foÙk ea=kky;
(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2672-—jk"Vªh;Ñr cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ micaèk)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr
cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e]
1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk 3 ds [kaM ([k) }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] uhps nh xbZ
lkj.kh ds dkye (2) esa fofu£n"V O;fDr;ksa dks mDr lkj.kh ds
dkye (3) esa fofu£n"V O;fDr;ksa ds LFkku ij dkye (1) esa
fofu£n"V cSadksa esa ljdkj }kjk ukfer funs'kd ds :i esa rRdky
izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'k gksus rd] ukfer djrh gS %
(1)
(2)
(3)
1-
vksfj;aVy cSad
Jh jktu oqQekj]
Jh jtr lPpj
vkWiQ dkelZ
vk£Fkd lykgdkj]
foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx
2-
fot;k cSad
Jh lat; oqQekj]
Jh oh- osQ- pksiM+k
mi lfpo]
foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx
¹iQk- la- 6@3@2012&chvks&Iº
fefgj oqQekj] funs'kd
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2014
S.O.
2672.—In exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of
The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,
hereby nominate the persons specified in column (2) of
the table below as Government Nominee Director of the
Banks specified in column (1) thereof, in place of the
persons specified in column (3) of the said Table, with
immediate effect and until further orders :—
(1)
(2)
(3)
1. Oriental Bank
Shri Rajan Kumar,
Shri Rajat Sachar
of Commerce
Economic Adviser,
Department of
Financial Services
2. Vijaya Bank
Shri Sanjay Kumar,
Shri V.K. Chopra
Deputy Secretary,
Department of
Financial Services
[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]
MIHIR KUMAR, Director
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- 41]
ubZ fnYyh, vDrwcj 5] 2014—vDrwcj 11] 2014] 'kfuokj@vkf'ou 13—vkf'ou 19] 1936
No. 41]
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 5, 2014—OCTOBER 11, 2014, SATURDAY/ASVINA 13—ASVINA 19, 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)
3906 GI/2014
(6691)
6692
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 17 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2673-—jk"Vªh; Ñf"k vkSj xzkeh.k fodkl cSad
vfèkfu;e] 1981 (1981 dk 61) dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds
[k.M (x) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj]
Hkkjrh; fj”koZ cSad ls ijke'kZ djds] ,rn~}kjk] Jh ufpdsr eksj]
funs'kd] Hkkjrh; fj”koZ cSad dks vf/lwpuk dh rkjh[k ls vkSj
vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] Jherh 'kf'k vkj- jktxksikyu
ds LFkku ij jk"Vªh; Ñf"k vkSj xzkeh.k fodkl cSad (ukckMZ) ds
funs'kd e.My esa va'kdkfyd funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 7@3@2014&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 17th September, 2014
S.O.
2673.—In exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the National
Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981
(61 of 1981), the Central Government, in consultation
with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominates
Dr. Nachiket Mor, Director, Reserve Bank of India as part
time Director on the Board of Directors of National Bank
for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), from
the date of notification and until further orders whichever
is earlier vice Smt. Shashi R. Rajagopalan.
[F. No. 7/3/2014-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 18 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2674-—jk"Vªh;Ñr cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ micaèk)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 9 ds mi&[kaM (1) vkSj (2) ds lkFk
ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e]
1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk 3 ds [kaM (p) }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ls
ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ,rn~}kjk] cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds ofj"B
izcaèkd Jh gjfoUnj ¯lg (tUe frfFk 28&4&1957) dks mudh
iqu£u;qfDr dh vf/lwpuk dh rkjh[k ls fnukad 30&4&2017 rd]
vFkkZr~ tc os vf/o£"krk dh vk;q izkIr djsaxs vFkok tc rd os
cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds vf/dkjh ds :i esa viuk inHkkj ugha NksM+
nsrs vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks] cSad vkiQ
bafM;k ds funs'kd e.My esa vf/dkjh deZpkjh funs'kd iqu£u;qDr
djrh gSA
¹iQk- la- 6@52@2013&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 18th September, 2014
S.O.
2674.—In exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (f) of sub-section 3 of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) & (2) of clause 9
of The Nationalized Banks (Management and
Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central
Government after consultation with the Reserve Bank of
India, hereby re-appoints Shri Harvinder Singh (DoB :
28.04.1957), Senior Manager, Bank of India, as Officer
Employee Director on the Board of Directors of Bank of
India, for a period upto 30.04.2017 i.e. the date of his attaining
the age of superannuation, from the date of notification of
his re-appointment or until he ceases to be an officer of the
Bank of India, or until further orders, whichever is the
earliest.
[F. No. 6/52/2013-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2675-—fu{ksi chek vkSj izR;; xkjaVh vf/fu;e]
1961 (1961 dk 47) dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk 2 ds [kaM (ii) ds
lkFk ifBr /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (?k) }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ls
ijke'kZ djds] ,rn~}kjk] Jh jktkjeu jkepUnzu dks mudh vfèklwpuk
dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa
rd] tks Hkh igys gks] fu{ksi chek vkSj izR;; xkjaVh fuxe
(MhvkbZlhthlh) ds funs'kd eaMy esa va'kdkfyd xSj&ljdkjh
funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 6@13@2012&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2014
S.O.
