1981 and all of a

sudden and without any notice, party no.1 stopped the

payment of CCA totally and reduced the rate of payment

of HRA by 4% to the employees of Kamptee branch from

the month of September, 1994 and the change so made

by party no.1 was quite illegal and notice under section

9-A of the Act was necessary to be given by the party

no.1 as there was change of service condition as

mentioned in clauses 3 and 8 of the 4^th Schedule and as

such, the employees working at Kamptee branch are

entitled for payment of CCA and HRA as before and the

reference is liable to be answered in favour of the union.

Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the party no.1 that Kamptee was declared as ‘C” class

town after being segregated from Nagpur city Urban

Agglomeration as per the circular of the Government of

India dated 14.05.1993 and vide memorandum dated

14.10.1993, it was directed by the Government of India

for payment of CCA and HRA to the employees working

at Kamptee at the rate applicable to ‘C” class city and

the employees of the bank working in Kamptee branch

were getting CCA and HRA in accordance with the

provisions of Sastry and Desai Awards and the Bi-partite

settlements arrived at between the parties from time to

time and as per clause 8.4 of the Bi-partite settlement

dated 19.10.1966, it was agreed between the parties that

for the purpose of payment of HRA, the latest available

official figures of All India Census shall be taken into

account and as per para III (I) (A) (iii) of the Bi-partite

settlement dated 17.09.1984, it was agreed that for the

purpose of payment of CCA, the latest official figures of

the All India Census shall be taken into account and on

the basis of such settlements, the Bank stopped the

payment of CCA and reduced the amount of HRA by 4%,

after declaration of Kamptee as a “C” class town and

there was no change of any service condition and the

change of payment of CCA and HRA was made in

pursuance to the above said settlements, there was no

need to give any notice under section 9-A of the Act by

party No.1 and payment of CCA and HRA by other Banks

or Central Government Offices in higher rate to their

employees working at Kamptee cannot be taken as a

ground by the employees of the party No.1 working at

Kamptee branch for payment of CCA or HRA at the same

rate and the circular dated 13.04.1987, regarding transfer

of the employees of the bank to Kamptee branch, holding

the same to be included in Nagpur city cannot override

the notification of the Government of India dated

14.05.1993, declaring Kamptee as a “C” class city and

there is nothing wrong in the action of Bank and the

Union or the concerned workmen are not entitled to any

relief.

On perusal of the record and taking into

consideration the submissions made by the learned

advocates for the parties, the following undisputed facts

are found:-

(a)

Kamptee town was made a part of Nagpur City

urban agglomeration as per 1981 census.

(b)

The party No.1 vide circular dated 14.10.1983

started paying CCA and HRA to the employees

working at Kamptee branch at par with the

employees working in the branches of Nagpur

City.

6598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(c)

As per para 8.4 of the Bi-partite settlement dated

19.10.1966,it was agreed between the parties

that for the purpose of payment of HRA, the

latest official figures of All India census shall

be taken into account.

(d)

As per para III (I) (A) (iii) 8.4 of the Bi-partite

settlement dated 17.09.1984,it was agreed

between the parties that for the purpose of

payment of CCA, the latest official figures of

All India census shall be taken into account.

(e)

As per Government of India’s circular dated

14.05.1993, Kamptee was segregated from

Nagpur City urban agglomeration and was

declared as a “C” class town.

(f)

CCA and HRA were being paid to the employees

of the Bank as per the Bi-partite settlements.

(g)

In view of the declaration of Kamptee as a “C”

class town, as per circular dated 14.05.1993 of

the Government of India, party No.1 stopped

paying CCA and paid HRA in reduced rate to

the employees working at Kamptee branch w.e.f.

September, 1994.

(h)

Inspite of the circular dated 14.05.1993, some

other Banks and Government Offices decided

and paid CCA and HRA to their employees

working at Kamptee in the same rate as paid to

them prior to 14.05.1993.

(i)

Some of the employees working at Kamptee

branch of the party No.1 and the union made

representations and raised objection against the

action of the party No.1 in not paying the CCA

and reducing the rate of payment of HRA from

September, 1994.

10.

According to the Union, the party No.1 is still

treating Kamptee branch at par with other branches of

Nagpur City, for all other purposes except payment of

CCA and HRA and the action of party No.1 in denying

payment of CCA and making payment of HRA in reduced

rate amounted to change of service conditions as given

in item nos. 3 and 8 of 4^th schedule of the Act and before

making any change in the service conditions, the party

No.1 was legally bound to give notice under section 9-A

of the Act and as no such notice was given, the action

was illegal and as such, the same is liable to be set aside

and the Award passed by the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal, Bombay dated 20.08.1993 is squarely

applicable to this case as the facts and circumstances of

both the cases are identical.

11.

At this juncture, I think it proper to mention that

this Tribunal is not bound to follow the award passed by

any other Central Government Industrial Tribunal.

Moreover, after perusal of the award in question, it is

found that the facts and circumstances of the case referred

in the said award are quite different from the facts and

circumstances of the present reference in hand. In the

case referred in the award in question, Hingna Industrial

Estate Branch was not declared as “C” class town by the

Government of India as per 1991 census. In that case,

party No.1 was paying CCA and HRA to the employees

working in the said branch, on the basis of 1981 census

on par with the employees working in the branches of

Nagpur City and without any change of the circumstances,

party No.1 after giving notice under section 9-A of the

Act, withdrew the payment of CCA and HRA to them

from September, 1989, which is not the case in the present

reference. Hence, the award dated 20.08.1993 passed by

the Central Government industrial Tribunal, Bombay has

no application to the present case in hand.

12.

Admittedly, Section 9-A of the Act prescribes that

no employer, who proposes to effect any change in the

condition of service applicable to any workman in respect

of any matter specified in the fourth schedule shall effect

such change:-

(a)

Without giving to the workmen likely to be

affected by such change a notice in the prescribed

manner of the nature of the change proposed to

be effected; or

(b)

Within twenty-one days of giving such notice.

It is also found that payment of compensatory and

other allowances are included in item no. 3 of the fourth

schedule. So, in the normal course of action, any change

in payment of CCA and HRA to its employees by an

employer requires a notice under section 9-A of the Act.

However, Section 9-A of the Act provides two

exceptions to such normal rules of giving notice. Proviso

(a) to section 9-A of the Act, which is required to be

considered in this reference says that no notice under

section 9-A is required to be given, where the change is

effected in pursuance of any settlement or award.

In this reference, it is the admitted case of the parties

that by settlements dated 19.10.1966 and dated

17.09,1984, it was agreed by the parties that for the

purpose of payment of HRA and CCA respectively, latest

available official figure of All India census shall be taken

into account. As in this case, it is clear from the materials

on record that Kamptee was declared as a “C” class town

after segregating the same from Nagpur City Urban

agglomeration as per 1991 census, the party No.1 stopped

payment of CCA and reduced the rate of HRA to its

employees working at Kamptee branch from September,

1994, in pursuance to the settlements dated 19.10.1966

and 17.09.1984, there was no need for party No.1 to give

notice under section 9-A of the Act, before effecting such

changes.

13.

As it is the admitted case of the parties that payment

of CCA and HRA to the employees is governed by the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6599

Bi-partite settlements entered into between the Bank and

the Unions, payment of CCA and HRA by some other

Banks or Offices of the Government to their respective

employees working at Kamptee or that party No.1 treats

Kamptee branch as a part of Nagpur City for other

purposes cannot be taken as valid grounds for claiming

CCA and HRA on par with the employees working in

different branches of Nagpur city by the union.

14.

In this case, though it is alleged by the union that

the party No.1 wanted to make recovery of CCA and HRA

paid to the employees working at Kamptee branch w.e.f.

01.03.1991, by giving retrospective effect to such order

and due to raising of the dispute, party No.1 had decided

not to implement the said decision, no proof has been

produced in support of such claim. Party No.1 in the

written statement has neither affirmed nor denied the

same. However, as the notification given by the

Government cannot be given retrospective effect, unless

and until specific direction is given in the said notification

itself, it is held that the paty No.1 is not entitled to make

recovery of the CCA and HRA already paid to the

employees working at Kamptee branch from 01.03.1991

to August, 1994. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of Bank of

Maharashtra, Nagpur in reducing the H.R.A. and

stopping of payment of C.C.A. w.e.f. September, 1994 to

the employees working in the Kamptee Branch of the

Bank is proper, legal and justified. The Management of

the Bank of Maharashtra is not entitled to recover the

CCA and HRA already paid to the said employees for the

period from 01.03.1991 to August, 1994. The concerned

workmen are not entitled to any other relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2624-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad

vkWiQ egkjk"Vª 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-

108@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-09-

2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@36@95&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2014

S.O. 2624.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 108/

2002) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of

Maharasthra and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19.09.2014.

[No. L-12011/36/95-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/108/2002

Date: 18.08.2014

Party No.1

The Regional Manager,

Bank of Maharashtra,

Maha Bank Building,

Sitabuldi,

Nagpur-440012.

Versus

Party No.2

The General Secretary,

Bank of Maharashtra

Employees Association,

C/o Bank of Maharashtra,

Maha Bank Building,

Sitabuldi,

Nagpur-440012.

AWARD

(Dated: 18^th August, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government had referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workmen,

for adjudication, to the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum- Labour court, Jabalpur, as per letter No.L-

12011/36/95-IR (B-II) dated 04.03.1997, with the

following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Regional

Office, Bank of Maharashtra, Nagpur in reducing

the H.R.A. and stopping C.C.A. of the employees

working in the Kamptee Branch of the Bank w.e.f.

September, 1994 is valid, proper and justified? If

not, to what relief the said workmen are entitled

and from what date?”

Subsequently, the reference was transferred to this

Tribunal, for disposal in accordance with Law.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the Union, “Bank of

Maharashtra Employees Association” (“The union” in

short ) filed the statement of claim and the management

of Bank of Maharashtra, (“Party No. 1” in short) filed

their written statement.

6600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The case of the union as presented in the statement

of claim is that the employees working at Kamptee branch

of party No.1 were receiving House Rent Allowance and

City Compensatory Allowance (“H.R.A.” and “C.C.A.”

in short respectively) equivalent to those employees

working in Nagpur till August, 1994 and the party No.1

all of a sudden unilaterally under the guise of some

circular issued by the Government of India stopped the

payment of the same and as the employees working at

Kamptee branch were getting the H.R.A. and CCA by

virtue of the Bi-partite settlements and as it was a

contractual obligation, no single party was allowed to

commit any breach of the same and as such, the decision

of the party No.1 was contrary to Law and void ab-initio

and the said decision was implemented without giving

any prior notice to the employees, although it was

incumbent on the part of the party No.1 to do so and as

such, the decision of the party No.1 was illegal and

contrary to the established procedure of Law.

It is further pleaded by the union that Bank of India,

State Bank of India, E.S.I.C. Sub- Regional office and

Government of Maharashtra continued to pay HRA and

CCA to their employees working at Kamptee, equivalent

to employees working at Nagpur and as such, party No.1

was not entitled to deduct HRA and stopped payment of

CCA to its employees working in Kamptee branch and

agreement dated 13.04.1987 was signed by the party

No.1and All India Bank of Maharashtra Employees

Federation in regard to “Settlement on allowance carrying

posts” i.e. city seniority and according to the said

settlement, a seniority list was prepared, which included

Kamptee Branch within the purview of Nagpur City and

according to the said settlement, senior employees were

transferred to Kamptee branch against allowance carrying

posts, but due to the decision of the party No.1, those

employees were debarred from being transferred to the

allowance carrying posts in Nagpur and the action of

party No.1 was illegal and bad in law and amounted to

material change in service conditions, which should not

have made, until notice under section 9-A of the Act was

given and party No.1 is a Government of India

undertaking and the party No.1 withdrew the allowances

as per the directives of the Central Government dated

14.05.1993, but vide circular dated 21.03.1994, the

Central Government conveyed in clear cut terms that

though Kamptee has been delinked from Nagpur Urban

Agglomeration, the employees working in various

departments in Kamptee Area would continue to get CCA/

HRA at per with Nagpur Area with a view to avoid

financial hardships and this arrangement would continue

till further instructions and party No.1 flouted the

legitimate instructions of the Government, which was

highly illegal and contrary to the norm of justice and

cannot be allowed to continue and in a similar case, the

CGIT NO.1, Bombay had decided the dispute in favour

of the employees and the said award is binding on the

party No.1 and the action of the party No.1 amounted to

unfair labour practice and liable to be set aside.

The union has prayed to quash and set aside the

instructions issued by the party No.1 regarding payment

of CCA and HRA.

The party no.1 in the written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that payment of CCA and HRA was stopped by

it to the employees working at Kamptee Branch, as

Kamptee was classified as “C” class town, after being

segregated from Nagpur city urban agglomeration, as per

Government of India Circular OM No. 2(2) 93-E.II (B)

dated 14.05.1993 and vide memorandum No. 23 E-13

(24)-19 Estt. Dated 14.10.1993 and accordingly, CCA

and HRA were required to be paid to the employees of

Kamptee branch at the rates applicable to ‘C’ class town

and though the employees not working within the city

were entitled for CCA/HRA, the payment of the same

was subject to agreement between the parties and the law

in that regard and the entitlement of CCA/HRA was not

absolute, but was subject to the changed circumstances

and the employees working in Kamptee branch were

getting the HRA and CCA by virtue of Sastri and Desai

Awards and modified version of Bipartite settlements

entered into by it with the unions and modified from time

to time and as per para 8.4 of the settlement dated

19.10.1966 it was agreed that, “For the purpose of house

rent allowance, the latest available official figures of

All India census shall be taken into account” and as per

para III (1) A (iii) of Bipartite settlement dated 17.09.84

it was agreed that, “For the purpose of CCA, the latest

available official figures of All India Census shall be taken

into account.” And the employees working at the branches

are entitled to receive CCA & HRA as per the population

to be declared by the census authority and the township

of Kamptee was included in Nagpur urban Agglomeration

as per 1981 census and therefore, the employees working

at Kamptee branch became entitled to receive HRA and

CCA on par with Nagpur Agglomeration area and the

employees of Kamptee branch were accordingly paid the

appropriate CCA and HRA as per the above mentioned

Bipartite Settlements and the Branch Manager issued the

communication as per the changed situation and the

representation made by the employees of Kamptee branch

was of no consequence and therefore, it did not act upon

the same and similar was the case regarding the demand

notice and in view of the change in the census of 1991

and in view of the agreement between the parties and the

law in this regard, the employees were not entitled for

CCA and HRA w.e.f. 01.03.1991 and as there was no

change of any service condition and as Kamptee was

segregated from Nagpur agglomeration area and

categorized as ‘C’ class city by the census authorities,

the provisions of the Bipartite settlement regarding

payment of HRA and CCA automatically became

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6601

operative, for which, no separate notice was required to

be issued to the unions and the payment of CCA/HRA is

strictly regulated, guided and decided, as per the

classification made by the latest available census figures

and payment of CCA & HRA by certain other banks or

institutions on par with Nagpur city to their employees

working in Kamptee cannot be made a basis for

demanding payment of CCA and HRA by its employees

working at Kamptee Branch, as it would amount to breach

of service condition and the transfer policy has no

relevance with the payment of CCA/HRA and it withdrew

the CCA/HRA as applicable to ‘B’ class city to employees

working in Kamptee branch, as per the directive of the

Central Government dated 14.05.1993 and in the

subsequent circular dated 21.03.1994, there is no

direction by the Government to the bank to pay CCA/

HRA on par with Nagpur city and the dispute relating to

Hingna Industrial Branch has no relevance as the same

was based on entirely different facts and notice of change

is required to be given as per section 9-A of the Act, only

for change in service condition made otherwise than as

provided in the Bipartite settlement and as the non-

payment of CCA/HRA to the employees of its Kamptee

Branch on par with Nagpur city was as a consequence of

categorization of Kamptee as ‘C” class town, as per the

provisions of Bipartite settlement, no notice of change

was required to be given and as such, the reference is

liable to be answered against the union and the union is

not entitled to any of the claims as prayed for.

In order to prove their respective claims, both the

parties have adduced oral evidence, besides placing

reliance on documentary evidence. One Shri Ashok

Babulal Mohabey has been examined as a witness on

behalf of the union, whereas, one Umesh B. Shinde has

been examined as a witness on behalf of party no.1.

In his evidence on affidavit, the witness for the

union has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement

of claim. However, in his cross-examination, this witness

has stated that this dispute is regarding non-payment of

CCA and HRA to the employees working in Kamptee

branch and City compensatory allowance is paid

according to the gradation of the city and its population

and Kamptee is a Tahasil and the same is not a city and

as per Government of India’s circular No. 2(2)/93-E-II(B)

dated 14.05.1993 and memorandum No.23 E-13(24)-19-

Estt. Dated 14.10.1993, Kamptee was declared as a “C”

class town and CCA, HRA, pay scale and special

allowance etc are paid to the employees of the Bank as

per the Bi-partite settlements and as per para 8.4 of the

Bi-partite settlement dated 19.10.1966, for the purpose

of payment of House Rent Allowance, the latest available

official figures of All India Census shall be taken into

account and as per para III (1) A (iii) of the Bi-partite

settlement dated 17.09.1984, for the purpose of payment

of CCA, the latest available official figures of All India

Census shall be taken into account.

The witness examined on behalf of the party no.1

in his evidence on affidavit has reiterated the facts

mentioned in the written statement by party no.1. This

witness in his cross-examination has stated that payment

of CCA and HRA to the employees of Kamptee branch

started again in August, 2000.

At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the union that the employees of party

no.1 working in Kamptee branch were getting CCA and

HRA at par with the employees of the Bank working in

the branches of Nagpur city since 1981 and all of a sudden

and without any notice, party no.1 stopped the payment

of CCA totally and reduced the rate of payment of HRA

by 4%, to the employees of Kamptee branch, from the

month of September, 1994 and the change so made by

party no.1 was quite illegal and notice under section 9-A

of the Act was necessary to be given by the party no.1, as

there was change of service condition, as mentioned in

clauses 3 and 8 of the 4^th Schedule and as such, the

employees working at Kamptee branch are entitled for

payment of CCA and HRA as before and the reference is

liable to be answered in favour of the union.

Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the party no.1 that Kamptee was declared as ‘C” class

town after being segregated from Nagpur city Urban

Agglomeration, as per the circular of the Government of

India dated 14.05.1993 and vide memorandum dated

14.10.1993, it was directed by the Government of India

for payment of CCA and HRA to the employees working

at Kamptee at the rate applicable to ‘C” class city and

the employees of the bank working in Kamptee branch

were getting CCA and HRA in accordance with the

provisions of Sastry and Desai Awards and the Bi-partite

settlements arrived at between the parties from time to

time and as per clause 8.4 of the Bi-partite settlement

dated 19.10.1966, it was agreed between the parties that

for the purpose of payment of HRA, the latest available

official figures of All India Census shall be taken into

account and as per para III (I) (A) (iii) of the Bi-partite

settlement dated 17.09.1984, it was agreed that for the

purpose of payment of CCA, the latest official figures of

the All India Census shall be taken into account and on

the basis of such settlements, the Bank stopped the

payment of CCA and reduced the amount of HRA by 4%,

after declaration of Kamptee as a “C” class town and

there was no change of any service condition and the

change of payment of CCA and HRA was made in

pursuance to the above said settlements, there was no

need to give any notice under section 9-A of the Act by

party No.1 and payment of CCA and HRA by other Banks

or Central Government Offices in higher rate to their

employees working at Kamptee cannot be taken as a

6602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ground by the employees of the party No.1 working at

Kamptee branch for payment of CCA or HRA at the same

rate and the circular dated 13.04.1987, regarding transfer

of the employees of the bank to Kamptee branch, holding

the same to be included in Nagpur city cannot override

the notification of the Government of India dated

14.05.1993, declaring Kamptee as a “C” class city and

there is nothing wrong in the action of Bank and the

Union or the concerned workmen are not entitled to any

relief.

On perusal of the record and taking into

consideration the submissions made by the learned

advocates for the parties, the following undisputed facts

are found:-

(a)

Kamptee town was made a part of Nagpur City

urban agglomeration as per 1981 census.

(b)

The party No.1 vide circular dated 14.10.1983

started paying CCA and HRA to the employees

working at Kamptee branch at par with the

employees working in the branches of Nagpur

City.

(c)

As per para 8.4 of the Bi-partite settlement dated

19.10.1966, it was agreed between the parties

that for the purpose of payment of HRA, the

latest official figures of All India census shall

be taken into account.

(d)

As per para III (I0 (A) (iii) 8.4 of the Bi-partite

settlement dated 17.09.1984, it was agreed

between the parties that for the purpose of

payment of CCA, the latest official figures of

All India census shall be taken into account.

(e)

As per Government of India’s circular dated

14.05.1993, Kamptee was segregated from

Nagpur City urban agglomeration and was

declared as a “C” class town.

(f)

CCA and HRA were being paid to the employees

of the Bank as per the Bi-partite settlements.

(g)

In view of the declaration of Kamptee as a “C”

class town, as per circular dated 14.05.1993 of

the Government of India, party No.1 stopped

paying CCA and paid HRA in reduced rate to

the employees working at Kamptee branch w.e.f.

September, 1994.

(h)

In spite of the circular dated 14.05.1993, some

other Banks and Government Offices decided

and paid CCA and HRA to their employees

working at Kamptee in the same rate as paid to

them prior to 14.05.1993.

(i)

Some of the employees working at Kamptee

branch of the party No.1 and the union made

representations and raised objection against the

action of the party No.1 in not paying the CCA

and reducing the rate of payment of HRA from

September, 1994.

10.

According to the Union, the party No.1 is still

treating Kamptee branch at par with other branches of

Nagpur City, for all other purposes except payment of

CCA and HRA and the action of party No.1 in denying

payment of CCA and making payment of HRA in reduced

rate amounted to change of service conditions as given

in item nos. 3 and 8 of 4^th schedule of the Act and before

making any change in the service conditions, the party

No.1 was legally bound to give notice under section 9-A

of the Act and as no such notice was given, the action

was illegal and as such, the same is liable to be set aside

and the Award passed by the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal, Bombay dated 20.08.1993 is squarely

applicable to this case as the facts and circumstances of

both the cases are identical.

11.

At this juncture, I think it proper to mention that

this Tribunal is not bound to follow the award passed by

any other Central Government Industrial Tribunal.

Moreover, after perusal of the award in question, it is

found that the facts and circumstances of the case referred

in the said award are quite different from the facts and

circumstances of the present reference in hand. In the

case referred in the award in question, Hingna Industrial

Estate Branch was not declared as “C” class town by the

Government of India as per 1991 census. In that case,

party No.1 was paying CCA and HRA to the employees

working in the said branch, on the basis of 1981 census

on par with the employees working in the branches of

Nagpur City and without any change of the circumstances,

party No.1 after giving notice under section 9-A of the

Act, withdrew the payment of CCA and HRA to them

from September, 1989, which is not the case in the present

reference. Hence, the award dated 20.08.1993 passed by

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bombay has

no application to the present case in hand.

12.

Admittedly, Section 9-A of the Act prescribes that

no employer, who proposes to effect any change in the

condition of service applicable to any workman in respect

of any matter specified in the fourth schedule shall effect

such change:-

(a)

Without giving to the workmen likely to be

affected by such change a notice in the prescribed

manner of the nature of the change proposed to

be effected; or

(b)

Within twenty-one days of giving such notice.

It is also found that payment of compensatory and

other allowances are included in item no. 3 of the fourth

schedule. So, in the normal course of action, any change

in payment of CCA and HRA to its employees by an

employer requires a notice under section 9-A of the Act.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6603

However, Section 9-A of the Act provides two

exceptions to such normal rules of giving notice. Proviso

(a) to Section 9-A of the Act, which is required to be

considered in this reference, says that no notice under

Section 9-A is required to be given, where the change is

effected in pursuance of any settlement or award.

In this reference, it is the admitted case of the parties

that by settlements dated 19.10.1966 and dated

17.09.1984, it was agreed by the parties that for the

purpose of payment of HRA and CCA respectively, latest

available official figure of All India census shall be taken

into account. As in this case, it is clear from the materials

on record that Kamptee was declared as a “C” class town

after segregating the same from Nagpur City Urban

agglomeration as per 1991 census, the party No.1 stopped

payment of CCA and reduced the rate of HRA to its

employees working at Kamptee branch from September,

1994, in pursuance to the settlements dated 19.10.1966

and 17.09.1984, there was no need for party No.1 to give

notice under Section 9-A of the Act, before effecting such

changes.

13.

As it is the admitted case of the parties that payment

of CCA and HRA to the employees is governed by the

Bi-partite settlements entered into between the Bank and

the Unions, payment of CCA and HRA by some other

Banks or Offices of the Government to their respective

employees working at Kamptee or that party No.1 treats

Kamptee branch as a part of Nagpur City for other

purposes cannot be taken as valid grounds for claiming

CCA and HRA on par with the employees working in

different branches of Nagpur City by the union. Hence,

it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of Bank of

Maharashtra, Nagpur in reducing the H.R.A. and

stopping of payment of C.C.A. w.e.f. September, 1994 to

the employees working in the Kamptee Branch of the

Bank is proper, legal and justified. The Concerned

workmen are not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2625-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk 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] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 63@2013) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@07@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2014

S.O. 2625.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 63/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Andhra Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19.09.2014.

[No. L-12012/07/2013-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT

COMPLEX, DELHI

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 63/2013

Sh. Jala Ram, S/o Kapura Ram, 53, Punjabi Basti,

Rajasthan Colony, New Baljit Nagar,

New Delhi-110008

Versus

The Manager, Andhra Bank, Plot No.4,

Sadar Bazar, New Delhi

No DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-12012/07/2013-IR(B-II) dated

08.05.2013 referred the following industrial Dispute to

this tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of Andhra

Bank Sadar Bazar, Delhi in terminating the service

of Sh. Jala Ram , Peon is fair & justified? What

relief the workman is entitled for?”

On 8.07.13 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D No. 63/13 and claimant was

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days

from date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of

witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant Sh. Jala

Ram not filed claim statement but management in

response to reference filed response wherein it mentioned

as follows:-

It is submitted that the facts stated, averments made

and the contentions raised by the workman in the present

Industrial dispute are incorrect and untenable in the eyes

of law and are therefore liable to be dismissed . it is further

submitted that the workman has not approached the

Hon’ble Court with clean hands.

6604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It is submitted that the respondent/Bank is a Public

Sector bank and it is a “State” within the meaning of

Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is bound by the

mandate of Part III thereof. It is further submitted that

no person can be appointed to a post, in violation of the

recruitment norms laid down. It is further submitted that

if any appointment is made in violation of the recruitment

norms, the appointment becomes void ab initio and it

does not confer any right on the person so appointed.

That the law in this regard has been laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of

Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others.

It is submitted that the Present Industrial Disputes

petition is liable to be dismissed at it fails to establish or

give rise to any cause of action in favour of the applicant

covered under section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. In fact the Present original application is filed on

frivolous and vexations grounds to cause undue advantage

to the workman/applicant and undue loss for damage/

loss to the Bank management/Respondent. It is further

submitted that the present application is not maintainable,

as respondent/Bank (A Government of India

Undertaking) is a public Sector bank and its employees

are government/public employees and as public

employment in a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic,

republic has to be as set down by the Constitution and

the laws made there under. It is further submitted that

Equality of opportunity is the hallmark, however , the

Constitution has also provided for affirmative action to

ensure that unequals are not treated as equals. Thus, any

public employment has to be in terms of constitutional

scheme wherein a regular process of recruitment or

appointment has to be followed. It is further submitted

that when regular vacancies /posts , at a particular point

of time, are to be filled up, the filling up of those vacancies

cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on

patronage or other considerations. It is further submitted

that any regular appointment must be in compliance with

the equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India and therefore, any appointment in

violation of the said Constitutional scheme as also the

statutory recruitment rules, if any, would be void.

It is submitted that the respondent /bank had laid

down a policy and procedure to be followed in the matter

of recruitment for ensuring equality of opportunity to all

those desirous of working in the bank . It is further

submitted that all appointments including those to the

cadre of Part time Sweepers and Subordinate Staff are to

be done by following the recruitment norms laid down

by the respondent /bank. It is further submitted that only

those persons who are sponsored by the Employment

Exchange or who have responded to the Notifications

issued by the respondent/bank time to time and who fulfill

the eligibility criteria prescribed are taken/recruited into

the service of the bank as Part Time Sweepers or

Subordinate Staff.

It is submitted that the managers of the branches

have no power whatsoever to make any appointment in

any cadre. It is further submitted that the workman was

never appointed at Sadar Bazar branch of the respondent

/bank either as a Sweeper or as a Sub-Staff either on casual

or on temporary basis at any point of time, therefore the

question of his putting in 240 days of service does not

arise since he was never appointed in the service of the

respondent/bank. It is further submitted that the question

of terminating his services does not arise as well since

he was never appointed in the service of the respondent/

bank. It is further submitted that even if it assumes for a

moment that the workman was employed by the

respondent/bank on temporary basis for some period, it

does not confer any right on him for seeking his

absorption in the service of the respondent/bank since

his very such appointment being against recruitment

norms of the respondent/bank and the law laid down. It

is further submitted that it is also against the well

established principles, that what cannot be done directly

cannot also be done indirectly. That the respondent/bank

crave leave to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of

Karnataka V/s Uma Devi, Wherein the Hon’ble Apex

Court has held that “Consistent with the scheme for public

employment , this court while laying down the law, has

necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms

of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among

qualified persons, the same would not confer any right

on the appointee.“If it is a contractual appointment, the

appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract,

if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages

or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it

is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could

not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his

terms of appointment. 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 was not made by following a due process of

selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open

to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance

of temporary employees whose period of employment has

come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very

nature of their appointment do not acquire any right.”

It is submitted that the workman got a legal notice

dated 29.02.2012 served on the respondent/bank making

all false claims to which, the workman’s counsel was

duly replied to by the respondent/bank vide reply dated

02.04.2012. It is further submitted that despite clear reply

from the respondent /bank denying the false claims made

by the workman, the workman chose to raise the present

dispute with the very same false claims and without

submitting any documentary proof in support of his claim.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6605

It is submitted that the workman was never

appointed in the services of the respondent /bank at any

point of time. It is further submitted that the workman

has not submitted any documentary proof in support of

his said claim. That the respondent/bank crave leave to

refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the

matter of Madhya Pradesh Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam

Ltd. V/s Devendra Kumar Jain & Ors., JT 1995(1) SC

198, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held (para .5 )

that “ in case of an appointment on a temporary basis,

the person does not acquire any substantive right to the

post, even though the post itself may be permanent ; and

that it is an implied term of such appointment that it

may be terminated at any time and without notice”.

It is submitted that the workman was never

appointed in the service of the respondent /bank to any

post either on casual or temporary basis, therefore the

question of the respondent /bank paying him a salary of

Rs. 80/- per day does not arise. It is further submitted

that since the workman was never appointed in the service

of the respondent/bank the question of his putting in

240 days of service and confirming /absorbing him into

the service of the respondent/bank does not arise. That

the respondent/bank in this regard, crave leave to refer

to the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter

of Mahboob Deepak V/s Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula &

Anr, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “Due to some

exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wags or

on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but thereof an

employee or made permanent in absence of any statute

or statutory rules”. “The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said

judgment has further held that, “merely because an

employ has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of retrenchment , the same would not

mean that his services were liable to be regularized”. The

similar kinds of views have been given by Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the matters titled as M.P. & Others

V/s Lalit Kumar Verma -2007 (1) SCC 575 and

Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr. V/s Ashok

Kumar & Anr. 2008(4) SCC 261.

It is submitted that since the workman was never

appointed in the service of the respondent/bank, the

question of his discharging the duties honestly and

diligently does not arise. It is further submitted that the

workman was never appointed in the services of the

respondent/bank, therefore the question of terminating

his services does not asise at all.

10.

It is submitted that non selection of the workman

for the post of Sweeper/Sub- staff when advertised by the

respondent/bank and when applied for by the workman,

prompted the workman to make a false claim against the

respondent/bank that he was taken into respondent/bank’s

service on temporary basis as a Sweeper/Sub-staff and

that he had put in 240 days of continuous service and

that his services were wrongfully terminated, when n fact

he was never taken into the service of the respondent/

bank at any point of time either on casual or temporary

basis.

11.

It is submitted that since the workman was never

appointed by the respondent/bank to any post, either on

casual or temporary basis, the question of his drawing a

salary of Rs. 175/- per day on the date of his alleged

termination of service, does not arise at all. It is further

submitted that the workman was never appointed in the

services of the bank, so the question of terminating his

services illegally does not arise and neither the issuance

of any written termination letter could have been done.

12.

It is submitted that the workman/applicant is

neither entitled for reinstatement to the post of the peon

nor to the confirmation as a regular employee along with

the full back wages and other consequential benefits

accrued thereupon , as against the contentions raised by

him.

13.

It is submitted that the application/petition filed

before this Hon’ble Court by the applicant/workman is

based on absolutely false, frivolous and baseless

allegations and the applicant/workman is not entitled for

any relief claimed.

PRAYED

In view of the submissions made hereinabove and

the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present

application /petition, it is most respectfully prayed that

this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:

Dismiss the present application/petition of the

applicant /workman with exemplary cost; and ;

Pass any such other/further order(s) as the Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

On the basis of non-interestedness of workman. The

proceeding of this case is not liable to be proceeded

further. Hence proceedings of the case are liable to be

dropped and no dispute award is liable to be passed.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 22/08/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2626-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,uVhihlh&dkWy

MSe 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-

234@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-09-

2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@165@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

6606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014

S.O. 2626.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 234/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the NTPC-

Kol Dam and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 22.09.2014.

[No. L-42011/165/2013-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 234 of 2013

Reference No. L-42011/165/2013/IR(DU)

dated 03.03.2014

Shri Sanjeev Kumar son of Shree Ram

son of Shri Sunder Singh Sippi (AR),

House No. 100/3, Raoura Sector-2,

Bilaspur

...Workman

Versus

The Chief Manager, NTPC,

Kol Dam office, Barmana,

Bilaspur

Manager, Utility Power Tech Ltd.

A-6, NTPC Colony Jamthal,

PO-Jamthal, District Bilaspur,

Bilaspur (HP)

The President, M/s. Koldam

Oastees Cooperative Sharmik &

Nirman and Supply Society

Limited Kasol, PO Bhot Kasol,

The Sadar, Bilaspur. (HP).

...Respondents

Appearances :

For the Workman

None

For the Management

Sh. Pankaj Kumar and

Vineet Kumar

AWARD

Passed On : 15.9.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No. L-42011/165/2013/IR(DU) dated

03.03.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of NTPC

Koldam/Powertech Limited M/s. Koldam Oastees

Cooperative Sharmik and Nirmal and Supply

Society Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri

Sanjiv Kumar Ex-Beldar/Helper( Daily Wage

Basis) w.e.f. 16.6.09 without any notice and without

any payment of retrenchment compensation is just,

valid and legal? If not, to what benefits the

workman are entitled for and what directions are

necessary in the matter?”

Case repeated 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 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.

Chandigarh

15.9.2014

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2627-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy os;jgkm¯lx

dkjiksjs'ku 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-

189@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-09-

2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@140@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014

S.O. 2627.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 189/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in

the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Central

Warehousing Corporation and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 22.09.2014.

[No. L-42012/140/2013-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6607

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 189 of 2013

Reference No. L-42012/140/2013-IR(DU)

dated 18.2.2014

Sh.Tarsem son of Jeeta Ram,

Resident of Village & PO Gurthil,

Tehsil Narwana, Jind

...Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager, Central

Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4,

Panchkula (Haryana)-134112

...Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

None

For the Management

Shri N.K. Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on : 15.09.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No. L-42012/140/2013/IR-(DU) dated

18.2.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of the Management of

Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in

terminating the services w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of

Sh.Tarsem son of Shri Jeeta Ram workman of

Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to ?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three 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.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the

Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

15.9.2014

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2628-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy os;jgkm¯lx

dkjiksjs'ku 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-

187@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-09-

2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@138@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014

S.O. 2628.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 187/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in

the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Central

Warehousing Corporation and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 22.09.2014.

[No. L-42012/138/2013-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. 187 of 2013

Reference No. L-42012/138/2013-IR(DU)

dated 18.2.2014

Sh. Ranjit son of Amarjeet

C/o Shri Manoj son of

Shri Hawa Singh, Resident of Village

Hamirgarh, Tehsil Narwana

District Jind, Haryana

...Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager, Central

Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4,

Panchkula (Haryana)-134112

...Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

None

For the Management

Shri N.K. Zakhmi

6608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on : 15.09.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No. L-42012/138/2013-IR (DU) dated

18.2.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of the Management of

Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in

terminating the services w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of

Sh. Ranjit son of Shri Amarjeet, workman of

Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to ?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three 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.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the

Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

15.9.2014

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2629-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy os;jgkm¯lx

dkjiksjs'ku 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-

186@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

22-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@137@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014

S.O. 2629.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 186/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in

the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Central

Warehousing Corporation and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 22.09.2014.

[No. L-42012/137/2013-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. 186 of 2013

Reference No. L-42012/137/2013-IR(DU)

dated 18.2.2014

Sh. Pappu son of Shri Ram Dev,

Resident of Birbal Nagar,

Narwana, Haryana

Jind

...Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager, Central

Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4,

Panchkula (Haryana)-134112

...Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

None

For the Management

Shri N.K. Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on : 15.09.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No. L-42012/137/2013-IR (DU) dated

18.2.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of the Management of

Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in

terminating the services w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of

Sh. Pappu son of Shri Ram Dev, workman of

Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to ?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three 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.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the

Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

15.9.2014

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6609

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2630-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy os;jgkm¯lx

dkjiksjs'ku 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-

185@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

22-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@136@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014

S.O. 2630.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 185/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in

the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Central

Warehousing Corporation and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 22.09.2014.