2675.—In exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 read with
clause (ii) of sub-section 2 of Section 6 of the Deposit
Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47
of 1961), the Central Government, in consultation with
Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominates Shri Rajaraman
Ramachandran as Part Time Non Official Director on the
Board of Directors of Deposit Insurance and Credit
Guarantee Corporation (DICGC), for a period of three
years from the date of his notification, or until further
orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 6/13/2012-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2676-—jk"Vªh;Ñr cSad (izca/ vkSj izdh.kZ micaèk)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 9 ds mi&[kaM (1) vkSj (2) ds lkFk
ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu vkSj varj.k) vfèkfu;e]
1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3) ds [kaM (p) }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ls
ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ,rn~}kjk] Jh izse oqQekj eDdM+ (tUe
frfFk 12&03&1961)] ofj"B izca/d] cSad vkWiQ cM+kSnk dks mudh
fu;qfDr dh vf/lwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy,
vFkok cSad vkWiQ cM+kSnk esa muds vf/dkjh ds in ij cus jgus rd
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6693
vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks] cSad vkWiQ
cM+kSnk ds funs'kd e.My esa vf/dkjh deZpkjh funs'kd fu;qDr
djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 6@51@2013&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2014
S.O.
2676.—In exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (f) of sub-section 3 of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) and (2) of clause 9
of The Nationalized Banks (Management and
Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central
Government after consultation with the Reserve Bank of
India, hereby appoints Shri Prem Kumar Makkar (DoB :
12.03.1961), Senior Manager, Bank of Baroda, as Officer
Employee Director on the Board of Directors of Bank of
Baroda, for a period of three years, from the date of
notification of his appointment or until he ceases to be an
officer of the Bank of Baroda, or until further orders,
whichever is the earliest.
[F. No. 6/51/2013-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2677-—jk"Vªh;Ñr cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ micaèk)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 9 ds mi&[kaM (1) vkSj (2) ds lkFk
ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e]
1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3) ds [kaM (M+) }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh cafde
vkj- nslkkbZ (tUe frfFk % 15&06&1960)] ¯lxy ¯oMks vkijsVj
^ch*] nsuk cSad dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vf/lwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu
o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok nsuk cSad esa muds deZdkj deZpkjh
ds in ij cus jgus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh
igys gks] nsuk cSad ds funs'kd e.My esa deZdkj&deZpkjh funs'kd
fu;qDr djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 6@6@2014&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2014
S.O.
2677.—In exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (e) of Sub-section 3 of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with Sub-clause (1) and (2) of Clause 9
of The Nationalised Banks (Management and
Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central
Government hereby appoints Shri Bankim R. Desai (Date
of Birth : 15.06.1960), Single Window Operator ‘B’, Dena
Bank as Workmen Employee Director on the Board of
Directors of Dena Bank for a period of three years from the
date of notification of his appointment or until he ceases to
be a Workmen Employee of Dena Bank or until further
orders, whichever is the earliest.
[F. No. 6/6/2014-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
vkns'k
ubZ fnYyh] 22 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2678-—jk"Vªh;Ñr cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ micaèk)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM (1d) }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh lq/hj
oqQekj tSu] vè;{k ,oa izca/ funs'kd] ¯lfMdsV cSad ds dk;Zdky
dks rRdky izHkko ls rFkk bl funs'k ds lkFk lekIr djrh gS fd
uksfVl ds cnys rhu ekg ds osru ,oa HkÙkksa dks iznku djus ij rHkh
fopkj fd;k tk,xk tc mUgsa nks"keqDr fd;k tk,xk A
¹iQk- la- 1@10@2012&lrdZrk (Hkkx&1)º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
ORDER
New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2014
S.O.
2678.—In exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-clause (1A) of Clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks
(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme
1970/1980, the Central Government hereby terminates
the term of office of Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain as CMD,
Syndicate Bank with immediate effect and with the
direction that grant of three months’ salary and allowances
in lieu of the notice may be considered only if he is
exonerated.
[F. No. 1/10/2012/Vig. (Part-1)]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2679-—jk"Vªh;Ñr cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ micaèk)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr
cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e]
1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk 3 ds [kaM ([k) }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh ,l-
vkj- esgj] mi lfpo] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx dks rRdky izHkko ls
vkSj vxys vkns'kksa rd] Jh ,e- ,e- nkSyk ds LFkku ij iatkc ,aM
¯l/ cSad ds funs'kd e.My esa ljdkj }kjk ukfer funs'kd ukfer
djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 6@3@2012&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014
S.O.
2679.—In exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (b) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of
The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,
hereby nominates Shri S.R.Mehar, Deputy Secretary,
Department of Financial Services, as Government
Nominee Director on the Board of Directors of Punjab and
Sind Bank with immediate effect and until further orders
vice Shri M.M.Dawla.
[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
6694
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2680-—dkS'ky fodkl Í.k xkjaVh dks"k dh LFkkiuk
ds fy, eaf=keaMy ds vuqeksnu (ekeyk la- 364) ds vuqlj.k esa
;g foHkkx] fuf/ ds O;oLFkkid ds :i esa ,rn~}kjk] eq[; dk;Zikyd
vf/dkjh] us'kuy ØsfMV xkjaVh VªLVh daiuh fyfeVsM dks fuf/
izca/u lfefr ds lnL; ds :i esa fu;qDr djrk gS A
¹iQk- la- 1@12@2011&vkbZ,iQ&IIº
mn; Hkku ¯lg] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2014
S.O.
2680.—Pursuant to the Cabinet approval
(case No. 364) for establishment of a Credit Guarantee Fund
for Skill Development, this Department as a settler of the
Fund hereby appoints Chief Executive Officer, National
Credit Guarantee Trustee Company Limited as Member
Secretary in the Management Committee of the Fund.
[F. No. 1/12/2011-IF-II]
UDAI BHAN SINGH, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2681-—isa'ku fuf/ fofu;ked vkSj fodkl
izkfèkdj.k vf/fu;e] 2013 (2013 dk 23) dh /kjk 4 }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh gseUr
th- dkUVsªDVj dks inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls ikap o"kZ dh
vofèk ds fy, vFkok 65 o"kZ dh vk;q iwjh gksus rd vFkok vxys
vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks] vkokl vkSj dkj dh lqfo/
k ds fcuk 4-50 yk[k #i, izfr ekg (lesfdr) ds osru esa isa'ku
fuf/ fofu;ked vkSj fodkl izkf/dj.k (ih,iQvkjMh,) ds vè;{k
ds in ij fu;qDr djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 1@3@2013&ihvkjº
,ukW jk;] funs'kd (lrdZrk ,oa ihvkj)
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2014
S.O.
2681.—In exercise of powers conferred by
Section 4 of the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development
Authority Act, 2013 (23 of 2013), the Central Government
hereby appoints Shri Hemant G. Contractor as Chairman of
the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority
(PFRDA) for a period of five years with effect from the date
of assumption of charge of the post, or till attaining the age
of 65 years or until further orders, whichever is earliest, in
the scale of pay of Rs. 4.50 lakh per month (consolidated),
without facility of house and car.
[F. No. 1/3/2013-PR]
ANNA ROY, Director (Vig. & PR)
(O;; foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 8 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2682-—Hkfo"; fuf/ vf/fu;e] 1925 (1925
dk 19) ds [kaM 8 ds mi [kaM (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk ;g funs'k nsrh gS fd mDr vfèkfu;e
([kaM 6d dks NksM+dj) ds izko/ku dsUnzh; gksfe;ksiSFkh ifj"kn~ ds
deZpkfj;ksa ds fgr ds fy, LFkkfir Hkfo"; fuf/ ij ykxw gksaxs A
¹iQk- la- 4(1)&bZoh@2009º
fot; oqQekj ¯lg] funs'kd
(Department of Expenditure)
New Delhi, the 8th October, 2014
S.O.
2682.—In exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Provident Funds Act,
1925 (19 of 1925), the Central Government hereby directs
that the provisions of the said Act (except Section 6A)
shall apply to the Provident Fund established for the benefit
of the employees of the Central Council of Homeopathy.
[F. No. 4(1)-EV/2009]
VIJAY KUMAR SINGH, Director
ubZ fnYyh] 8 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2683-—Hkfo"; fuf/ vf/fu;e] 1925 (1925 dk
19) ds [kaM 8 ds mi [kaM (3) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq, dsUnz ljdkj] bl vf/lwpuk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls
fuEufyf[kr yksd laLFkku dks ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph
esa la;ksftr djrh gS %µ
¶dsUæh; gksfe;ksiSFkh ifj"kn¸
¹iQk- la- 4(1)&bZoh@2009º
fot; oqQekj ¯lg] funs'kd
New Delhi, the 8th October, 2014
S.O.
2683.—In exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Provident Funds Act,
1925 (19 of 1925), the Central Government hereby adds to
the Schedule to the said Act with effect from the date of
publication of the notification, the name of the following
public institution, namely:—
“Central Council of Homeopathy”
[F. No. 4(1)-EV/2009]
VIJAY KUMAR SINGH, Director
lapkj vkSj lwpuk çkS|ksfxd ea=kky;
(nwjlapkj foHkkx)
(jktHkk"kk vuqHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 7 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2684-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx fu;e] 1976 (;Fkk la'kksf/r] 1987] 2007
rFkk 2011) ds fu;e 10(4) ds vuqlj.k esa (d) eq[; egkizcaèkd
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6695
nwjlapkj] jktLFkku nwjlapkj ifjeaMy ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k ds
varxZr nwjlapkj ftyk izca/d dk;kZy;] cwanh ([k) eq[; egkizcaèkd
dk;kZy;] dsjy nwjlapkj ifjeaMy ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k ds varxZr
egkizca/d dk;kZy;] eYyiqje rFkk (x) eq[; egkizca/d dk;kZy;]
iatkc nwjlapkj ifjeaMy ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k ds varxZr egkizca/
d nwjlapkj dk;kZy;] c¯BMk] ftuesa 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa
us ¯gnh dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr
djrh gS A
2- ;g vf/lwpuk jkti=k esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls ykxw
gksxh A
¹la- bZ&11016@01@2009&jktHkk"kkº
,l-lh- 'kekZ] mi egkfuns'kd
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
(Department of Telecommunications)
(O.L. SECTION)
New Delhi, the 7th October, 2014
S.O.