[No. L-42012/136/2013-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. 185 of 2013

Reference No. L-42012/136/2013-IR(DU)

dated 18.2.2014

Sh. Manoj son of Shri Hawa Singh,

Resident of Birbal Nagar,

Narwana, Haryana

Jind

...Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager, Central

Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4,

Panchkula (Haryana)-134112

...Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

None.

For the Management

Shri N.K. Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on : 15.09.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No.L-42012/136/2013-IR (DU) dated

18.2.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of the Management of

Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in

terminating the services w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of Sh.

Manoj son of Shri Hawa Singh, workman of

Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to ?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three 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.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the

Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

15.9.2014

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2631-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy os;jgkm¯lx

dkjiksjs'ku] enqjS 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-

37@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

12-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@09@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014

S.O. 2631.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 37/

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 Central

Warehousing Corporation, Madurai and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

12.09.2014.

[No. L-42011/09/2012-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

6610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHENNAI

Thursday, the 28th August, 2014

Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 37/2012

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

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

to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between

the Management of Central Warehousing Corporation

and their workman].

Between :

The General Secretary

: 1st Party/Petitioner Union

General Labour Union

31, Nanmai Tharuvar

Koil Arisikara Street

Madurai-625001

And

The General Manager

: 2nd Party/Respondent

Central Warehousing

Corporation,

Palanganatham,

Madurai

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

: M/s. V. Ajoy Khose,

Petitioner Union

S. Manogaran, Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

: M/s. P. D. Audikesavalu,

Management

C. K. Chandrasekar,

Advocates

ORDER

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and

Employment vide its Order No. L-42011/09/2012-IR

(DU) dated 21.06.2012 referred the following Industrial

Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the Management of Central

Warehousing Corporation, Palangantham, Madurai

for not providing wage increase, bonus, etc. in

respect of casual labour of Central Warehousing

Corporation, Palangantham, Madurai is justified

or not? To what relief the workmen are entitled?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 37/2012 and issued notices to

both sides. Both sides have entered appearance through

their counsel and filed their claim and counter statement

respectively.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these

The Respondent is a Government of India

Undertaking functioning under the Control of Ministry

of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution. It

provides warehousing services to mill owners, wholesale

marketing agencies, distributors who are dealing with

essential commodities, etc. The Respondent will collect

charges from the above persons for using the warehousing

facilities. The warehousing corporation has a branch at

Palangantham. The loading and unloading of the items

brought to the warehouse is done by 23 workmen

employed by the Respondent. Apart from loading and

unloading, the workmen are carrying out various work

such as stacking, de-stacking, re-stacking, fumigation,

brushing, cleaning, spraying, sweeping, hygiene

maintenance, etc. inside the godown. Loading and

unloading work would be available only for limited hours.

The main work of the workmen is the maintenance work

in the godown. The workmen will have to report for work

at 0800 AM in the morning and have to remain there till

0600 PM on all six working days. Though the Respondent

is employing the workmen on daily rated basis, the

Respondent is not paying the entire amount fixed for the

work of fumigation, spraying, etc. only lesser amount

than what is fixed by the Warehouse Manager is paid to

them. The workmen are now paid @ 147/- per day only.

They are not paid any wages for weekly holidays. They

are not given any benefits under the PF Act, ESI Act,

Payment of Bonus Act and other labour welfare

legislations. 12 workmen concerned in the dispute are

members of the petitioner union. The union had submitted

letter to the Respondent alongwith a charter of demands

requesting to hold talk with them. The Respondent did

not give any reply to this letter. So the dispute has been

raised by the petitioner union. An order may be passed

holding that the action of the Respondent in not making

the 12 workmen permanent, in not extending the benefits

available to the workmen to them and not extending the

statutory benefits such as PF, ESI etc. are unjustified.

The Respondent may be directed to make all the 12

workmen permanent from the date of their joining with

time scale of pay, allowances and all other benefits as

applicable to regular, permanent Group D employee with

arrears and may also direct the Respondent to extend the

benefits as provided under the PF Act and ESI Act, to

pay minimum bonus from the accounting year 2008-2009,

to provide 3 sets of uniform to each workman every year,

to pay Rs. 50 per month towards washing allowance, to

provide a pair of chappal for each workmen and also to

provide rest house and dining hall.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The Respondent is Government of India

Undertaking functioning under the Ministry of Consumer

Affairs, Food and Public Distribution. The function of

the Respondent is to preserve foodgrains and other

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6611

essential commodities which are brought to the warehouse

for storage. Govt. as well as private agencies are availing

the services of the Respondent Corporation. The

corporation collects charges from the users for the stocks

stored in the warehouse. The warehouse at

Palanganathum, Madurai is in existence since 1965. The

workmen are engaged for loading and unloading,

stacking, de-stacking, re-stacking, fumigation, brushing,

cleaning, spraying, sweeping and other incidental

operations by the users of the warehouse through labour

maistry at the warehouse. The corporation is not engaging

any casual labour directly for such works as it is providing

the warehouse to store goods only. The users of the

warehouse engage men to do the required work. The work

is dependent on arrival of loads and is not regular in

nature. There is no necessity for engaging labour on all

working days. There is no employer-employee

relationship between the workers and the Respondent

Corporation. Amounts are paid to labour maistry who

engage workforce to do the necessary works. The

workmen are not entitled to regular employment at the

warehouse. There is no prohibition for the Respondent

to engage contract workers in ancillary works. So the

claim for regular employment by the workers is not

tenable. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext.W8.

The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the workmen involved in the dispute

are entitled to regularization with other benefits

as claimed in the Claim Statement?

(ii) What is the relief, if any, to which they are

entitled?

The Points

The Petitioner Union has raised the dispute on

behalf of certain workers who are said to be doing the

work of loading, unloading and other allied works

attached to the godown of the Respondent at

Palangantham. According to the petitioner, the workers

are paid on daily rated basis. However, they are not paid

the entire amount fixed by the Warehouse Manager. It is

further stated that they are not given the benefits

contemplated under the PF Act, ESI Act, Factories Act,

Minimum Wages Act and Bonus Act. The Petitioner

Union had given a letter to the Respondent with a charter

of demands. However the Respondent did not respond to

the same. It is accordingly the dispute was raised. In

answer to the claim of the petitioner the Respondent has

contended that there is no employer-employee

relationship between the concerned workmen and the

Respondent at all. According to the Respondent the

workmen are employed by the users of the warehouse

through the labour maistry. Their work is not regular in

nature also. The quantum of work depends on the quantity

of commodity that comes to the warehouse for storage.

According to the Respondent it is not liable to pay any

benefits to the workmen since they are not the workmen

of the Respondent.

The General Secretary of the Petitioner Union has

given evidence reiterating the claim in the petition.

Ext.W1 and Ext.W8 are the only documents produced

on behalf of the petitioner to substantiate the case. The

other documents are the charter of demands submitted

by the petitioner to the Respondent, the statement given

before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (C), reply etc.

and have nothing to do with the employment of the

concerned workmen under the Respondent.

On perusal of Ext.W1, it could be seen that it will

not substantiate the case of the petitioner in any manner.

This is only a proforma for the proposal of engaging

casual labour for the month of January, 2008. MW1 has

explained during his cross-examination that it is the

estimate of casual labourers to be engaged to carry out

the quality control work in the godown. Column-13 of

Ext.W1 itself would show that the workers are engaged

through labour maistry. Ext.W8 is purported to be the

copy of the attendance register pertaining to the concerned

workmen. Though the name of Central Warehousing

Corporation, the Respondent is given at the top in every

page of this document this does not contain any signature

of any official of the Respondent. It does not even show

that it is an Attendance Register. The petitioner has not

stated how this document came to its hand. According to

MW1, the Regional Manager of Central Warehousing

Corporation, records of names of the worker are not

maintained with the Respondent. Whoever is brought by

the Contractor will be doing the work. Records will be

maintained by the Respondent only to account the

numbers of casual labourers engaged.

10.

The petitioner was not able to show that the

concerned workmen were employed by the Respondent

directly. On the other hand, the Ext.W1 the very document

produced by the petitioner would show that the workers

are engaged through labour maistry. WW1 who is the

Secretary of the Union has admitted that the Respondent

Corporation is at liberty to appoint workers as per the

provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation &

Abolition) Act. Thus there is nothing to show that the

concerned workmen are directly employed by the

Respondent.

11.

The counsel for the Respondent has referred to the

decision in INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT OF INDIA

Vs. INTERNATIONAL AIR CARGO WORKERS

UNION AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2009 SC 3063

where the Apex Court has held that in the absence of a

notification under Section-10 of Contract Labour

6612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(Regulation & Abolition) Act prohibiting the employment

of contract labour, the workmen employed as contract

labour are not entitled to claim absorption.

12.

The petitioner having failed to establish that the

concerned workmen are directly employed by the

Respondent, they are not entitled to absorption or any

other benefit claimed by the petitioner.

13.

In view of my discussion above, the reference is

answered against the petitioner.

An award is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1^st Party/

WW1, Sri R. Vellaichamy

Petitioner Union

For the 2^nd Party/

MW1, Sri A.T. Sankar

Management

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

04.01.2008

Proposal order for engaging

Casual Labour issued by the

2^nd Party

Ex.W2

Charter

Demands

submitted by the 1^st Party

Union

Ex.W3

Dispute raised by the 1^st Party

Union before the Asstt.

Labour

Commissioner

(Central), Madurai

Ex.W4

08.07.2011

Reply filed by the 2^nd Party

Management before the Asstt.

Labour Commissioner

Ex.W5

30.08.2011

Rejoinder filed by the 1^st Party

Union

Ex.W6

30.09.2011

Failure Report

Ex.W7

21.06.2012

Order of Reference

Ex.W8

Copy of the Attendance

workmen concerned.

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2632-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] Hkksiky 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- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@13@2001) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@384@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014

S.O. 2632.—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/13/2001) 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

Department of Telecommunication, Bhopal and their

workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 22.09.2014.

[No. L-40012/384/2000-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/13/2001

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Prakash Bairagi,

S/o Shri Babudas Bairagi,

Village Piroudha,

Khurd, PO Guna,

Guna

...Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. Of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road,

MP Circle,

Bhopal (MP)

District Engineer (Phones),

Guna

...Managements

AWARD

Passed on this 4^th day of September, 2014

As per letter dated 17-11-2000 by the Government

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

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

40012/384/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference

relates to :

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6613

“ Whether the action of the management of District

engineer (Phones), Guna in terminating the services

of Shri Prakash Bairagi S/o Shri Babudas Bairagi

w.e.f. 21-2-98 is justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim

at Page 4/1 to 4/5. Case of the workman is that he was

appointed in General cadre from 16-4-88 . Order in

writing was not given to him. That workman was required

to carry work of various nature. He was doing work

assigned to him by the management. Workman was in

continuous service till 21-2-98. That he had completed

240 days continuous service during each of the calendar

year. He claims to be employee under Section 25(B) of

I.D.Act. from 21-2-90, he was prevented from carrying

his duties. Workman had requested for regularization of

his service and equal wages for equal work. His services

were not regularized by IInd party. He was discriminated

in payment of wages. His services were discontinued in

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

opportunity of hearing, termination of his service in

illegal. On such ground, workman prays for his

reinstatement with full back wages.

IInd party management filed Written Statement at

page 6/1 to 6/3. Claim of workman is denied outright.

That IInd party submits that workman was not appointed

by the department. Workman was engaged for petty works

in department as labour. After completion of specified

petty works, the engagement automatically comes to end.

It doesnot amount to retrenchment. When new works are

undertaken, the labous are engaged as per requirement.

The local officer makes labour payments. It was made

clear to the labours that after completion of workman,

they would not be continued. That since 1985, muster

roll was discontinued. Workman has not produced any

documents about his working.

IInd party denies that workman completed 240 days

continuous service in each of the year. For casual nature

of work, provisions of Section 25 B of I.D.Act are not

attracted. It is not necessary to give notice of pay,

retrenchment compensation when workman was engaged

for petty works in the department and after completion

of work, workman could not be engaged without work.

Violation of Section 25-F is denied. All those contentions

are reiterated by IInd party. IInd party denied violation

of Section 25-G, H of I.D.Act. since 1998, workmen were

engaged on contract basis through tender. Department

needs to complete specific work. As per policy of telecom

department, no labour was to be appointed on daily wages

since 1985. All material contentions of workman are

denied. IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/2

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of District engineer (Phones),

Guna in terminating the services

of Shri Prakash Bairagi S/o

Shri Babudas Bairagi w.e.f.

21-2-98 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his service

for violation of Section 25-F, H of I.D.Act. IInd party

denies all material contentions of workman that workman

was not appointed by department rather he was engaged

for petty works. On completion of work, his employment

could not be continued.

Workman has filed affidavit of his evidence

supporting his contentions in statement of claim that from

16-4-88 till 21-2-98, he was continuously working with

IInd party without any break. He was prevented from

attending duties from 21-2-98. That he completed 240

days continuous service during each year. His services

are terminated in violation of provisions of I.D.Act. In

his cross-examination, workman says he passed 5^th

standard. He has submitted affidavit of his evidence in

Hindi and not in English. The post was not advertised

before his appointment. Appointment letter was not given

to him. He was working under SDO from 16-4-88. He

was doing work of digging ditches, erecting poles for

laying cables. He denies that he was working under

contractor. His wages were paid by SDO. Suggestion is

denied that he not completed 240 days continuous service.

Management’s witness Rajendra Prasad in his

affidavit of evidence says that workman was never

engaged by the management. Workman never rendered

any service in the department on casual basis or other

work. In his cross-examination, witness says from April,

88 to February 98, he was not working in Guna office of

BSNL. He explained that he was working at Ashok Nagar,

District Guna. There is superior officer at Guna. That he

has no personal knowledge about casual daily wagers,

badlies employed in the Guna office during 1988 to 1998.

He claims ignorance about payment of wages as per

muster register. He claims ignorance whether workman

was working on daily wages from 1988 to 1998.

Management’s witness has no personal knowledge. The

evidence of management’s witness is inconsistent with

the pleadings of IInd party in Written Statement. In para-

3 of Written Statement, IInd party has completed that

6614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

only for petty works in department, few labours were

engaged for different nature of work. After completion

of specified petty works, the engaged labour automatically

discontinued. It doesnot amount to retrenchment whereas

management’s witness in his affidavit says that workman

was not engaged for any kind of work including casual

labour. The evidence is inconsistent with pleadings and

management’s witness has no personal knowledge about

workman. This cannot be preferred to discard evidence

of workman. Evidence of workman in his cross-

examination is cogent that he was working under SDO.

His wages were paid by SDO and he was not working

with contractor. The suggestion is given to the witness

about his working with contractor. The evidence of

management’s witness on above point is silent, no

documents are produced in that regard. Therefore I accept

evidence of workman. His services are terminated without

notice, no retrenchment compensation is paid to him

therefore termination of services of workman in violation

of Section 25-F is illegal. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in negative.

10.

Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No1,

termination of workman is illegal, question arises whether

he is entitled for reinstatement with back wages. The

cross-examination of workman shows the post was not

advertised. Appointment letter was not given to him. He

was engaged on daily wages. Therefore the legal position

is settled that labours engaged on daily wags de hors the

rules should not be reinstated rather reasonable

compensation should be awarded. Considering workman

was working from April 88 to February, 98, for more

than 9 years, compensation Rs. One Lakh would be

reasonable. Accordingly I record my finding in Point

No.2.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of District engineer

(Phones), Guna in terminating the services of Shri

Prakash Bairagi S/o Shri Babudas Bairagi w.e.f.

21-2-98 is not just and legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. One

Lakh 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] 24 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2633-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

fey] gks'kaxkckn 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- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@32@89) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 22-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&16012@2@87&Mh&II (ch)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014

S.O. 2633.—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/32/89) 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 Security

Paper Mill, Hoshangabad and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 22.09.2014.

[No. L-16012/2/87-D-II (B)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/32/89

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri M.L. Awadhiya,

Ex.UDC, Gawaltoli,

Thapkaji House,

Behind Rly. Station,

Hoshangabad

...Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Security Paper Mill,

Hoshangabad

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 10^th day of September, 2014

As per letter dated 1-2-89 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

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

L-16012/2/87-D-II(B). The dispute under reference

relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Security

Paper Mill, Hoshangabad in terminating the

services of Shri M.L. Awadhiya vide order No. A.D./

19/CS-108 dated 9-5-84 is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6615

claim at page 4/1 to 4/4. Case of Ist party is that he was

employed as permanent UDC in establishment of IInd

party. Chagesheet was issued to him under Rule 1965

about unauthorized absence from duty. That due to illness

of his mother and his son, he was on leave on many

occasions. He had submitted applications time to time

supported by Medical Certificates for his absence from

1-5-81 to 15-10-81. The decision on application for leave

was not intimated to him. That he was not unauthorisely

absent alleged in the chargesheet. He submitted

application for leave. Leave was at his credit. The

allegation issued in chargesheet was denied by him.

Disciplinary Authority ordered to conduct enquiry against

him. He was not supplied any documents alongwith

chargesheet. Statements of witnesses were not supplied

to him. Enquiry was conducted exparte in violation of

principles of natural justice.

It is further submitted that on 7-10-82, he submitted

application for adjournment of enquiry for his illness

though enquiry was fixed, he was never informed by

Enquiry Officer. On 10-2-83, 17-2-83, workman

submitted application alongwith medical certificate for

adjournment of enquiry. Workman attended Enquiry

proceedings on 1-4-83, 11-4-83, 6-9-83, 9-9-83. The

principles of natural justice were violated. On 20-4-83,

he submitted application alongwith medical certificate

requesting adjournment of enquiry. However he was not

informed by Enquiry officer the next date of enquiry. It

is reiterated that enquiry was conducted exparte.

4. 2^nd chargesheet was issued to him on 23-12-83 without

enclosing any documents. It was held that the workman

refused notice and it was not possible to conduct enquiry

against him. Order of removal from service was passed

without issuing showcause notice. Copy of Enquiry Report

was not served on him. Workman was not given

opportunity for his defence therefore the order of his

removal is illegal. On such ground, workman prays for

his reinstatement with back wages.

5. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 3/1 to

3/9. IInd party submits that workman was initially

appointed as LDC on 9-11-66 at SPM Hoshangabad. On

3-9-69, he was promoted as UDC. He was regular in

service till 1975. Thereafter workman was not punctual

in his duties. He was frequently absent from duties. In

1976, workman was granted regular leave, apart from

12 days CL in the year 1976 on 9 occasions, in 1977- 10

occasions, in 1978- 11 occasions, in 1979- 14 occasions,

in 1980- 19 occasions. His leave were sanctioned only

after availing the leave. In 1979, chargesheet was issued

to workman, penalty of censure was imposed on

22-1-81. Workman remained absent for 21 occasions

during 4 months from April 1981. The details of his

absence from duties are narrated in the Written Statement.

Workman was unauthorisely absent from 1-5-81 despite

of memos dated 21-5-81, 27-7-81, 13-8-81, 18-8-81.

Workman not attended duties. He remained absent.

Chargesheet was issued to him on 6-11-81. Workman

had submitted various applications. Some of the

applications were supported by medical certificates of

Private Practitioners. In some applications, the nature of

lave asked was not mentioned. It is reiterated that

chargesheet was issued to workman, enquiry was

conducted. Workman did not attended Enquiry

Proceedings. Consequently enquiry was conducted

exparte. It is denied that principles of natural justice were

not followed by Enquiry Officer. It is reiterated that the

workman was absent till 15-10-81. He was also

unuthorisely absent subsequently and did not turn up on

duty till 21-2-83. The period of absence of workman in

April 83 was 8 ½ days, in May 83- for 15 days, in June

83- 14 days, in July83- 17 ½ days, in August 83-29 days

and in September 83 for 16 days. The workman was

remaining absent from duty after receiving the report of

Enquiry officer, workman was dismissed from service.

The appeal preferred by workman was rejected by

Appellate Authority after careful consideration. The order

for removal of workman is proper and legal.

Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 8/1

to 8/2 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

He further submitted that Enquiry Officer did not allow

him opportunity for inspection of documents. Enquiry

Officer exceeded his jurisdiction with a predetermined

mind to get the charges proved against him. The medical

certificates and applications submitted by Non-applicant

were not considered. Additional rejoinder is also filed

by workman at page 9/1 to 9/2 contending that he was

not given proper opportunity for his defence.

As per order dated 15-4-2013, enquiry conducted

against workman is found legal. Considering pleadings

on record, the points which arise for my consideration

and determination are as under. My findings are recorded

against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the charges of alleged

Affirmative

misconduct against workman

are proved from evidence in

Enquiry Proceedings?

(ii)

Whether punishment of removal

In Affirmative

awarded against workman is

proper and legal?

(iii)

If so, to what relief the workman Workman is

is entitled to?”

not entitled to

any relief.

REASONS

Considering pleadings, my predecessor has framed

issues on 18-3-91 in view of enquiry conducted against

workman is found legal, Issue No.2 doesnot survive.

Management is not required to prove charges by adducing

6616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

evidence. In view of enquiry conducted against workman

is found proper and legal, question arises whether

misconduct of unauthorized absence alleged against

workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry

Proceedings. That the punishment of removal from

service is illegal. The evidence in Enquiry Proceedings

needs to be considered. Enquiry Officer has considered

charges against workman at Page 3/38 of Enquiry

Proceedings and various applications submitted by

workman. The memos issued to Ist party workman on

different dates at page 3/41 of Enquiry Proceedings,

Enquiry Officer observed perusal of the events narrated

above under part-3. Summary of events emerged during

enquiry will give a factual position of the case. It is

established beyond doubt that during the period of charge

sheet i.e. from 1-5-81 to 15-10-81, Shri M.L.Awadhiya

UDC was present in the office only for 3 days i.e. on 5-5-

81, 30-5-81 and 4-8-81. That Shri M.L.Awadhiya was

availing leave without prior permission or sanction of

leave. Merely sending application doesnot give right to

anyone to avail leave. It is the duty of the Govt. servant

to see that the leave applied for is sanctioned by a

Competent Authority empowered to sanction such leave.

No such formal orders sanctioning leave to him have been

issued in any of the cases and he is fully aware of the

position. That as much as 4 memos were issued directing

him to report for duty forthwith. His absence from duty

was unauthorised. Even pleadings of his statement of

claim finds reference that he submits application for leave.

His leave applications were not sanctioned therefore the

findings of Enquiry Officer cannot be said perverse. In

absence of workman from duty without sanctioned leave,

certainly amounts to unauthorized absence. Therefore I

record my finding on Point No.1 in Affirmative.

Point No.2- Charge against workman is of

unauthorized absence from 1-5-81 to 15-10-91. Even

his absence from duty for subsequent period is also

alleged. Workman was working as UDC with IInd party.

10.

Learned counsel for IInd party Shri A.K.Shashi

relies on ratio held in

Case of U.P.State Warehousing Corporation and

Another versus Presiding Officer and another

reported in 2013-III-LLJ-213(Allahabad). His

Lordship dealing with burden of proof held Labour

Court considering that petitioners failed to prove

that workers were engaged by contractors and

directed reinstatement. Held person who files a

claim is required to prove his case. Industrial

dispute raised by Union, burden of proof is upon

Union and its workers to prove their claim before

Labour Court.

In present case, the absence from duty of workman

is not disputed. Rather he submits that he submitted

applications for leave alongwith medical certificates were

not considered. The leave was not sanctioned to him

despite of it workman was absent. His absence from duty

is certainly unauthorized.

Next reliance is placed in case of North West

Karnataka Road Transport Corporation versus Shri

S.D.Nadavinkeri, Bihapur reported in 2013-137-FLR-

619. His Lordship dealing with dismissal from service of

respondent Helpr dismissed. For remaining

unauthorisedly absent. After enquiry and showcause

notice. Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and

directed to withhold five annual increments and to

reinstate without back wages. The said award was

quashed by Hon’ble High Court.

In present case, at relevant time, workman was

working as UDC. He was frequently absent. As per his

own pleadings, his leave was not sanctioned. I find no

reason to interfere with the punishment of dismissal from

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

No.2 in Affirmative.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Security Paper

Mill, Hoshangabad in terminating the services of

Shri M.L. Awadhiya is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2634-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] Hkksiky 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- dsl la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@12@2001) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-09-2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@385@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014

S.O. 2634.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. Case

No. CGIT/LC/R/12/2001) 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 Department of Telecommunication, Bhopal and their

workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 22.09.2014.

[No. L-40012/385/2000-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6617

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/12/2001

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE

Shri Hiralal Kori,

S/o Chintulal Kori

Village Imjhara,

Po Magraina, Guna

...Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road,

MP Circle,

Bhopal (MP)

District Engineer (Phones),

Guna

...Managements

AWARD

Passed on this 4^th day of September, 2014

As per letter dated 17-11-2000 by the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi,

the reference is received. The reference is made to this

Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per

Notification No.L-40012/385/2000/IR(DU). The dispute

under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of District

Engineer (Phones), Guna in terminating the

services of Shri Hiralal Kori, s/o Shri Chintulal

Kori w.e.f. 21-2-98 is justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman died during pendency of reference.

His LRs Janki Bai, Krishna Kori, Rahul Kori & Rohit

Kori are substituted on record. The deceased workman

submitted statement of claim at Page 4/1 to 4/5. Case of

workman is that he was appointed in General Cadre from

March 1991. He was assigned job of various nature. He

was continued in service till 1-2-98. He completed 240

days continuous service during each of the calendar year.

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

from 21-2-98, IInd party prevented him from duties. That

his services are terminated without notice when he

claimed for regularization of service and equal pay for

equal work. Termination of his service is in violation of

Section 25-F, G & H of I.D.Act. On such grounds,

workman prays for reinstatement with back wages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to

6/3. Claim of workman is totally denied. As per IInd party

workman was not offered employment on any post in

Telecom Department. Such appointments are not

permissible as per rules. Workman was engaged only for

petty works in department. Few labours engaged for

various nature of specified petty works, they were not

continued. It doesnot amount to retrenchment. Workman

engaged for petty works were paid their wages by Local

Officer. After completion of work, the workmen can not

be continued. From 1985, the engagement of daily wages

labours is completely prohibited. IInd party denies that

workman completed 240 days continuous service.

Termination of service for violation of Section 25-F, G,

H of I.D.Act is denied. That since 1998, workmen were

engaged on contract basis through tender. In engagement

of casual labours, provisions of ID Act are not applicable.

IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

Workman filed rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/2

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of District Engineer (Phones),

Guna in terminating the services of

Shri Hiralal Kori, s/o Shri Chintulal

Kori w.e.f. 21-2-98 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per

entitled to?”

final order

REASONS

Ist party workman is challenging termination of

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

claiming that he was appointed by IInd party from March

91 in General Cadre. He was continuously working till

1-2-1998. His services were terminated without notice

in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. IInd party denies

all material contentions of workman. It is submitted that

for petty works, labours were engaged as such labours

were paid wages by Local Officer.

Workman filed affidavit of evidence supporting his

contentions in statement of claim. However he died before

his cross-examination. Janki bai widow of deceased

workman filed affidavit of her evidence. She stated that

her husband was working with District Engineer, Phones,

Guna during the period 90 to 8. In her cross-examination,

she says that affidavit of her evidence was prepared by

her Advocate in Hindi and thumb mark was obtained.

The affidavit was readover to her. However the affidavit

of her evidence is found in English. The material

contentions in her affidavit that her husband was working

in Telecom Deptt. was not shattered. She re-affirmed

that her husband was working telecom department from

1991. Her husband was doing work of repairing of

telephone lines. Her husband was not working under

contractor. She denies that her husband did not complete

240 days working.

6618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management witness Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma

in his affidavit of evidence supported contentions in

Written Statement of IInd party. He says that workman

was never engaged by management. He had never

rendered services for department on casual basis or other

works. The evidence of management’s witness is

inconsistent with pleadings in Written Statement of IInd

party. In para-3 of the Written Statement, IInd party has

pleaded that for petty works in department few labours

were engaged in various nature of work. After completion

of petty work, labours were alternatively discontinued.

Application for production of document was filed by Ist

party workman. IInd party in reply to said application

pleaded that workman was not appointed neither

retrenched by the department.

As per pleadings in Para-3 of the Written Sttement.

The casual workers were engaged for speciied work.

Wages were paid by local officers, its record were not

produced by management. Management’s witness in his

cross-examination says that he has no knowledge about

the record maintained about casual daily wage employees.

Any badli employees were not engaged in his office, no

record is maintained about them. He claims ignorance

whether muster roll about casual employee/ daily wage

employee was maintained in the office and wages paid

as per said register. The evidence of management’s

witness is inconsistent with pleadings in Written

Statement. He has no personal knowledge about casual

employees engaged in the department. Under such set of

facts when management is not producing the documents,

the evidence of widow of deceased workman deserves to

be accepted. The evidence on record shows workman was

continuously working from 1991 to February 1998, his

services are temrinated without notice in violation of

Section 25-F of I.D.Act. Therefore I record Point No.1

in Negative.

10.

Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.1,

termination of deceased workmkan is illegal, LRs are

brought on record, in view of death of workman

reinstatement cannot be granted. Reasonable

compensation would be appropriate relief. In my

considered view, considering length of service from 1991

to 1998, compensation Rs. 75,000/- would be reasonable.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of District Engineer

(Phones), Guna in terminating the services of Shri

Hiralal Kori, s/o Shri Chintulal Kori w.e.f. 21-2-

98 is not proper and legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.

75,000/- to the LRs of the deceased 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] 24 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2635-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] Hkksiky 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- dsl la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@35@2000) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-09-2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@299@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014

S.O. 2635.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. Case

No. CGIT/LC/R/35/2000) 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 Department of Telecommunication, Bhopal and their

workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 22.09.2014.

[No. L-40012/299/99-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/35/00

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE

Shri Alemsingh

S/o Amarsingh,

Vill Godana,

Shajapur

...Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunication.

Hoshangabad Road,

MP Circle,

Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5^th day of September, 2014

As per letter dated 27-1-2000 by the Government

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6619

Section 10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-40012/299/99/IR(DU). The dispute under reference

relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Chief

General Manager, Telecom in terminating the

services of Shri Alemsingh S/o Shri Amarsingh

w.e.f. 4-3-99 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 5/1 to 5/4. Case of workman is that he was appointed

in 1986 in Gram Salatward as labour. He was doing work

of repairing of local faults under SDE Telecom- IInd party

No.4,5. Several daily wage labours were engaged by the

IInd party as per judgment reported in AIR-1987-SC-

2342. Directions were given for scheme for

regularization of daily wage labour. Workman submits

that he was continuously working from 1986 till

termination of his services 1999. He completed 240 days

continuous service during each of the year. His services

were orally terminated. Notice under Section 25-F was

not given to him, retrenchment compensation was not

paid to him. On such grounds, he prays for reinstatement

with back wages.

IInd party filed Written Statement on 22-3-2013

denying claim of workman. It is denied that workman

was engaged as casual labour from 1986. There was no

question of framing policy for regularisation of the

workman engaged on daily wages. That ID Act doesnot

apply to IInd party. There was no violation of Section

25-F of I.D.Act. workman not completed 240 days

continuous service. That workman never worked with

Sub Divisional Engineer. Workman is not entitled to any

relief.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of Chief

General Manager, Telecom in terminating the services

of Shri Alemsingh S/o Shri Amarsingh w.e.f. 4-3-99 is

legal and justified?

In Negative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

As per final order.

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his service

for violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. That he was

working as labour from 1996 till March 1999. His services

were terminated without notice. Above contentions of

workman are denied by IInd party. Workman filed

affidavit of his evidence supporting above contentions.

However he says that his services were terminated in

1999 without notice. He was working from March 88 to

99. In his cross-examination, workman says that he had

worked from 1986 to 1990. The contents of his affidavit

that he worked from 1988 to 1992 is correct. That he had

wrongly stated that he worked from 1986. He filed

affidavit in Hindi and not in English. Again he says that

the affidavit is drafted by his counsel.

Management’s witness Shri Diwkar Jain in his

affidavit says that workman was never engaged at

Shajapur. Claim of workman for regularization is

baseless. Management’s witness in his cross-examination

says affidavit of evidence is prepared as per the documents

available in the office of SDE. Those documents are not

produced. He claims ignorance whether workman was

working at Shajapur. That in the year 2008, first time he

had seen the record relating to the workman. The evidence

of management’s witness is not supported by documents.

Therefore his evidence cannot be accepted. Workman filed

affidavit of his evidence and he was cross-examined.

Documents Exhibit W-1, W-2 are proved from his

evidence. In his cross-examination, workman says he

had not submitted application for those documents. He

claims ignorance about any scheme for regularization.

Document Exhibit W-1, shows workman was

continuously working for more than 240 days from August

to December 88 and thereafter till April 1995. Exhibit

W-2 shows intimation given to workman. Evidence of

workman is supported by documents of completed 240

days continuous service. He was not paid retrenchment

compensation, he was not served with notice therefore I

record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

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

termination of workman is found illegal for violation of

Section 25-F of I.D.Act, workman was engaged on daily

wages, he is not entitled for regularization. Considering

the working period of workman from 88 to 95,

compensation Rs. 75,000 would be reasonable.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Chief General

Manager, Telecom in terminating the services of

Shri Alemsingh S/o Shri Amarsingh w.e.f. 4-3-99

is illegal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs. 75,000/- 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

6620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2636-—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- 118@1992) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@349@1991&vkbZvkj (lh&1)º

,e- ds flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014

S.O. 2636.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 118/

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 BCCL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 24.09.2014.

[No. L-20012/349/1991-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,

DHANBAD

Reference: No. 118/92

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D.Act. 1947.

Employer in relation to the management of Nichitpur

Colliery M/S BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present: Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers

None

For the workman.

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 9th September, 2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/349/ 1991 /IR (C-1)) dated

25/09/92, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar

Union Union (CITU) for payment of wages for the

idle period in respect of Shri Swami Nath Ahir,

Miner/Loader, Nichitpur Colliery is Justified? If

so, to what relief the workmen is entitled ?”

2. After receipt of the reference , both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2637-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ 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- 117@1999)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-09-2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@66@1999&vkbZvkj (lh&1)º

,e- ds flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014

S.O. 2637.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 117/

1999) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.

BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 24.09.2014.

[No. L-12012/66/1999-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. 117 of 1999

Employer in relation to the management of Block II

Area M/S BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present: Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6621

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Sri R. Ranjan, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry :- Coal

Dated 4th September, 2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/66/1999-IR (C-I), dated.

14/06/1999, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the

following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of BCCL

is diverting Shree Dukhi Nonia and 25 other

workmen (list enclosed) from piece rate to time rate

consequent upon introducing mechanical process

in loading causing reduction in their wages is

proper , legal and justified? If not, to what relief

those workman are entitled? ’’

Annexure

1. Dukhi Nonia

2. Fulwa Kamin

3. Annchi Kamin

4. Lachmania Kamin

5. Ch. Sarsawatia Kamin 6. Dularia Kamin

7. Kashi Rawani

8. Bhekheni Mohalia

9. Ful Bai

10. Swang Bai

11. Kismatia Kamin

12. Sudheswar Nonia

13. Tulsi Nonia

14. Mungia Kamin

15. Rusmi Kamin

16. Jag Narayan Nonia

17. Shanti Kamin

18. Jitni Kamin

19. Barti Kamin

20. Anarkalia Kamin

21. Kokil Devi

22. Sukarmani Kamin

23. Dularia Kamin

24. Girja Devi

25. Renuka Devi

26. Tilwa Kamin

2. This Case is received from the Ministry of

Labour & Employment on 15.06.2003. After receipt of

reference , both parties are noticed. The workman files

their written statement on 04.09.2001.

The management files their written statement on

19.12.2001. Thereafter rejoinder and document filed by

the parties. One witness have been examined on behalf

of the workman, and two witnesses has been examined

on behalf of the management. Document marked as

exhibits from both side.

3. The short point to be decided by this Tribunal

is that whether the workman who were piece rated

workmen, subsequently converted to time rated workmen

are entitled to protection of pay or not.

4. The management submitted in his argument that

there is no dissimilarity in the pay of the workmen and

that it is duly protected. It is also argued by the

management that, let the workman prove that there is

dissimilarity, so that the management would protect the

pay.

5. This sorts of argument advanced by the

management (Argument note on record) is not acceptable

. Because previous pay roll of the workman and the pay

roll, on the date of conversion from piece rate to time

rate is with the management.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, I hold that the action of the management of BCCL

is diverting Sh. Dukhi Nonia and 25 other workmen from

piece rate to time rate consequent upon introducing

mechanical process in loading causing reduction in their

wages is not proper and justified. Hence the

management is hereby directed to protect the pay of the

workmen giving them their appropriate category and

subsequent arrear dues, If there is any dissimilarity.

This is my award

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2638-—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- 82@2001) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@463@1996&vkbZvkj (lh&1)º

,e- ds flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014

S.O. 2638.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 82/

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 BCCL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 24.09.2014.

[No. L-20012/463/1996-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

6622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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. 82of 2001

Employer in relation to the management of Katras Area ,

M/S BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Appearances :

For the employers

None

For the Workman

Sri N.G. Arun, Rep.

State :- Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 10th September, 2014

AWARD

By order No. L-12012 /463 /96/IR (C-I) dt. 28-03-2001

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has,

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, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

¶D;k jk"Vªh; dksfy;jh etnwj la?k dh ekax fd Hkk- dks- dks-

fyfe- ] drjkl {ks=k &4 ds izca/kra= }kjk Jh fnyhi dqekj ,oa lwph

esa fn, x, 13 vU; deZdkjksa ]tujy etnwj] Vsªlj ,oa Lohij] dks

ftUgs o”kZ 1985 ls dke ls gVk;k x;k] lsok esa iqj% LFkkfir fd;k

tk, rFkk Hkk- dks- dks- fyfe- esa fu;fer fd;k tk, mfpr ,oa

U;k;laxr gS \ ;fn gka rks mDr deZdkj fdl jkgr ds ik=k gSa rFkk

fdl rkjh[k \¸

Annexure

List of Workman

S. No.

Name

Designation

Dilip Kumar Gope

Dresser

Dilip Kumar Rajak

Dresser

Ashok Kumar Singh

Sweeper

Surti Devi

Sweepress

Obir Hari

Sweeper

Prem Dome

Sweeper

Bimla Devi

Sweepress

Ms. Bilasi Barala

Sweepress

Bipin Kumar Singh

General Mazdoor

Lakhan Rajak

General Mazdoor

Bishu Dey

General Mazdoor

Ms. Alpana

Sweepress

Smt. Sailo Bourin

Sweepress

Uma Kanta Tiwari

General Mazdoor

2. This Case is received from the Ministry on

03.04.2001. During the pendency of the case concerned,

The sponsoring Union representative submits that

workman is not interested to contest the case. It is felt

that the dispute between parties is resolved. Hence “No

dispute” award is passed. communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2639-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ 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- 87@1992)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-09-2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@344@1991&vkbZvkj (lh&1)º

,e- ds flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014

S.O. 2639.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 87/

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 24.09.2014.