2684.— In pursuance of rule 10(4) of the
Official Languages (use for official purpose of the Union)
Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the (a)
Office of the Telecom District Manager, Boondi under
administrative control of the Office of the Chief General
Manager Telecom, Rajasthan Telecom Circle (b) Office
of the General Manager, Malappuram under
administrative control of the Office of the Chief General
Manager Telecom, Kerala Telecom Circle and (c) Office
of the General Manager, Telecom office, Bhatinda under
the administrative control of the Chief General Managar,
Punjab Telecom Circle, where more than 80% staff have
acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
2.
This notification shall come into force from the date
of its publication in the Official Gazette.
[No. E-11016/1/2009-O.L.]
S.C. SHARMA, Dy. Director General
lkaf[;dh vkSj dk;ZØe dk;kZUo;u ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 18 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2685-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 (;Fkk la'kksf/r] 1987) ds
fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa] lkaf[;dh vkSj
dk;ZØe dk;kZUo;u ea=kky; ds v/hu {ks=k ladk;Z izHkkx] jk"Vªh;
izfrn'kZ losZ{k.k dk;kZy; ds fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa] ftlds
80 izfr'kr deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k
gS] dks Hkkjr ds jkti=k esa vf/lwfpr djrh gS %µ
1-
mi&{ks=kh; dk;kZy;] iQrsgiqj
2-
mi&{ks=kh; dk;kZy;] >kalh
3-
mi&{ks=kh; dk;kZy;] xksaMk
4-
mi&{ks=kh; dk;kZy;] dkuiqj
¹la- bZ&11011@2@2006&¯gnhº
nsosUnz oekZ] mi egkfuns'kd
MINISTRY OF STATISTICS AND PROGRAMME
IMPLEMENTATION
New Delhi, the 18th September, 2014
S.O.
2685.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule
10 of the Official Language (use for official purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended - 1987), the Central
Government hereby notify the following offices of Field
Operation Division, National Sample Survey Office under
the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation
in the Gazette of India where 80 percent of the staff has
acquired the working knowledge of IIindi :-
1.
Sub Regional Office, Fatehpur
2.
Sub Regional Office, Jhansi
3.
Sub Regional Office, Gonda
4.
Sub Regional Office. Kanpur
[No. E-11011/2/2006-Hindi]
DEVENDRA VERMA, Dy. Director General
miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky;
(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)
(Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks)
ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2686-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os LohÑr dj fn, x, gSa %µ
vuqlwph
Ø- ykblsal
LohÑfr djus dh
ykblsal/kjh dk uke ,oa irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
Hkkek la-@Hkkx@[k.M@o"kZ
la- la[;k
frfFk o"kZ@ekg
1- 2884680
02&05&2014
,lksfl,VsM dscYl izk-fy-
dkl¯yDM ikWyhfFkyhu fo|qrjks/h
Hkk ek 7098%Hkkx 1%1988
lh&9 ,evk;Mhlh] [ksjMh]
ihohlh vkofjr dscy Hkkx 1]
rkyqdk % fpiyqu
1100 oks-rd ,oa lfgr dk;Zdkjh
ftyk % jRukfxjh&415604
oksYVrk gsrq
6696
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2- 2884882
09&05&2014
fo'othr ykseVs
,lh ikoj ra=kks ds fy, Lor% Bhd
Hkk ek 13585%Hkkx 1%1994
IykWV la- ch&40] flUuj
gksus okys 650 oksYV rd dh jsVhr
,evk;Mhlh] ekysxkao
oksYVrk ds fy, ikoj la/kfj=k
ftyk ukfld]
egkjk"Vª&422103
3- 2888587
09&05&2014
izslhlu bysDVªhdYl
bysDVªkWfud Vkbi ia[kk jsxqysVj
Hkk ek 11037%1984
xkyk la- 3 ,oa 4]
pkS/jh bUVjus'kuy b.M- bLVsV
foyst uo?kj] olbZ iwoZ
ftyk % Fkkus 401202
4- 2888284
20&05&2014
,l ,l ikWyhelZ
fo|qr laLFkkiuksa ds fy, ufydk,a
Hkk ek 9537%Hkkx 3%1983
IykWV la- th&7]
Hkkx 3 fo|qrjks/h lkexzh ds n`<`lkns
vks-vk-Mh-lh- b.M- bLVsV
bLikr ufydk,a
m|ksx uxj] ¯jxu okMk]
neu&396210
5- 2888789
21&05&2014
LVjykbZV VsDuksykWtht fy-
f'kjksifj izs"k.k iz;kstuksa ds fy,
Hkk ek 398%Hkkx 1%1996
losZ la- 209] isQl 2]
,Y;wfefu;e pkyd&Hkkx&1]
fiifj;k b.M- bLVsV]
,Y;wfefu;e yMnkj pkyd
flyoklk] ftyk nknjk vkSj
uxj gosyh&396 230
6- 2889185
23&05&2014
Xykscy dscYl
1100 oks rd ,oa lfgr dk;Zdkjh
Hkk ek 694%1990
Ñ".kk b.M- bLVsV]
oksYVrk ds fy, ih oh lh jksf/r
isQt II] ch fc¯YMx]
dscy
;wfuV la- 101@102@103
Øe la- 906@2]
foyst % veyh
flyoklk&396230]
nknjk uxj gosyh
7- 2889892
29&05&2014
ikWyhdWc ok;j izk- fy-
f'kjksifj izs"k.k iz;kstuksa ds fy,
Hkk ek 398%Hkkx 4%1996
78&82] flyoj b.M- bLVsV]
,Y;wfefu;e pkyd&4] ,Y;wfefu;e
Hkheiksj] neu&396210
feJ/krq ds yMnkj pkyd]
(,Y;wfefu;e eSXuhf'k;e flyhdkWu
VkbZi)
8- 2889993
29&05&2014
fn lqizhe b.MLVªht fy-]
vIySfLVfdr ikWyhfouk;y DyksjkbM
Hkk ek 14182%1994
;wfuV la- 3] xV la- 47] 47@2]
IykfLVd ikbZiksa vkSj fiQ¯VXl esa
48&50] 55&56] 69] 70]
mi;ksx ds fy, foyk;d flesaV
72 ,oa 73 tyxkao&xMsxkao]
rkyqdk&teusj]
ftyk % tyxkao&425114
9- 2891778
29&05&2014
fot; lczs lsiQVh izk- fy-]
'okl laj{kd midj.k vk/s psgjs dks
Hkk ek 14746 % 1999
;wfuV 1] IykWV la- 11]
<dus ds eq[kkSVs rFkk dsoy ukd vkSj
losZ la- 46@,yih]
eqag dks <dus ds eq[kkSVs
neu xaxk b.M- bLVsV]
vFky] flyoklk&fHkykM jksM]
flyoklk&396230
ftyk % nknjk ,oa uxj gosyh
¹la- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11º
Vh- dySok.ku] izeq[k (,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ)
Ø- ykblsal
LohÑfr djus dh ykblsal/kjh dk uke ,oa irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
Hkkek la-@Hkkx@[k.M@o"kZ
la- la[;k
frfFk o"kZ@ekg
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6697
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2014
S.O.
2686.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in
the following schedule :
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence
Grant
Name and address
Product
IS No./Part/Sec Year
No.
No.
Date
(factory) of the party
1
2884680
02/05/2014 Associated Cables Pvt. Ltd.
Crosslinked Polyethylene Insulated
IS 7098:Part 1:1988
C-9, MIDC, Kherdi,
PVC Sheathed Cables: Part I for
Tal. Chiplun,
working valtage upto and including
Distt. : Ratnagiri-415604
1100V
2
2884882
09/05/2014 Vishwajeet Lomte
Shunt Capacitors of Non self healing IS 13585:Part 1:1994
Plot No. B-40, Sinanr,
type for AC Power systems having a
MIDC, Malegaon,
rated voltage upto and including
Distt. : Nashik
650 V
Maharashtra-422103
3
2888587
09/05/2014 Precision Electriclas
Electronic Type Fan
IS 11037:1984
Gala No. 3&4,
Choudhary International
Industrial Estate Village
Navghar, vasai (E),
Distt. : Thane-401202
4
2888284
20/05/2014 S.S. Polymers
Conduits for Electricals Installa-
IS 9537:Part 3:1983
Plot No. G-7,
tions: part 3 Rigid Plain conduits
OIDC Industrial Estate,
of insulating materials (superseding
Udyog Nagar, Ringanwada, IS:2509)
Daman-396230
Daman & Diu
5
2888789
21/05/2014 Sterlite Technologies Ltd.
Aluminium conductors for overhead
IS 398:part 1:1996
Survey No. 209, Phase II,
Transmission Purposes: Part I
Piparia Indl. Estate,
Aluminium stranded conductors
Silvassa-396230
Distt. : Dadra and
Nagar Haveli,
6
2889185
23/05/2014 Global Cables
PVC Insulated Cables for working
IS 694:1990
Krishna Indl. Estate,
Voltages upto and including 1100 V
Phase II, B-Building,
IS 694:1990
Unit No. 101/102/103,
S.No. 906/2, Village Amli,
Silvassa-396230,
Dadra and Nagar Haveli
7
2889892
29/05/2014 Polycab Wires Pvt. Ltd.