[No. L-20012/344/1991-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,

DHANBAD

Reference: No. 87/1992

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D.Act. 1947.

Employer in relation to the management of Loyabad

Colliery M/S BCCL

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6623

AND

Their workmen

Present: Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

None

For the workman.

None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry- Coal

Dated : 8th September 2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/344/ 91 /IR (C-1)) dated

27/08/92, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Loyabad

Colliery in superannuating Shri Lekho Mahto,

Onsetter w.e.f. 29^th December, 1990 is justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?”.

2. After receipt of the reference , both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2640-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eS- 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- 117@1992) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@32@1992&vkbZvkj (lh&1)º

,e- ds flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014

S.O. 2640.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 117/

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 24.09.2014.

[No. L-20012/32/1992-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1,

DHANBAD

Reference: No. 117/1992

In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D.Act. 1947.

Employer in relation to the management of Bhurkunda

Colliery M/S BCCL

AND

Their workmen.

Present: Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers

None

For the workman.

None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry- Coal

Dated : 5th September, 2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/32/ 1992 /IR (C-1)) dated

25/09/1992, 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 dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the denial to provide employment to Shri

Mahesh Kumar son of Smt. Piaso Kamin Devi,

Ex-Wagon Loader of Bhurkunda Colliery by the

management of Bhurkunda Colliery is justified? If

not, to what relief is she 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] 24 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2641-—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- 16@2010) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@40@2009&vkbZvkj (lh&1)º

,e- ds flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

6624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014

S.O. 2641.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

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 24.09.2014.

[No. L-20012/40/2009-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. 16 of 2010

Employers in relation to the management of Koyla

Bhawan M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen.

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances:

For the Employers.

Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman.

Sri S.C.Gour. Rep.

State :- Jharkhand.

Industry : Coal

Dated 10th September, 2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/40/2009-IR (C-I), dated

05/02/2010, 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:

“Whether the action of the management of Koyla

Bhawan of M/s. BCCL in not providing dependent

employment to Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi W/o Late

Ram Murti Maharaj, is justified and legal? (ii) To

what relief is the widow of the concerned deceased

employee entitled?”

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 25.02.2010. The Sponsoring Union files their written

statement on 24.05.2010. The management files their

written statement-cum-rejoinder on 11.04.2012. One

witness each examined from both side. The workman’s

document marked as W-1 to W-5.

3. The workman submits that she is wife of the

deceased workman. The concerned workman was the

awardee of Ref. No. 150/93 of CGIT No.2., which award

is confirmed by Hon’ble High Court. And the

management provide service to all awardees of that case,

baring the applicant.

4. The Management paid all awardees of this case

under section 17-B, and the concerned workman had

also received the wages of 17-B till his death i.e on

12/9/2002.

5. Smt. Subhalaxmi Devi W/o the concerned

workman, She complains though, she claimed for job,

her claim was rejected. After reference, the management

bluntly denied the claim of taking her in job,

6. The management witness (MW-1) submitted in

his evidence i.e cross examination as follows.: -

“ Ref. 150/93 was implemented by us as per the

High Court’s direction. The workman was getting

17-B benefits till 2002 i.e. his date of death. The

applicant applied for compensatory appointment

after her husband’s death . As she did not come to

us for job. She was denied job. It is not a fact that

she is insisting for job and that we have

intentionally did not provide the same.”

7. From the above statement of MW-1, as the

applicant did ask for job she was not given the same.

The MW-1 has also not doubted her identity that she is

not the widow of the deceased workman. Therefore if the

application for job of the applicant is pending, which is

to be accepted.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, I hold that the action of the management of Koyla

Bhawan of M/s. BCCL in not providing dependent

employment to Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi W/o Late Ram

Murti Maharaj, is not justified. Hence she be given job

soon after the award notified in the Gazette, waiving

formalities.

This is my award

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2642-—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- 95@1992) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@387@1991&vkbZvkj (lh&1)º

,e- ds flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014

S.O. 2642.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6625

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 95/

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 24.09.2014.

[No. L-20012/387/1991-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,

DHANBAD

Reference: No. 95/92

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D.Act. 1947.

Employer in relation to the management of Amlabad

Colliery M/S BCCL

AND

Their workmen.

Present: Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers

None

For the workman.

None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry- Coal

Dated : 8th September, 2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/387/1991-IR (C-1) dated

31/08/92, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Amlabad

Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. P.O.

Amlabad, Dt. Dhanbad, dismissing Shri Dudhanath

Kahar from service vide their letter no. BCCL: 86:

AMBD PS dated 28/05/86 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2643-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj y{eh feYl]

fFkzLlwj 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;] ,.kkZdqye] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 8@2013)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-09-2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@83@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014

S.O. 2643.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 8/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court , Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Lakshmi Mills, Thrissur

(Kerala), and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 12.09.2014.

[No. L-42011/83/2012-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri. D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding

Officer

(Thursday the 28^th day of August, 2014/6^th Bhadrapada,

1936)

ID 8/2013

Workman

Shri P Nandanan Palliyil House

Sitaram Quarters

P Pullazhi Thrissur (Kerala) -12

By M/s.Kumar & Kumar

Management

The General Manager Lakshmi

Mills Pullazhi Thrissur (Kerala) -

680012

By Advs. Shri P Ramakrishnan &

Shri C Anilkumar

This case coming up for final hearing on

28.08.2014 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the

same day passed the following:

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

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

Government of India/Ministry of Labour vide its Order

6626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

No. L-42011/83/2012-IR(DU) dated 17.12.2012 has

referred the industrial dispute scheduled thereunder for

adjudication to this tribunal.

2. The dispute is:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s

Kerala Lakshmi Mills, Thrissur in terminating the

services of Shri Nandanan P on the ground of

chronic absenteeism w.e.f. 04.06.2008 is justified

or not? If not, what relief he is entitled to?”

3. Workman was appointed under the management

as a Spinning sider in their spinning department in the

year 1984. His service was terminated w.e.f.04.06.2008

for the reason of chronic absenteeism. Challenge is made

by the workman about it by raising this industrial dispute.

4. After submission of pleadings by both parties

the case was posted in the Lok Adalath as agreed to by

them. There was a full and final settlement of the dispute

and a compromise was filed jointly by both the parties.

There is nothing illegal in accepting the compromise.

Hence the compromise is accepted and an award is passed

in terms of the compromise. The compromise will form

part of the award.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and

typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the

28^th day of August, 2014.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix

-Nil-

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, ERNAKULAM

ID No. 8/2013

Nandanan, P, Palliyil House,

Sitharam Quarters, P. Pullazhi

Thrissur (Kerala)—12

...Workman

Vs.

The General Manager,

Lakshmi Mills Pullazhi,

Thrissur (Kerala) 680012 ...Management

The issue referred for adjudication in the above

industrial dispute is "Whether the action of the

management of M/s. Kerala Lakshmi Mills, Thrissur in

terminating the services of Shri NandananP on the ground

of chronic absenteeism w.e.f. 4/6/2008 is justified or not?

If not, what relief he is entitled to?

The matter was taken up in Lak Adalat and the

parties agreed to settle the dispute on the following

terms:—

1. The management agrees to pay a sum of Rs. 58,754

(Rupees fifty eight thousand seven hundred and fifty four

only) towards gratuity after deducting an amount of Rs.

13,972.75 due from the workman, The workman agrees

to accept Rs. 58,754/- in full and final settlement of all

his claims against the management.

2. Upon receiving the said amount, the workman

will not have any further monetary claim or claim for

employment against the management.

3. The amount (Rs. 58,754/-) mentioned in clause

1 will be given to the workman by the management on or

after 10.9.2014 on reporting at the office of the

management during working hours.

Dated this the 28th day of August, 2014

Workman Sd/-

Management : Sd/-

Counsel for Workman : Sd/-

Counsel

for

Management : Sd/-

Sd/-

Mediator

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2644-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 109@2008) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22015@30@2008&vkbZvkj (lh,e&2)º

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

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2644.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 109/

2008) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the management of the WCL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 25.09.2014.

[No. L-22015/30/2008-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/109/08

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6627

Shri Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui,

Zonal Secretary, C.Meva,

Zonal Vekoli Shakha,

Ward No.10, Gudhi,

Post Palachaurai,

Chhindwara

...Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Western Coalfields Limited,

Kanhan Area,PO Dungaria,

Chhindwara

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11^th day of September, 2014

As per letter dated 28-11-2008 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-22015/

30/2008-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates

to:

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

WCL in terminating the services of Shri Raju S/o

Shri Gorkha w.e.f. 15-12-97 is legal and justified?

To what relief is the claimant workman entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Despite of repeated notices issued, workman

failed to file statement of claim. Vide order dated

29-6-2011, Ist party was proceeded exparte.

IInd party management submitted exparte Written

Statement. The contentions raised in Written Statement

by IInd party are that the workman was employed as

General Mazdoor. He was habitual absentee. He was

remaining absent without intimation or sanctioned leave.

He was given opportunity to improve his conduct. The

contentions of workman was 37 days in 1993, 77 days in

1994, 90 days in 1995 and 23 days in 1996, chargesheet

was issued to workman. Reply given by workman to

chargesheet was not found satisfactory. Shri K.V.

Lawadhe was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Workman

despite of repeated notices failed to participate in the

Enquiry Proceedings. Enquiry was proceeded in his

absence. The evidence of management’s witnesses was

recorded in Enquiry proceedings. He further submitted

that if enquiry is found illegal for any reasons,

management be permitted to prove misconduct adducing

evidence. Workman failed to submit his statement of

claim, not participated in reference proceeding even after

repeated notices. He considers the reference proceeding

as luxury proceeding. On such grounds, IInd party prays

that reference be answered in its favour.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the

management of M/s. WCL

in terminating the services

of Shri Raju S/o Shri Gorkha

w.e.f. 15-12-97 is legal

and justified?

In Affirmative

(ii)

If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?”

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

Workman has not participated in reference

proceeding. He is proceeded exparte. Management has

filed exparte Written Statement. Affidavit of

management’s witness Santosh Kumar Dubey is filed.

Management’s witness has supported contentions of IInd

party in the Written Statement. Workman was habitual

absentee. Enquiry was conducted against workman.

Workman had failed to participate. The details of Enquiry

Proceedings are stated by the witness. Evidence of

management’s witness remained unchallenged.

Management’s Representative in his statement before

Enquiry Officer has given details of the working days of

Ist party workman. His evidence remained unchallenged.

Workman has not participated in Enquiry Proceedings

as well as in the reference proceeding. I do not find reason

to disbelieve unchallenged evidence of management’s

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

No.1 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of M/s. WCL in

terminating the services of Shri Raju S/o Shri Gorkha

w.e.f. 15-12-97 is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2645-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 108@2005) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22015@19@2005&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2645.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 108/

2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the management of the

SECL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 25.09.2014.

[No. L-22015/19/2005-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

6628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/108/05

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Daras Ram,

Vill Sundernagri,

PO Kotma Colliery,

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

...Workman

Versus

Sub Area Manager,

Govinda Sub Area of SECL,

PO Kotma Colliery,

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 4^th day of September 2014

As per letter dated 26-9-05 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-

22015/19/2005-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

“Whether the action of the General Manager,

Kotma Area of SECL and Sub Area Manager,

Govind Sub Area of SECL, PO Kotma Colliery,

Distt. Shahdol (Annupur) in not providing surface

duty to Shri Daras Ram, workman at Store or

elsewhere from 17-12-90 amounts to illegal

retrenchment/ termination? If yes, to what relief

the workman is entitled for and from which date?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 6/1 to 6/2. Case of workman is that he was in

employment of IInd party from 1963. After initial

working as miner, his category was changed to General

Mazdoor. On 17-9-88, he had suffered accidental injuries.

At the relevant time, he was working as miner. After he

suffered injury, he was provided light work of Category- I

accordingly wages were paid to him. He further submits

that form post of miner, he was changed to General

Mazdoor. Secondly he was getting less wages Rs. 2000

per month. Workman had submitted the representations

requesting for payment of full wages. Form 17-12-90,

workman was stopped from working. He was not paid

compensation for injuries suffered by him. He raised

dispute before ALC. Management was directed to allow

workman on duty within 10 days. It is alleged that

management did not allow him on work. He was served

with chargesheet on 18-9-06. Workman submitted reply

to the chargesheet. It is further submitted that workman

was illegally terminated from service without charges

proved against him. Enquiry was not properly conducted.

Workman further submits that preventing him from duties

is illegal. On such ground, workman prays for recovery

of wages for the period 17-12-90 to 17-11-96, benefit of

full wages, LTC, Gratuity fixation of pension. The relief

claimed by workman in his statement of claim are beyond

the terms of reference.

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

7/8. Claim of workman is denied outright. The terms of

reference doesnot cover surface duty which workman was

claiming. The reference relates to illegal retrenchment

of workman. Claim of workman is contrary to the terms

of reference. Illegality of reference is challenged by

management. IInd party further submits on 17-9-88,

workman suffered with an accident. Minor injury was

suffered by workman in his leg. Workman was provided

medical treatment. He was paid for injuries on duty time

to time. His sick certificate was issued. Workman was

examined by Medical Board for assessment of his

permanent/ partial disablement. Workman was found zero

disability/ fit for duty. Workman was temporarily provided

light duty from 30-1-90 to 12-2-90. Workman was

requesting surface duty from 23-10-89 to 21-11-89. It is

emphasized that after workman was found fit, despite of

repeated directions workman did not attend his original

duties. Workman remained absent therefore chargesheet

was issued to workman on 20-12-92. Said chargesheet

was sent by RPAD at his house. As workman refused to

receive chargesheet, it was published in daily newspaper.

Workman was requested to participate in enquiry

proceedings. Despite of enquiry conducted against

workman, he had not participated. Any action/

punishment was not imosed against him. That again

chargesheet was issued to workman on 19-8-94. Vide

letter dated 30-12-94, workman was advised to attend

office of Colliery Manager. Workman did not comply said

direction. Workman did not attend duty. He remained

unauthorized absent. However any punishment was not

imposed against him. Workman raised dispute. Govt. had

refused to make reference. Only as per direction of

Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 3596/95, the dispute is

referred.

4. The age of superannuation in coal industry is

60 years,. Workman was issued notice on 25-5-98 for his

retirement on attaining superannuation. Despite of

chargesheet issues to him, any punishment is not imposed

on workman. Though workman was found fit for duty,

he unauthorisely remained absent. The charge of category

doesnot amount to retrenchment. When workman was

provided light duties. Wages of said were paid to him.

On all such contentions IInd party prays for rejection of

claim.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6629

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the

General Manager, Kotma

Area of SECL and Sub

Area Manager, Govind Sub

Area of SECL PO Kotma

colliery, Distt. Shahdol

(Annupur) in not providing

surface duty to Shri Daras

ram, workman at Store or

elsewhere from 17-12-90

amounts to illegal retrench-

ment/ termination?

In Negative

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?”

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

As per terms of reference, question is Whether the

action of the IInd party management in not providing

surface duty to Shri Daras Ram, workman at Store or

elsewhere from 17-12-90 amounts to illegal

retrenchment/ termination? Retrenchment is defined

under Section 2(oo) of I.D.Act as retrenchment means

the termination by the employer of the service of a

workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a

punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but

doesnot include- (a voluntary retirement of the workman,

or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching age of

superannuation, (bb) termination as a result of the non-

renewal of the contract of employment between the

employer and the workman, termination of workman on

ground of continued illness.

Statement of Claim of workman is silent what

punishment is imposed against him by IInd party on the

chargesheet issued to him. Workman has pleaded that he

was denied light duty, preventing from attending duties.

In his affidavit of evidence, workman says from 17-12-

90, he was completely denied to work, his services were

illegally discontinued form 30-9-98. In his cross-

examination, workman says that he was working on post

of miner. He suffered injury on 17-9-88. He was provided

treatment in SECL hospital. He was paid wages during

the period of treatment. He was examined by Medical

Board and found fit with zero disability. He had requested

for light duty during the period 23-10-89 to 22-11-89

and 13-1-90 to 12-2-90. He was provided light work

during said period. Thereafter management refused to

provide light work to him. That he will have to do his

original work. He did not agree to do his original work.

In his further cross-examination, workman says

chargesheet was not issued to him for his unauthorized

absence from duty from 20-12-92. That in Form B

residing at place of his residence. He has not received

chargesheet by RPAD. Postman had no enemity with him.

He did not receive any chargesheet on 19-8-94. he had

not received letter for joining duty w.e.f. 30-12-94. He

received letter for his retirement. He has retired from

service as per letter. He is receiving pension.

Evidence of management’s witness Shri P. Mohanty

has stated that workman had suffered injury, he was

provided lighit work. After examination by Medical

Board, workman was found fit. Workman was directed

to join his original work. He remained absent.

Chargesheets were issued to workman. Any action was

not taken against workman as per those chargesheet. In

his cross-examination, management’s witness says he was

not working at relevant time when workman was working

at SECL Mine. The witness of the management admits

Ist chargesheet issued to workman, charges were not

proved. He corrected that any action was not otaken as

per the chargesheet. In his further cross-examination, he

says that in first chargesheet issued to workman, some

charges were deleted and again chargesheet was issued

to him. He was unable to tell whether the workman is

illiterate. Management’s witness denies that action was

taken against him to harm workman. After workman was

found fit by Medical Board, he could not be provided

light work. Workman was provided light work for

temporary period.

Though pleadings and evidence on record shows

that chargesheets were issued to workman, workman has

pleaded that enquiry was not properly conducted. The

terms of reference are silent about illegality of any kind

of punishment imposed against workman in pursuance

of such charge therefore the pleadings and evidence on

the point is beyond the terms of reference and needs no

detailed discussion. IInd party has challenged legality of

reference in its Written statement but the order of

reference was not challenged before appropriate Court

therefore this Tribunal is bound to decide the reference.

The contentions raised by management about legality of

reference order cannot be considered.

10.

Documents produced on record is Exhibit W-1

notice by ALC, W-2 is order of ALC submitting failure

report, W-3,4 are notices of enquiry, W-5 shows that

workman was declared medically fit to resume his original

duty by Medical Board, in meeting dated 11-4-90,

workman on his own was not attending duties assigned

to him. Exhibit W-6 is application dated 9-12-92 of

workman requesting to allow him on duty. W-7 is letter

given to workman that he was never prevented from

attending duty, he himself was not attending duties. All

those documents supports the contentions of IInd party.

6630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Exhibit W-8 is notice of enquiry given to workman, W-9

is notice of retirement of workman from 30-9-98.

Workman in his cross-examination has admitted his

retirement as per notice, he received pension. Thus there

is no evidence on record about termination of workman

for any reasons which may amount to retrenchment

provided under Section 2(oo) of I.D.Act. Therefore I

record my finding on Point No.1 in Negative.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the IInd party management in not

providing surface duty to Shri Daras Ram, workman at

Store or elsewhere from 17-12-90 is legal.

(2)

Ist party workman is not entitled to any relief as

claimed by workman.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2646-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ukxiqj] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 150@2003) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@227@2002&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2646.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 150/

2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of the

Hindustan Lalpeth U/G Sub Area of WCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

25.09.2014.

[No. L-22012/227/2002-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/150/2003

Date: 12.09.2014

Party No.1

The Sub Area Manager,

Hindustan Lalpeth U/G Sub Area,

Western Coalfields Ltd.

PO & Tah: Ballarpur,

Dist. Chandrapur(MS)

Party No.2

Shri Lomesh Khartad,

General Secretary Rashtriya Colliery

Mazdoor Congress,

Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Ballarpur,

PO & Tah: Ballarpur,

Dist. Chandrapur(M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 12^th September, 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 Hindustan Lalpeth U/G Sub Area of

Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workman, Shri Soppar

Samaiya, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/227/

2002-IR (CM-II) dated 11. 07.2003, with the following

Schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of

Hindustan Lalpeth U/G Sub Area of Western

Coalfields Limited in dismissing Shri Soppar

Samaiya, Loader from services vide office order No.

WCL/HLC/-I/Dy.CME/PER/149 dated 30.09.1993

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

workman entitled?”

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 Sopar

Samaiya (“the workman” in short) through his union,

Rashtriya colliery Mazdoor Congress (“the union” in

short) filed the statement of claim and the management

of Western Coalfields Ltd. (“party no.1” in short) filed

their written statement.

The case of the workman as projected by the union

in the statement of claim is that it (union) is a registered

trade union under the Trade Unions Act,1926 and party

No.1 is a Government company and is a “state” within

the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India

and the workman was working at Nakoda Incline, Gughus

Sub Area of Wani Area as a mud pallet maker, along

with seven others and the case of the workman and other

mud pallet makers was raised by one union before the

ALC(C), Chandrapur and a conciliation settlement was

arrived between the management of Wani Area and the

said union on 17.04.1989 and in view of the said

settlement, the workman was given fresh appointment,

ignoring his past service and the workman joined at

Nakoda Incline as a piece rated loader, group V-A and

the workman was completely illiterate and understood

only Telugu language and a bit of Hindi language and in

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6631

the month of September, 1992, the workman was

transferred to Chandrapur Area and was posted at

Hindustan Lalpeth Mine No.1, under Hindustan Lalpeth

underground Sub Area and the workman joined his duty

and started to perform his duty by under taking journey

from Gughus, where he was residing and no arrangement

was made by the management to provide the workman

with temporary hutment at Hindustan Lalpeth Mine No.1

or in the units of the Sub Area, inspite of having provision,

practice and precedent for providing hutment on transfer

of workers to a distance place by the management and

Gughus was a remote village and public transport was

very rare even in day hours and not available in odd hours

and due to performing of arduous nature of job in the

underground and taking of journey from Gughus to

Hindustan Lalpeth Mine No.1 and back, the workman

suffered from ailment and the workman always kept the

management informed about his sickness and on

production of medical certificate and fitness certificate,

he was being allowed to resume his duty and the papers

so submitted were kept by the party no.1 on record and

the workman reported for duty vide his letter dated

16.12.1992 to the Manager, Lalpeth Mine No.1, which

was received in the office on 21.12.1992, but he was not

allowed to resume duty, inspite of his repeated visits

thereafter and party No.1 harassed and victimized the

workman due to non receipt of the LPC and other service

records from Nakoda Incline and he was not allowed for

duty for the same, inspite of his reporting for duty, vide

his letter dated 16.12.1992 and the workman received

an order of dismissal from service bearing No.1493 dated

30.09.1993 of Dy. CME/Manager, Hindustan Lalpeth

Mine No.1, by registered post with AD, in which, he was

informed about his dismissal from service w.e.f.

30.09.1993 and the workman approached the

management times without number, but his case was not

considered.

It is further pleaded by the union that letter No.1695

dated 01.10.1995 issued by the Sub Area Manager,

Hindustan Lalpeth Sub Area by registered post with AD

was received by the workman, in which, he was intimated

to apply for reconsideration of his case, as it was decided

by the management to reconsider the cases of the

employees dismissed from services, on the ground of

absenteeism and accordingly, the workman made

application supported with documents, but neither the

same was considered nor replied and ultimately, it (Union)

raised the industrial dispute before the ALC(C),

Chandrapur and due to failure of the conciliation, the

reference was made.

The further case of the union is that the charge

sheet so drawn against the workman was not served on

the workman and the same was also not published in any

news paper having wide circulation in the State and

therefore, for all purposes, the charge sheet did not exist

and the charge sheet was vague, concocted and

mischievous and the entire action taken on the basis of

such a charge sheet was void and since the charge sheet

was not served on the workman, there is no need to go

further into the facts of the case and the entire action is

required to be quashed and notice of the enquiry, the copy

of the report of the enquiry officer and 2^nd show cause

notice were not served on the workman, which caused

great prejudice to the workman and his interest was

grossly affected and the entire action has to be quashed

and the punishment has been approved by the appellate

authority, which is illegal, bad in law and against the

principles of natural justice and so also the provisions of

clause 30 of the Standing Order and thereby, the workman

lost the chance of appeal and the workman in entitled for

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages.

The party no.1 in the written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that the workman came on transfer from Nakoda

Incline, Wani Area and reported for duties at HLC-1 on

14.09.1992 and in view of his absence from duties since

23.11.1992, a show cause notice was served on him on

12.06.1993 (wrongly mentioned as 12.06.2003 in the

written statement), under clause 9 (d) of the Certified

Standing Orders applicable to the said mine and the

workman was served charge sheet under clauses 13(b) 4

and 13 (b) 7 of the certified standing orders on 19.06.1993

(again wrongly mentioned as 19.06.2003 in the written

statement) vide letter no. 1417, for absenting duties

unauthorisedly w.e.f. 23.11.1992 and as the workman did

not respond to the charge sheet, a domestic enquiry was

constituted by appointing Shri S.A. Basha, the then

Personnel Manager for making enquiry into the charge

sheet and the enquiry officer served notice to the workman

for attending the enquiry on 28.07.1993 and 29.07.1993

and the workman was also informed that in case of his

not attending the enquiry, the enquiry would be held ex-

parte against him and the notice of the enquiry was served

in consonance with clause 14 (2) of the Certified Standing

Orders and accordingly, the enquiry was held exparte on

29.07.1993 and the disciplinary authority reviewed the

report of the enquiry officer and gave approval for

dismissing the workman from service and the workman

was dismissed from service from 30.09.1993.

It is further pleaded that the party no.1 that after

waiting for a period of one year, the decision was taken

for dismissing the workman from service and the dispute

was raised by the union after a lapse of ten years and the

same is a stale claim and no relief can be granted to the

workman, in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Courts.

It is also pleaded by the party no.1 that the workman

had never submitted any medical certificate in respect of

his absence from duties and the workman on 21.12.1992

had only intimated to the management that he was not

feeling well since 15.11.1992 and the moment he would

6632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

become fit, he would resume duties, but he had not

submitted any authentic medical certificate along with

prescription and remained absent from duty for long

period and as the workman had received the dismissal

letter and other letters, then he might have received the

notice of enquiry as well as charge sheet, which were

sent at his local address as well as permanent address

and though the workman was issued with the letter for

filing of application for review of his case, he never

approached the management for reviewing his case at

the relevant period and it had followed all formalities,

while serving charge sheet as well as holding the enquiry,

as per the terms and conditions laid down in the certified

standing orders and the workman neither approached for

collecting the enquiry report nor made any representation,

asking for the proceedings as well as the enquiry report

and supply of enquiry report and second show cause notice

is not a serious issue in this case and the charge sheet

was issued at the local address as well as permanent

address through registered post with A.D., but the same

was returned back with report that the “concerned person

is not traceable” and the charge sheet was not vague and

did not have any infirmity and the enquiry was conducted

in consonance with the principles of natural justice, by

giving opportunity to the workman and the workman is

not entitled to any relief.

In the rejoinder, the union has denied the

allegations made in the written statement and has

reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim.

It is also pleaded that the new certified standing order

came into operation as and from 27.02.1993 and as such,

drawing of charge sheet on 17/19.06.1993 against the

workman under the previous standing orders, which was

already revoked and not operative on and from

27.02.1993 was illegal and liable to be quashed and thus,

the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman

and punishment imposed are also illegal and liable to be

set aside and quashed and the workman is entitled for

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages and all consequential benefits.

As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from

service as punishment, after holding of a departmental

enquiry, the fairness or otherwise of the departmental

enquiry was taken up for consideration as a preliminary

issue and by order dated 06.06.2014 the departmental

enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be

illegal and unjustified.

It is to be mentioned here that as party no.1 had

made prayer to allow it to lead evidence to prove the

charge against the workman, in case of holding the

departmental enquiry to be unfair, the prayer made by

the party no.1 was allowed and party No.1 was allowed

to lead evidence to prove the charge against the workman

before this Tribunal. However, inspite of giving of several

opportunities to the party No.1, party No.1 failed to

adduce any evidence to prove the charges levelled against

the workman before this Tribunal.

It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a

number of decisions that, “If on the other hand, there is

violation of the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal

will then give opportunity to the employer to produce

evidence, if any and also to the workman to rebut it if he

so chooses. In the latter event, the Tribunal will be entitled

to arrive at its own conclusions on merits on the evidence

produced before it with regard to the proof of the

misconduct charged, and the Tribunal, then, will not be

confined merely to consider whether a prima facie case

is established against the employee. In other words, in

such an event, the employer’s findings in the domestic

inquiry will lapse and these will be substituted by the

independent conclusions of the Tribunal on merits.

Keeping in view the above mentioned settled

principles, now, the present case in hand is required to

be considered.

As no evidence has been adduced by the party No.1

in this case to prove the charges levelled against the

workman, before this Tribunal, it is found that party No.1

has failed to prove the charges against the workman.

Now, the only question remains for consideration

is as to what relief or reliefs the workman is entitled.

As party No.1 has failed to prove the charges

against the workman, the workman is entitled for

reinstatement in service with continuity. So far the back

wages is concerned, taking in view the facts and

circumstances of the case in its totality; I think that

payment of 50% of the back wages will meet the ends of

justice in this case. Accordingly, the workman is entitled

for 50% of the back wages from the date of his dismissal

till the date of his actual reinstatement in service. The

workman is also entitled for all the consequential benefits.

Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of Hindustan Lalpeth

U/G Sub Area of Western Coalfields Limited in

dismissing Shri Soppar Samaiya, Loader from services

vide office order No. WCL/HLC/-I/Dy.CME/PER/

1493dated30.09.1993 is illegal and unjustified. The

workman is entitled for 50% of the back wages from the

date of his dismissal till the date of his actual

reinstatement in service. The workman is also entitled

for all the consequential benefits. In case, the workman

has already attained the age of super annuation, then he

be reinstated in service notionally and the wages and other

consequential benefits be calculated accordingly and be

paid to the workman. The party No.1 is directed to comply

with the directions given in the award within one month

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6633

of the publication of the award in the official gazette,

failing which, the amount due to the workman will carry

interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of due

to the date of actual payment of the amount to the

workman.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2647-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 122@2004) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@356@2003&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2647.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 122/

2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of the

Nandgaon Incline of Hindustan Lalpeth UG Sub Area of

WCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 25.09.2014.

[No. L-22012/356/2003-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/122/2004

Date: 12.09.2014.

Party No.1

The Sub Area Manager,

Nandgaon Incline of Hindustan

Lalpeth UG Sub Area of WCL,

PO:Lalpeth,

Tah & Distt. Chandrapur.

V/s.

Party No.2

Sh. Lomesh Khartad,

General Secretary,

National Colliery Mazdoor Congress,

Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,

Ballarpur,

Dist.: Chandrapur.

AWARD

(Dated: 12^th September, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of WCL and their workman, Shri

Subrahmaniyam Setty, for adjudication, as per letter

No.L-22012/356/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 28.10.2004, with

the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management in

relation to Hindustan Lalpeth Sub-Area of WCL

in terminating the services of Shri Subrahmaniyam

Setty, Sweeper, Nandgaon Incline of Hindustan

Lalpeth UG Sub Area of WCL vide office order no.

1783 dated 22.10.2001 is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to

file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, in response to which, the union, “National

Colliery Workers Congress”, (“the union” in short) filed

the statement of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri

Subrahmaniyam Setty, (“the workman” in short) and the

management of WCL, (“party no.1” in short) filed the

written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim by the union is that it (union) is a

registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926

and the party no.1 is a government company and is a

state within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution

of India and the workman was appointed on 22.12.1986

at Hindusthan Lalpeth Mine no.3 and he was transferred

to Nandgaon Incline in May, 1997 and the workman while

working as a sweeper was exposed to frequent serious

diseases and the workman developed mental illness and

on 16.05.1999 though he went for duty, he was found

roaming as a mad person by his relations, so the workman

was taken by his relative to the hospital at Nagpur for

treatment and Smt. Yasodbai, the wife of the workman

informed such facts to the party no.1 vide her letter dated

19.05.1999, which was sent under certificate of posting

and she also again informed party no.1 vide her letters

dated 03.06.1999 and 10.06.1999 sent under certificate

of postings about the treatment of the workman for mental

illness and the relatives/well wishers of the workman also

informed the Personnel Manager, Nandgaon Incline about

the treatment of the workman for mental illness by

sending two telegrams dated 0107.1999 to 04.12.1999

from Central Telegraph Office, Nagpur and the workman

after having been declared fit by the doctors under whom

he was under treatment, reported for duty on 07.06.2002

and submitted the original certificate dated 30.04.2002

6634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and 06.06.2002 issued by Dr. M.T. Dodake and the

certificate dated 06.06.2002 was countersigned by the

Civil Surgeon, Nagpur and the senior Medical Officer,

Nandgaon Incline forwarded the said two medical

certificates to Personnel Manager, Nandgaon Incline on

07.06.2002 and the Personnel Manager remanded, “He

is terminated from services”, so he was not allowed to

resume duty.

The further case of the workman as presented by

the union is that the workman approached the party no.1

time and again to allow him to resume duty personally

and also in writing vide his letter dated 13.06.2002, but

his request did not yield any result and the workman

received letter no. 904 dated 19.10.2002 of the Dy.

Personnel Manager, Nandgaon Incline in which, he was

directed to apply for settlement of CMPF accumulation,

gratuity and pension under Coal Mines Pension Scheme

as his name was struck off from the rolls of the company

on account of termination vide office order no. 1783 dated

21/23.10.2001 and the workman had neither received any

charge sheet, show cause, letter of termination or any

other relevant and connected document as he was

undergoing treatment at Nagpur and he himself and the

union made further correspondence at different levels to

allow him (workman) to resume duty with continuity and

payment of back wages and other consequential benefits,

but his case was not considered and the workman also

made an appeal on 31.03.2003 to the Chairman-Cum-

Managing Director with copy of the same to the Suptd/

Manager, Nandgaon Incline, Sub-Area Manager,

Hindusthan Lalpeth underground Sub-Area and the Asstt.

Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandrapur but his

appeal remained unheard and the same was neither

considered nor replied to.

It is also pleaded by the union on behalf of the

workman that the charge sheet was not served on the

workman and the charge sheet is vague and the notice of

the enquiry was also not served on the workman and there

was violation of the principles of natural justice and the

entire enquiry proceedings is liable to be quashed and

the report of the enquiry was also not served on the

workman and there was also no second show cause notice

before imposition of the punishment and as such, the

termination of the services of the workman is illegal and

the appellate authority acted as the disciplinary authority

and passed the order of punishment and the order was a

mechanical order without application of mind and the

report of the enquiry is perverse and the enquiry is unfair

and illegal.

The union has prayed for the reinstatement of the

workman with continuity and full back wages.

The party no.1 in the written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that the dispute is not an industrial dispute as

the union is an outside unrecognized union and does not

have appreciable number of employees as its members

and the dispute is an individual dispute. The further

case of party no.1 is that the workman was appointed in

HLC-III colliery in 1986 as a sweeper and he was in habit

of remaining absent from his duties unauthorized and he

was subsequently transferred to Nandgaon on 07.04.1997

and he was issued with letters No. 781 dated 19.03.1996,

No. 283 dated 11.08.1999 and No. 544 dated 15.01.1997

for remaining unauthorized absence from duty for the

period from 11.03.1996 to 16.03.1996, 26.07.1997 to

18.08.1997 and 12.10.1997 to 15.10.1997 respectively

and the workman was in habit of bringing sick certificates

from outside private doctors, where as every colliery was

equipped with dispensary to provide free medical

treatment to the employees and there was an intimation

dated 14.05.1998 from the Dy. Medical Suptd. at

Nandgaon colliery about the workman reporting sick at

the dispensary on 23.04.1998 and the workman remained

absent from duty from 24.04.1998 to 14.05.1998, which

clearly show his attitude of indiscipline and the workman

was in habit of remaining absent from duty without any

pre intimation and to cover his unauthorized absence, he

had been submitting medical certificates obtained from

private doctors and that too at the time of resuming duties

and he had never informed the management about his

sickness during the period of sickness either by post or

by telephone and while going through the representation

and supporting documents, it was found that the medical

certificated and representation given to the Manager by

the wife of the workman were prepared on the same day

and were sent under certificate of posting at Lalpeth post

office, instead of submitting the same personally and the

medical certificate submitted by the workman without

any supporting prescription seemed to be doubtful, where

in it was certified by Dr. M.T. Dadke the workman was

advised to take rest from 17.05.1999 to 30.04.2002 and

the workman was fit for duty from 07.06.2002, where as

in her applications dated 19.05.1999, 30.06.1999 and

10.06.1999, the wife of the workman had mentioned about

the workman undergoing treatment at Mayo Hospital,

but no supporting papers in support of such treatment

were filed and the workman remained absent from

07.05.1999 till the date of his termination and principle

of natural justice does not have a straight jacket formula

and as such, an employee being guilty of remaining absent

without leave for a long period and without responding

to the notice sent by the management cannot take the

plea that neither proper opportunity was offered nor any

enquiry was held and the domestic enquiry against the

workman was held in consonance with the principles of

natural justice and there was no illegality in conducting

the enquiry and letters dated 11.05.2000, 26.06.2000,

22.03.2001, 21.05.2001, 18.06.2001 and 20.08.2001 were

issued to the workman in his address as recorded in his

service register about the enquiry and letter no. 107 dated

24.04.2001 intimating the workman the date of enquiry

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6635

to be on 21.05.2001 was refused and returned and the

notice of the final sitting of the enquiry, on 20.08.2001

was published in the newspaper, “Chandrapur Samachar”

dated 08.08.2001 and in her applications, wife of the

workman had mentioned the same address on which all

correspondence were made and it shows that though the

workman was living on the said address, deliberately

managed to return the enquiry letters and though the

workman had been given number of opportunities to

improve his attendance, he had taken the same very

lightly and after holding a detailed domestic enquiry

offering full and fair opportunity to the workman he was

terminated from services and the charge sheet and so

also second show cause notice was sent to the workman

by registered post with A.D. and the workman neither

approached nor availed the medical treatment from

colliery dispensary and he had also never intimated about

his disability and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

In the rejoinder, it has been pleaded by the union

that the plea taken by the management is just to delay

the reference and it is well settled position of law that

where there is no recognized union, every registered union

enjoys the same status and can raise the industrial dispute

and the reference is in regard to the illegal termination

of the workman from services and as such, the same can

be raised by individual also in terms of section 2-A of the

Act and the workman had been submitting sick

certificates from doctors for his absence, which itself

shows that the absence of the workman was for sufficient

cause and was not willful and intentional and such

certificates were accepted by the management and were

never challenged to be fake or forged and it has been

admitted by the party no.1 that it was reported that the

workman was sick and under medical treatment and as

the absence of the workman was due to his sickness about

which due intimation was given to the party no.1, the

same does not constitute any “misconduct” under the

relevant provisions of the certified standing order of WCL

and the workman was never served with any

correspondence of the departmental enquiry and the

enquiry if any is not fair and proper and the entire

proceedings and action taken against the workman are

liable to be quashed.