Aluminium Conductors for overhead
IS 398:Part 4:1994
78-82, silver Indl. Estate,
Transmission Puposes:Parts 4
Bhimpore, Daman-396210
Aluminium Alloy Stranded conductors
(Aluminium magnesium Silicon type)
6698
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8
2889993
29/05/2014
The Supreme Industries
Solveni Cement for use with
IS 14182:1994
Ltd., Unit No. 3 Gat No. 47,
Unplasticized Ployvinylchloride
47/2, 48-50,55-66, 69,70,72 Plastic Pipe and Fittings
and 73, Jalgaon-Aurangabad
State Highway, At post :
Gadegaon, Tal : Jamner,
Distt. : Jalgaon-425114
9
2891778
29/05/2014
Vijay Sabre Safety Pvt. Ltd.,
Respiratory Protective Devices-
IS 14746:1999
Unit I Plot No. 11,
Half Masks and Quarter Masks-
Survey No. 46/LP,
Specification
Daman Ganga Indl. Estate,
Athal, Silvassa-Bhilad Road,
Silvassa-396230,
Distt.:Dadra and Nagar Haveli
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANANA, Head (MUBO-EEE)
ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2687-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mifofu;e (6) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud
C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gS] os jí dj fn, x, gSa %µ
vuqlwph
Ø-
ykblsal
ykblsal/kjh dk uke ,oa irk
ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izde lEc¼
jí djus dh frfFk
la[;k
la[;k
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
oqQN ugha
¹la- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%13º
Vh- dySok.ku] izeq[k (,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ)
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2014
S.O.
2687.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in
the following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence
Name and address of the licensee
Article/Process with relevant Indian
Date of
No.
No.
standard covered by the Licence
cancellation
NIL
[No. CMD/13:13]
T. KALAIVANANA, Head (MUBO-EEE)
Sl.
Licence
Grant
Name and address
Product
IS No./Part/Sec Year
No.
No.
Date
(factory) of the party
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6699
Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYYkh] 29 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2688-—dsUæh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek
vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr
èkkjk 88 n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~}kjk psUubZ
isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM 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 ds 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 fujh{kd ;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
;Fkkvisf{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 mica/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha micaèkksa
dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k Fkk ;k 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
fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kjh vko';d le>rk
gS_ vFkok
([k) ,sls iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds
vfèkHkksxk/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 lacafèkr
,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls
fujh{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[kkus] LFkkiuk]
dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa ik;k tk,]
;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k gS
fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k
(?k) ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;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- ,l&38014@13@2014&,l,l&I]
lqHkk"k oqQekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2014
S.O. 2688.—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 Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited
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.
2. The above exemption is subject to the following
conditions namely :—
6700
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
The aforesaid establishments wherein the
employees are employed shall maintain a register
showing the name and designations of the
exempted employees’;
(2)
Not withstanding this exemption, the employees
shall continue to receive such benefits under the
said Act to which they might have become
entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid
prior to the date from which exemption granted
by this notification operates;
(3)
The contributions for the exempted period, if
already paid, shall not be refundable;
(4)
The employer of the said factory/establishment
shall submit in respect of the period during which
that factory was subject to the operation of the
said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),
such returns in such forms and containing such
particulars as were due from it in respect of the
said period under the Employees’ State Insurance
(General) Regulations, 1950;
(5)
Any Social Security Officer appointed by the
Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45
of the said ESI Act or other official of the
Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,
for the purpose of :-
(i)
Verifying the particulars contained in any
returned submitted under sub-section (1) of
Section 44 for the said period; or
(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records
were maintained as required by the
Employees’ State Insurance (General)
Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or
(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees
continue to be entitled to benefits provided
by the employer in cash and kind being
benefits in consideration of which exemption
is being granted under this notification; or
(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions
of the Act had been complied with during
the period when such provisions were in
force in relation to the said factory to be
empowered to :
(a) require the principal or immediate
employer to him such information as
he may consider necessary for the
purpose of this Act; or
(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,
establishment, office or other premises
occupied by such principal or
immediate employer at any reasonable
time and require any person found in
charge thereof to produce to such
inspector or other official and allow him
to examine accounts, books and other
documents relating to the employment
of personal and payment of wages or to
furnish to him such information as he
may consider necessary; or
(c) examine the principal or immediate
employer, his agent or servant, or any
person found in such factory,
establishment, office or other premises
or any person whom the said inspector
or other official has reasonable cause
to believe to have been an employee ;
or
(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-38014/13/2014-SS-I]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYYkh] 30 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2689-—dsUæh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek
vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr
èkkjk 88 n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~}kjk lsUVªy
flYd cksMZ] caxyksj ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa
dks bl vf/fu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g NwV] bl
vf/lwpuk tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy,
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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6701
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 fujh{kd ;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
;Fkkvisf{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 mica/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha micaèkksa
dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k Fkk ;k 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
fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kjh vko';d le>rk
gS_ vFkok
([k) ,sls iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds
vfèkHkksxk/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 lacafèkr
,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls
fujh{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
vfHkdrZk ;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh
O;fDr dks] tks ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk]
dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa ik;k tk,]
;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k gS
fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k
(?k) ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;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- ,l&38014@14@2014&,l,l&I]
lqHkk"k oqQekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2014
S.O. 2689.—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 Central Silk Board, Bangalore 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.
2. The above exemption is subject to the following
conditions namely :—
(1)
The aforesaid establishments wherein the
employees are employed shall maintain a register
showing the name and designations of the
exempted employees’;
(2)
Not withstanding this exemption, the employees
shall continue to receive such benefits under the
said Act to which they might have become entitled
to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to
the date from which exemption granted by this
notification operates;
(3)
The contributions for the exempted period, if
already paid, shall not be refundable;
(4)
The employer of the said factory/establishment
shall submit in respect of the period during which
that factory was subject to the operation of the
said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),
such returns in such forms and containing such
particulars as were due from it in respect of the
said period under the Employees’ State Insurance
(General) Regulations, 1950;
(5)
Any Social Security Officer appointed by the
Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45
of the said ESI Act or other official of the
Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,
for the purpose of :-
(i)
Verifying the particulars contained in any
returned submitted under sub-section (1) of
Section 44 for the said period; or
6702
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(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
(c) examine the principal or immediate
employer, his agent or servant, or any
person found in such factory,
establishment, office or other premises
or any person whom the said inspector
or other official has reasonable cause
to believe to have been an employee ;
or
(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-38014/14/2014-SS-I]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYYkh] 30 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2690-—dsUæh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek
vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr
èkkjk 88 n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~}kjk bLdks
LVhy IykaV vkWiQ lsy] cuZiqj] if'pe caxky ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa
ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/fu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku
djrh gSA ;g NwV] 01-10-2014 ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, 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 fujh{kd ;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
;Fkkvisf{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 mica/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha micaèkksa
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6703
dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k Fkk ;k 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 vfèkfu;e
ds iz;kstukFkZ vko';d le>rk gS_ vFkok
([k) ,sls iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds
vfèkHkksxk/hu] fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk]
dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh
mfpr le; ij izos'k djuk vkSj mlds
izHkkjh ls vis{kk djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa
ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds lank; ls lacafèkr
,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls
fujh{kd ;k vU; 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[kkus] LFkkiuk]
dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa ik;k tk,]
;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k gS
fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k
(?k) ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU;
ifjlj esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk]
cgh ;k vU; nLrkost dh udy rS;kj
djuk ;k m¼j.k ysuk_
(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- ,l&38014@27@2013&,l,l&I]
lqHkk"k oqQekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2014
S.O. 2690.—In exercise of the power conferred by
Section 88 read with Section 91A of the Employees’ State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/
establishments of IISCO Steel Plant of Sail, Burnpur (West
Bengal) from the operation of the said Act. The exemption
shall be effective w.e.f. 01-10-2014 for a period of one
year.
2. The above exemption is subject to the following
conditions namely :—
(1)
The aforesaid establishments wherein the
employees are employed shall maintain a register
showing the name and designations of the
exempted employees’;
(2)
Not withstanding this exemption, the employees
shall continue to receive such benefits under the
said Act to which they might have become
entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid
prior to the date from which exemption granted
by this notification operates;
(3)
The contributions for the exempted period, if
already paid, shall not be refundable;
(4)
The employer of the said factory/establishment
shall submit in respect of the period during which
that factory was subject to the operation of the
said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),
such returns in such forms and containing such
particulars as were due from it in respect of the
said period under the Employees’ State Insurance
(General) Regulations, 1950;
(5)
Any Social Security Officer appointed by the
Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45
of the said ESI Act or other official of the
Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,
for the purpose of :-
(i)
Verifying the particulars contained in any
returned submitted under sub-section (1) of
Section 44 for the said period; or
(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records
were maintained as required by the
Employees’ State Insurance (General)
Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or
(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees
continue to be entitled to benefits provided
by the employer in cash and kind being
benefits in consideration of which exemption
is being granted under this notification; or
(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions
of the Act had been complied with during
the period when such provisions were in
force in relation to the said factory to be
empowered to :
(a) require the principal or immediate
employer to him such information as
he may consider necessary for the
purpose of this Act; or
(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,
establishment, office or other premises
occupied by such principal or
immediate employer at any reasonable
time and require any person found in
charge thereof to produce to such
inspector or other official and allow him
to examine accounts, books and other
documents relating to the employment
of personal and payment of wages or to
furnish to him such information as he
may consider necessary; or
6704
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(c) examine the principal or immediate
employer, his agent or servant, or any
person found in such factory,
establishment, office or other premises
or any person whom the said inspector
or other official has reasonable cause
to believe to have been an employee ;
or
(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-38014/27/2013-SS-I]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYYkh] 30 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2691-—dsUæh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek
vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91d ds lkFk ifBr
èkkjk 88 n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~}kjk eSllZ
Mh;e bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM] ubZ fnYyh dks bl izfr"Bku }kjk twrksa
,oa twrk&?kVdksa ds fofuekZ.k lapkfyr izf'k{k.k dk;ZØe ds varxZr
frgkj tsy] ubZ fnYyh ds dSfn;ksa }kjk tsy ifjlj esa fd, tk jgs
dk;Z ds fy, vnk dh xbZ o`fÙkdk ds dkj.k vf/fu;e ds izorZu ls
NwV iznku djrh gS A ;g NwV] bl vf/lwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh
rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, 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 fujh{kd ;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
;Fkkvisf{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 mica/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha micaèkksa
dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k Fkk ;k 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
fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kjh vko';d
le>rk gS_ vFkok
([k) ,sls iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds
vfèkHkksxk/hu] fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk]
dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh
mfpr le; ij izos'k djuk vkSj mlds
izHkkjh ls vis{kk djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa
ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds lank; ls lacafèkr
,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls
fujh{kd ;k vU; 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
vfHkdrZk ;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh
O;fDr dks] tks ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk]
dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa ik;k tk,]
;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k gS
fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6705
(?k) ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU;
ifjlj esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk]
cgh ;k vU; nLrkost dh udy rS;kj
djuk ;k m¼j.k ysuk_
(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- ,l&38014@09@2013&,l,l&I]
lqHkk"k oqQekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2014
S.O. 2691.—In exercise of the power conferred by
Section 88 read with Section 91A of the Employees’ State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby exempts M/s Deiem (India) Private Limited, New
Delhi from the operation of the said Act on account of
stipend paid for work being done by inmates of Tihar Jail,
New Delhi under the training programme run by the
establishment (manufacturing of shoes & shoes
components) in the jail premises. The exemption shall be
effective from the date of issue of notification for a period
of one year.