As this is a case of termination of the services of

the workman after holding of a departmental enquiry

against him, the fairness or otherwise of the departmental

enquiry was taken into consideration as a preliminary

enquiry and as per order dated 26.07.2013, the

departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was

held to be illegal, improper and not in accordance with

the principles of natural justice.

As the party no.1 has prayed for allowing it to prove

the charges levelled against the workman by adducing

evidence before this Tribunal in case of holding the

departmental inquiry to be unfair, the party no.1 was

directed to prove the charges against the workman before

this Tribunal, by adducing evidence.

It is to be mentioned here that in order to prove the

charges levelled against the workman before this

Tribunal, party No1 filed the evidence of witness, Shri

Bhujangrao C. Narad on 11.09.2013. However, thereafter

party No. 1 remained absent and did not take part in the

case. As the above named witness was not produced for

cross-examination, inspite of giving several opportunities

for the same, as per order dated 21.05.2014, the evidence

of the said witness on affidavit was expunged and

evidence from the side of the party No.1 was closed. Party

No.1 has not adduced any evidence before

It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a

number of decisions that, “If on the other hand, there is

violation of the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal

will then give opportunity to the employer to produce

evidence, if any and also to the workman to rebut it if he

so chooses. In the latter event, the Tribunal will be entitled

to arrive at its own conclusions on merits on the evidence

produced before it with regard to the proof of the

misconduct charged, and the Tribunal, then, will not be

confined merely to consider whether a prima facie case

is established against the employee. In other words, in

such an event, the employer’s findings in the domestic

inquiry will lapse and these will be substituted by the

independent conclusions of the Tribunal on merits.

Keeping in view the above mentioned settled

principles, now, the present case in hand is required to

be considered.

As no evidence has been adduced by the party No.1

in this case to prove the charges levelled against the

workman, before this Tribunal, it is found that party No.1

has failed to prove the charges against the workman.

Now, the only question remains for consideration

is as to what relief or reliefs the workman is entitled.

As party No.1 has failed to prove the charges

against the workman, the workman is entitled for

reinstatement in service with continuity. So far the back

wages is concerned, taking in view the facts and

circumstances of the case in its totality; I think that

payment of 50% of the back wages will meet the ends of

justice in this case. Accordingly, the workman is entitled

for 50% of the back wages from the date of his dismissal

till the date of his actual reinstatement in service. The

workman is also entitled for all the consequential benefits.

Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management in relation to

Hindustan Lalpeth Sub-Area of WCL in terminating the

services of Shri Subrahmaniyam Setty, Sweeper,

6636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Nandgaon Incline of Hindustan Lalpeth UG Sub Area of

WCL vide office order no. 1783 dated 22.10.2001 is

illegal and unjustified. The workman is entitled for 50%

of the back wages from the date of his dismissal till the

date of his actual reinstatement in service. The workman

is also entitled for all the consequential benefits. The party

No.1 is directed to comply with the directions given in

the award within one month of the publication of the

award in the official gazette, failing which, the amount

due to the workman will carry interest at the rate of 8%

per annum from the date of due to the date of actual

payment of the amount to the workman.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2648-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ukxiqj] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 43@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@116@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2648.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/

2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the management of the Pauni

Open Cast Mine Gouri Sub Area of WCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

25.09.2014.

[No. L-22012/116/2004-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/43/2005

Date: 15.09.2014.

Party No.1

The Sub Area Manager,

Pauni Open Cast Mine,

Gouri Sub Area of WCL,

Po: Gouri, Tah:Rajura,

Chandrapur (MS).

Vs.

Party No. 2

Shri Lomesh Khartad

General Secretary,

Rashtriya Colliery Workers

Congress, Dr. Ambedkar

Nagar, Ballarpur,

Po & Tah. Ballarpur,

Chandrapur (MS).

AWARD

(Dated: 15^th September, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of WCL and their workman, Shri Kisan

Viram Kampelliwar, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-

22012/116/2004-IR (CM-II) dated 13.05.2005, with the

following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management in relation

to Pauni Open Cast Mine Gour Sub-Area of Western

Coalfields Limited in terminating the services of

Shri Kisan Viram Kampelliwar, Operator, Pauni

Open Cast Mine Vide Office Order No. Vekoli/

Bakshe/Kha /Pauni/karmic/seva samapti/2002/

1787 dated 31.12.2002 is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief is the workman is entitled?”

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

K.V.Kampelliwar, (“the workman” in short) through his

union, “Rashtriya Colliery Workers Congress”, (“the

union” in short) filed the statement of claim and the

management of WCL, (“party no.1” in short) filed the

written statement.

The case of the workman as presented by the union

in the statement of claim is that it is a trade union, register

under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the party no.1 is a

Government company and is a “State” within Article 12

of the Constitution of India and the workman was working

at Wani Area continuously since 13.09.1983, with

unblemished record and the party No.1 proposed to open

and start Mungoli project and for the said project, lands

were acquired by party no.1 from the villagers of Shakhara

Kol Gauri and as management of Wani Area did not give

relief/reliefs to the villagers, whose lands were acquired,

the workman raised genuine grievances of the villagers

with party no.1 at different levels and other concerned

authorities, which annoyed the party no.1 and being

annoyed and furious, party no.1 was searching

opportunity to victimize him by hook or crook and

therefore, party no.1 transferred him to Ballarpur Area,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6637

vide office order 4055 dated 05.09.2000 and he was

released vide order dated 08.09.2000 immediately and

the transfer order suffered from several infirmities and

the same was not in accordance with certified standing

order and the practice and precedent in WCL is to transfer

the junior most person in the category, in case of transfer

to any other Areas and the aforesaid orders reveal the

facts of victimization and unfair labour practice and he

was further posted at Pauni Open cast mine, vide order

dated 08.02.2001 and at Mungoli open cast project, from

where the workmam was transferred, the workman was

provided with company’s accommodation (no. 20/13-80)

and he was living with his 80 years old, ailing and feeble

mother in the said quarters at Mungoli and his mother

was wholly and solely dependent on him and the party

no.1 in a preplanned manner retransferred and posted

him at Pauni open cast mine, a remote and far off place

and thus he had to go to Pauni and come back to Mungoli,

covering a distance of about 160 Kms each day and that

too in odd hours and he was neither provided with any

temporary shelter nor quarters at Pauni, inspite of his

approaches to management at times without number and

he also appealed for his transfer back to Mungoli due to

the difficulties faced by him, the illness of his mother

and his own health problem and having fully realizing

his difficulties, the representatives of the five Central

Trade Unions operating at Mungoli open cast colliery

appealed jointly vide letter dated 05.06.2001, to the Chief

General Manager to transfer him back to Mungoli, but

to victimize him further, the management of Mungoli

open cast project did not issue the last pay certificate

,which made it crystal clear that his transfer was done

under bad motive and intention and the same was illegal

and he repeatedly approached for payment of wages for

the work performed by him, but the same was not paid to

him and the Suptd. of Mines, Pauni open cast mine started

harassing him verbally as well as in writing, directing

him to vacate the accommodation allotted and occupied

by him at Mungoli open cast Mine, failing which to take

disciplinary action against him and for the reasons

mentioned above, his health deteriorated and he

approached personally to the authorities times without

number and appraised them about his position as well as

his mother’s illness and requested to transfer him back

to Mungoli and due to such victimization, the workman

suffered both mentally and physically, as a result of which,

he remained ill frequently and developed serious problem

in spinal cord and he was keeping the management

informed about his frequent illness and on submission of

fitness certificate, the management being satisfied with

the same, had been allowing him to resume duty and he

had also informed the party no.1 about his illness, by

sending a telegram earlier and the telegram was received

by the management on 01.04.2000 and the workman

received letter no. 1020 dated 11/15.10.2001 of Suptd.

of Mine, Pauni open cast mine, where in, reference was

made about submission of charge sheet no. 375 dated 22/

23.06.2001 against him and he submitted his reply to

the said letter, vide letter dated 25.10.2001, intimating

about his illness and undergoing treatment and that he

had already informed about the same by his telegram to

the management and requested for withdrawal of the

charge sheet under the aforesaid circumstances.

It is further pleaded by the workman that in order

to victimize him, a false, fabricated, concocted and vague

charge sheet bearing no. 375 dated 22/23.06.2001 had

been drawn by the party no.1 and the charge sheet suffered

from several serious infirmities and the detailed

particulars of habitual absenteeism were not mentioned

in the same and documents were not enclosed with the

charge sheet and inspite of having sufficient cause of his

remaining absent and intimation of his illness by

telegram, party no.1 proceeded with the enquiry

mechanically and a show enquiry was conducted and the

report of the enquiry officer is perverse and the same

was out of bias and the enquiry officer did not evaluate

and appreciate the 26 documents submitted by him

properly and the enquiry officer acted only as a recorder

and did not act prudently and impartially and he travelled

beyond jurisdiction and put in personal view, without

going through the documents and facts on record.

The further case of the workman is that the Suptd.

of Mines, Pauni open cast colliery vide letter dated

28.04.2003 informed him to fill up pension forms and

CMPF forms for refund in Personnel Department, as he

had been discharged from service, vide letter no. 1787

dated 13.12.2002 and he submitted his reply vide his letter

dated 05.06.2003, sent by registered post with AD,

explaining the circumstances and informing of his having

not received the order of dismissal and the report of the

enquiry was not served on him, before imposition of the

punishment and no second show cause notice was also

given to him, which caused great prejudice to him and

his interest was grossly affected and as the order of

dismissal was not served on him, for all purposes the

dismissal order does not exist.

It is also pleaded by the union on behalf of the

workman that the workman himself and the union made

appeal to the Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, WCL

(HQ) vide letters dated 18.04.2003, 19.04.2003,

17.06.2003, 18.06.2003 and 30.07.2003 for the

reinstatement of the workman in service and the Area

Personnel Manager, Ballarpur area vide letter no. 2926

dated 14.07.2003, informed that the competent authority

advised to put up the case once again after 31.12.2003,

without mentioning as to who was the said competent

authority and the appeal was not disposed of even after

considerable time and was kept pending indefinitely in

utter disregard to the provisions of the standing order

and ruling of the Hon’ble Court and after a lapse of 10

6638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

months, the Suptd. of Mines vide letter dated 24/

26.04.2004 informed the workman that the Dy. Chief

Personnel Manager (IR) WCL (HQ), Nagpur had

conveyed the decision of the competent authority that

the case of the workman was not considered, as there

was no merit in the appeal for reinstatement and the entire

action of party no.1 from the stage of drawing the charge

sheet to the stage of rejecting the appeal was mechanical

and without application of mind and the order of dismissal

was approved by the Chief General Manager, Ballarpur

Area, the Appellate Authority and as the Appellate

Authority acted as the punishing authority, the workman

was prejudiced as he lost the scope of preferring the appeal

and otherwise also, the punishment of dismissal is too

harsh and disproportionate.

Prayer has been made by the union for the

reinstatement of the workman in service with continuity,

full back wages and all consequential benefits.

The party no.1 in the written statement, denying

all the adverse allegations made in the statement of claim

has pleaded inter-alia that the union and the workman

have not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and

materials facts have been suppressed and they have misled

the facts and on that score, not only the relief prayed for

by the union is liable to be refused, but the entire

proceeding filed by the union also is liable to be dismissed

and the union has no existence in Pauni open cast mine

of Ballarpur area and it is also not one of the recognized

unions of WCL and as such, the General Secretary of the

said union cannot be taken as authorized representative

of the workman.

The further case of the party no.1 is that baseless

allegations have been made, which are even false to the

knowledge of the workman and he is a person, who was

not having a clean record and he was in habit of remaining

unauthorizedly absent without there being any reason and

the statement of claim as filed is nothing but an attempt

to gain sympathy from the Tribunal and the workman

was initially appointed as a casual loader on 13.09.1983

at New Majri OCM and he was charge sheeted vide letter

no. 4056/87 dated 17.02.1988, for unauthorised

absenteeism and he was terminated from duty from

19.09.1988, vide ref. No. 2284/88 issued by Dy. CME/

Manager New Majri OCM, but he was reinstated in

service as HEMM(T) operator Category-I w.e.f.

17.03.1990 and posted to Ghugus open cast mine vide

appointment letter no. 1287 dated 27.02.1990 and even

after the reinstatement, his conduct was not satisfactory

and he was again charge sheeted vide charge sheet no.

96/371 dated 23.03.1996, for causing willful damage to

company’s properly and he wrote a letter to the

management threatening hunger strike in support of a

suspended worker at Mungoli open cast project and he

also threatened the safety officer, Mungoli open cast

project of serious consequences and all these facts speak

volumes of the workman and he was then transferred to

Mungoli open cast mine w.e.f. 05.06.1995 and he was

promoted at Mungoli open cast mine and the workman

unauthorisedly absented himself from 2001 and he

attended duty only for 24 days in 2001 and 2 days in

2002 and due to continuous unauthorized absence of the

workman, charge sheet dated 22/23.06.2001 was issued

against him and when no reply was received from him,

again a letter dated 11/15.10.2001 was issued to the

workman directing him to report for duties within three

days of the receipt of the letter, but he did not turn up

and as such, order for conducting domestic enquiry was

issued by Pauni OCM vide letter dated 19.10.2001 and

inspite of the same, the workman remained

unauthorizedly absent and hardly joined duties during

the period of enquiry, which speaks of his conduct and to

justify his absence, the workman submitted some

treatment certificates dated 18.03.2001, 19.03.2001,

29.03.2001 and 01.04.2001 from Mungoli dispensary and

though he had been declared fit to join duties from

02.04.2001, he did not join his duties and once again, he

submitted certificates dated 20.05.2002, 21.05.2002,

24.05.2002, 30.05.2002 and 02.06.2002, which did not

indicate that he was unfit for duties and he also submitted

more certificates from Ghugus dispensary and community

hospital, but not a single certificate justified his long

period of continuous absence and further, he was allowed

for duties pending departmental enquiry, but he rarely

turned up.

Party no.1 has further pleaded that all the principles

of natural justice were complied with during the enquiry

proceedings and it was categorically proved that the

workman was continuously avoiding the enquiry

proceedings on the pretext of one or the other and the

final sitting of the enquiry was held on 30.09.2002 and

being asked by the enquiry officer, as to whether he has

anything more to say or as to whether he wants to produce

any document, the workman in clear terms stated of his

having nothing to say and nothing to produce and that

clearly indicates that an impartial and fair enquiry was

conducted in which, the workman was offered fair chance

to defend himself, following the principles of natural

justice and appropriate punishment in such a case is

dismissal from services and before imposition of the

punishment, the copy of the enquiry report was sent to

the workman in his home address by registered post, but

it was returned back by the postal department stating that

the addressee was not available in the house, so the

workman was terminated from services vide order dated

31.12.2002 and the said order was also sent to the

workman in his address, but the same was also returned

back without service with the remark that addressee was

not available in his house and the workman failed to make

any representation and the workman was rightly

dismissed from service.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6639

It is also pleaded by the party no.1 that the transfer

of the workman was purely on administrative ground and

was never preplanned and many workers of Pauni OCM

were transferred to far away places like Pench, Kanhan

and other subsidiary companies like ECL and the

workman was no exception and altogether 446 workers

were working at Pauni Colliery and out of them,

approximately 193 workers were provided with

company’s quarters and other workers were staying their

own behest and the workman would have made alternate

arrangement for accommodation like others and

acceptance of application for transfer is purely a

discretionary power of the management and as such, the

submission of the application by the workman and

endorsement of his transfer application by the unions did

not create any right on the workman in claiming for

transfer to the place of his own choice and quarters were

allotted as and when available, based on the norms

decided by the house allotment committee and basing on

the seniority list finalized by the said committee and as

such, the demand made by the workman was illegal and

it was the duty of the workman to ask for last pay

certificate, if it was not issued and he is trying to shift

the burden of his negligence on the management and the

workman was paid a sum of Rs. 11,500/- in the form of

salary and other miscellaneous advances at the time of

his transfer, even though his total attendance was 26 days

and there is no truth in the statement that the management

choose to victimize the workman by not paying the wages

and there was no question of paying wages, when the

workman was not performing his duties and after the

transfer of the workman, as he did not vacate the quarters

provided to him, by letter dated 08.03.2001, he was asked

to vacate the quarters as a routine administrative action

and it provides medical facilities to all its employees and

their dependents as per Rules and mere treatment of an

employee at company’s dispensaries and hospital does

not mean that he can remain unauthorizedly absent at

his will and the medical certificates produced by the

workman did not justify his continuous long absenteeism

and even before his treatment, he was continuously absent

from his duties and the workman attended the domestic

enquiry on 02.12.2001, 10.12.2001, 03.01.2002,

06.09.2002, 20.09.2002 and 30.09.2002 and copies of

the enquiry proceedings were given to him and he signed

on the proceedings in token of acknowledgement of

receipt of the same and after completion of the enquiry, a

copy of the enquiry report was sent in his home address

vide letter dated 23/24.11.2002, by registered post with

acknowledgement due, but it was returned by the post

authorities and principle of natural justice were followed

in conducting the enquiry against the workman.

The further case of the party No.1 is that the appeal

dated 05.06.2003 of the workman to the Suptd/Manager,

Pauni OCM was replied to vide letter dated

26/28.06.2003, which was duly acknowledged by him

and regarding his appeal dated 18.04.2003, a reply was

communicated vide letter dated 14.07.2003 to the

workman that the competent authority (Chief Manager

WCL, HQ, Nagpur) would consider the matter once again

after 31.12.2003 and the application of the workman

regarding reinstatement was rejected, as there was no

merit or ground for his reinstatement and the workman

is not entitled to any relief.

No rejoinder was filed by the union after filing of

the written statement by party no.1.

As this is a case of termination of the services of

the workman after holding of a departmental enquiry,

the fairness, or otherwise of the departmental enquiry

was taken up as a preliminary issue for consideration

and by order dated 26.11.2013, the departmental inquiry

conducted against the workman was held to be legal,

proper and in accordance with the principles of natural

justice.

At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that charge sheet dated

22/23.06.2001 was never served on the workman and

the said charge sheet was submitted against the workman

on the allegations of remaining unauthorized absence for

the period from 13.03.2001 to 31.03.2001 and the charge

sheet was under clauses 26.24 and 26.30 of the certified

Standing Order and during the relevant period, the

workman was ill and he was undergoing medical

treatment and he produced medical certificates in support

of his illness before the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry

Officer did not consider the evidence produce by the

workman and his report was one sided and as such, the

findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and the

absence from duty by the workman was the result of his

illness and treatment and the Enquiry officer in his report

dated 21/22.11.2002 has not given any finding that the

absence of the workman was willful and in absence of

such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct.

It was further submitted by the learned advocate

for the workman that remaining of unauthorized absence

from duty by the workman cannot be said to be serious or

major misconduct and therefore, the punishment of

dismissal is unduly harsh and disproportionate and not

sustainable and the copy of the report submitted by the

Enquiry Officer and the second show cause notice were

not given to the workman before imposition of the major

punishment and the same amount to denial of reasonable

opportunity to the workman and the clean and

unblemished past service record of the workman was not

taken into consideration, while inflicting the punishment

of dismissal against the workman and the workman is

not gainfully employed since the date of his dismissal

6640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service

with continuity and full back wages.

In support of the submissions, the learned advocate

for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported

in Supreme Court of India (Civil Appeal no. 2106 of 2012

(Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India), 2009 III

CLR-645 (Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Coal

India Limited & Aur Vs. Mukul Kumar), 2008 III CLR-

328 (Depot Manager, APSRTC Vs. V. Surender) and

Delhi High Court W.P. (C) 1327/2014 Delhi (Transport

Corporation Vs. Devender Kumar.

Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the party no.1 that this dispute has been raised by

shri Lomesh Maruti Khartad as the General Secretary of

the union and there is no post of General Secretary in the

regional unit and as such, the assumption of the said

designation by Shri Khartad is unauthorized and void

and therefore, raising of the dispute by him and signing

of the statement of claim as the General Secretary has no

legal entity and moreover, the union is an industrial union

and it does not have 25% of the workers as its members

and the union cannot be said to have assumed

representative character and therefore, it has no right to

raise the dispute on behalf of the workman. It was further

submitted by the learned advocate for the party no.1 that

there was no resolution by the executive committee of

the union to espouse the cause of the workman and

therefore, the industrial dispute raised by the union is

invalid and void and legally there is no industrial dispute

at all. It was also submitted by the learned advocate for

the party no.1 that by order dated 26.11.2013, the Tribunal

has already held the departmental enquiry conducted

against the workman to be legal, proper and in accordance

with principles of natural justice and the workman had

been terminated from services from 10.09.1988, for the

misconduct of absenteeism from duties and later on, as

per his application, he was reinstated in service as

operator (T)-category-I w.e.f. 17.03.1990 and posted at

Ghugus open cast Mine and even after the reinstatement,

the conduct of the workman was not satisfactory and he

was charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated 23.03.1996,

for causing willful damage to company’s property and

he wrote a letter to the management threatening to sit on

hunger strike, in support of a suspended worker at

Mungoli Open Cast project and he also threatened the

safety officer of Mungoli Sub-Area of serious

consequences and all these facts speak volumes of the

workman and he was transferred from Mungoli OC

Project to Pouni OCM and he joined at Pouni on

08.02.2001 and his attendance from the date of his joining

till 31.12.2002, the date of his dismissal was only for 27

days and the findings of the enquiry officer are based on

the evidence on record of the enquiry and there is no

perversity in the findings and before imposition of the

punishment, the competent authority examined all aspects

including the past record of the workman and the

punishment is not shocking disproportionate to the grave

misconduct of habitual absenteeism and unauthorized

absenteeism proved against him in a properly conducted

departmental enquiry and as such, there is no scope for

the Tribunal to interfere with the punishment and the

workman is not entitled to any relief.

It is necessary to mention here that though the

learned advocate for the party no.1 referred number of

decisions in support of the submissions, the said decisions

were not filed for perusal of the Tribunal, in absence of

which, the said decisions could not be considered.

At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention

that the submissions made by the learned advocate for

the workman in regard to non-supply of the charge sheet,

non-supply of the copy of the enquiry report and non-

issuance of second show cause notice had already been

considered at the time of deciding of the validity or other

wise of the departmental enquiry and as such, there is no

scope for reconsideration of such submissions again. It

is to be further mentioned that as the departmental

enquiry conducted against the workman has already been

held to be legal, proper and in accordance with the

principles of natural justice, there is no scope to consider

the evidence adduced by the parties in support of their

respective claims and any other submissions in regard to

the validity of the departmental enquiry.

In view of the submissions made by the learned

advocates for the parties, I think it apropos to mention

the principles settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a

number of decisions in regard to the power of the Tribunal

to interfere with punishment awarded by the competent

authority in departmental proceedings.

In a number of decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court

have held that:-

“The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with

the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated

with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot

interfere with the findings of the Inquiry officer or

competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly

perverse. The power to impose penalty on a delinquent

officer is conferred on the competent authority either by

an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to

Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an

enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with

principles of natural justice what punishment would meet

the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the

jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty

can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved

misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its

own discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of

penalty unless it is malafide is certainly not a matter of

the Tribunal to concern itself with. The Tribunal also

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6641

cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the

Inquiry officer or the competent authority is based on

evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or

extraneous to the matter.

The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty

if the conclusion of the enquiry officer or the competent

authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found

to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter.”

It is also settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that:-

“A review of the above legal position would

establish that the disciplinary authority and on

appeal, the appellate authority, being fact finding

authorities have exclusive power to consider the

evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They

are invested with the discretion to impose

appropriate punishment keeping in view the

magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High

Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of

judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own

conclusion on penalty and impose some other

penalty. If the punishment imposed by the

disciplinary authority or the appellate authority

shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal,

it would appropriately mould the relief, either

directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to

reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the

litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare

cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent

reasons in support thereof.”

10.

Keeping in view the settled principles as mentioned

above, now, the present case in hand is to be considered.

On perusal of the record, it is found that the findings

of the enquiry officer are based on the evidence on record

of the departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer has

analyzed the evidence the evidence on the record of

departmental enquiry in a rational manner and has

assigned reasons in support of his findings. It is also

found that the findings of the enquiry officer are not as

such, which cannot be arrived at by a reasonable man on

the materials on record of the departmental enquiry. It

is not a case of total absence of evidence on record of the

enquiry or that the findings of the enquiry officer on

totally against the evidence on record. Hence, the findings

of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse.

11.

It was submitted by the learned advocate for the

workman that as there was no findings by the enquiry

officer that the absence of the workman was willful the

absence of the workman could not be held to be

misconduct. In support of such, contentions, the learned

advocate for the workman placed reliance on the decisions

reported in Supreme Court of India (Supra) and Delhi

High Court (Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Devender

Kumar Schagal).

However, it is to be mentioned that clause 26.30 of

the certified standing order, under which charge sheet

was submitted against the workman specifically says that

“Absence from duty without sanction leave or sufficient

cause or overstaying beyond ten days after sanctioned

leave” is a major misconduct. The enquiry officer in his

report, Ext. M-IX has categorically given his findings

that the workman remained absent from duties without

any sanctioned leave or sufficient cause for the period of

absence in question. So, it cannot be said that as there is

no findings by the enquiry officer that the absence of the

workman was willful, the absence of the workman did

not amount to commission of any misconducts. In view

of the above stated facts, with respect, I am of the view

that the decisions cited by the learned advocate for the

workman in that regard have no application to the case

in hand.

12.

So far the question of proportionality of the

punishment is concerned, it is found that grave

misconduct of unauthorized absence as well as habitual

absenteeism have been proved against the workman in a

properly conducted departmental enquiry. Hence, the

punishment of termination of the services of the workman

cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate. As this

is not a case of only unauthorized absenteeism, but also a

case of habitual absenteeism and not only a case of

unauthorized absence as in the case in the decisions cited

by the learned advocate for the workman, with respect, I

am of the opinion that the decisions are quite

distinguishable, from the facts and circumstances, of the

case. From the facts and circumstances, of the case it is

found that there is no scope to interfere with the

punishment. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management in relation to Pauni

Open Cast Mine Gour Sub-Area of Western Coalfields

Limited in terminating the services of Shri Kisan Viram

Kampelliwar, Operator, Pauni Open Cast Mine Vide

Office Order No. Vekoli/Bakshe/Kha /Pauni/karmic/seva

samapti/2002/1787 dated 31.12.2002 is legal and

justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2649-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

dEiysDl] 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; dksydrk] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 28@2010)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-09-2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@09@2010&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

6642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2649.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/

2010) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the management of the

Dankuni Coal Complex, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 25.09.2014.

[No. L-22012/09/2010-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 28 of 2010

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of Dankuni

Coal Complex

AND

Their workmen

Present: JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the

Mr. Alok Banerjee, Ld.

Management

Counsel with Mr. Uttam Kr.

Mondal, Ld. Counsel.

On behalf of the

None

Workmen

State : West Bengals

Industry : Coal

Dated: 4^th September, 2014.

AWARD

By Order No.L-22012/9/2010/IR(CM-II) dated

03.08.2010 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 Dankuni

Coal Complex in promoting Shri Pradip Kumar

Bhattacharjee, Asstt. Foreman, Technical Grade C

to Foreman Technical Grade B by allegedly

superceeding his senior namely Shri Susanta Sarkar

is legal and justified? To what relief is the claimant

entitled for?”

When the case is called out today, none appears on

behalf of the union inspite of service of notice, though

the management is represented by its Ld. Counsel. It

appears from the record that union never appeared in

this reference, nor any step has yet been taken on its behalf

to proceed with the matter.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, it

appears that the union is not at all interested to proceed

with the case further. So, no fruitful purpose will be served

in keeping the matter pending.

Accordingly, the instant reference case is disposed

of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Kolkata,

The 4^th September, 2014.

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2650-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 108@1999) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@415@1998&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2650.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 108/

1999) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the management of the ECL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 25.09.2014.

[No. L-22012/415/1998-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT : Sri PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 108 OF 1999

PARTIES:

The management of Samala Colliery of M/s. ECL

Vs.

Shri Raghu Bhuiya & Others

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Management :

Sri. P. K. Goswami Ld. Adv.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6643

For the union

Sri. Rakesh Kumar Gen., Secy.

(Workman)

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE: WEST BENGAL

Dated- 26.08.14

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No.

L-22012/415/98-IR(C-II) dated 30.07.1999 has been

pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by

this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Samala

Colliery of Pandeveswar Area of M/s ECL in not

regularising Sh. Raghu Bhuiya, Bira Bhuiya,

Munib Mia, M. M. Gupta, Umesh Yadav, Mahabir

Bouri, Manohar Kora and Bablu Dome from P.R.

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

the workmen are entitled ?”

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

415/98/IR(C-II) dated 30.07.1999 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference

Case No. 108 of 1999 was registered on 18.08.1999 /

21.09.2001 and accordingly an order to that effect was

passed to issue notices through the registered post to the

parties concerned directing them to appear in the court

on the date fixed and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in

support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order

notices by the registered post were sent to the parties

concerned.

On perusal of the record I find that Sri Rakesh

Kumar, General Secretary of the union appears and

submits that the case may be closed as the workmen have

been converted in T/R category. Since all the workmen

have already been converted into T/R category, no dispute

exists between the parties. As such the case is closed and

accordingly a ‘No Dispute Award’ may be passed.

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as “No

Dispute” existing. Send the copies of the order to the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful

information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2651-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; xksnkojh[kkuh] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 7@2010) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22013@01@2014&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2651.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Indus.

Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Godavarkhani (IT/7/2010)as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers the management of the SCCL, and their

workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 25.09.2014.

[No. L-22013/01/2014-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI

ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,

GODAVARIKHANI.

Present:

Sri G. V. Krishnaiah, Chairman-cum-

Presiding Officer

MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 07 OF 2010

Between :

Mamidi Ravi, S/o. Komuraiah,

26 Yrs, Ex.Badli Filler,

E.C.No. 1003247, GDK 6 Incline,

PO: Godavarikhani,

Dist.Karimnagar.

—Petitioner/Workman

And

The Superintendent of Mines,

SCCL, GDK 6 Incline,

PO: Godavarikhani,

Dist.Karimnagar–505 209 (AP)

The Chief General Manager,

SCCL, Ramagundam Area-I,

PO: Godavarikhani,

Dist.Karimnagar. –505 209 (A.P)

The Chairman & Managing

Director, SCCL,

PO: Kothagudem,

— Respondents/

Dist.Khammam. (A.P).

Management.

This Industrial Dispute petition coming on before

me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Kishan Rao,

Advocate, for the petitioner and Sri D.Krishna Murthy,

6644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Advocate, for the respondents, and the matter having

stood over before me for consideration till this date, the

Court passed the following:-

AWARD

This petition is filed seeking intervention of the

Tribunal as per the terms of Sec. 11-A of I.D. Act.

The plea of the petitioner is that he was

unceremoniously dismissed from service on the ground

of absenteeism without considering his explanation that

he fell sick. The facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as Badili Filler and

joined into service vide proceedings dt.29.03.2004 by the

respondent. Subsequently he worked for (121) days in

the year 2004 and (31) days in the year 2005. On the

ground of absenteeism and not maintaining the minimum

attendance the petitioner was dismissed from service. The

petitioner was issued Show Cause Notice but he did

not give reply. He participated during the enquiry. After

the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the

Disciplinary Authority, a report was served on the

petitioner along with Show Cause notice. Subsequently

the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from

20.11.2006. While the petitioner contends that the

dismissal was uncalled for and harsh punishment. The

respondent says that the petitioner did not give reply to

the charge sheet and he has to take the consequences.

During the course of enquiry, Ex.W-1 to W-5

marked on behalf of the Petitioner/workman and Ex.M-1

to Ex.M-8 marked on behalf of the Respondents/

Management.

Now the point for consideration is whether the

dismissal of the petitioner from service is justified?

Point:- The fact that the petitioner’s attendance

during the year 2005 was poor is not in dispute. The fact

that the petitioner was issued a charge memo for which

he did not give reply is also not in dispute. The enquiry

proceedings are marked as M4 and the Enquiry

Proceedings show that the petitioner participated in the

enquiry. The enquiry report is dt. 08.07.2006 and the

enquiry was held on 31.05.2006. Prior to holding of

enquiry the counseling was held to the petitioner as can

be seen from Ex.M-2. The counseling was held on

06.04.2006 and the petitioner undertook to improve his

attendance during the months of April, 2006, May, 2006

and June, 2006. It is pertinent to note that even before

the expiry of three months period of observation, the

enquiry was held on 31.5.2006. Thus it appears that

respondent acted as predetermined mind and conducted

enquiry proceedings even before the petitioner could

prove his attendance upto to June, 2006. Be that as it

may there is another flaw in the course adopted by the

Management. After the enquiry report a show cause notice

dt.18.7.2006 was issued asking the petitioner to put in

any representation after perusing the enquiry report.

This Show Cause Notice is marked as Ex.M-6. It does

not contain any specific proposal to dismiss the petitioner

from service. Thus the proposed punishment was not

specifically informed to the petitioner so that he could

have made his representation. In November, 2006 the

petitioner was removed from service as can be seen from

Ex.M-8.

The petitioner joined as Badli Filler in the year

2004. The work of Badli Filler involves a lot of physical

strain and in the second year of his employment the

petitioner could not put in required minimum musters.

Therefore viewed from any angle the punishment of

dismissal imposed on petitioner is disproportionate.

Further the petitioner was not specifically informed about

the proposed punishment. The petitioner being an

youngster he can be given an opportunity to serve under

the respondent, particularly when the absenteeism took

place in the second year of his service.

13.

In the result, the order of removal passed by the

respondent under Ex.M-8 is set aside and the respondent

is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service, but

without any back wages. Petitioner is entitled to previous

service put in by him for other purposes. Petition is

accordingly allowed in terms of above directions.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on

this the 4^th day of August, 2014.

G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Workman:-

-Nil-

For Management:-

-Nil-

EXHIBITS

For Workman:-

Ex.W-1

Dt.

15-12-2003

Appointment order as

Badli Filler letter issued

to the petitioner

Ex.W-2

Dt.

29-03-2004

Office order issued to

the petitioner appointed

as Badli Filler and

posted

GDK.6

Incline

Ex.W-3

Dt.

16-11-2006

Office order – dismissal

order

issued

petitioner

Ex.W-4

Dt.

13-07-2009

Demand notice

Ex.W-5

Dt.

14-07-2009

Postal

Ack.,

respondent

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6645

For Management:-

Ex.M-1

Dt.

08-03-2006

Charge sheet

Ex.M-2

Dt.

04-03-2004

Undertaking

letter

given by the petitioner

after counseling

Ex.M-3

Dt.

28-05-2006

Enquiry notice duly

acknowledged by the

petitioner.

Ex.M-4

Dt.

31-05-2006

Enquiry proceedings

Ex.M-5

Dt.

08-07-2006

Enquiry report.

Ex.M-6

Dt.

18-07-2006

Show cause notice

Ex.M-7

Dt.

02-08-2006

Postal

Ack.,

petitioner

Ex.M-8

Dt.

16-11-2006

Office order, dismissal

letter to the petitioner.

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2652-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; xksnkojh[kkuh] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 43@2011)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-09-2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22013@01@2014&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2652.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Indus.

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/43/

2011) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the SCCL, and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 25.09.2014.

[No. L-22013/01/2014-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI

ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,

GODAVARIKHANI.

Present: Sri G.V. Krishnaiah, Chairman-cum-Presiding

Officer.

TUESDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 43 OF 2011

Between:-

Tulasakari Ravinder,

S/o. Narayana, 27 Yrs,

Occ: Ex-Badli Coal Filler,

E.C.No. 2372500,

H.No. 11-7-573,

Santhoshnagar,

8 Incline colony,

Godavarikhani,

Ramagundam Mandal,

Dist. Karimnagar

— Petitioner/Workman

And

The Colliery Manager,

Kasipet Mine, Mandamarri Area,

SCCo.Ltd., PO: Mandamarri,

Dist. Adilabad (A.P.).

The General Manager,

Mandamarri Area,

SCCo. Ltd., Dist. Adilabad (A.P.)

The Chairman & Managing

Director, SCCo.Ltd.,

PO: Kothagudem,

— Respondents/

Dist. Khammam (A.P).

Management

This Industrial Dispute petition coming on before

me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Sudhakar

Reddy, Advocate, for the petitioner and Sri D.Krishna

Murthy, Advocate, for the respondents, and the matter

having stood over before me for consideration till this

date, the Court passed the following:-

AWARD

This petition is filed seeking reinstatement of the

petitioner with back wages and continuity of service. The

petitioner was dismissed from service on the ground of

habitual absenteeism. The following charge was framed

against the petitioner.

“Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from

duty without sufficient cause”.

Regular domestic enquiry was held. The

explanation of the petitioner was that due to sickness he

could not attend duty. The allegations in the petition

relating to the absence of the petitioner are that the

petitioner took treatment from 28.8.2008 to 15.11.2008

and from 9.8.2009 to 26.9.2009 and Certificates were

issued by Civil Assistant Surgeon regarding illness of

the petitioner. However respondent did not consider the

illness of the petitioner and dismissed him from service

without conducting proper enquiry.

Counter is filed on behalf of the respondents stating

that the petitioner ought to have approached the Industrial

Tribunal–cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad established by

the Central Government because the respondent Company

6646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

is managed by the Central Government, that petitioner

was appointed as Badli Filler on 23.11.2006 that the

petitioner did not put in 190 musters in any one of the

calendar years i.e., 2007, 2008 and 2009 that therefore

he was served a charge sheet dt. 10.1.2009, as per

standing order No. 25.25 that the petitioner submitted

his explanation on 18.9.2009 but failed to substantiate

his alleged ill-health with documentary evidence, that

he did not report sick in the hospital of the respondent

company and that he did not communicate his incapability

to attend duties that he did not request for sanction of

any sort of leave and that therefore enquiry was ordered

in which the petitioner participated, that during the

enquiry also petitioner could not substantiate his plea of

absence due to ill-health that the petitioner did not

produce any certificate issued by the Doctors mentioned

in the petition, that after enquiry a copy of the enquiry

report was sent to him to submit his written

representation, that on 18.7.2009 petitioner was counseled

by a committee in the presence of his mother, that during

the counseling he stated that he is having family disputes

and he is alcoholic and assured to be regular in duty that

he has given one month time from 1.8.2009, but his

attendance was poor that he was given another

opportunity on 1.9.2009 and his attendance was not

satisfactory that during observation period also he has

put in only two musters and that therefore punishment

of dismissal was imposed with effect from 18.12.2009

and that therefore the petition may be dismissed.

At the time of hearing no documents marked on

behalf of the workmen and Exs.M-1 to M-13 are marked

on behalf of the Management.

Advocate for petitioner filed memo u/s. 11-A of

I.D Act with regard to the validity of domestic enquiry.

Now the point for consideration is whether the

petitioner is entitled to relief of reinstatement into service?

Point:- This is a case where petitioner did not attend

to duties regularly. He was called for counseling in the

months of August and September but even thereafter he

did not attend duties for 3 days in a month. It is clearly

alleged by the respondent that in the presence of mother

of the petitioner, he was counseled. But in spite of that

he did not choose to attend the job assigned to him. It is

not as though the respondent has made false enquiry and

dismissed the petitioner. Respondent gave a chance to

petitioner to attend the duties regularly but the petitioner

failed to avail the same. Under these circumstances this

Tribunal does not see any reason to interfere with the

order of dismissal.

Accordingly petition is dismissed.

G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For workman:-

-Nil-

For Management;- -Nil-

EXHIBITS

For workman:-

-Nil-

For Management:-

Ex.M-1

Dt.

10-01-2009

Charge sheet, o/c

Ex.M-2

Dt.

10/18-02-2009 Explanation to charge

sheet

Ex.M-3

Dt.

10-05-2009

Enquiry notice-cum-

counseling

letter

acknowledged by the

petitioner

Ex.M-4

Dt.

15-05-2009

Enquiry proceedings

Ex.M-5

Dt.

10-06-2009

Enquiry report

Ex.M-6

Dt.

27-06-2009

Show cause notice with

ack.,

Ex.M-7

Dt.

18-07-2009

Copy of area level

counseling proceedings

Ex.M-8

Dt.

23-07-2009

Mercy petitioner/reply

to show cause notice

Ex.M-9

Dt.

26-07-2009

Letter issued to the

petitioner

the

respondent regarding

improvement

attendance.

Ex.M-10 Dt.

09-10-2009

Letter issued to the

petitioner

the

respondent regarding

improvement

attendance.

Ex.M-11 Dt.

03-12-2009

Dismissal order

Ex.M-12 Dt.

04-07-2011

Demand notice

Ex.M-13 Dt.

02-08-2011

Reply of respondent to

the petitioner’s letter

dt.4-7-2011

not

considering

the

reinstatement.

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2653-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; tcyiqj] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 126@1991) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@191@1991&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6647

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2653.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 126/

1991) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of the WCL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 25.09.2014.

[No. L-22012/191/1991-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/126/1991

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE,

Organising Secretary,

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,

Po Chandametta,

Distt. Chhindwara

Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

Kanhan Area of WCL,

PO Dungaria,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11^th day of September, 2014

As per letter dated 3-9-91 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

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

L-22012/191/91-IR(Coal-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of WCL,

Nandan Colliery in dismissing the services of

Shri Amarlal S/o Dasen, General Mazdoor (Token

No. 1159) w.e.f. 1-11-89 is proportionate to the

gravity of the offence and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page

4/1 to 4/5. Case of workman is that he was initially

employed as General Mazdoor/Tub Loader on 1-1-1974.

He completed 16 years continuous service with IInd party.

He is illiterate, has no knowledge of the provisions of

standing orders, Service Rules. He fell sick on

1-11-1988 and he sent application through his colleague

Kuwarlal who has delivered his application to Colliery

Manager. For his own illness, he could not resume his

duties. His mother, brother, wife and 2 sons died of

chronic disease during December 1988 to June 89. He

was mentally upset by death of his family members. There

was panic tragedy in family due to death of his family

members. Once he was admitted in the hospital and

after treatment he was declared medically fit on 25-6-89.

He reported on duty. Management not allowed him to

join duty. Management informed him that for his absence

from duty, he could not be allowed on duty without

conducting Departmental Enquiry. Workman further

submits that he was not given opportunity for his defence

in enquiry conducted by IInd party. The documents were

not given to him. Medical Certificate submitted along

with his applications were also not produced in his

enquiry. The exparte enquiry was conducted. He was not

allowed to cross-examine management’s witnesses.

Enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of

natural justice. That findings of Enquiry Officer were

perverse. He was terminated on such findings from

1-11-1989.

Workman further submits that in similar

circumstances, management compromised some cases

involving Shri Ram Bharosey and 13 employees. They

were reinstated by management from 20-5-83 in

arbitration award. Mehangoo S/o Rajbali was reinstated

as per mutual settlement dated 23-11-90 mutually. On

such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to

8/4. Relief claimed by workman are denied. As per IInd

party, workman was appointed on 1-1-1974. He was in

habit of unauthorised absence from duty. From 1-11-88,

workman was continuously absent without approval of

Competent Authority. On 25-6-89, chargesheet was issued

to workman for unauthorized absence. Workman did not

participate in Enquiry Proceedings despite of repeated

notices. That Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry giving

full opportunity. Subsequently when enquiry was fixed

on 29-7-89, workman participated with his co-worker.

The witnesses were cross-examined. It is submitted that

enquiry was properly conducted as per rules. he

attendance of workman in 1985 was 79 days, in 1986

was 11 ½ days, in 1987 was 39 days and in 1998 was 91

days. IInd party submits that termination of workman is

proved for unauthorized absence.

Workman filed rejoinder at Page 10/1 to 10/6

reiterating its contentions in statement of claim and

denying assertions in Written statement filed by IInd

party.

Management filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/6

reiterating its contentions in Written Statement.

Vide order dated 3-9-2012, my predecessor found

enquiry conducted against workman proper and legal.

6648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 evidence in Enquiry

Proceedings proves charges of

unauthorised absence against

workman?

In Affirmative

(ii)

Whether punishment of

dismissal from service is

proper and legal?

In Affirmative

(iii)

If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?”

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

As stated above, enquiry conducted against

workman is found legal and proper. As per order on

preliminary issue, my predecessor held that when findings

of Enquiry Officer are perverse, it is not necessary for

management to adduce evidence to prove charges against

workman. Documents about enquiry proceeding are

produced at Exhibit M-1 to M-8. The statement of

management’s witness was recorded in Enquiry

Proceedings. The management’s representative says in

his statement that workman was continuously absent from

1-11-1988. He had not given intimation of his absence

from duty. Bonus register, Form B register were produced.

He says that working days of workman in 1988 were 55

½ days. The chart of his working days was produced in

Enquiry Proceedings. Statement of time keeper was also

recorded and he has given statement about absence of

workman from 1-11-88. He was also cross-examined. His

evidence on above point is not shattered. It is surprising

to say that charge of absence is proved from evidence in

Enquiry Proceedings. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

Point No.2- as per finding in Point No.1 that charge

of unauthorized absence of workman is proved, question

arises whether punishment of dismissal from service

imposed against workman is exorbitant or excessive.

Workman has not adduced evidence after finding in

preliminary issue. Evidence on Enquiry Proceedings

shows workman was absent from duty for more than 1

year without giving intimation to the management. So

far as evidence of witness of workman Kuwarlal, he had

left application in office of Manager. At that time nobody

was present which is difficult to believe. Considering long

absence of workman, punishment of dismissal calls no

interference. Counsel for workman Shri S.Pandey

declined to advance arguments claiming that he had no

instructions. For reasons discussed above, I record my

finding in Point No.2 in Affirmative.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of WCL, Nandan

Colliery in dismissing the services of Shri Amarlal

S/o Dasen, General Mazdoor (Token No. 1159)

w.e.f. 1-11-89 is legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2654-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; tcyiqj] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 88@1993) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@362@1992&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

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

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2654.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 88/

1993) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of the WCL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 25.09.2014.

[No. L-22012/362/1991-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/88/1993

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE

General Secretary,

M.P.K.K.M.P(HMS),

PO Junnardeo,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

Manager,

Damua Colliery,

WCL, PO Damua,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

...Management

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6649

AWARD

Passed on this 5^th day of September, 2014

As per letter dated 3-3-93 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

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

L-22012/362/92-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Damua

Colliery of WCL, PO Damua, Distt. Chhindwara

(MP) in dismissing Shri Udey S/o Bajilal, Casual

DPR from services w.e.f. 20-4-90 is justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party employees submitted statement of

claim at Page 3. The case of Ist party Union is that

workman Shri Udey, S/o Bajilal Adivasi was engaged

on DPR. He was treated as casual temporary workman.

Said workman was not provided job regularly. Mostly he

was returned back for want of DPR job. Any chargesheet

was not issued to workman. No enquiry was conducted

against him. Reasonable opportunity for defence was

not allowed. The dismissal order dated 20-4-90 was served

on him. The order of his dismissal is illegal. Union prays

for reinstatement of workman.

Management of IInd party filed Written Statement

at Page 6/1 to 6/3. The claim of workman is denied.

That workman was on list of casual DPR of Damua

Colliery prior to his services were dispensed with.

Workman was supposed to present himself on all working

days at the place of work for his deployment as and when

there is need or some exigencies. That workman was very

very irregular and remaining absent without prior

permission. His absence was causing difficulties for

providing job. Workman was a casual worker. Employers

were at liberty to remove his name without any notice.

However the management of IInd party wanted to give

opportunity to the workman Shri Udey to explain his

conduct. Chargesheet was issued to him on 16-6-89.

Workman did not submit his explanation to the

chargesheet. The enquiry was constituted by Manager of

Damua Colliery and workman Shri Udey was also earlier

chargesheeted for different charges against him.

Workman had not attended Enquiry Proceedings. Enquiry

was proceeded exparte. Enquiry Officer submitted his

report about unauthorised absence of the workman. All

allegations of workman are denied. IInd party prayed for

rejection of claim.

Vide order dated 9-3-2011, my predecessor found

enquiry conducted against workman legal and valid.

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 alleged misconduct

of unauthorized absence of

workman is proved from

evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?

In Affirmative

(ii) Whether the action of the

management of Damua

Colliery of WCL, PO Damua,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in

dismissing Shri Udey

S/o Bajilal, Casual DPR

from services w.e.f. 20-4-90

is justified?

In Affirmative

(iii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?”

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

Enquiry conducted against workman is found legal

and proper. Therefore the evidence in Enquiry

proceedings needs to be considered whether charges

alleged against workman of unauthorized absence are

proved from the evidence in Enquiry Proceedings? The

chargesheet was issued to workman about unauthorized

absence from August 1988 Exhibit M-1. The record of

Enquiry proceedings Exhibit M-7/3 shows management’s

representative produced entries in bonus register Page

214 etc. Attendance of workman is shown only 4 days.

The charges alleged against workman are supported by

some evidence. Copy of entries of bonus register is

produced at Exhibit M-9. It proves charge against

workman therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Affirmative.

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

that charge of unauthorized absence against workman is

proved, question arises whether workman is entitled for

reinstatement with back wages. Workman remained

absent. He has not participated in reference proceeding.

Explaining the circumstances of his absence from duty,

affidavit of evidence filed by witness Shri I.P. Bannerjee

management’s witness has stated that enquiry was

conducted against workman. He did not participated in

enquiry proceedings. Considering non-participation of

workman and charges of unauthorized absence proved

against workman. I find reason to interfere with the

punishment of dismissal imposed upon workman. For

above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 2 in

Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under :—

(1)

The action of the management of Damua Colliery

of WCL, PO Damua, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in

6650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dismissing Shri Udey S/o Bajilal, Casual DPR from

services w.e.f. 20-4-90 is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2655-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

eSlwj] 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] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 15@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@161@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2655.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/

2006) 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 the State

Bank of Mysore, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 22.09.2014.

[No. L-12012/161/2005-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-2/15 of 2006

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE

MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF MYSORE

The Assistant General Manager-II,

State Bank of Mysore, Region-II,

Hubli Zone, Hubli,

Karnataka

AND

Their Workmen

1. Shri Sanjay Nakul Morajkar,

House No. 245, Sumitra Niwas

Aquem, Malbhat,

Margao, Goa- 403 681

2. The General Secretary,

Daily Wages Bank Employees Association,

9, Sanwer Road,

Ujjain (M).

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. S.K. Hegde, Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN

Mr. S.V. Nabar Advocate

Camp Goa, dated the 20^th August, 2014

AWARD PART-II

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-12012/161/2005-IR

(B-I), dated 22.02.2006 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 State

Bank of Mysore, Hubli in discharging Shri Sanjay

N. Morajkar, Daftary from service w.e.f. 1/12/2002

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

workman is entitled for?”

After receipt of the reference parties were served

with notices. In response to the notice second party

workman filed his Statement of Claim at Ex-6. According

to the second party workman he worked as a temporary

Peon from 1985 with first party Bank. He worked at

Margao and Panaji Branch. He worked honestly,

diligently and faithfully. Therefore first party regularised

the services of the second party as Daftary and he was

working in Panaji Branch. While discharging his duties

at Panaji Branch on 21/6/2000 one Mr. Somanna, Branch

Manager of the first party Bank at Panaji Branch asked

the workman to copy a letter written in English. He took

the workman to an empty cash cabin and asked to copy

the letter in English. The workman is educated upto

9^th Std. in Marathi medium and was not acquainted with

English language. Even he was unable to copy the said

draft letter. Mr. Somanna handed over the said letter to

disciplinary authority who put the workman under

suspension w.e.f. 22/6/2000.

A chargesheet dt. 29/12/2000 was served on the

workman alleging that on 12/11/1999 he had withdrawn

an amount of Rs. 600 from the Savings Account No.114

of Mr. Prakash S. Usgaonkar by forging his signature on

the SB withdrawal form and using the services of

Shri Shashikant N. Jadhar and also withdrawn amount

from the said account of Mr. Prakash Usgaonkar by

forging his signature on cheque leaves on different dates

by using the service of Shri R.P. Ravarde or Shri

Shamshuddin. It is also alleged that to facilitate about

wihdrawals the workman got the inoperative account

No.114 transferred to operative account on 18/11/1999

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6651

by forging the signature of account holder on the

application form. The workman also collected the cheque

books bearing no. 498631 to 498640 by forging signature

of Shri Prakash Usgaonkar using services of Shri

Sashikant N. Jadhar and thereby committed misconduct

as per Bipartite settlement para 19.5 punishable for a

major penalty as per Bipartite settlement para 19.6. The

workman was called to reply the charges. Disciplinary

Authority appointed Mr. Charles Ravi Kumar as Inquiry

Officer. However subsequently they changed the IO and

appointed Mr. N.V. Chandar, Chief Manager, and also

appointed K. Udayachandra Joshi, D.M. Head Office as

Presenting Officer. The workman was allowed to take

help of defence representative to defend the charges in

the inquiry. During the course of inquiry the Presenting

Officer examined Bank witnesses. The witness of the

workman was also examined. The DR submitted written

statement. The IO held the workman guilty for all the

charges and submitted his report to the disciplinary

authority. Disciplinary authority called explanation from

the workman on the inquiry report and findings of IO.

He submitted his explanation stating that findings of the

IO are baseless and imaginary. He has not applied his

mind. Findings are in gross violation of principles of

natural justice. After submission of the explanation

disciplinary authority issued show cause notice to the

workman stating that charges are proved against him.

The workman submitted his detailed explanation to the

disciplinary authority highlighting many facts, evidence

and circumstances as to how the charges against him are

baseless and how the findings are perverse. The

disciplinary authority gave him personal hearing and

finally passed the order of discharge of the workman from

service of the bank. Workman preferred appeal against

the said order. The Appellate Authority gave him personal

hearing. However they dismissed the appeal.

According to the workman the inquiry was not fair

and proper. Findings are perverse. Therefore the

workman raised industrial dispute before ALC ©.

However as conciliation failed, on report of ALC ©, the

Central Labour Ministry sent the reference to this

Tribunal. The workman therefore prays that the

impugned order dt. 30/11/2002 passed by Disciplinary

authority and the order of Appellate Authority 30/04/2003

be quashed and set aside. The workman also prays that

the management be directed to reinstate him as Daftary

in the service of the Bank from 30/11/2002 with continuity

of services, full back wages and all other consequential

benefits.

The first party resisted the statement of claim vide

their written statement at Ex-11. They denied the contents

in the statement of claim. They denied that the Branch

Manager Somanna asked the workman to copy a letter

written in English as has been alleged. The workman

has written the letter voluntarily and he knows English

very well. They denied all the contents in the statement

of claim. According to them the Inquiry Officer has

conducted inquiry. It is fair and just. Sufficient

opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself.

His representative has cross examined the witnesses of

the management. The workman has availed all the

opportunities to defend himself. Fair and sufficient

opportunity was given to the workman in the inquiry

proceeding. All the witnesses were examined in his

presence. Copies of the relevant documents were given

to him. He was found guilty of serious offence of forgery

and criminal breach of trust. The I.O. has given

opportunity to the workman to defend himself. He filed

his report to the disciplinary authority. Copy of the report

and findings was sent to the workman by the disciplinary

authority with show cause notice. After giving him

personal hearing the disciplinary authority discharged

the workman from service. The charges proved against

the workman were of gross misconduct. Therefore he

was rightly discharged from services. Therefore first party

prays that the reference be dismissed with cost.

In Part-I Award my Ld. Predecessor held that

inquiry was not fair and proper and the findings of the

I.O. were perverse and opportunity was given to the

management to justify their action.

Now in Part-II award following are the issues for

my determination. I record my findings thereon for the

reasons to follow.

Sr.

Issues

Findings

No.

Whether the workman is guilty

for the alleged misconduct of

forgery and withdrawal of amount

from the account of Mr. Prakash

Usgaonkar?

Yes.

If yes, whether the punishment

of discharge from service is

shockingly disproportionate to

the proved misconduct?

Yes.

What order?

As per order below.

REASONS

Issue no.1:—

In this respect the ld. Adv. for the second party

workman submitted that in the part-I award it was held

that inquiry was not fair and proper and an opportunity

was given to the management to justify the charges

levelled against the workman. Inspite of that the

management has not examined the main witness Mr.

Prakash Usgaonkar. They have also not examined the

investigating officer Mr. Sonawane. There is no evidence

to show that the workman has put the forged signature of

6652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Mr. Usgaonkar. Witness Mr. Jadhav and Shamsudin were

also not examined. Therefore according to the second

party there is absolutely no evidence of alleged

misconduct by the workman. It is also submitted that

even management has not filed Police case in respect of

the alleged offence of forgery and misappropriation.

Therefore Ld. Adv. submitted that the management

miserably failed to establish the charges against the

workman.

As against this the Ld. Adv. for the first party

submitted that the customer Mr. Prakash Usgaonkar

though is not examined in this proceeding, his written

complaint is on record at Ex-73. As per this complaint

he has contended that he has never withdrawn any amount

from his account either by withdrawal slip or by cheque

and the withdrawal entries in his account are false and

wrong. Therefore he has requested to rectify the entries.

After receipt of his complaint the Branch Manager

verified and enquired with the staff members. It is the

case of the management that the workman confessed to

have withdrawn the amount by putting forged signatures

of the customer and had taken help of some other

employees. It is the case of the management that the

workman has put his confession in writing. In this respect

according to the workman Mr. Somanna, Branch

Manager asked him to copy a letter written in English

and he prepared the letter and handed it over to

Mr. Somanna. On the basis of the said letter the

Disciplinary Authority put him under suspension and

initiated inquiry against him. The said letter of confession

is admittedly in the handwriting of the workman. He

has neither disputed his handwriting and signature

thereon. According to him Mr. Somanna got the said

letter written from him without knowing contents therein.

As handwriting and signature is not disputed, this letter

is exhibited as Ex-89.

10.

In this respect I would like to point out the letter

Ex-84 written by a customer by name Samsudin. The

true translation of this Kannad letter is on record at page

no.18 with list Ex-12. As per this letter Mr. Samsudin

has given in writing that a cheque no. 498632 of

Rs. 20,000 was given to him by the workman. He further

contended that when he came in the Bank he saw the

cheque and confirmed that it was the same cheque given

by the workman. He has given the cheque amount to the

workman. Another customer Mr. Jadhav by his letter

Ex-85 contended that workman is his friend and at his

instance he had been to the Bank and had filled up

withdrawal form for Rs. 600 by signing as P.N. Sawant.

He did it as requested by workman. He received the

amount and handed over the cash to the workman, Sanjay.

He further contended in his letter that the workman

requested him to come to Bank and write a letter for

issuance of cheque book. He did it and he handed over

the cheque book to the workman and he has signed as

P.N. Sawant for receiving the cheque book. He has also

identified the voucher dated 12/11/1999 filled up for S.B.

Withdrawal form but he has not signed below it. He has

signed it on the back. He has also identified his signature

in the cheque book register and signed as P.S. Usgaonkar

for having received the cheque book and it was done as

per the advice of the workman. In this respect I would

also like to refer the deposit slip at Ex-86. By this slip

the workman has deposited an amount of Rs. 36,100 in

the S.B. Account no.114 which is of Mr. Usgaonkar.

11.

All these evidence on record though not sufficient

to record conviction in a criminal proceeding. However

in the departmental inquiry this evidence is sufficient to

hold the workman guilty for forgery and

misappropriation. The entire argument of the Ld. Adv.

for the second party is prepared in the line of standard of

proof in a criminal trial wherein the guilt is required to

be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. So far as standard

of proof in departmental inquiry is concerned,

preponderance of probability suffices the purpose. The

management is not required to prove the charges beyond

reasonable doubts as required in a criminal trial. The

version of the workman does not stand to reasons that a

Branch Manager compelled him to copy a letter and

accordingly he prepared it or signed it. His version is

also not acceptable that he was compelled and forced to

deposit the amount. In departmental inquiry witness

Usgaonkar or the other witnesses need not be examined.

The person to whom he has submitted the complaint or

letter can prove the same and the same can be read in

evidence. Therefore non-examination of Mr. Usgaonkar,

Mr. Jadhav and Mr. Samsuddin does not affect the merit

of the case.

12.

In respect of the confession of the workman, the

Ld. Adv. for the first party submitted that on that basis

the Inquiry Officer could have held him guilty and no

further inquiry was necessary. In support of his argument

the Ld. Adv. resorted to Karnataka High Court ruling in

Union Bank of India V/s. Babu Mahadevappa Andani

ILR 2007 KAR 1407. Wherein the Hon’ble court observed

that;

“When the employee/workman admits his guilt by

submitting his confessional letters, there is no need

for the Inquiring Officer to further proceed with

the inquiry.”

13.

In the light of the letters of two other witnesses,

the letter of confession written by the workman appears

to have been written by him wherein he has prayed for

mercy and apology. He has also deposited the amount he

had fraudulently withdrawn from S.B. A/c. no.114. In

the circumstances I hold that the management has proved

the charges levelled against the second party workman.

Accordingly I decide this issue no.1 in the affirmative.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6653

Issue No. 2:-

14.

In respect of punishment it was submitted on behalf

of the Bank that, the workman is employee of Bank and

expected to be very honest. The employees of Bank are

entrusted with public funds and no dishonest employee

should be allowed to serve in an institute like Bank. I do

agree with the preposition that employee of Bank must

be utmost honest and loyal to the institution. At the same

time I would also like to point out that in the case at

hand the Bank officials were not required to go to Police

to lodge complaint. Furthermore as per the case of the

management at the first instance workman has confessed

to have withdrawn the amount. He has also contended

that his mother was seriously ill and he spent the amount

on the treatment of his ill taken mother. When the

mischief came to light, the workman has collected the

amount and deposited the same in the account of

Mr.Usgaonkar. In his letter of confession at Ex-89 it

was also mentioned that it is his first mistake and he will

not do any such thing in future and repeatedly prayed to

forgive him and pardon him for the mistake he has

committed. He has also written in the letter that he has

credited the amount of Rs.36,100 in the SB A/c. no.114.

He has repented for the mistake he has committed and

has also mentioned that he has spent the amount for the

treatment of his aged ill taken mother. Though his

confessional statement is not proved by the management,

it is exhibited as Ex-89 being referred by the workman

himself in his statement of claim. The workman is a

poor fellow, was in need of money for the treatment of

his mother. He was serving in the Bank as a Peon. He

has withdrawn small amounts total to the tune of

Rs.36,100/-. He has also confessed immediately and

deposited the amount. He is out of service since for about

last 12 years and has learnt a lesson and not expected to

repeat such an act. In such cases reformative attitude is

required to be taken.

15.

In the circumstances imposing the extreme

punishment of dismissal or discharge from service

appears to be shockingly disproportionate. Chance of

reformation is required to be given to such workman. In

the circumstances to meet the end of just I think it proper

to direct the first party to reinstate the workman without

any back wages and withholding two increments. That

would suffice the purpose. Thus I partly allow the

reference and proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

Reference is partly allowed with no order as to cost.

The first party is directed to reinstate the workman

without any back wages and withholding his two

increments.

20.08.2014

Camp: Goa

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2656-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 119@2005) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12025@01@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2656.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 119/

2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of the State

Bank of Hyderabad, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 02.09.2014.

[No. L-12025/01/2014-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 28^th day of February, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.119/2005

Between:

Sri K. Rameshwar,

S/o K. Eshwar,

C/o A.P. Industrial Employees Union,

“House of Labour”, King Kothi Road,

Hyderabad – 29

...Petitioner

AND

The Dy. General Manager,

Personnel Department,

State Bank of Hyderabad,

Gunfoundry Head Office,

Hyderabad

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of Hyderabad,

Mallepally Branch,

Mallepally,

Hyderabad

...Respondents

6654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

M/s. V. Viswanatham &

R. Dushyantla, Advocates

For the Respondent :

Sri A.V.S.S. Prasad, Advocate

AWARD

This is a petition filed by Sri K. Rameshwar

invoking Sec.2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (who

will be referred to as workman) has filed this petition

against the Respondents seeking for passing an award

directing the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into

service from 10.10.2005 with full back wages and all

other attendant benefits with continuity of service and to

pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the back wages and costs.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as

follows:

Petitioner was appointed by the 2^nd Respondent as

casual labour in the year 1989 and he was being paid

wages @ Rs.50/- per day at the Mallepally branch,

whereas casual labours working at Gunfoundry Branch

and Kakatiyanagar Branch are being paid wages @

Rs.105/- and Rs.130/- per day respectively. Since the

date of appointment and till the date of termination of

his services Petitioner worked continuously without any

break and completed more than 240 days in a calendar

year. He requested to issue written letter of appointment

and to pay correct wages. He was assured of it but nothing

has been done practically. Second Respondent used to

extract work from 10 AM to 11 PM without any break.

Petitioner requested to regularize his services and to pay

correct wages but in vain. He approached his union who

in turn raised a dispute under Sec.2k for regularization

before the Conciliation Officer, Assistant Labour

Commissioner (C) who fixed the hearing date as

14.10.2005 through their letter dated 23.9.2005 and

invited the Respondents to attend the hearing. There

on second Respondent orally terminated the services of

the Petitioner from October, 2005 without following any

provision of law much less Sec.25F of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. While in service Petitioner was made payment

by the Respondent through vouchers showing the wrong

reasons in the column “towards’. While working under

the 2^nd Respondent Petitioner addressed a letter to the

Asst. General Manager, Region-II. While forwarding

the said application 2^nd Respondent recommended the

case of the Petitioner vide their letter No.64 dated 31.5.99.

While so, he admitted that Petitioner has been working

from October, 1989. The Asst. General Manager vide

their letter dated 11.8.1999 addressed to the 2^nd

Respondent informed that there are some orders for

appointment on consolidate wage or scale wage but he

might have not seen or ignored the fact that Petitioner

is a registered candidate of the Employment Exchange.

Through their letter dated 1.3.2000, second Respondent

addressed to the Chief Manager, Personnel Department,

reminded to sanction the post of additional part-time

sweeper. In his letter dated 13.2.2002 to which a copy of

application of the Petitioner was enclosed also the 2^nd

Respondent has clearly mentioned that Petitioner has been

working at their branch as casual Peon since October,

1989. Inspite of it without any valid reason 2^nd Respondent

orally terminated the services of the Petitioner without

following any provisions of Labour Laws much less

Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is the

legal position that casual labours are covered by the

definition of workman under Sec.2(s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. Since his termination of services is

illegal and inoperative Petitioner is entitled for

reinstatement into service. A strong protest has been made

by the Petitioner’s union to the Respondent vide their

demand notice dated 4.10.2005. Hence, the petition.

3. Respondents filed their counter with the averments

in brief as follows:

A. P. Industrial Employee Union does not have any

locus stand to file this case on behalf of the Petitioner,

as it is neither an association recognized by the Bank

nor having the employees of the bank as members.

Further Petitioner is not a workman as per Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. He is not an employee of the bank.

As such, petition is liable to be dismissed. further as per

the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others (Vs)

Umadevi and three others, reported in at (2006) 4 SCC

page, casual labour/temporary employee do not have any

right to regular or permanent public employment as they

accepted the employment fully knowing the nature of their

employment at their own violation and with eyes open as

to the nature of their illegal employment, which is not

as per constitutional provisions and the appointment is

not as per due process of selection as envisaged by the

relevant rules and also held that the courts should not

perpetuate illegalities, irregularities or improprieties.

Thus, the petition under Section 2A(2) of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 is not maintainable in law or on

facts. The contention of the Petitioner that he was

employed on casual basis since 1989 by the 2^nd

Respondent and 2^nd Respondent was making payment

of Rs.50/- per day though the casual labours working in

the other branches are being paid more wages, that

Petitioner was working continuously without any break

and completed 240 days in a calendar year, that he made

request for written letter of appointment and for correct

wages and was assured of the same and was not granted

the same, that 2^nd Respondent extracted the work from

10AM to 11 PM without giving any break are all

incorrect. Petitioner never worked for 240 days in a

calendar year and he was never employed in the year

1989 nor terminated on 10.10.2005. Petitioner has not

established the manner and mode in which he obtained

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6655

various documents filed by him and hence, the said

documents can not be relied upon. Question of

termination does not arise, as he was not employee of the

bank. Provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not

applicable to him. Even if the letters dated 31.5.99,

1.3.2000 and 13.2.2002 are admitted to be written by 2^nd

Respondent along with the enclosures which are

recommendary in nature, as per the Hon’ble Supreme

Court’s verdict, 2^nd Respondent’s Branch Manager is not

entitled to engage the Petitioner and the Petitioner’s

appointment is illegal. Therefore, can not be absorbed.

Petitioner was engaged by Mallepally Branch on daily

wage basis as and when work arose, in the branch due to

various reasons. At his personal request Petitioner was

engaged by the Branch Manager when he offered his

services for that day. He was paid as per the norms and

understanding of the work done. He was never engaged

on regular basis. He was never appointed in any regular

vacancy by the bank. He was engaged to do the work

which is casual in nature and which arise intermittently.

For doing regular work bank recruits staff by complying

with the provisions stipulated after taking into account

the guidelines issued by the Government of India from

time to time in accordance with constitutional provisions.

As such, employment itself is illegal. Therefore, the

reinstatement into service can not be claimed that too

with full back wages and attendant benefits with

continuity of service and also interest. Government of

India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic

Affairs (Banking Division) had issued circular dated

6.8.1990 directing the recruitment of temporary

employees in the clerical/subordinate cadre shall be

stopped forthwith. For the staff which was then on the

rolls of the banks, they shall be regularized as provided

in the approach paper in terms of the circular issued at

that time. These are all specific directions of Banks to

make temporary appointment till the problem of existing

temporary employees is fully resolved and for future

requirements, Banks would have to approach

Government and would have go by such modalities as

would be laid down by the Government through regular

process of recruitment enshrined in the constitution.

Engagement of Petitioner is illegal because such

appointments on casual basis were obtained by the

Petitioner without following the procedure of their names

being forwarded by the Employment Exchange, without

following the rule of reservation and the procedure for

appointment of employees in the subordinate cadre as

prescribed by the rules of the Respondent bank. Further,

as per the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court the

candidates lack any eligibility of qualification in any

manner it would not possible to consider for

regularization as casual labours and that long duration

of service would also not be relevant condition to

regularize the service. Appointment against non-existent

vacancy is also not maintainable and such person is not

entitled for regularization. In this case there was no

vacancy in the regular basis but the Petitioner was

engaged on daily wages basis to meet the exigencies.

Even such employment can not be regularized unless

regularized through prescribed procedure. Daily wage

labourers whose services were engaged on the basis of

need of work, such termination does not constitute as

retrenchment. Such termination is not arbitrary as they

are need based. It is well settled principle that an

appointment made in violation of mandatory provisions

constituted and non-possession of minimum educational

or technical qualifications and other essential

qualifications etc., would be wholly illegal. Those who

come by back door should go through the door. Since

Petitioner has been engaged to meet the exigencies only

he is not a workman and he is not entitled for equal

emoluments or equal pay to that of regular employees.

Regularization can not be claimed as a matter of right,

specially when it is illegal appointment. Petition is liable

to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

To substantiate the contentions of the Petitioner

WW1 was examined and Ex.W1 to W6 were marked.

Ex.W1 to W3 are the internal correspondence of

respondents. Ex.W4 is the letter dated 13.2.2002

addressed by the Branch Manager of Mallepally Branch

of Respondent bank to the Asst. General Manager

forwarding the application of the Petitioner for his

absorption in bank’s services. In this letter the Branch

Manager has categorically mentioned that Petitioner has

been working at the Mallepally branch as casual peon

since October 1989 and also stated that he is hard

working, honest and sincere in his duties and belongs to

a poor SC family and therefore, they recommend to absorb

the Petitioner in bank’s service as Water Boy cum Lunch

Room Attender. Ex.W5 is the minutes of conciliation

proceedings and Ex.W6 is the report of failure of

conciliation. On behalf of the management MW1 was

examined. No documentary evidence has been produced

by the management.

Heard the arguments of the either party. Written

arguments were also filed by the Petitioner and the same

are received and considered.

The Point that arise for determination is :

Whether the Petitioner is workman and whether

termination of his services is legal and justified? If so,

to what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

7. Point:

As far as the present dispute is concerned, Ex.W1

and W4 are relevant and Ex.W2 and W3 are not much

relevant. Through Ex.W1 and W4 coupled with his

own oral evidence as WW1, Petitioner could establish

before this court that he has been working as casual

labour with the Respondent bank since October 1989.

6656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sri Mohd. Easa Shareef, Chief Manager of the

Respondent bank who has been examined as MW1 could

not deny regarding the correspondence i.e., Ex.W1 and

W4 when they were confronted to him. Thus, it can

safely be taken that Petitioner has worked with the

Respondent bank since October, 1989 as casual labour

and therefore, he is a workman for all purposes. Contra

contentions of the Respondent are not acceptable.

As can be gathered from the material on record,

Petitioner who applied for his absorption in bank’s

regular service by making applications time and again

and whose case has been recommended by the then

Branch Manager, as can be gathered from Ex.W1 and

W4, has raised an industrial dispute seeking for

regularization of his service with the Respondent bank

by approaching Assistant Labour Commissioner (C).

Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) has made efforts to

conciliate the matter. Ex.W5 indicates the same.

Evidently such conciliation proceedings failed. While

things stood so, instead of regularising the Petitioner’s

services, the Respondent bank has chosen to remove him

from service abruptly w.e.f. 10.10.2005. There on

Petitioner is constrained to approach this forum by filing

this dispute seeking for his reinstatement into service.

Evidently, and admittedly there is no compliance

of Sec. 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while

removing the Petitioner from service.

10.

It is the contention of the Respondent that since

the Petitioner is not a workman and Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 does not apply to him, there was no

compliance of Sec. 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

11.

As already observed above, the material on record

clearly discloses that Petitioner has been in continuous

service as casual labour with the Respondent since

October, 1989 and thus he is a workman. Thus, the

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will apply.

Therefore, his retrenchment/removal from service without

complying with Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 is certainly illegal, unjust and arbitrary.

12.

It is the contention of the Respondent that the

principles laid down in the cases of Official Liquidator

Vs. Dayanand and others (2008) 10 SCC page 1

whereunder principles laid down in the case of Umadevi

Vs. State of Karnataka (2006) 4 SCC page 1 has been

upheld, are applicable to the present case and that

Petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for.

13.

In the above cited cases Hon’ble Supreme Court

has considered the acceptable mode of public employment

and non acceptable regularization of services of the

persons who entered into the service by back door

methods, thereby defeating the opportunity of the general

public to compete for appointment to the said post etc..

Present dispute is an industrial dispute. Industrial Law

is totally different from Civil Law/ Administrative Law.

Regularization of casual workman as regular workman

etc., are all governed by the industrial laws, rules and

various circulars issued by the government from time to

time touching this aspects. Public employment under

Civil /Administrative Law is totally different.

14.

Further more, in this case Petitioner is not seeking

for regularization of his service. What all he is

questioning is the correctness of abrupt termination of

his services when he questioned the inaction on the part

of the Respondent bank regarding his plea for

regularization of his services, that too without complying

with the Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

15.

Inspite of their own admission in their counter

that “Government of India, Ministry of Finance,

Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) had

issued a circular No.F-3/3/104/87-IR dated 6.8.1990

directing that all recruitment of temporary employees

in the clerical/subordinate cadre shall be stopped forth

with and that for the staff which was then on the rolls of

the Banks, they shall be regularized as provided in the

approach paper in terms of the circular issued at that

time.”, the Respondent bank, evidently failed to take

appropriate action in connection with the claims of the

Petitioner.

16.

Anyway the question whether Petitioner is entitled

for regularization of services or not is not the subject

matter in this petition. Even if the same is subject matter

in this petition, since it is an industrial dispute, the

principles laid down in the above cited cases are not

applicable.

17.

For all the above referred reasons, the principles

laid down in the above cited cases relied upon by the

Learned Counsel for the bank are not helpful to his

contentions in this case.

18.

There are umpteen number of legal precedents laid

down by the Apex Court whereunder it is clearly laid

down that the workman who is removed from service

without complying with the mandatory conditions laid

down in Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is

to be ordered to be reinstated into service. Thus, the

Petitioner who is found to be a workman is entitled to be

reinstated into service of the bank w.e.f. 10.10.2005 with

the benefit of continuous service. As far as back wages

are concerned, since he did not render his service to the

bank but not due to his own fault, he is entitled for atleast

50% of the back wages which he would have earned but

for his removal from service.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result:

In the result, petition is allowed. Petitioner shall

be reinstated into service of the Respondent bank as casual

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6657

labour w.e.f. 10.10.2005 with continuity of service. He

shall be paid 50% of the back wages also, forth with.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri K. Rameshwar

MW1: Sri Mohd. Easa

Shareef

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photostat copy of the lr. No.64 dt. 31.5.1999 to

the Asst. General Manager by Branch Manager,

Mallepally

Ex.W2: Photostat copy of the lr.No.AGM/R.II/Staff/Gr.I/

65 dt. 11.8.1999 to the Chief Manager,

Mallepally by the AGM

Ex.W3: Photostat copy of the lr. dt. 1.3.2000 to the Chief

Manager, H.O. Hyderabad, by the Branch

Manager, Mallepally

Ex.W4: Photostat copy of the lr. No.950 dt. 13.2.2002

to the Asst. General Manager by Branch

Manager, Mallepally

Ex.W5: Minutes of conciliation proceedings dt.

29.12.2005

Ex.W6: Failure of conciliation proceedings lr No.7(19)/

2005-E2 dt. 24.1.2006

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2657-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 49@2007) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@08@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2657.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

2007) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of the

Central Railway, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 22.09.2014.

[No. L-41011/08/2005-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-2/49 of 2007

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE

MANAGEMENT OF

CENTRAL RAILWAY

The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (G)

Central Railway, Mumbai Division

Mumbai CST

Mumbai 400 001

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The Secretary

Central Railway AC Coach (Escorting & Maintenance)

Staff Association

Central Railway

Mumbai CST

Mumbai 400 001

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER :

Mr. Abhay Kulkarni, Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN :

Mr. J. H. Sawant Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 12^th August, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-41011 / 8 /2005-IR (B-I),

dated 04.10.2007 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 demands of the union (i) for the

provision of proper place to rest for the escorting

staff (ACCM/ACCA) in the long distance train (ii)

for upgradation of ACCM-I/II to the post of MCM

at par with other technical/non-technical staff i.e.

ACCMs are justified? If so, to what relief the union/

workmen concerned are entitled to?”

6658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

After receipt of the reference, notices were issued

to both the parties. In response to the notice, second

party union has filed its statement of claim at Ex-4.

According to the second party they are Central Railway

A/C Coach (Escorting and Maintenance) Staffs employed

by the management. Their demand is; as they are required

to travel in a long distance trains and to attend their duties

in the respective trains continuously for more than 48

hours one side, the journey time is more than 100 hours,

they require suitable place for their rest preferably one

berth each in all the trains. It is essential in order to

maintain good health, efficiency and safety.

Their second demand is for upgradation of ACCM-

I / II to the post of MCM at par with other technical/non-

technical staff of Railways. The workmen in the category

of Technician in the grade-I are also highly skilled artisan

in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000. The workmen in the

category of ACCM-I though having other things equal

are not given promotion to the post of MCM and they

are thus subjected to discrimination. Therefore they pray

that the promotional avenue must be made available to

ACCM-I.

Their third demand is for fixation and payment of

washing allowance to the escorting staff i.e. ACCMs.

Though the first party has principally agreed to make

such payment of washing allowance to the second party,

it has not been yet paid to them. The second party prays

that the said washing allowance be paid to them with

retrospective effect. Accordingly they pray for award in

respect of these three demands.

The first party resisted the statement of claim vide

their written statement at Ex-6. According to them the

demands made in the reference does not come in the ambit

of industrial dispute. They are pertaining to the exclusive

administrative functions and the policy decisions of the

management and are outside the scope and jurisdiction

of Court. They further contended that there are only two

recognised unions functioning at present. They are

NRMU and CRMS affiliated to All India Railwaymen’s

Federation and National Federation. They are only

authorised to take up any issue with the management.

The second party is neither recognised union nor affiliated

to any recognised union and they have no locus standi to

raise this dispute.

In respect of the demands the first party says that,

one wooden berth of 6 feet by 2 feet in size is provided in

each A/c coaches on the side of doorways for the staff of

ACCA/ACCM on duty. The said berth is sufficient for

two persons to take rest as, as per the duty list A/C Coach

Attendants are required to watch passengers boarding,

alighting on each station. They are required to check

boarding of unauthorised person and required to keep

awake during duty period including at night. Their duty

is different than the duty of ticket checker and RPF Staff.

Therefore it is not possible to provide berth to A/C staff

in sleeper class as provided to RPF Staff and Ticket

Checking Staff. Furthermore it is a matter of exclusive

administrative functions of the management. The

demand of the second party is not legal, proper and

justified.

In respect of promotion the management says that

ACCM grade-I are eligible for promotion to the post of

J.E.- II which is a selection post and thereafter J.E.-II,

SE and SSE are selected as per the rules and in this cadre

there are only two grades i.e. ACCM-I and ACCM-II

and there are no further channel of promotion for the

post of MCM. While filling up vacancies of J.E.-II against

departmental quota, an integrated seniority is prepared

from all Technicians-I in GR, FTR-I, ACCM-I, Carpenter,

Ref.Mech-I and DCM-I etc. It shows that ACCM-I is

also called for promotion of J.E.-II and the allegation of

the union thus is not true that there is no channel of

further promotion to ACCM-I.

In respect of the third demand, first party submitted

that as per rules only group ‘D’ Staff are eligible for

washing allowance. Therefore ACCMs are not eligible

for washing allowance. ACCA are entitled for the same

as provided under Railway Board’s letter dated 6/1/2000

by which rule was amended. According to the

management proposal for providing washing allowance

to ACCMs is forwarded to Railway Board and the same

is under consideration. The Board will take appropriate

decision in this respect as per its policy. Introducing

introduction of new allowance against the Board’s policy

is not within the frame work of Industrial Disputes Act.

In the circumstance management prays that the reference

be rejected with cost.

Following are the issues for my determination. I

record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow.

Sr. no.

Issues

Findings

Whether the workmen under

reference are entitled for

separate berth for each of

them as a rest place as prayed

for?

Yes.

Whether avenue of promotion

to the post of Master Craftsman

is required to be kept open for

ACCM-I as prayed for?

Yes.

Whether the workmen under

reference are entitled to the

washing allowance with

retrospective effect as prayed

for?

Yes.

What order?

As per final order.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6659

REASONS

Issue No.1 :-

10.

In this respect it is contended on behalf of the

management that the demands of these workmen are

purely of administrative nature and required to be decided

by the management. Therefore Tribunal has no

jurisdiction to look into the various demands raised by

the union. In this respect I would like to point out that

entire functioning of the Railways is as per the Rules,

Regulations and the administrative decisions taken by

the management. This Tribunal can very well examine

the justness of the decision taken by the management.

Therefore the statement of the management does not stand

to reasons.

11.

In respect of the demand of separate berth, it is

submitted on behalf of the first party that, one wooden

berth is provided in each compartment and looking into

the duties of these workmen, that suffice the purpose. As

against this the union claims that the said wooden berth

is being used for keeping the bed rolls. According to the

management out of the two attendants, one has to be

always vigilant to inspect the movement of passengers

boarding and alighting on each station. In the

circumstances in addition to the wooden berth which is

required to be used for keeping bed rolls, one more berth

should be made available to these attendants. So that

atleast one of the attendants can take rest and the other

can keep watch on the movements of the passengers on

each station. In short, one additional berth should be

provided to the attendant, so that each of them can take

rest alternatively. Accordingly I decide this issue No.1

in the affirmative.

Issue No.2 & 3:-

12.

In respect of promotion and washing allowance,

the first party management has contended that they have

proposed the promotions and the washing allowances as

demanded by the union. It is also contended that the

matter is under consideration of the management. While

making proposal, it is clear that the concerned authority

must have considered the justness of making available

avenue of promotions to these workmen as well as the

justness of their demand of washing allowance. In this

back drop I found that first party is opposing the demand

of the workmen in this reference merely for the sake of

resisting the claim of the workmen. On the other hand

from their version, it is clear that the management is

also principally of the opinion that these facilities are

the need of the time and should be given to these

workmen. In the circumstances I have no hesitation to

allow both these demands of the workmen. In respect of

washing allowance the workmen are claiming it with

retrospective effect. In this respect I would like to direct

the management to consider their demand

sympathetically. If the management do not think it proper

to pay the washing allowance with retrospective effect,

they should pay it atleast from the date of this reference.

Accordingly I allow the reference and proceed to pass

the following order:

ORDER

(i)

The reference is allowed as follows with no order

as to cost.

(ii)

The first party is directed to give one additional

berth to these attendants in each compartment.

(iii)

The first party is also directed to comply with

the demand of the workmen for promotion to

the post of Master Craftsman.

(iv)

The first party is also directed to pay the washing

allowance to these workmen retrospectively or

atleast from the date of this reference.

Date: 12/08/2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2658-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 17@2008)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-09-2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12025@01@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2658.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/

2008) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of the

South Central Railways, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 02.09.2014.

[No. L-12025/01/2014-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Dated the 10^th day of February, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 17/2008

(LC No.55/2008 clubbed in ID No.17/2008)

6660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Between:

Smt. Faheem Bee,

W/o Late Gulam Dastigar,

R/o H.No.12-1-1065/2, North Lalguda,

Secunderabad – 500 107.

...Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

South Central Railways,

Secunderabad.

The Chief Personal Officer,

South Central Railways

Secunderabad.

The Divisional Personal Officer,

Sanchalan Bhawan,

South Central Railways

Secunderabad.

Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer,

South Central Railways,

Lalguda, Hyderabad.

...Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Sri Md. Yousufuddin, Advocate

For the Respondent :

Sri A. Prithviraj, Advocate

COMMON AWARD

The Government of India made a reference vide

order No.L-41012/24/2008-IR(B-I) dated 23.6.2008

requiring this forum to resolve the industrial dispute arose

in this case by giving an award into the question,

“Whether the action of the Management of South

Central Railway, Secunderabad in terminating the

services of Smt. Faheem Bee, Casual Labour

without following Section 25F of the ID Act, is legal

and justified? If not, what relief the workman/

Petitioner is entitled to?”

After receiving the reference this Tribunal has

issued notice to either parties They both appeared before

the court and engaged their respective counsels with the

leave of the court and consent of either party.

Petitioner filed LC 55/2008 under Sec.2A(2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking for her

reinstatement into service as cleaner in Staff Canteen

Electric Loco Shed, Secunderabad, with full back wages

and all attendant benefits to which she is entitled due to

her long service from 1997 to 20.7.2006.

While so, Petitioner filed a memo seeking for

clubbing LC 55/2008 with I.D. No. 17/2008 and the same

has been accepted by this forum. Proceedings of both

the cases are conducted in ID No.17/2008. Petitioner

adopted the petition filed by her in LC 55/2008 as her

claim statement in I.D.No. 17/2008.

The averments made in the claim statement in brief

are as follows:

Petitioner has been working as cleaner in the

Electrical Loco Shed Canteen, Lalaguda, South Central

Railways, Secunderabad Drawing a wage of Rs.50/- per

day. Her services were terminated by 4^th Respondent

on 20.7.2006. She gave a notice on 3.8.2006 through

proper channel seeking for re-consideration of the order.

Respondent refused to reconsider the same and to take

her back into service and also to allow her the service

benefits. She approached Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central) on 3.10.2006. He held several meetings to

settle the matter. But in vain. The representatives of the

Respondent refused to take her back finally on 12.3.2007,

on the ground that rules do not permit the Respondents

to reconsider their decision. Petitioner was in

employment of the Respondents from the year 1997. She

worked continuously from 1997 and has been removed

from service on 20.7.2006 by an order of 4^th Respondent

dated 13.7.2006. Petitioner was not paid the minimum

rates of wages fixed for the canteen workers by the

Government of Andhra Pradesh. Out of 10 workers

available in the canteen only 8 used to work. Petitioner

was attending to cleaning work for all the period of

employment of 9 years under the canteen Management.

She was not issued any notice before termination of her

services and she was not paid wages towards the notice

period. Despite of her 9 years of service no compensation

was paid as required under Sec.25F of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, though it is mandatory under law and as per

legal precedents governing the same. Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in Canteen matters under original

jurisdiction in writ petitions (C) No.2275-86 of 1987

examined entire circumstances of workers engaged in

canteens and held in paragraph 31 that, “ The result,

therefore, is that the workers engaged in the statutory

canteens as well as those engaged in non-statutory

recognized canteens in the Railway Establishments are

Railway Employees and they are entitled to be treated as

such. The Railway Board has already treated the

employees of all statutory and eleven Delhi based non-

statutory recognized canteens as railway employees w.e.f.

October 22, 1980. The employees of the other non-

statutory recognized canteens will, however, be treated

as railway employees w.e.f. April 1, 1990. They would,

therefore, be entitled to all benefits as such Railway

Employees with effect from the said date, according to

the service conditions prescribed for them under the

relevant rules/orders”. This being the position of the

workman removal of Petitioner is illegal and uncalled

for. All her efforts to seek alternate employment are failed.

She is to support two children without any means

whatsoever. Hence, the petition.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6661

Respondents filed their counter with the averments

in brief as follows:

At the outset, Respondents deny that Petitioner was

an employee of the Railway and that she was removed

after more than 9 years of service. She was neither

appointed nor engaged by the competent authority to do

any work in any capacity in the canteen. She is not a

workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. Hence, provisions of the said act are not applicable

to her case and therefore this case is not maintainable

and is liable to be dismissed in limini. Her contention

that she worked in the canteen on daily wages of Rs.40/-

per day is not correct. The Canteen Electric Loco Shed,

Lalaguda under the control of Respondent No.4, is a non-

statutory canteen managed by a committee formed with

the representatives of staff and supervised by a Manager

to facilitate employees to avail tea/coffee/snacks/ lunch

during designated break hours. Just because there is an

observation in the inspection note of Sri R.P. Prajapathi,

the then Division Electrical Engineer of Electric Loco

Shed, Lallaguda that one lady casual labour worker is

also kept in the canteen on Rs.40/- daily wages, is not a

conclusive proof that Petitioner was engaged as casual

labour by the competent authority on behalf of South

Central Railway administration. She is trying to take

undue advantage of the said report. She has not produced

any documentary evidence to prove that she was engaged

as casual labour by railway administration. As per the

rules in vogue, a casual labour can be engaged only on

personal approval of the General Manager. There is no

such approval in case of the Petitioner. Any authority

lower than the General Manager is not competent to

engage casual labourer. As per rules all causal labour

are provided with casual labour cards wherein their

service particulars are entered. No such card is produced

by the Petitioner. Thus, she was never engaged as casual

labour. There is no employee and employer relation

between the Petitioner and the Respondents. Thus, the

question of termination of the services, issuance of notice

before termination or payment of compensation does not

arise at all and the ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India is not applicable to the facts of the case. The

enquiries have revealed that Petitioner used to come near

by the canteen asking for left over food and pleading for

mercy. Solely on humanitarian grounds she was provided

with left over food without extracting any work. The

Petitioner’s name is not reflected in any of the records

maintained by the railway pertaining to appointment,

attendance etc.. No appointment of casual labour took

place either in the canteen or elsewhere in the Electric

Loco Shed since its’ inception. The industrial dispute

is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

To substantiate the contentions of the Petitioner,

WW1 to WW3 were examined and Ex.W1 to W6 were

marked. On behalf of the Respondents MW1 was

examined and Ex.M1 to M36 were marked.

Heard either party.

The points that arise for determination are:

Whether Petitioner is a workman?

II.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement

into service of the Respondents and other attendant

benefits as claimed by her?

Point No.I:

As can be gathered from the oral evidence as well

as documentary evidence adduced on record, one can

reasonably understand that Petitioner has worked in staff

canteen, Electric Loco Shed, South Central Railways,

Lalaguda, Secunderabad, attending to cleaning and such

other works there. It is her claim that she has been a

casual labourer receiving daily wages while working in

the said canteen. Whereas it is the claim of the

Respondent Management that she was never a casual

labour receiving any wages from the Respondent and that

she requested for the left over food and taking pity on

her she was allowed to take left over food from the

canteen only. From this, what one can understand is

that it is the claim of the Respondents that receiving

left over food in the canteen only Petitioner has been

working as cleaner in the said staff canteen.

10.

But, the material on record discloses that to the

knowledge of the Respondent one Sri R.P. Prajapathi,

Chairman of the Electric Loco Shed canteen has inspected

the said staff canteen and gave his report on 11.10.2001

and in the said report he observed that “One lady causal

labour worker is also kept in the Canteen on Rs.40/- on

daily wages. There is no any approval obtained from the

Chairman to keep a daily worker. In view of the 10 staff

available already in the canteen the requirement of casual

labour should be reviewed. Approval of the Competent

Authority to be obtained by the Manager. Also no

approval has been taken to arrange the payment to the

causal worker. It is also complained from the casual

worker that she is not paid regularly and correctly.” Thus,

it is very much clear that Petitioner has been working as

a casual labour on daily wages of Rs.40/- but without

having any regular appointment and also without the

wages being paid regularly and correctly. This is a lapse

found out while inspecting the Staff Canteen.

11.

Soon after, the above referred report, copy of which

is marked as Ex.W5, was made, unceremoniously,

Petitioner has been asked not to continue with the work.

Aggrieved by the same she made repeated representations

to the Railway authorities seeking for her reinstatement

into service. Ex.W1 to W4 and W6 are copies of said

representations.

12.

It is the claim of the Petitioner all along that since

1996 and upto July, 2006 she worked in Staff Canteen as

cleaner on daily wages. The oral evidence adduced by

6662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Petitioner as WW1 and the evidence of WW2 and

WW3 is to the effect that Petitioner has been continuously

working in the Staff Canteen all these years. Ex.W5

also rendered support to the said contention only, though

not actually giving out the period of work done by the

Petitioner. It can be said so since, it is not the averment

in Ex.W5 that anybody reported to the Inspecting Officer

that the daily wage worker has been working during

recent period prior to the date of inspection only or any

such thing. Further, the said report discloses that the

worker herself has complained that she was not being

paid wages regularly, which means, since considerable

period she has been working there. MW1, the only

witness who was examined for the Management has also

admitted regarding Ex.W5 report.

13.

No doubt, there is no formal appointment of the

Petitioner as casual employee following the required

procedure. But the fact remains that she worked as casual

worker in the Staff Canteen of Railway Loco Shed,

Lalaguda, Secunderabad for considerable period which

will certainly be more than 240 days continuously. Thus,

she is a workman for all purposes.

14.

Petitioner’s services were terminated without

following the procedure laid down by the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, she is entitled

for the remedies available under law. In usual course of

the matter, she is to be ordered, to be reinstated into

service. But the material on record including Ex.W5

clearly indicate that without following the rules laid down

for the appointment of casual workers without required

permission/authorisation from the authorities who alone

can give such permission/authorisation like, the General

Manager, the Petitioner was allowed to work as casual

worker. Even for paying wages to her, required

authorisation has not been taken. That is the lapse which

was pointed out during the inspection made by Sri R.P.

Prajapathi in Ex.W5 report. Such irregularities and

unrealistic actions can not be allowed to be perpetuated

by ordering for reinstatement of Petitioner into service.

15.

But Petitioner shall be provided with appropriate

compensation, for allowing her to believe that she was

having continuous employment with the Railway Canteen

and therefore lulled into false security. Evidently thereby

she has not searched for any other means of livelihood

which resulted into substantial injury and prejudice to

her interest. The same is to be reasonably compensated.

16.

If, a workman is retrenched he will be entitled for

one month’s notice and also compensation @ one month’s

pay for each year of his/her service. In the present case if

such amount is to be calculated, taking the service of the

Petitioner as from 1996 to 2006, it comes to Rs.13,200/-

(one month’s pay=Rs.1200/- plus Pay of one month per

year i.e. @ Rs.1200/- x 10 months = Rs.12,000/-).

Considering the fact that Petitioner is fighting this

litigation since the year 2008, this amount is to be

rounded off to Rs. 15,000/- and the same is to be ordered

to be paid towards compensation for abrupt removal of

the Petitioner from the service as casual worker.

Petitioner is entitled for this relief only.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result:

In the result, reference is answered as follows:

The Act of the Management of South Central

Railways, Secunderabad in terminating the services of

Smt. Fahim Bee, casual worker without following Sec.25F

of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not justified.

Petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.15,000/-

from Respondent. The said amount shall be paid to the

Petitioner by the Respondent within one month from the

date of publication of award. Failing which, Petitioner

is entitled to claim the said amount together with 12%

interest per annum, from the date of expiry of one month,

from the date of publication of the award till realization.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Smt. Faheem Bee

MW1: Sri A. Hussain

WW2: Sri Shaik Ahmed Hussain

WW3: Sri Mohd. Ali Pasha

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photostat copy of representation of WW1 to

the Management

Ex.W2:

Photostat copy of representation of WW1 to

the Management dt.3.8.06

Ex.W3:

Photostat copy of representation of WW1 to

the Management dt.3.10.06

Ex.W4:

Photostat copy of representation of WW1 to

the Management dt.12.3.07

Ex.W5:

Photostat copy of inspection report

Ex.W6:

Photostat copy of representation of WW1 to

the Management dt.8.2.2005

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 1/2004

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6663

Ex.M2:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 2/2004

Ex.M3:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 3/2004

Ex.M4:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 4/2004

Ex.M5:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 5/2004

Ex.M6:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 6/2004

Ex.M7:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 7/2004

Ex.M8:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 8/2004

Ex.M9:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 9/2004

Ex.M10:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 10/2004

Ex.M11:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 11/2004

Ex.M12:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 12/2004

Ex.M13:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 1/2005

Ex.M14:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 2/2005

Ex.M15:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 3//2005

Ex.M16:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 4/2005

Ex.M17:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 5/2005

Ex.M18:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 6/2005

Ex.M19:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 7/2005

Ex.M20:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 8/2005

Ex.M21:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 9/2005

Ex.M22:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 10/2005

Ex.M23:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 1/12005

Ex.M24:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 12/2005

Ex.M25:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 1/2006

Ex.M26:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 2/2006 Ex.M27:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 3/2006

Ex.M28:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 4/2006

Ex.M29:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 5/2006 Ex.M30:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 6/2006

Ex.M31:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 7/2006

Ex.M32:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 8/2006

Ex.M33:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 9/2006

Ex.M34:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 10/2006

Ex.M35:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 11/2006

Ex.M36:

Photostat copy of attendance register of

Canteen employees for 12/2006.

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2659-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

ohV fjlpZ 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- 11@2000)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-09-2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@160@1999&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2659.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/

2000) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

ralation to the management of the Directorate of Wheat

Research, and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 22.09.2014.

[No. L-42012/160/1999-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

6664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 11 of 2000. Reference No. L-42012/160/

99-IR(DU) dated 16.12.1999.

Sh. Rampal S/o Sh. Antu Ram, Village &

P.O. Ucchana, Distt. Karnal-132001.

...Workman

Versus

1. The Director, Directorate of Wheat

Reaserch, Karnal-132001.

...Respondent

Appearances:

For the Workman

Sh. R. P. Rana, Advocate

For the Management

Sh. R. K. Sharma & S. K.

Gupta Advocates

AWARD

Dated: 11.09.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification L-42012/160/99/IR(DU) dated 16.12.1999

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the Management of Director,

Wheat Research Karnal in terminating the services

of Sh. Rampal w.e.f. 01.06.1990 is legal & justified?

If not, to what relief he is entitled?”

The above noted reference was received on remand

vide order dated 01.04.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Punjab

and Haryana High Court in LPA No.1241 of 2013, by

passing the following orders:-

“In view of the above, we allow this appeal. The

orders under challenge passed by learned Single

Judge and that of Labour Court are set aside. The

matter is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh

decision. The parties through their counsel are

directed to appear before the Labour Court on

01.05.2014. It is also directed that the Labour Court

will give two effective opportunities to both the

parties to lead evidence and thereafter order be

passed.

Needful shall be done within a period of nine

months from the date of appearance of the parties

before the Labour Court.”

After receipt of order of the Hon’ble High Court

notices were issued to the parties. On request of the parties

case was fixed for evidence. Both the parties produced

their respective witnesses. Workman examined himself

as WW1 and cross examined by representative of the

management. Management also filed affidavit of Anil

Kumar son of Ramdass, working as Assistant

Administrative officer was examined as MW1 and also

cross examined by the learned representative of the

workman.

The case of the workman is that he was engaged as

casual worker on 01.07.1987 (as pleaded in the claim

statement, while in affidavit of workman, the date is

mentioned 01.09.1993) in the Regional Station, Indian

Agriculture Research Institute Karnal through

Employment Exchange and he worked continuously till

31.05.1990 as casual worker. On the transfer of the then

director, new director joined and services of the workman

were terminated w.e.f. 01.06.1990 illegally and arbitrarily

without any notice or any compensation in violation of

Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. The work and conduct

of the workman was satisfactory which is also evident

from the certificate dated 29.05.1990. In this very

certificate it is also certified that the workman worked

w.e.f. September 1987 to 31.05.1990. The management

also retained similarly situated casual worker namely

Harjinder Kumar, Sukuram and Savitri and they were

regularized in the year 1993. In this way the management

also violated Section 25G of the I.D. Act, 1947. It is

further submitted by the workman that in the year 1991

Barley Project was transferred to Director Wheat Research

Institute, Karnal with all assets and liabilities and

management adjusted the employees of Barley Project in

the Wheat Research Institute namely Jaspal Singh. Staff

Superintendent Rajinder Singh, Technical Assistant Sant

Kumar, Technical Assistant, Guman Singh and Bhim

Sain Peon, Mr. Raunak, Savitri, Harinder Kumar, Sukh

Ram were also retained, who were working as Beldar on

daily wages and their services were regularized in the

year 1993.

The management also appointed Messengers

namely Des Raj, Aman Kumar, Ramesh Kumar and Prem

Partap in the year 1992 and their services were regularized

in October, 1994. Besides this management also

appointed Sanjay Bansal and Hawa Singh as Malis in

May, 1995 and Mr. Ramesh Bali as Cook in 1995. Thus

the management also violated Section 25H of the I.D.

Act, 1947. It is submitted by the workman that he has

completed more than 240 days of service before his

termination on 01.06.1990 and the management may be

directed to reinstate with all benefits and back wages.

The management filed reply. Preliminary objection

has been taken that Wheat and Barley Project is not an

industry, it is admitted by the management that the

workman was engaged under the Barley Project run by

IARI, Regional Station Indian Agriculture Research

Institute Karnal which was disbanded and the workman

in this project did not completed 240 days of service in

any calendar year as casual labourer. The management

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6665

also attach statement of period during which the

concerned workman worker under the Barley Project. The

management pleaded that as the workman has not

completed 240 days of service, therefore the management

committed no violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act,

1947. It is further pleaded by the workman that there

was no work left, therefore workman was not engaged as

casual labourer on the discontinuation of Barley Project.

It is further pleaded by the management that the cases of

Sh. Harinder Kumar, Sukhh Ram and Savitri Devi are

different. They were regularised in 1993 through

departmental promotion committee as they had completed

the desire bench mark under the Barley Project prior to

the workman. The work of the workman was purely

contractual in nature which comes within the exception

clause of Section 2(00) (bb) and the workman is not

entitled to any relief and management prayed for the

rejection of the claim petition along with the written

statement management also filed certificate dated

31.05.1990.

The replication also filed by the workman reiterated

claim in the claim statement.

Evidence of the parties recorded. Workman

tendered his affidavit along with certificate dated

29.05.1990 as Ext.W2. In cross examination workman

stated that he worked with the management up to

31.05.1990 on daily wages in Barley Project at Regional

Station Karnal, and he also denied the suggestion that

he has not completed 240 days in the preceding year from

the date of his termination. Management in evidence

tendered affidavit of Anil Kumar, working as Assistant

Administrative Officer with Director of Wheat Research,

Karnal who tendered document Ext.M2 letter dated

31.05.1990. In cross examination Sh. Anil Kumar stated

that he has no record pertaining to the Indian Agriculture

Research Institute, Karnal. Therefore he can’t say whether

workman worked from 01.09.1987 to 31.05.1990. He also

can’t exactly depose as to whether the detail mentioned

in para three of his affidavit has been given on the basis

of musteroll or attendance register he also stated that he

does not know whether the record pertaining to payment

to the workman, attendance sheet or musteroll and

payment voucher from 01.09.1987 to 31.05.1990 are

preserve or kept in Barley Project. He also stated that

without seeing the record he cannot say whether the

payment voucher for the period 01.09.1987 to 31.05.1990

are available in the office of Barley Project or not. He

also stated that he was not sure whether this record is

available in Wheat Research Institute.

Arguments of both the parties heard.

10.

The management in its written statement pleaded

that the Directorate of Wheat Research Karnal is the

national agency for promoting and coordinating research

in all areas of Wheat and Barley is a part of agriculture

which is not an industry. Workmen submitted that

management is well within the definition of industry as

defined in the ID Act 1947. Workman submitted that in

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A.

Rajappa the Hon’ble Supreme Court has defined the

nature of industry. The Bare fact that the management is

conducting research cannot be exempted from the

definition of the industry. The controversy whether a

unit is an industry or not to be decided on the basis

whether the work interested by the management to the

workman and workman has discharge his duties. In the

case in hand the management has not adduced any

evidence which can preclude the management from the

ambit of industry as defined in the Industrial Dispute

Act 1947. Thus, in the above circumstances it is held

that management in an industry.

11.

So far the question whether workman worked for

240 days preceding to the date of termination i.e 1.6.1990

is concerned, management in its written statement

admitted that workman is engaged in Barley Project and

this Project was disbanded. It is further submitted by the

management that even in the Barley Project did not

complete 240 days of service with the management as

casual labour. In written statement the management also

submitted that on 1-9-1990 Barley Project transferred to

wheat Research which is now called as Directorate of

wheat Research Karnal and regular staff of Barley Project

transferred to Wheat Research Project. Sh. Sukh Ram,

Raunaq Ram, Harinder Kumar and Savitri were employed

on regular basis in the year 1993. The management along

with its reply also filed photocopy of documents dated

31.5.90 (Ex.M2) which relates to the working of the

workman in Barley Project. This document is signed by

Sh. Mahabal Ram Project Coordinator (Barley). Sh.

Mahabal Ram Project Coordinator Barley issued a

certificate certifying that the workman worked at the

project as casual labour upto 31^st May 1990. This

document also certified that workman is a hard working ,

discipline and honest man. Workman in evidence also

filed a certificate issued by Mahabal Ram Project

Coordinator Barley.(Ex.W2) in which Sh. Mahabal Ram

mentioned above certified that the workman has worked

at Barley Project as casual labour from September 1987

to 31^st May 1990 on Rs. 31.75p per day fixed and he has

hard working, sincere, good disciplined and honest man

and bears good moral character.

12.

Workman in his affidavit and also in oral

examination mentioned that he was continuously working

from 1987 to 1990 in Barley Project. Workman denied

the suggestion in cross examination that he has not

completed 240 days in the preceding year before

termination of his services. In his affidavit workman

clearly mentioned that he was engaged as casual worker

on 1.9.87 and worked till 31^st May 1990 and his services

were terminated w.e.f. 1.6.90 illegally and arbitrarily

without issuing one month notice or any compensation

in lieu of notice . Management’s witness Sh. Anil Kumar

6666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in his cross examination stated that he has no record

pertaining to the Indian Agriculture Research Institute

Karnal, therefore, he cannot say whether workman

worked from 1.9.87 to 31.5.90. This witness also stated

that he can not exactly depose whether the detail

mentioned in Para 3 of his affidavit has been given on

the basis of muster roll or attendance register. He also

stated in his cross examination that he does not know

whether record pertaining to payment to the workman,

attendance sheet or muster roll and payment voucher from

1..9.87 to 31.5.90 are preserved or kept in Barley Project

or not. This witness also stated that without seeing the

record he cannot say whether payment vouchers for the

period 1.9.87 to 31.5.90 are available in the office of

Barley Project or not.

13.

In the light of the above situation, it is pertinent to

mentioned here that workman moved an application dated

8.7.2003 before this Tribunal for production of original

attendance register/muster roll/payment vouchers relating

to the workman for the period 1.9.87 to 31.5.90. This

Tribunal vide order dated 2.12.2005 while disposing the

above application, directed the management to produce

the documents mentioned in the application. Thereafter,

vide order dated 28.8.2006 this Tribunal again directed

the management to produce the available records. Despite

the specific direction by the Tribunal, the management

failed to produce the document relating to the attendance

of the workman for the period in question.

14.

Now on one hand, workman clearly stated that he

worked from 1.9.87 to 31.5.90 with the management and

his services were terminated on 1.6.90 and he has

completed 240 days in preceding year from the date of

termination. On the other hand witness of the

management stated that he cannot say without seeing the

record whether attendance register, muster roll, payment

voucher for the period from 1..9.87 to 31.5.90 are

available in the office of Barley Project or not,

management failed to produce the record despite the

direction by this Tribunal. In these circumstances adverse

inference has to be drawn against the management and

there is no hesitation in holding that workman has

completed more than 240 days preceding the date of

termination and his services has been dispensed with

without following the mandatory provisions of the I.D.Act

1947 and consequently the termination of his services

w.e.f. 1.6.90 is illegal.

15.

It is pertinent to mentioned here that the workman

worked with the management from 1.9.87 to. 31.5.1990

approximately about 33 months. The reinstatement with

back wages is not automatic consequence, instead the

workman should be given monetary compensation which

will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly in the facts

and circumstance of the case, the workman is awarded

Rs.75000 one time compensation in lieu of reinstatement

and Rs.10,000 as litigation costs totaling Rs. 85,000

(Eighty five thousand). The management is directed to

pay the above amount within period of one month from

the date of publication of the Award.

16.

The referenced is answered accordingly. Soft as well

as hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh.

11.09.2014

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2660-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

{ks=kh; xzkeh.k 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- 58@1999) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@119@1998&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2660.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/

1999) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the management of the Daink

Shajapur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 23.09.2014.

[No. L-12012/119/1998-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/58/99

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE

General Secretary,

Dainik Shajapur Kshetriya Gramin Bank,

Karmik Sangathan,

22, Alkapuri,

Dewas (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

Chairman,

Dewas Shajapur Kshetriya Gramin Bank,

Head Office, Station Road,

Dewas Road,

Dewas (MP)

...Management

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6667

AWARD

Passed on this 2^nd day of September 2014

As per letter dated 13-1-99 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-12012/119/98/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference

relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of

Chairman, Dewas Shajapur Kshetriya Gramin

Bank in stopping the annual increment for one year

in r/o Shri Durgaprasad Chidgaia w.e.f. 21-1-97 is

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of

claim at Page 3/1 to 3/3 supporting her claim for illegal

stoppage of increment by IInd party w.e.f. 21-1-97. The

narration of detailed pleadings is not necessary as the

application is submitted by management that the

workman is appointed as messenger form 7-9-2001.

Workman filed affidavit stating that she is

appointed on compassionate ground on 7-9-01. She is

not desiring to prosecute her claim against IInd party.

Workman is present and admits above facts before me.

As such dispute between parties seems to exist between

the parties.

In the result, No Dispute Award is passed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2661-—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- 167@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@16@1996&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2661.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 167/

1999) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the management of the Central

Railway, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 23.09.2014.

[No. L-41012/16/1996-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/167/99

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE

Shri Dilip Kumar

S/o Shri Pyarelal,

Qr.No.936, Lalmathi,

Dwarkanagar,

Jabalpur (MP)

...Workman

Versus

Divisional Railway Manager,

Central Railway,

Jabalpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this Ist day of September 2014

As per letter dated 7-2-99 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

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

L-41012/16/96-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference

relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Central

Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the services of

Shri Dilip Kumar S/o Shri Pyarelal w.e.f. 10-12-

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

said workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim at page

2/1 to 2/6. Case of Ist party is that he was working as

YKC at Central Railway, Loco, Jabalpur i.e.

establishment of IInd party. That after 7 years continuous

service, he was removed by IInd party on 10-12-84.

Workman further submits that charge sheet was issued

to him on 19-8-84 for unauthorized absence of 128 days

during the period January, 1983 to May, 1984. That

separate Schedule was annexed to the chargesheet

showing his absence for 192 days. The enquiry was

conducted against him exparte without giving any

intimation or opportunity of hearing of defence to the

workman. Workman submits that order of his removal

from service is illegal. That workman had submitted

leave applications but all his applications were rejected

6668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

without giving him intimation. Workman challenged

order of his wrongful termination filing appeal. His appeal

was rejected on 16-1-85. Workman raised dispute

following conciliation proceedings challenging legality

of his termination. Workman has pleaded that enquiry

was conducted ex parte without giving him opportunity.

Principles of natural justice were violated by Enquiry

Officer. IInd party rejected applications for his leave but

no intimation was given to him. On such ground,

workman submits that termination of his service is illegal.

Enquiry conducted against him is illegal. He prays for

his reinstatement with back wages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to

7/3. Relief prayed by workman are opposed. All material

contentions of the workman are denied that charge sheet

was issued to him for unauthorized absence of 128 days

but subsequently it was found that he was absent for total

190 days during period of 5 years service. The punishment

was imposed on workman after issuing charge sheet.

Workman remained absent in enquiry proceedings. Govt.

had refused to refer the dispute. Said order was challenged

before Hon’ble High Court. As per order dated 19-4-99,

the dispute has been referred. IInd party submits that

workman has no right to question quantum of punishment

unless he challenges the procedure. That procedure was

followed while conducting enquiry. Workman did not

appeared to defend himself. Instead he referred to

approach before ALC, Jabalpur. That administration has

right to reject application for leave. Leave cannot be

claimed as a right. It is denied that principles of natural

justice were violated while conducting enquiry against

workman. That enquiry was conducted against workman

following rules. On such ground, IInd party prays for

rejection of claim.

Workman filed rejoinder at page 8/1 to 8/3

reiterating contentions in statement of claim. That IInd

party in para-2 of the Written Statement accepted about

receiving leave applications and refusal of the leave. That

employer is bound to give information about refusal of

leave applications on granting leave. That IInd party has

not complied with said procedure. The termination of

workman is illegal. All other contentions in statement of

claim are reiterated.

Learned predecessor vide order dated 3-8-2012

found enquiry conducted against workman as legal and

proper. Considering pleadings between parties and order

passed on preliminary issue, the points which arise for

my consideration and determination are as under. My

findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons

as below:-

(i)

Whether the misconduct alleged

In Affirmative

against workman is proved from

evidence in Enquiry proceedings?

(ii)

Whether action of the

Punishment of removal

management of Central

from service is not

Railway in terminating

justified. It is reduced

the services of Shri Dilip to with-holding of 3

Kumar S/o Shri Pyarelal increments of workman

w.e.f. 10-12-94 is legal

permanently.

and justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?”

REASONS

As stated above, the enquiry conducted against

workman is found legal and proper by my predecessor as

per order dated 3-8-2012. In view of enquiry conducted

against workman fund legal and proper, question remains

whether findings of Enquiry Officer are supported by

evidence or the findings are perverse. Documents of

Enquiry proceedings are produced. Exhibit W-1 is copy

of charge sheet- unauthorized absence of 128 days during

the period January, 83 to May, 84 is alleged. Exhibit

W-2 is list submitted in Enquiry Proceedings showing

absence of workman for 192 days during period 27-1-83

to 15-5-84. Said document is admitted by management.

The documents Exhibit W-3 to W-6 are also admitted by

IInd party. From Exhibit W-4, unauthorized absence of

128 days alleged against workman have been proved.

Exhibit W-5 is order rejecting the appeal filed by

workman. Original papers of enquiry are also produced

on record. it appears that workman died during pendency

of reference on 8-3-04. Name of his son is shown as

Sony Singh Raipur. His name is not substituted on record.

The documents discussed above proved

unauthorised absence of workman for 128 days. IInd party

has admitted in Para-2 of Written Statement about

rejection of leave applications of workman. Those

documents are not produced in Enquiry Proceedings. The

unauthorized period of absence was not continuous as

per document Exhibit W-4. The period of unauthorized

absence was in broken periods at different times.

Considering the absence from duties, the punishment of

removal from service appears harsh and exorbitant.

Learned counsel for IInd party has not advanced any

arguments. In my considered view for unauthorized

absence of 128 days punishment of removal from service

is excessive and exorbitant. It cannot be sustained.

Considering unauthorised absence for 128 days,

punishment of withholding 3 increments of workman

permanently would be appropriate. I hold accordingly

for reasons discussed above. Issue No.1 is recorded in

Affirmative and punishment of dismissal is

disproportionate. The punishment deserves to be set-aside.

Therefore I record my finding in Point No.2 in Negative.

Point No. 3- In view of my finding in Point No.2,

punishment of removal from service for unauthorized

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6669

absence for 128 days is excessive, exorbitant, the order

of removal from service cannot be sustained. As

punishment of removal from service is found illegal,

question arises whether workman is entitled for

reinstatement with back wages. Workman in his cross-

examination says that he is doing private work and

receives Rs.1500/- per month since past 12 years therefore

the workman doesnot deserve back wages. In my

considered view, the punishment of withholding 3

increments of workman would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.3.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management in terminating the

services of Shri Dilip Kumar S/o Shri Pyarelal w.e.f.

10-12-94 is not legal and proper.

(2)

The order of termination of workman is set-aside

instead the punishment of withholding 3 increments of

workman permanently is imposed.

(3)

IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with

continuity of service without back wages.

IInd party shall pay cost of Rs.2000/- to the

workman.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2662-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

fodkl 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 dksydrk] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 02@2008) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12025@01@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2662.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.

02/2008) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the management of the

Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 22.09.2014.

[No. L-12025/01/2014-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Misc. Application No. 02 of 2008

(Under Section 33A of the I.D. Act, 1947)

Arising out of Reference No. 15 of 2003

Parties:

Bengal Provincial Gramin Bank

Employees Association

C/o. Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank,

48, Naya Sarak Road,

P.O. Berhampore,

Dist. Murshidabad, Pin – 742101.

...Applicant

Vs.

The Chairman,

Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank,

Head Office, BMC House, NH – 34,

Berhampore, Murshidabad,

Pin – 742101.

...Opp. Party

Present: Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management

: None

On behalf of the Workmen

None

State: West Bengal.

Dated: 15^th September, 2014.

AWARD

This is an application filed by Bengal Provincial

Gramin Bank Employees’ Association alleging change

of condition of service to the prejudice of the employees

by the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank during pendency of

Reference 15 of 2003 before this Tribunal.

When the case is taken up for hearing, none appears

on behalf of either of the parties. It appears from the

record that in spite of service of notice Bengal Provincial

Gramin Bank Employees Association, the Applicant, has

not turned up, nor any step is taken by it to proceed with

the case. The above conduct of the Applicant goes to show

that the Applicant is not at all interested to proceed with

the case further.

In view of the above, instant application is

dismissed for default.

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 15^th September, 2014.

6670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2663-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

eSlwj] 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 cSaxyksj] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 82] 83] 84] 85@2007) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@69] 67] 66] 38@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2663.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 82,

83, 84, 85/2007) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-

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

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

the State Bank of Mysore, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 25.09.2014.

[No. L-12012/69, 67, 66, 38/2005-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, BANGALORE

Dated : 12^th September, 2014

PRESENT : Shri S. N. NAVALGUND Presiding Officer

C R No. 82/2007

I Party

Sh. Panduranga Raju, S/o Sh. Krishna Raju,

No. 2197, 17^th Block, Janapriya Township,

Magadi Road, Bangalore – 560 030

II Party

The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of

Mysore, Bangalore Z O, I floor, BKG Complex,

Avenue Road, Bangalore – 560 009.

C R No. 83/2007

I Party

Sh. Mohd. Altaf, S/o Sh. MD. Husain, D. Kunnala

Post, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur Dist – 572219.

Karnataka

II Party

The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of

Mysore, Bangalore Z O, I floor, BKG Complex,

Avenue Road, Bangalore – 560 009.

C R No. 84/2007

I Party

Sh. R.P. Jayapal, S/o Parthasarathy Chetty, No. 201,

MSR Nagar, Mathikere, Bangalore – 560 054.

II Party

The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of

Mysore, Bangalore Z O, I floor, BKG Complex,

Avenue Road, Bangalore – 560 009.

C R No. 85/2007

I Party

Sh. G. N. Govinda Raju, S/o Narsappa, 6^th Cross,

New Extension, Gubbi, Bangalore

II Party

The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of

Mysore, Bangalore Z O, I floor, BKG Complex,

Avenue Road, Bangalore – 560 009.

Appearances:

I Party

Sh. S V Shastri Advocate

II Party :

Shri Ramesh Upadhyaya Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government vide order Nos. L-12012/

69/2005-IR(B-I) dated 25.06.2007; L-12012/67/2005-

IR(B-I) dated 29.06.2007; L-12012/66/2005-IR(B-I)

dated 28.06.2007 and L-12012/38/2005-IR(B-I) dated

28.06.2007 made these references with the following

Schedules respectively:

SCHEDULE

C R No. 82/2007

Whether the action of the management of the State

Bank of Mysore in terminating the services of Shri

Panduranga Raju w.e.f. 30.11.1999, is justified? If

not, to what relief the workman concerned is

entitled?

C R No. 83/2007

Whether the action of the management of the State

Bank of Mysore in terminating the services of Shri

Mohd. Altaf w.e.f. March, 2000, is justified? If

not, to what relief the workman concerned is

entitled?

C R No. 84/2007

Whether the action of the management of the State

Bank of Mysore in terminating the services of Shri

R. P. Jayapal S/o Parthasarathy Shetty w.e.f. 31st

March 2000, is justified? If not, to what relief the

workman concerned is entitled?

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6671

C R 85/2007

Whether the action of the management of the State

Bank of Mysore in terminating the services of Shri

Govindaraju w.e.f. June 1998, is justified? If not,

to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?”

On receipt of the references registering them in CR

82/2007, 83/2007, 84/2007 and 85/2007 when notices

were issued to the I Party and the II Party they entered

their appearance through their respective advocates and

field their claim and counter statement respectively.

All these references are being in respect of

temporary sub-staff worked in state bank of Mysore in

its difference branches to consider whether their

termination is justified and almost the pleadings, evidence

adduced and arguments addressed are common all these

references are taken up for disposal through this common

award.

In all these references in the claim petitions certain

assertions are also made for regularisation of their services

and they are retorted by the other side in the counter

statement, the schedule of reference being only as to the

justification of termination and not for regularisation the

pleadings in that regard being irrelevant the same are

not adverted to.

In all the claim statements the I Party have claimed

that they have worked continuously for more than 240

days in a year and they have been denied work from

certain date without complying the provisions of Section

25(f) amounting to illegal retrenchment. The I Party in

C R 82/2007 (Panduranga Raju) claims that he started

working from the Month of August 1998 at Richmond

Road Branch and thereafter he also worked at its

Banashankari and M G Road branches during 1998 to

1999 and to his surprise he was refused work from

30.11.1999 without compliance of Section 25(f). The I

Party in CR 83/2007 (Mohd. Altaf) asserts he has

intermittently worked between September 1990 to June

2002 in different branches of II party bank like Seegehalli,

C S Pura, Gubbi Taluk, M S Building Branch and

Yeswanthpur Market Yard Branch and there after he was

denied work without complying the provisions of Section

25(f) of ID Act. The I Party in C R 84/2007 (Jayapal)

claims that he started work in Madhavnagar Branch of

the II Party in May 1997 and intermittently he worked in

that branch and Yeswanthpur market Yard Branch till

March 1999 and from 31.03.2000 he was denied work

without complying the provisions of Section 25(f) of ID

Act. The I Party in C R 85/2007 (Govinda Raju) claims

that he started working in the year 1992 at Gubbi Branch

of the II party and intermittently worked at its different

branches like Chickpet upto June 1998 and from June

1998 he was denied work without complying the

provisions of Section 25(f) of ID Act.

In the counter statements apart from retorting the

claim of regularisation it has been contended that in no

calendar year the I Party workmen having worked more

than 240 days, there was no need to comply the provisions

of Section 25(f) as such they are not entitle for any relief.

In all the references the II Party while filing the

affidavit of Sh. Eswari Prasad, Chief Manager examining

him on oath as MW 1 without getting any documents

exhibited closed its side. INTERALIA, in all the

references the learned advocate appearing for the I Party

while cross-examining MW 1 getting exhibited eight

circulars relating to Authorisation in favour of Branch

managers to appoint Temporary Sub-ordinate staff and

the certificates issued by the Branch Managers in respect

of each workmen as Ex. W-9, 10, 11 and 12 series while

filing the affidavit of the I Party workmen reiterating the

assertion made in their claim statement examined them

as WW 1.

On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and

documentary evidence brought on record by both the

sides, in the light of the arguments put forward by learned

advocates, I have arrived at conclusion the II party being

not justified in terminating their services and that they

are entitle for restoration of their name in the panel of

the sub-staff of the II Party bank for the following

REASONS

As already stated by me above since the schedule

of reference is as to Whether the action of the management

of the State Bank of Mysore in terminating the services

of I Party workmen is justified who are all temporary

substaff, I may say that there is no scope to consider the

claim of the I Party for regularisation or permanency of

their job and I am required to consider only whether the

II party is justified in terminating their temporary sub-

staff service from the dates mentioned in schedule to the

respective references.

10.

There being no dispute the I Party workmen having

intermittently worked as temporary sub-staff in different

branches of the II Party bank in respect of which the

Branch Managers of those branches have issued

certificates produced at Ex. W-9, 10, 11 and 12 series, I

have to see whether these workmen have worked for 240

or more than 240 days in any block of a calendar year.

The certificates marked as Ex. W-9 series are being in

respect of workman covered in C R 82/2007, it is indicated

that he has worked in August 1999 for 16 days, September

1999 for 28 days, October 1999 for 24 days; November

1999 for 22 days at M G Road Branch and for 89 days

between 10.08.1998 to 18.11.1998 at Richmond Road

Branch, 85 days from 22.02.1997 to 24.05.1999 at Avenue

Road Branch and 31 days in December 1998, 25 days in

January 1999, 23 days in February 1999 at Banashankari

Branch. If 12 months block period from August 1998 is

6672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

considered by end of July 1999 his working days (90 +

78 + 85) comes to 253 days. Similarly Ex. W-10 series

relating to I Party workman Mohd. Altaf in C R 83/2007

discloses that he had worked from September 1990 to

February 1991 for 89 days; September 1991 to August

1992 for 89 days; September 1992 to March 1993 for 48

days; April 1993 to November 1993 for 40 days; March

1995 to December 1995 for 74 days; July 1995 to March

1996 for 97 days; April 1996 to August 1996 for 97 days;

February 1997 to March 1997 for 30 days; May 1997 to

July 1997 for 40 days; July 1997 to September 1997 for

56 days; November 1997 to February 1998 for 85 days;

August 1998 to October 1998 for 82 days; January 1999

to June 1999 for 123 days; July 1999 to August 1999 for

48 days; November 1999 to March 2000 for 88 days;

August 2001 to December 2001 for 66 days and January

2002 to June 2002 for 52 days, if 12 months block period

from August 1998 to July 1999 is considered by end of

July 1999 his working days (82 + 123 + 27) comes to

232 days and if the intervening Sundays & holidays of

the block period since works out for more than 8 days in

this block, it could be said that he has worked more than

240 days in a calendar year. Now coming to the workman

Sh. Jaypal covered in C R 84/2007 Ex. W-11 series

indicates that he had worked from May 1997 to August

1997 for 97 days; October 1997 to January 1998 for 81

days; April 1998 to July 1998 for 90 days; February 1999

to March 1999 for 54 days and September 1998 to

December 1998 for 99 days and if the block period of 12

months from April 1998 to March 1999 is considered

the total days he has worked (90 + 99 +54) comes to 243

days, hence he too has worked more than 240 days in a

block of 12 calendar months. Coming to Sh. Govinda

Raju covered in C R 85/2007 Ex. W-12 series do indicate

that he has worked from May 1982 to October 1982 for

90 days; January 1987 to June 1987 for 90 days; January

1988 to December 1988 for 69 days; January 1994 to

December 1994 for 119 days; January 1995 to December

1995 for 196 days; January 1996 to December 1996 for

160 days; June 1997 to September 1997 for 90 days and

November 1997 to June 1998 for 191 days and if the

block period of 12 months from June 1997 to May 1998

is considered the total days he has worked (90 + 164)

comes to 254 days and thereby he too has worked for

more than 240 days in a block period of 12 calendar

months. Since admittedly the II Party employer having

not issued one month’s notice or one month’s wage in

lieu of one month’s notice and compensation equivalent

to 15 days average pay for every completed year of service

to all these workmen it amounts to retrenchment in

violation of provisions of Section 25(f) and is void abinitio

and they are presumed to be in service as temporary sub-

staff and they are entitle for an order to restore their name

in the panel of temporary sub-staff but having regard to

the nature of their and engagement as temporary sub-

staff in the place of the leave vacancy exigencies of work

load and some delay in approaching the ALC(C) for

conciliation these are not fit case to award or grant back

wages, in the result, I pass the following

ORDER

All these references are allowed holding that the

management of State Bank of Mysore is not justified in

terminating the services of Sh. Panduranga Raju, Sh.

Mohd. Altaf, Sh. Jayapal and Sh. Govindaraju w.e.f.

30.11.1999, March 2000, 31.03.2000 and June 1998

respectively and that they are entitle for restoration of

their name in the panel of the sub-staff of the II Party

bank.

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2664-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k tcyiqj] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 173@1997) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@219@1995&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2664.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 173/

1997) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of the State

Bank of Indore, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 23.09.2014.

[No. L-12012/219/1995-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/173/97

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE

State President,

M.P.Bank Karamchari Sangh,

Lohia Bazaar,

Lashkar,

Gwalior(MP)

...Workman/Union

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6673

Versus

Regional Manager-III,

State Bank of Indore,

Regional Office, Modi House,

Jhansi Road,

Gwalior (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5^th day of September 2014

As per letter dated 23-6-97 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-

12012/219/95-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference

relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of Indore in permitting supersession of Shri

Mahip Seth Clerk/Cashier at Kampou branch is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Despite of repeated notices issued to workman,

workman failed to appear. Workman did not participate

in reference proceeding. He was proceeded exparte on

8-10-2013.

Management also not filed Written Statement in

the matter though appearance is caused through Advocate

Rajneesh Gupta.

In above circumstances, Tribunal is compelled to

pass No Dispute Award.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2665-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

fuxe fyfeVsM] jkaph] 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

(lanHkZ la- 113@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

22-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@02@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2665.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 113/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited, Ranchi, and their workman, received by the

Central Government on 22.09.2014.

[No. L-40012/02/2013-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT:

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act.,1947.

REFERENCE NO. 113 OF 2013.

PARTIES:

SRI SHASHI BHUSAN BHASKAR (Munna)

Ex-Casual worker of BSNL, SDE (Central),Tunki Tolla

(Football Ground)

PO- RMCH,P;S. Sadar Kokar,Ranchi,Jharkhand.

Vs. The SDE

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Ranchi, Jharkhand

Ministry’s Order No L-40012/02/2013-IR(DU)

dt.15.04.2013

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

None

workman/Union

On behalf of the

Mr. Sushil Pd. Ld. Advocate.

Management

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Telecommunication

Dated, Dhanbad, the 26^nd August, 2014.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the

following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide

their Order No L-40012/02/2013-IR(DU) dt.15.04.2013.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the termination of services of Sri Shashi

Bhusan Bhaskar (Munna), Ex-Casual Worker of

BSNL, SDE (Central) w.e.f. April, 2012 is legal

6674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and justified? If to what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

Neither workman Shashi Bhusan Bhaskar

(Munna) appeared nor any written statement with his

documents has been filed on his behalf.Mr.Sushil Prasad,

Ld.Advocate for O.P./Management has also not appeared.

On going through the Case Record, I find that the

case has all along been pending for filing written

statement with documents to be filed on behalf of the

workman, for which three Regd.Notices dtt.30.5.13,

8.1.2014 and 25.03.2014 were issued to him on his

address as noted in the reference itself, yet not a single

notice of the Tribunal could be responded by him on any

date. The very conduct of the workman appears to be

quite uninterested in pursuit of his own case for final

adjudication. In this circumstancwes, it appears to be No

Industrial Dispute existing.Therefore, the case is closed

as No I.D. and accordingly an Oder of ‘No Dispute Award’

is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2666-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

jsfM;ks] 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] fnYyh] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 29@2008)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-09-2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40011@15@2008&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2666.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/

2008) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of the

All India Radio, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 22.09.2014.

[No. L-40011/15/2008-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT - II,

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

Present: SHRI HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA

ID No. 29/2008

Sh. Ramji Lal and Shri Chander Pal

Versus

ALL INDIA RADIO

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L- 42011/15/2008-(IR(DU)): dated

11.06.2008 referred the following industrial Dispute to

this tribunal for the adjudication :-

“Whether the demand of the Janvadi General

Kamgar Mazdoor Union for regularization of

service of Sh. Ramji Lal and Shri Chander Pal, by

the management of Executive Engineer , Civil

Construction Wing, All India Radio, is legal and

justified ?If yes, to what relief the workmen are

entitled to?”

On 16.06.2008 reference was received in this

tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 29/2008 and

claimants were called upon to file claim statement with

in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was

required to be accompanied with relevant documents and

list of witnesses.

After service of notice Workmen /Claimants filed

claim statement on 16.10.2008.

On the basis of contents of claim statement

workmen Sh. Ramji Lal & Chander Pal prayed that this

Hon’ble tribunal may kindly award equal pay for equal

work to Sh. Ramji Lal & Chander Pal from their initial

date of employment i.e. 01.09.1988 and 01.11.1988

respectively being the incidental matter of the reference

and also award for regularization for both the workmen

w.e.f . 08.01.1994 as Beldar form the date when the

services of his juniors were regularized in the pay scale

R. 750-950 and revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in the pay scale

of Rs. 2550-3200 alongwith all consequential benefits.

In reply to claim statement management filed

written statement on 30.03.2009. Against of that Written

Statement workmen filed rejoinder on 27.05.2009.

Wherein both workmen reaffirmed contents of claim

statement .

Management on 15.12.2012 filed amended written

statement. Wherein it also mentioned as follows:-

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

That Sh. Ramji Lal was engaged as casual labour/

gardener on Muster Roll w.e.f. 01.08.1988 and his

services were terminated on one month notice dt.

06.07.1989 and dispensed with his services w.e.f

05.08.1989. Similarly Sh. Chander Pal was engaged as

casual labour /gardener on Muster Roll w.e.f 01.11.1988

and his services were terminated from 05.08..1989 after

giving notice.

That after termination of services, both the

workmen filed Petition (OA No. 1527/1989) before

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6675

Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. The Hon’ble

Court rejected all the pleas of the workman, but directed

the management vide order dt. 08.02.1990 and thus both

the workmen were appointed on 09.02.1990.

That Sh. Ramji Lal was granted temporary status

w.e.f 10.09.1993 and Sh. Chander Pal was granted

temporary status w.e.f 01.09.1993.

That vide order dt. 21/26.05.2009 (copy enclosed

as Annexure-A) , the services of both the workmen are

regularized w.e.f. 08.05.2009 (AN) in the post of Beldar.

Hence nothing remained to be done and I.D stood

complied with.

On 17.05.2013 My Ld. Predecessor passed

following order on order sheet:-

“ On perusal of pleadings , it came to light that no

other issue, than those reference by the appropriate

Government for adjudication, is made out. Adjourned for

evidence of the parties for 01.08.2013. Claimant to

conclude first. Long dateis given at the request of Sh.

Prasad”.

Since 1.08.2013 workmen took 13.09.2013,

23.10.2013, 17.12.2013, 31.1.2014, 25.03.2014,

01.05.2014, 07.07.2014 and 02.09.2014 for their

evidence inspite of these opportunities neither workmen

appeared nor adduce any evidence on their behalf. Hence

on 02.09.2014 this tribunal came to conclusion that

workmen is not interested in the further progress of the

case and fixed 05.09.2014 for no dispute award.

Perusal of record makes it crystal clear that Labour

Ministry send a reference for following adjudication:-

“whether the demand of the Janvadi General

Kamgar Mazdoor Union for regularization of

service of Sh. Ramji Lal and Shri Chander Pal, by

the management of Executive Engineer , Civil

Construction Wing, All India Radio, is legal and

justified ? If yes, to what relief the workmen are

entitled to?”

Contents of amended Written Statement makes it

crystal clear that workmen have already been regularized

by management. Probably due to this fact workmen is

not turning up.

In these background nothing remains to be decided

in favour of workmen. Hence it is fit case in which no

dispute award shall be passed.

Question of determination No.1 of schedule of

reference is liable to be decided accordingly. Which is

decided accordingly.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-05/09/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2667-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

lhihMCY;wMh] ubZ fnYyh] 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] fnYyh

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 17@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 22-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@58@2008&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2667.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/

2009) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the employer in relation

to the management of the CPWD, New Delhi, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

22.09.2014.

[No. L-42011/58/2008-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT - II,

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

Present: Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No.17/2009

Sh. Pratap Singh, S/o Late Sh. Nathu Lal

All India Central PWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan

(Regd.),

House no. 4823, Gali No. 13., Balbir Nagar Extension,

Shahadra, Delhi-110032.

Versus

The Executive Engineer (E)

Agra Central Elect. Division, CPWD ,

Sanjay Palace, Agra , UP.

Chief Engineer (Elect), CPWD Northern Zone, East

Block, R.K. Puram, ND-110066.

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L- 42011/58/2008-IR(DU): dated

02.03.2009 referred the following industrial Dispute to

this tribunal for the adjudication :-

6676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the demand of the All India CPWD

(MRM) Karamchari Sangathan for employment of

Sh. Pratap Singh S/o Late Sh. Nathu Lal on

compassionate ground, from the management of

CPWD is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief

the above legal representative of the late workman

is entitled to ?”

On 23.03.2009 reference was received in this

tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 17/2009 and

claimant was called upon to file claim statement with in

fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was

required to be accompanied with relevant documents and

list of witnesses.

After service of notice Workman /Claimant filed

claim statement on 22/01/10. Wherein he prayed as

follows:-

(a)

The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to

award appointment on compassionate grounds to

Sh. Pratap Singh S/o Late Nathu Lal, workman;

and /or

(b)

In the event of non-availability of vacancy in the

CPWD for such appointment , the Hon’ble Court

may kindly be pleased to award lump sum payment

to tide over the crisis due to death of his father.

Management filed Written statement on 28.05.2010

though which management challenged the contents of

claim statement and prayed for rejection of claim

statement.

On 18.04.2013 My Ld. Predecessor passed

following order on order sheet:-

“ On perusal of pleadings , it came to light that no

other issue, than those referred for adjudication, is

made out. Adjourned for evidence of the parties for

13.06.2012. . Claimant to conclude first”.

Thereafter claimant was called upon to adduce his

evidence. Instead of adducing his evidence he moved an

application for withdrawal of the case but on 28.07.2014

I was on leave. Hence 08.09.2014 was fixed for order.

Contents of application are as follows:-

Application for withdrawal of the case

Most Respectfully Showeth:-

That the above ID case is pending before the

Hon’ble Court for proper adjudication . The next date of

hearing for the same is fixed on 28.07.2014.

That the cause of the applicant is this ID was for

appointment under compassionate ground which was

earlier rejected by the management.

That the management of CPWD upon

implementation of order of DOPT issued on 26.07.2012,

have now reconsidered the case of the applicant for

appointment on compassionate ground and as of now it

is under re-consideration.

In light of the above facts and circumstances , the

above ID pending before the Hon’ble Court is withdrawn

with immediate effect and no further action in the case is

required now and Award pass accordingly.

Which makes it crystal clear that workman require

nothing to be adjudicated by this tribunal.

In this background question of determination No.1

of schedule of reference does not require any

determination. Which is accordingly decided.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-08/09/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2668-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch,l,u,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;&2] fnYyh] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1@2011) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@92@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2668.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/

2011) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the BSNL, and their workman,

received by the Central Government on 22.09.2014.

[No. L-40012/92/2010-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT - II,

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

Present: Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 1/11

Sh. Kamal Kishor & Rajinder Singh BSNL,

Asthai Karamchari Sangh Western(UP)

C/o BMS , 32, Chakrata Road,

Dehradun

Versus

1. The Chief General Manager,

BSNL Western (UP) , Telephone Exchange Building,

Shastri Nagar, Merut, (UP)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6677

2. The General Manager, BSNL,

A-23 , Jaina Towers, Ghaziabad (U.P)

3. The Asstt. Gen Manager (Admin.),

BSNL , A-23, Jaina Towers, Ghaziabad (U.P.)

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-40012/92/2010-IR(DU) dated

21.12.2010 referred the following industrial Dispute to

this tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management in not

regularizing services of part time casual labourer

Shri. Kamal Kishore and Rajender Singh is illegal

and unjustified? To what relief the workmen are

entitled to?”

On 10.01.2011 reference was received in this

tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 1/11 and

claimants were called upon to file claim statement with

in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was

required to be accompanied with relevant documents and

list of witnesses.

After service of notice workmen/claimants filed claim

statement on 25.02.2011.

On the basis of contents of claim statement.

Workmen Sh. Kamal Kishor and Sh. Rajinder Singh

prayed that they be regularized since 1.08.1998 and they

be provided all benefits as well as salary equal to

regularized workmen.

In reply to claim statement management filed Written

Statement. Wherein management denied the allegation

of claimants. It is also alleged that claim statement is

based on wrong facts. Hence not liable to be allowed.

Therefore claim statement is liable to be dismissed.

Workmen Sh. Kamal Kishor and Sh. Rajinder Singh on

21.06.2014 filed rejoinder. Wherein they reaffirmed their

claim mentioned in claim statement.

My Ld. Predecessor on 19.01.2012 mentioned in order

sheet that Ld. A/R’s for the parties did not pressed for

any issues other than one mentioned in reference.

On the basis of which My Ld. Predecessor fixed 22.3.2012

for workmen evidence.

Workman Sh. Kamal Kishore in support of his case

filed his affidavit in his evidence on 10.09.2012.

That the deponent is the workman concerned in

the above noted case and is well conversant with the facts

and circumstances of the case and is competent to swear

this affidavit.

That the deponent joined as a part time casual

labour as sweeper in the office of S.D. O. Phones , Murad

Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. on 01.09.1993.

That as per the initial appointment, the duty of the

deponent /workman was fixed for certain time, but as

per timely requirement it has been extended without any

interval by the respondent.

That the deponent during the service period become

member of B.S.N.L Asthai Karamchari Sangh, Paschimi

Uttar Pradesh (Regd.)Union. The deponent had

performed/served his duty continuously without any break

upto 5-6 years. In the above said circumstances, it has

been necessary that the deponent/workman should be

continued as a regular employee, if he has done, this much

service without any delay as per the law.

That as per initial appointment, the deponent

appointed as casual labour, but he has tendered his service

more than 240 days in each Calendar Year. As per the

circular of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication,

Department of Telecommunication, Sanchar Bhawan,

New Delhi, bearing No. 269-13/99-STN-II dated

16.09.1999 by Assistant Director General (STN). Those

worker/employees doing his service as a casual labourer,

working with 4 or more hours per day, contract base or

temporary status they should be convert into full time

casual labourer.

That the deponent made a several representation

before the respondent to give the status of regular

employee because of the deponent is deserving as a Group

‘D’ Employee.

That the deponent is specially stated here that Smt.

Arti Devi and Sh. Manoj Kumar, both were the casual

labour was appointed on dated 01.04.1995 i.e. Hapur and

Pilakhua Office. Their services become a regular services

in the month of October 2000.

That the deponent has made representation before

the respondent on 04.06.2002 and pray to regularize its

service and specifically it has been mentioned by the

deponent in his application that the other his junior

employee was regularized but why he has been not getting

this opportunity.

As per the letter No. 269-13/99 STN- II dated

16.09.1996 and dated 25.08.2000, the workman/employee

who has been done 24 days services without any delay,

their services should be regularized.

That as per the letter dated 27.07. 2001 of SDO

Phones , Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P., the deponent

has completed his service 5 year 7 months on 01.08.1998,

on this ground the deponent was entitled for temporary

status and was entitled for regularization in Group ‘D’.

10.

That after several representation made by the

deponent for getting the regularization of his service to

the respondent, but no action of this reply has been

executed by the respondent, then and there the deponent

made a reminder letter before the respondent.

6678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

That after getting the above reminder letter,

Assistant Telephone (E) on dated 28.10.2002 send a letter

to the deponent that to become a regular service of the

deponent, they are considering.

11.

That on 16.12.2002 Assistant Director National

Commission giving the direction to the respondent that

the deponent/workman services should be regularized

with immediate effect.

12.

That after getting the unsatisfactory answer or

demoralized by action taken regarding the legalization

of the service of the deponent, the deponent moved before

the Hon’ble High Court at Allahabad, U.P. in Civil Writ

Petition No. 11216 OF 2008, which was disposed off

10.03.2003 by the Hon’ble Justice Mr. S.K. Singh. After

that the respondent has been dismissed its regularization

proceeding in a very sharp manner.

13.

That after that the deponent filed a civil Misc. Writ

Petition bearing No. 44367 of 2003 on dated 01.09.2003

and the same has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Court

on dated 23.07.2004. Later on the deponent moved before

Hon’ble High Court at Allahabad in Special Civil Appeal

bearing No. 1292 of 2004. Hon’ble High Court at

Allahabad dismissed the above Civil Appeal on

31.03.2009 with a view that the petitioner/appellant can

avail the remedy of appeal under the Industrial Disputes

Act. However, he does not dispute that the appellants

had remedy under the provision of U.P. Industrial Dispute

Act. 1947. In our opinion the discretion exercise by the

Ld. Single Judge relegating the appellants to avail the

remedy under the provision of the U.P Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 does not suffer from any error calling for any

interference in this appeal. We do not find any merit in

the appeal and it is dismissal accordingly.

14.

That after that the deponent filed the above noted

claim petition before the Assistant Labour Commissioner,

Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun, where it was now decided.

After that above Industrial Dispute has been referred to

before this Tribuanl –cum-Labour Court for adjudication

under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

15.

That the deponent is relying the document Ext.

WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/9.

16.

That the contents of the above affidavit has been

read over to me in vernacular language which are true

and correct.

On 23.09.2013 affidavit of Workman was tendered &

he was cross-examined on 7.11.2013. His examination-

in-chief and cross-examination is as follows:-

My affidavit exhibit (Evidence by way of affidavit)

tender before the court will be realized as a evidence in

chief.

XXX by Sh. A.K. Sharma.

I had gone through the contents of affidavit after

that I put my signature. I had appointed the BSNL for job

on several times in the year on 01.01.1993. I applied for

job in BSNL . At that time I got job in DOT. I directly

went to get job. There was no advertisement for vacancy

in any paper my duty hours was six hours . Which

commens from 6am to 12 pm. I was not aware of the fact

that when regular employee will appoint my services will

not regularized. Appointments letter was not given to me.

No time for part time casual time worker was fixed in my

case. No renewal letter was given to me as I was in

continuing service. I worked continuously for about six

years. It is correct to suggest that four hours duty was

assigned to me. I am not aware whe DOT.

Converted into BSNL. I made representation before

BSNL Authority for my regularization letters is on record.

I made representation repeatedly.

Question:- Can you show those representations on

record.

Ans. There is no such letter on record.

It is correct that I have filed W.P in Allahabad High

Court for my regularization . Hon'ble High court decided

that I must seek remedy from Labour Court . It is incorrect

to suggest that I was not employee of BSNL . There is no

written order of my termination. It is incorrect to suggest

that no termination order was given to me as I was not

employee of BSNL. It is not in employee of BSNL. It is

not in my knowledge whether any employee has been

appointed by BSNL after my appointment. It is wrong to'

suggest that I am deposing falsely. It is also wrong

tosuggest that I have filed affidavit wrongly without any

instructions.

Workman She Rajender Singh in support of his case

filed his affidavit in his evidence on 10.09.2012.

1. That the deponent is the workman concerned in

the above noted case and is well conversant with the facts

and circumstances of the case and is competent to swear

this affidavit.

2. That the deponent joined as a part time casual

labour as sweeper/Safaiwala in the office of S.D. O. P-III,

Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. on 01.09.1992.

3. That as per the initial appointment, the duty of

the deponent /workman was fixed for certain time, but as

per timely requirement it has been extended without any

interval by the respondent.

4. That the deponent during the service period

become member of B.S.N.L Asthai Karamchari Sangh,

Pashcimi Uttar Pradesh (Regd.)Union. The deponent had

performed/served his duty continuously without any break

upto 5-6 years. In the above said circumstances, it has

been necessary that the deponent/workman should be

continued as a regular employee, if he has done, this much

service without any delay as per the law.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6679

5. That as per initial appointment, the deponent

appointed as casual labour, but he has tendered his service

more than 240 days in each Calendar Year. As per the

circular of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication,

Department of Telecommunication, Sanchar Bhawan,

New Delhi , bearing No. 269-13/99-STN-II dated

16.09.1999 by Assistant Director General (STN). Those

worker/employees doing his service as a casual labourer,

working with 4 or more hours per day, contract base or

temporarystatus they should be convert into full time

casual labourer.

6. That the deponent made a several representation

before the respondent to give the status of regular employee

because of the deponent is deserving as a Group 'D'

Employee.

7. That the deponent is specially stated here that

Smt. Arti Devi and Sh. Manoj Kumar, both were the casual

labour was appointed on dated 01.04.1995 i.e. Hapur and

Pilakhua Office. Their services become a regular services

in the month of October 2000.

8. That the deponent has made representation before

the respondent on 04.06.2002 and pray to regularize its

service and specifically it has been mentioned by the

deponent in his application that the other his junior

employee was regularized but why he has been not

getting this opportunity.

As per the letter No. 269-13/99 STN- II dated

16.09.1996 and dated 25.08.2000, the workman /employee

who has been done 24 days services without any delay,

their services should be regularized.

9. That as per the certificate of DE Phones, Rajnagar,

Ghaziabad, U.P., the deponent has worked more than

24 days in a calendar year. (copy of the same has been

exhibited) on this ground the deponent was entitled for

temporary status and was entitled for regularization in

Group 'D'.

10. That after several representation made by the

deponent for getting the regularization of his service to

the respondent, but no action of this reply has been

executed by the respondent, then and there the deponent

made a reminder letter before the respondent.

That after getting the above reminder letter,

Assistant Telephone (E) on dated 28.10.2002 send a letter

to the deponent that to become a regular service of the

deponent, they are considering.

11. That on 16.12.2002 Assistant Director National

Commission giving the direction to the respondent that

the deponent/workman services should be regularized with

immediate effect.

12. That after getting the unsatisfactory answer or

demoralized by action taken regarding the legalization of

the service of the deponent, the deponentmoved before

the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad, U.P. in Civil Writ

Petition No. 11216 OF 2008, which was disposed off

10.03.2003 by the Hon'ble Justice Mr. S.K. Singh. After

that the respondent has been dismissed its regularization

proceeding in a very sharp manner.

13.That after that the deponent filed a civil Mise.

Writ Petition bearing No. 44367 of 2003 on dated

0l.09.2003 and the same has been dismissed by the Hon'ble

Court on dated 23.07.2004. Later on the deponent moved

before Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad in Special Civil

Appeal bearing No. 1292 of 2004. Hon'ble High Court at

Allahabad dismissed the above Civil Appeal on 3l.03.2009

with a view that the petitioner/appellant can avail the

remedy of appeal under the Industrial Disputes Act.

However, he does not dispute that the appellants had

remedy under the provision of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act.

1947. In our opinion the discretion exercise by the

Ld.Single Judge relegating the appellants to avail the

remedy under the provision of the U.P Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 does not suffer from any error calling for any

interference in this appeal. We do not find any merit in

the appeal and it is dismissal accordingly.

14. That after that the deponent filed the above noted

claim petition before the Assistant Labour Commissioner,

Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun, where it was now decided.

After that above Industrial Dispute has been referred to

before this Tribuanl -cum-Labour Court for adjudication

under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

I5. That the deponent is relying the document Ext.

WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-2/9.

16. That the contents of the above affidavit has been

read over to me in vernacular language which are true

and correct.

On 23.09.2013 affidavit of Workman was tendered &

he was cross-examined on 7.11.2013. His examination-

in-chief and cross-examination is as follows:-

My affidavit exhibit (Evidence by way of affidavit)

tender before the court will be realized as a evidence in

chief.

XXXX by Sh. A.K. Sharma.

I am eighth pass. I was appointed on 01.09.1992.

No appointment letter was issued to me Mr. Prem Singh

AE Sh. PC. Ram SDO appointed me I was paid Rs. 750/-

p.m. Salary was paid in cash after receiving my signature.

I make my presence on Attendance sheet daily. Contents

of para 3 of my affidavit are correct. It is incorrect to

suggest that I participated in union politics. It is correct

that I was member of union. I made representation in

written for my regularization . I made such representation

in 2002-2003 etc.

I have filed copy of aforesaid representation in

this tribunal. If such copy of such representation is on

record then I can assign no reason. It is incorrect to

suggest that I never been employee of BSNL. No

6680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

termination letter was given to me. I was not terminated

I was in listed as tender man and record was sent to

Dehradun. Now I on working under “Thekedari”. It is

wrong to suggest that I made false statement of claim to

get job. Manoj and Arti Devi has been regularized. No

paper of their regularization has been filed by me in this

tribunal. It is incorrect to suggest that I am projecting

concocted story of regularization of aforesaid employees.

I continuously work with the respondents 5 to 6 years. It

is wrong to suggest that affidavit filed by me based on

untrue facts . It is wrong to suggest that I am not entitled

to get job in BSNL. It is wrong to suggest that time to

time break has given to me by respondents.

It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.

In support of its case management filed affidavit of

MW1 Sh. D.K. Sharma. Wherein he stated as follows:-

I say that the I am working as a legal with the

respondent and fully conversant to the facts and

circumstances of the case as such competent to swear the

affidavit.

I say that present claim petition filed by the

claimants for regularization of their service without any

merits infact the claimants Kamal Kishor and Rajendera

Singh were part time workers with the respondents and

their services are only for certain period. Therefore, no

nay appointment letter has been issued in their favour.

I say that the claimants had never completed their

240 days in service since they were assigned a job only

for 4 hours per day and therefore their services cannot be

treated as a regular job with the respondent.

I say that Zonal Office, Dehradun vide its letter

dated 02.08.2003 flatly refuse to regularize the service

of part time casual labour. Hence, the services of the

claimant cannot be regularize in any manner as claimed

by the claimant.

I say that the other casual labour are not related to

the office of respondent. Hence, the claimant cannot be

entitled for regularization of the service. Since, the Manoj

Kumar, daily wages casual labour was assigned a job for

8 hours per day and this office has recommended for

regularization their service but the Zonal office ,

Dehradun had declined to regularize their service.

I say that the claimants has already field the writ

petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad

which was dismissed without considered the case of

claimants on merits.

I say that the claimant are not entitled for any

compensation or monetary benefits from the respondent

in any manner since they are not a employee of the BSNL .

As per the recommendation of the higher authority of

the Zonal office, Dehradun the service cannot be

regularized in any manner.

I say that present petition filed by the claimant are

total gross abuse of the process of law. Hence, liable to

be rejected with heavy cost.

That the contents of the above affidavit has been

read over to me in vernacular language which are true

and correct.

His affidavit was tender on 21.03.2014 and he was

cross-examined on same day. His examination –in-chief

and cross –examination is as follows.

I tender in evidence my affidavit Ex. MW1/1 which

bears my signatures at point ‘A’ and ‘B’

XXXX by Nirmal Singh Berchiwal, A/R for the

workman.

I know each and every thing regarding the claim

filed by the workman. Affidavit filed on behalf of

management is mine.

Question. Can you tell for which relief claimant file

claim?

Ans. Regularization.

I took over charge in 2011 in Ghaziabad as Gen. Manager,

Telephone.

Question:- Whether Claimants are continuously working

with the BSNL?

Ans. Workman is working as Contract Labour. Workman

are Daily wager. Workman worked for about 3 or 4 hours

per day.

Question. Whether letter dated 21.07.2000 bearing Ref.

No. GMT/G2B/ E-31/ Rectt/Gen/2000-2011/7/ is of your

department?

Ans. I cannot say because on the date of issuance of letter

I was not posted there.

Question:- Whether contents of para V of your affidavit

are correct.

Ans. Yes.

Question:-Whether manoj and Arti are regular employee?

Ans. I have no knowledge.

Question. Whether Rajender and Kamal Kishore worked

in your department regularly more than 240 days?

Ans. It is wrong.

Thereafter I have heard the arguments of Ld. A/Rs for

the parties at length.

Ld. A/R for the workman vehemently argued that

workman Sh. Rajinder Singh is casual workman of

management and was working since 1.09.1992.

Sh. Kamal Kishor is also casual worker of the

management who was working with management since

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6681

01.01.1993. Their services have not been regularized

although they have worked for more than 240 days in

each calendar year since their joining. To prove their case

workmen adduced their oral evidence by way of filing

their affidavit in their evidence which was subsequently

tendered by them alongwith relevant documents. Both

workmen have been presented for cross-examination but

nothing could be extracted out from their cross-

examination by Ld. A/R for the management.

Juniors Smt. Aarti Devi and Sh. Manoj Kumar have

become regularized but management ignored aforesaid

workmen in regularization.

On the basis of their evidence both workmen proved

their case of completion of continuous service of 240

days in each calendar year .

On the basis of which they are entitled for the

benefit of regularization as per provision of Section 25-

B of ID Act, 1947.

In addition to it department has sent several letters

to superior officers for making them regularized .

Photocopies of those letters in support of evidence of

workmen is on record. Management could not dare to

rebut that official evidence of officers of its department.

Moreover judicial notice of this fact may be taken

as per provision of Sections 56 & 57 of Indian evidence

Act.

On the basis of aforesaid arguments Ld. A/R for

the workmen stressed that workmen Sh. Kamal Kishor

and Sh. Rajinder Singh are liable to be regularized since

01.08.1998 and entitled for all benefits equal to benefits

of regularized workmen.

While on the other hand Ld. A/R for the

management counter contended that neither workmen

Sh. Kamal Kishor nor Sh. Rajinder Singh have completed

continuous work for 240 days in any calendar year.

It is further stressed that no representation was

made in this respect by any of the workmen because copy

of representation is not on record. It was also pointed out

that duty hours of these workmen were 3-4 per day.

Moreover recommendation made for their

regularization is already been turned down by officers of

department at Dehradun. On the basis of aforesaid

contentions it was stressed by Ld. A/R for management

that workmen /claimants are not entitled for

regularization.

In the light of contention and counter contentions

I perused the pleadings in statement of claim, written

statement, rejoinder and evidence of the parties.

Perusal of evidence on record makes it crystal clear

that workman Sh. Rajinder Singh joined as casual worker

on 01.09.1992 and workman Sh. Kamal Kishor joined

as casual worker on 01.01.1993 since than they are

working continuously. They have completed the work for

240 day continuously in each calendar year. Officers of

department wrote letters to superior officers for making

them (Sh. Rajinder Singh and Sh. Kamal Kishor)

regularized. Their juniors Smt. Aarti Devi and Sh. Manoj

have already been regularized. Photocopies of letters

written by officers of department are on record. On the

basis of which Judicial notice provided u/s 56 & 57 Indian

Evidence Act can be taken . Especially in the instant case

in which Ld. A/R for the management could not dare to

rebut the evidence of workmen. Although Ld. A/R for

the management challenged the claim of workmen on

the ground that they made no representation for making

them regularized.

It is relevant to mention here that there is no

provision in ID Act which makes necessary to give

representation for regularization of workmen by

workmen. So aforesaid contentions raised on the behalf

of Ld. A/R for the management is of no avail to him. Ld.

A/R for the management again made futile attempt by

way of raising that recommendation made by

departmental officers for regularization of workmen Sh.

Rajinder Singh and Sh. Kamal Kishor has been turned

down by officers of department at Dehradun. This

Contention is also of no avail to management because

juniors workmen Smt. Aarti Devi and Sh. Manoj have

been regularized and workmen Sh. Rajinder Singh and

Sh. Kamal Kishor have been ignored for regularization

without plausible reason.

Management was duty bound to show through its

evidence that case is workmen Sh. Rajinder Singh and

Sh. Kamal Kishor was distinguishable from the case of

workmen Sh. Rajinder Singh and Sh. Kamal Kishor due

to which workmen could not be regularized but there is

no such evidence of Management.

It is also relevant to mention here that MW1

produced on behalf of management could not discharge

the burden as provided u/s 102 Indian Evidence Act . So

in want of evidence of onus probandi there is no option

to this Tribunal except to decide the question of

determination No.1 mentioned in schedule of reference

in favour of workmen and against management. Which

is accordingly decided.

As question of determination mentioned in schedule

of reference has been decided in favour of workmen and

against management. So the workmen are entitled for

relief of regularization since 01.01.1998 as claimed and

proved by workmen.

Reference is accordingly decided in favour of

workmen Sh. Rajinder Singh and Sh. Kamal Kishor and

against management. Award is accordingly passed.

Management is directed to regularize workmen

namely Sh. Rajinder Singh and Sh. Kamal Kishor since

6682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

01.01.1998 months after within 2 months after expiry of

period of available remedy against this award.

Dated:-28/08/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2669-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

:dhZa 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] fnYyh] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la-

153@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-09-

2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@45@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2669.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 153/

2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of the

The Registrar, IIT, Roorkee and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 22.09.2014.

[No. L-42011/45/2012-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

Present: Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena, Presiding Officer

ID No. 153/12

Sh. Ashiq S/o Sh. Nazar, Genral Secreatary,

IIT Roorkee Karamchari Union, IIT,

Roorkee, Haridwar, Uttrakhand,

Versus

The Registrar,

IIT, Roorkee, Haridwar

No DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-42011/45/2012-IR(DU) dated

19.10.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute to

this tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of IIT

Roorkee in not regularizing the services of

Sh. Ashiq S/o Nazar, Masson despite rendering

service for more than 30 years continuously is

justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to ?”

On 26.10.2012 reference was received in this

tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 153/2012 and

claimant was called upon to file claim statement with in

fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was

required to be accompanied with relevant documents and

list of witnesses.

Several opportunities given to workman as well as

management but neither workman nor management filed

claim statement / Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this tribunal

except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings.

On the basis of which none of the parte can be

directed to adduce its evidence.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-09/09/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2670-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

ch ,p bZ ,y] jkuhiqj 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] fnYyh] ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- 108@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

22-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@205@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2014

S.O. 2670.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 108/

2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relations

to the management of the General Manager, BHEL,

Ranipur and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 22.09.2014.

[No. L-42011/205/2011-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT - II,

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

Present: Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6683

ID No.108/2012

Sh. Ranvir Singh,

The General Secy.,

BHEL, Heavy Electrical Equipment Plant,

Ranipur, Haridwar

Versus

The General Manager,

BHEL, Heavy Electrical Equipment Plant,

Ranipur, Haridwar

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-42011/205/2011-IR(DU) dated

24.02.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of BHEL,

Ranipur, Haridwar in denying stepping up of Basic

Pay and consequent benefits due to promotion from

back date to Shri Ranvir Singh S/o Late Sh. Hoshiar

Singh, Technician w.e.f. 25.06.1995 is legal &

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

On 16.03.2012 reference was received in this

Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 108/2012 and

claimant was called upon to file claim statement with in

fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was

required to be accompanied with relevant documents and

list of witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant Sh.

Ranvir Singh not filed claim statement but management

in response to reference filed response wherein it

mentioned as follows:-

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

At the outset is submitted that, as the claimant has

not filed any statement of claim before this Hon’ble Court,

the respondent is hereby preferring brief reply to the

reference order and keeps it right reserved to file detailed

reply if the occasion so arises.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

THAT M/s . Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. is a duly

incorporated company and has legal status only in the

above said incorporated name. The reference order cites

the employer as BHEL which is not correct name. The

reference is therefore, invalid and without jurisdiction.

THAT the reference order itself conveys that the

present terms of reference/ present dispute cannot be the

subject matter of an individual dispute as envisaged u/s

2A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the same can be

raised only as collective dispute u/s 2(k) of the ID. Act

Neither the present dispute of Ranvir Singh has the

espousal of requisite number of workmen of the

respondent establishment nor the reference order conveys

any such espousal.

Hence the reference is not maintainable and liable

to be rejected on this ground alone.

THAT Sh. Ranvir Singh was promoted from Artisan

Gr-I ( Grinder) to Technician vide office order no. PWX/

OC/1584189 dated 29.08.1997 and present the dispute

raised by the claimant after more than 15-16 years is

stale and suffers from inordinate delay is prejudicial to

the respondent in effectively putting forward its defence.

Hence reference is invalid and without jurisdiction.

THAT charge sheet vide letter reference no. GM(F):

7(4):95:163 dated 03.06.1995 was issued to Sh. Ranvir

Singh for misconduct under clause 20( C) of Standing

Orders wherein he was charged for “Fraud & Dishonesty”

and during the disciplinary proceedings charges were

partially proved against him but taking a lenient view

said Sh. Ranvir Singh was let off with stern warning not

to repeat such misconduct vide letter no. FM/7(4) 233

dated 24.04.1997.

It is further submitted that earlier also (i.e prior to

aforesaid chargesheet ) Sh. Ranvir was charged with

“Fraud & Dishonesty” under the abovesaid clause 20(C )

vide letter number PR/SU/ Conf 2/4 dated 04.04.1984

and the said charges were admitted by Sh. Ranvir Singh

and he tendered unconditional apology thereof as well.

He was awarded punishment of two years demotion to

the lower post on his said misconduct.

As aforesaid Sh. Ranvir Singh was promoted on

notional basis from Artisan Gr-I (Grinder ) to Technician

vide office order no. PWX/OC /1584189 dated 29.08.1997

w.e.f 26.05.1995 on closure of the abovesaid disciplinary

proceedings initiated vide chagesheet dated 03.06.1995.

The case of Sh. Ranvir Singh was processed under sealed

cover due to the pendency of the abovesaid disciplinary

proceedings . Neither there was any disparity or pay

anomaly in the case of Sh. Ranvir Singh nor he can allege

any disparity or anomaly in pay. It is to be added here

that Sh. Ranvir Singh has been ceased to be the employee

of respondent since 24.04.2010.

THAT no demand relating to the present term of

reference has been raised and rejected. Hence the

reference is without jurisdiction and not maintainable.

THAT the reference is not maintainable under law

as it has been made mechanically, without application of

mind by the Appropriate Government.

ON MERITS:-

As aforesaid charge sheet vide letter reference no.

GM (F) :7(4) :95:163 dated 03.06.1995 was issued to

Sh. Ranvir Singh for misconduct under clause 20 ( C) of

Standing Orders wherein he was charged for “Frauds &

Dishonesty” and during the disciplinary proceedings

charges were partially proved against him but taking a

6684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

lenient view said Sh. Ranvir Singh was let off with stern

warning not to repeat such misconduct vide letter no.

FM/7(4)/233 dated 24.04.1997 .

It is further submitted that earlier also (i.e. prior to

aforesaid chargesheet )Sh. Ranvir was charged with

“Fraud & Dishonesty” under the abovesaid clause 20( C)

vide letter number PR/SU/Conf 2/4 dated 04.04.1984

and the said charges were admitted by Sh. Ranvir Singh

and he tendered unconditional apology thereof as well.

He was awarded punishment of two years demotion to

the lower post on his said misconduct.

As aforesaid Sh. Ranvir Singh was promoted on

notional basis from Artisan Gr-I (Grinder ) to Technician

vide office no PWX/OC /1584189 dated 29.08.1997 w.e.f

26.05.1995 on closure of the abovesaid disciplinary

proceedings initiated vide chargesheet dated 03.06.1995.

The case of Sh. Ranvir Singh was processed under sealed

cover due to the pendency of the abovesaid disciplinary

proceedings. Neither there was any disparity or pay

anomaly in the case of Sh. Ranvir Singh nor he can allege

any disparity or anomaly in pay. It is to be added here

that Sh. Ranvir Singh has been ceased to the employee

of respondent since 24.04.2010.

On the basis of non-interestedness of workman. The

proceeding of this case is not liable to be proceeded

further. Hence proceedings of the case are liable to be

dropped and no dispute award is liable to be passed.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-03/09/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2671-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

fLifuax ,aM ohfoax feYl ,aM vkFklZ vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 61@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-09-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@06@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th September, 2014

S.O. 2671.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 61/

2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

the Coimbatore Spinning and Weaving Mills & Others

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 24.09.2014.

[No. L-42011/06/2012-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHENNAI

Thursday, the 18th September, 2014

Present : K. P. Prasanna Kumari, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 61/2012

(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 Coimbatore Spinning

and Weaving Mills and Four Others

and their workman)

Between:

The General Secretary

: 1st Party/1st Petitioner Union

Kovai Mavatta Panchalai

anna Thozhilalar Sangam

(ATP), Grey Town

Coimbatore-641008

The General Secretary

: 1st Party/2nd Petitioner Union

Kovai Periyar Districts

Dravida Panchalai

Thozhilalar Munnetra

Sangam (MLF)

VKK Menon Road,

Siddapudur,

Coimbatore-641044

The General Secretary

: 1st Party/3rd Petitioner Union

Coimbatore District

Textile Workers Union

(HMS)

2212, Trichy Road,

Singanallur,

Coimbatore-641005

The General Secretary

: 1^st Party/4^th Petitioner Union

Thamizhaga Panchalai

Thozhilalar Sangam

(BMS)

Sathyamangalam Road,

Ganapathy,

Coimbatore-641006

5. The General Secretary

: 1^st Party/5^th Petitioner Union

Coimbatore District Mill

Workers Union (AITUC)

99, Rangam Street,

Kattoor,

Coimbatore-641009

AND

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6685

The General Manager

: 2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

Coimbatore Spinning

and Weaving Mills

Krishnaswamy

Mudaliar Road

Post Box No. 24

Coimbatore-1

The General Manager

: 2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

Coimbatore Murugan

Mills,

Mettupalayam Road

P. Box No. 7004

Coimbatore

The General Manager

: 2^nd Party/3^rd Respondent

Sri Rangavilas G.S.

& W. Mills,

333 Avanashi Road

P. O. Box No. 1604

Peelamedu

Coimbatore-4

The General Manager

: 2^nd Party/4^th Respondent

Pankaja Mills

30 Pankaja Mills Road

P.O. Box No. 7109

Coimbatore-45

The General Manager

: 2^nd Party/5^th Respondent

Cambodia Mills,

Post Box No. 3504

Ondipudur

Coimbatore-16

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd

Sri K. Krishnamurthi &

& 5^th Petitioner Union:

R. Gokulraj, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

4^th & 5^th Respondent:

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour

& Employment vide its Order No. L-42011/06/2012-

IR(DU) dated 04.09.2012 referred the following Industrial

Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of NTC Mill management,

Southern Region, Coimbatore for not inviting

unrecognized unions for discussion of wage

revision is justifiable or not? If not, to what relief

the workmen are entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 61/2012 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their

counsel. The Second Petitioner and Respondent have filed

their claim and counter statement respectively. The

Second Petitioner has filed a rejoinder in reply to the

Counter Statement.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

Second Petitioner in brief are these:

The Second Petitioner has a large membership

among the textile workers in Coimbatore District. The

textile mills in Coimbatore were principally owned by

private employers. The mills were taken over by the

National Textile Corporation due to mismanagement of

some of the mill owners. The issue of recognition of Trade

Unions with regard to National Textile Corporation mills

came up for consideration before the Madras High Court

in Writ Petition No. 1440/2010. The High Court ordered

that recognition in respect of mills of National Textile

Corporation has to be decided through a secret ballot and

Unions who have got 10% membership in the secret ballot

have to be recognized. A secret ballot was held and the

Second Petitioner obtained about 7.6% of the votes in

Murugan Mills, Pankaja Mills, CS&W Mills, Cambodia

Mills, Pioneer Mills and Kaleeswara (P) Mills. In the

Rangavilas Mills of which the Third Respondent is the

Manager, the Second Petitioner has got 85 votes out of

505. Regarding wage issue of Rangavilas Mills, CITU

having membership of 33 and INTUC having

membership of only 6 were called for negotiation.

However, the Second Petitioner having substantial

membership was not called for negotiation. When INTUC

and CITU were called for negotiation, the Management

of National Textile Mills ought not to have omitted the

Second Petitioner from negotiation. Based on the

negotiation with minority unions, the Management had

entered into a settlement under Section-18(1) of the ID

Act. Subsequently, this was taken for conversion as under

Section-12(3) of ID Act and this was done on 04.09.2012.

An award may be passed holding that the action of

National Textile Mills Management, Southern Region

in not inviting the Petitioner Unions for discussion in

respect of workers of Rangavilas G.S.&W Mills is

unjustified and consequently hold that the petitioners are

entitled to have their dispute for wage revision referred

and adjudicated.

The petitioners other than the Second Petitioner

did not file any Claim Statement.

The Respondents have filed Counter Statement

contending as follows :

The action of the Southern Regional Office of

National Textile Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore is the

subject matter of reference and therefore the Southern

Regional Office of the Corporation should alone be the

Respondent and not the mills constituting the Southern

Region. As far as the workmen of the mills functioning

under the control of Southern Regional Office of the NTC

Coimbatore are concerned, negotiation on wages,

allowances and other service conditions are dealt with

6686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

only on a common basis covering all the workmen in the

seven textile mills. It is illogical to make each of the

mills mentioned in the order of reference as separate

Respondent. Recognition of Trade Union as a bargaining

agent of the workmen of an establishment is not governed

by any statute in Tamil Nadu. Recognition of a Trade

Union is left to the discretion of the employer or the

management of the establishment. It is not permissible

for any union to claim recognition as a matter of right.

Merely because an Industrial Dispute is raised by a Trade

Union, the employer need not invite the union for

negotiation at bipartite level. In such case the option

available to the unrecognized union is to seek the

intervention of the conciliation machinery and if it fails,

to take the dispute for industrial adjudication. The issue

referred for adjudication is outside the purview of the ID

Act. The Respondents have been adhering to the

directions given by the Supreme Court and the High Court

regarding how the bargaining agent should be selected

for negotiation. The issue of wages, allowances and other

service conditions are uniformly the same for all the

textile mills. There is no question of each unit of 7

Regional Office of NTC being treated separately for

assessing the representative character of the Union. The

Unions cannot be invited for discussions based on the

membership in each textile mill coming under the control

of Southern Regional Office. The workmen employed in

the seven mills under NTC Southern Region constitute

one single body of workmen. The Management will deal

with only the Trade Union which secures the requisite

percentage of membership from among all the workmen

in the seven units in Tamil Nadu. The petitioners are not

entitled to any relief.

The Respondents have also filed an additional

Counter Statement as given below, in brief:

On 08.01.2009 a Long Term Settlement was made

on wages and other service conditions and this settlement

was to remain in force for 5 years commencing from

01.01.2008 to 31.12.2012. It was agreed during the tenure

of the settlement that they would not raise any demand

which would result in additional financial implication to

the Management. The question of recognized unions as

a bargaining agent was the subject matter of two Writ

Petitions before the High Court. As directed by the High

Court, elections for recognized Trade Unions was

conducted on 08.12.2010 and four unions were elected

and were declared as the recognized Trade Unions. Since

the petitioners were not declared as recognized unions,

the Respondent stopped deducting subscription from

them. This was challenged by a Writ Petition and the

writ was disposed directing the Respondent to continue

to deduct subscriptions and remit it to the Petitioner

Unions. On 15.06.2011 the Petitioner Unions made a

demand for increase in wages. Because of the currency

of the settlement dated 08.01.2009 and also because the

Petitioner Unions were not recognized, the Respondents

refused to countenance the demand of the Unions. It is

subsequently, the dispute has been raised.

The Second Petitioner has filed a rejoinder denying

the averments in the Counter Statement and also

reiterating the contentions in the Claim Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of WW1 and

documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W16 and Ext.M1

to Ext.M4.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of NTC Mill Management,

Southern Region, Coimbatore in not inviting

unrecognized unions for discussion of wage

revision is justifiable or not?

(ii)

What is the relief to which the petitioners are

entitled?

The Points

10.

Though the names of five Petitioners are shown in

the petition, only the Second Petitioner has filed Claim

statement. The relief sought in the Claim Statement is to

pass an award that the action of the National Textile Mills

Management, Southern Region in not inviting the

petitioners unions for discussion in respect of the issue

of workers of Sri Rangavilas G.S.&W Mills is unjustified

and also to hold that the petitioners are entitled to have

their dispute for wage revision referred and adjudicated.

The schedule of reference, as could be seen is, whether

the action of NTC Mill Management, Southern Region,

Coimbatore in not inviting unrecognized unions for

discussion of wage revision is justifiable or not. It could

be seen that, though as seen from the schedule of

reference, the grievance raised is against NTC Mill

Management, Southern Region, Coimbatore, this entity

is not a party to the Claim Statement and its name does

not find a place in the schedule of reference also. Again,

it could be seen from the prayer in the Claim Statement

that apart from the matter of reference by the Government

i.e. the issue of not inviting unrecognized unions for

discussion of wage revision, the Second Petitioner is also

claiming a relief of declaration that the petitioners are

entitled to have their dispute for wage revision referred

and adjudicated.

11.

Even though an additional Claim i.e. something

more than the subject matter of reference has been put

forth in the Claim Statement, during trial, the Second

Petitioner has confined its claim in the matter of not

inviting it for discussion of wage revision. At the time of

the argument the counsel for the Second Petitioner has

also stated that the Second Petitioner is confining its claim

against the Third Respondent only.

12.

According to the counsel for the petitioners the First

Petitioner has got 66 out of 505 votes and the Second

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6687

Petitioner has got 85 out of 505 votes in the election held

by way of secret ballot in Rangavilas Mills. This is more

than 10% which is required for recognition. According

to the counsel when these two petitioners have got votes

above 10% on election it was incumbent upon the

Third Respondent to invite them for a discussion on the

demands raised by them. The contention that is raised by

the Respondents is that negotiation on wages, allowances

and other service conditions are dealt with only on a

common basis covering all the workmen in the seven

textile mills coming under NTC, Southern Region. Each

unit of the NTC Southern Region cannot be treated

separately for assessing the representative character of

the Union and so they cannot be invited for discussion

based on membership in each textile mill coming under

the control of Southern Regional Office of NTC also.

13.

Ext.M1 is the order of the High Court of Madras

in Writ Petition Nos. 1440 and 1530 of 2010. In this

the High Court has directed the NTC to conduct election

in all the seven textile mills in Tamil Nadu for the purpose

of granting recognition to the unions. Ext.M2 is the result

of election conducted. Ext.M3 (series) are the letters of

recognition issued by NTC Ltd. to the four unions LPF,

NDLF, CITU and INTUC. Recognition seems to have

been given on the basis of the consolidated result of

election in all the mills. When such recognition was

given, the Second Petitioner as well as other petitioners

failed to get recognition. At the same time, the First and

Second Petitioner seem to have obtained more than 10%

votes in the particular unit i.e. in Sri Rangavilas Mills.

The claim is that because they have obtained votes above

10% they should have been called for negotiation on the

basis of the demands that were raised by them as per

Ext.W5. During the pendency of this dispute other Writ

Petitions were also filed before the High Court in the

matter of election of the unions. Ext.W16 is the order in

two contempt petitions filed by the High Court alleging

that though the direction in the previous Writ Petitions

was to recognize unions at unit level, this was not done

but declaration of the result was made only at the

centralized level. The Management submitted that the

mistake would be corrected and declaration of the result

could be produced. On the basis of this the contempt

petitions were posted for producing the declaration of

the result at unit level. The Election Officer later filed an

affidavit to the effect that the order has been complied

with. On the basis of this affidavit the contempt petitions

were closed on 25.02.2014. However, there were two more

Writ Petitions in the matter. On 26.03.2014 the Writ

Petitions were allowed and the earlier notification for

election was set aside. The National Textile Corporation

Ltd. and the Election Officer were directed to issue fresh

election notification to conduct election at unit level and

complete the election process within a period 6 weeks.

Any document regarding the conduct of the election

subsequently has not been produced.

14.

It has been pointed out by the counsel for the

Respondent that the petitioners have raised new demands

during the currency of a Bipartite Settlement. By the

existing settlement the petitioners have undertaken not

to raise any new demands with financial implications

during the currency of the same. According to the

Respondent’s counsel, for this reason and also because

the petitioners were not recognized unions, there was no

necessity to invite them for negotiations.

15.

It has been also pointed out by the counsel for the

Respondent that the issue that is referred has nothing to

do with the issue that has been raised. Ext.W5 is the

copy of the minutes of the joint action committee

meeting held on 04.06.2011 raising certain demands. In

Ext.W8 the reply submitted by the Management to the

Assistant Labour Commissioner, there is reference to

these demands. The number of the letter by the Asstt.

Labour Commissioner to the Management also is referred.

This number 8/82/2011 dated 28.07.2011 is what is

referred to in Ext.W10 the reply given by Sri Rangavilas

Mills to the Asstt. Labour Commissioner also. Ext.W11

is the rejoinder statement filed by the Unions before the

Asstt. Labour Commissioner in which also the same

number is referred to. This is the number given at the

bottom of the reference order as that of the letter of Asstt.

Labour Commissioner. So it is clear that the matter that

came up for consideration before the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner is the demand of wage revision and other

reliefs to the workers and not the issue of failure to invite

the unrecognized unions for discussion.

16.

In any case, can an issue of failure of an employer

to invite unrecognized union for discussion be a matter

for adjudication before this Tribunal? The stand of the

Respondent is that recognition of Trade Union as a

bargaining agent is the discretion of the employer of the

management of the establishment. The counsel for the

Respondent has referred to the observation of the Madras

High Court in the decision in POWER GRID NATIONAL

WORKERS UNION VS. POWER GRID CORPORATION

OF INDIA reported in 1998 3 LLN 399 where it is stated

that the agreement fixing the eligibility for participation

of Trade Unions in the proposed election is not governed

by any statute nor is the employer exercising any statutory

function with regard to the said subject and interference

under Article-226 of the constitution is not warranted in

view of this.

17.

The High Court did not state in the above decision

whether recognition of a Trade Union is an Industrial

Dispute or not. The counsel for the petitioner has referred

to a decision of the Kerala High Court supported by none

other than the eminent jurist Lord Jenning in this respect.

Lord Jenning has decided the case in 1960 in the

6688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 4, 2014/ASVINA 12, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

background that the union was not permitted to sponsor

the cause of its two members who were dismissed from

service by the employer. He has observed that when the

difference is connected with the employment, non-

employment, the terms of employment or with the

conditions of labour of any person it is an industrial

dispute. It was on the basis of such reasoning the dictum

was laid. In the Kerala decision in T.C.C. THOZHILALI

UNION VS. T.C.C. LTD. reported in 1988 1 LLJ 425,

relying upon the decision of Lord Jenning it has been

held that when the company refuses to recognize the union

as a representative of the union members who are in the

employment of the company, in the discussions and

negotiation relating to Long Term Settlement affecting

their terms of employment and conditions of labour the

dispute is an industrial dispute as defined in Section-2A

of the ID Act.

18.

It is on the basis of the above decision the counsel

for the petitioner has argued that the second petitioner

union should have been invited for negotiation since it is

having substantial number of workers and is having

representative capacity and is entitled to negotiate on

behalf of the workmen who are its members. However,

in the same decision, it has been held that recognition by

an employer of a Trade Union as a representative of its

members and as a bargaining agent is a matter of volition

on the part of the employer. A Trade Union has neither

common law right nor statutory right which enables and

entitles it to compel an employer to give recognition to it

as the bargaining agent of its members. Since it has no

such common law right a recognition dispute cannot be

said to be one emanating from and emerging out of any

right under the general common law. Thus it is clear that

it is the discretion of the employer to recognize the Trade

Union. So there cannot be an order directing the employer

to invite the union for negotiation. As pointed out on

behalf of the Respondent, the unions were to seek

intervention of the conciliation machinery on their

demands rather than making a demand for invitation for

negotiation. I find that the petitioners are not entitled to

any relief. The reference is answered against the

petitioners.

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 18^th September, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/

WW1, Sri S.

Petitioner Union

Doraisamy

For the 2^nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

05.09.1969

Settlement entered into

between the Managements of

Textile Mills in Coimbatore

and various unions

Ex.W2

09.03.1972

Settlement entered into

between the Managements of

Textile Mills in Coimbatore

and various unions

Ex.W3

30.05.1972

Proceedings

the

Commissioner of Labour,

Madras

Ex.W4

12.03.1993

Settlement entered into

between the Management of

Sri Rangavilas Mills and

various unions including the

Petitioner Union

Ex.W5

04.06.2011

Resolution passed by the

Kovai Periyar District Textiles

Mill Works Committee Joint

Action Committee

Ex.W6

14.06.2011

Order of the Honourable High

Court of Madras in Writ

Petition No. 6334 of 2011

Ex.W7

15.06.2011

Petition submitted by the

Petitioner Unions to the

Assistant Commissioner of

Labour (Central) Madurai

raising the Management and

National Textile Corporation

Mills with the Charter of

Demands submitted by the

Petitioner Union to the

Management

Ex.W8

24.08.2011

Reply submitted by the

Management of National

Textile Corporation to the

Assistant Commissioner of

Labour (Central) Madurai

Ex.W9

12.09.2011

Reply submitted by the

Management of Pankaja Mills

before

the

Assistant

Commissioner of Labour

(Central) Madurai

Ex.W10 13.09.2011

Reply submitted by the

Management of Sri Rangavilas

G.S. & W. Mills before the

Assistant Commissioner of

Labour (Central) Madurai

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 4] 2014@vkf'ou 12] 1936

6689

Ex.W11 12.10.2011

Rejoinder Statement filed by

the Petitioners Union before

the Assistant Commissioner of

Labour (Central), Madurai

Ex.W12 09.08.2012

Letter of objections given by

the Petitioner Union and the

other unions to the Assistant

Commissioner of Labour

(Central), Madurai (Camp

Coimbatore)

Ex.W13 09.08.2012

Petition

given

the

Petitioner Union and other

unions to the Assistant

Commissioner of Labour

(Central), Madurai

Ex.W14 15.08.2012

Settlement entered into

between the management of

Sri Rangavilas Mills and the

LPF Union and INTUC Union

under Section 18(1) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Ex.W15 04.09.2012

Settlement entered into under

Section 12(3) of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 between the

Management of Sri Rangavilas

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.

Mills and LPF Union and

INTUC

Ex.W16 08.10.2013

Order of the Honourable

Madras High Court in

Contempt Petition No. 1571 of

2010 and 155 of 2011

On the Management’s side Description

Ex.M1

02.09.2010

Order of Hon’ble High Court

of Madras in WP 1440 and

1530 of 2010 in MP. No. 1 &

2 of 2010

Ex.M2

19.12.2010

Result of election conducted

for selection of representatives

for the workmen of NTC Mills

in Tamil Nadu

Ex.M3

19.12.2010

Letter of recognition issued by

NTC Ltd. (Southern/Regional

Office to each of the 4 Unions

(LPF), (NDLF), (CITU) &

(INTUC)

Ex.M4

08.01.2009

Settlement under Section

18(1)