2. The above exemption is subject to the following
conditions namely :—
(1)
The aforesaid establishments wherein the
employees are employed shall maintain a register
showing the name and designations of the
exempted employees’;
(2)
Not withstanding this exemption, the employees
shall continue to receive such benefits under the
said Act to which they might have become
entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid
prior to the date from which exemption granted
by this notification operates;
(3)
The contributions for the exempted period, if
already paid, shall not be refundable;
(4)
The employer of the said factory/establishment
shall submit in respect of the period during which
that factory was subject to the operation of the
said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),
such returns in such forms and containing such
particulars as were due from it in respect of the
said period under the Employees’ State Insurance
(General) Regulations, 1950;
(5)
Any Social Security Officer appointed by the
Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45
of the said ESI Act or other official of the
Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,
for the purpose of :-
(i)
Verifying the particulars contained in any
returned submitted under sub-section (1) of
Section 44 for the said period; or
(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records
were maintained as required by the
Employees’ State Insurance (General)
Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or
(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees
continue to be entitled to benefits provided
by the employer in cash and kind being
benefits in consideration of which exemption
is being granted under this notification; or
(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions
of the Act had been complied with during
the period when such provisions were in
force in relation to the said factory to be
empowered to :
(a) require the principal or immediate
employer to him such information as
he may consider necessary for the
purpose of this Act; or
(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,
establishment, office or other premises
occupied by such principal or
immediate employer at any reasonable
time and require any person found in
charge thereof to produce to such
inspector or other official and allow him
to examine accounts, books and other
documents relating to the employment
of personal and payment of wages or to
furnish to him such information as he
may consider necessary; or
(c) examine the principal or immediate
employer, his agent or servant, or any
person found in such factory,
establishment, office or other premises
or any person whom the said inspector
or other official has reasonable cause
to believe to have been an employee ;
or
(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-38014/9/2013-SS-I]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
6706
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2692-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ
bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 271@97)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26&09&2014 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@421@96&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2014
S.O.
2692.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 271/
97) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Bank of India and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
26/09/2014.
[No. L-12012/421/96-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/271/97
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Madanlal Jatav,
Sahid Colony,
Byawra, Distt. Raigarh (MP)
.....Workman
Versus
Regional Manager,
Bank of India,
Regional Office, Nirma Mansion,
Gurukripa, A.G. Office Road,
Gwalior
.....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 11th day of September, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 5-9-97 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
12012/421/96/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Bank
of India, Gwalior in terminating the services of Shri
Madanlal Jatav w.e.f. 16-3-90 without following
the provision of Section 25 of I.D. Act, 1947 is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman
is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/4. The case of Ist party workman is that he
was appointed as casual sweeper in Biora branch of Bank
of India on 24-10-85. His name was sponsored through
Employment Exchange. He was continuously working
with IInd party from 24-10-85 to March 1990. Other three
workman were also appointed him such as Shri Satish
Sharma, Nirmal Jain and Kailash Pushpat were
regularized in the service. That workman was illegally
retrenched by Branch Manager. That officers of the Bank
issued certificate about his working and behavior. There
was no misconduct on his part. His services were
terminated without notice. He was not paid retrenchment
compensation. His services were not regularised.
Workman belongs to SC. He was not served notice neither
one month’s pay was paid to him. Termination of his
service is in violation of Section 25-F, G, H of I.D.Act.
Juniors were regularized in service. Any enquiry was
not conducted against him. No punishment was imposed.
On such ground workman prays for his reinstatement
with back wages.
3.
Management of IInd party filed Written Statement
at Page 7/1 to 7/8. IInd party raised preliminary objection
that Government has made reference which doesnot exist.
The order of reference shows that Government has already
decided that there were employee-employer relationship
which is factually incorrect. The reference is made
mechanically without application of mind. The order of
reference is illegal. IInd party has also referred to ratio
held in various cases.
4.
On facts, IInd party submits that appointments in
Bank are covered by statutory rules, regulations. Such
procedure was not followed while appointment of the
workman. The engagement of workman is illegal.
Regional Manager can make employment to subordinate
staff. Workman was not appointed by Regional Manager.
Any appointment made dehors the rules of appointment
is illegal. Workman is not entitled to any relief. It is
further submitted that when person is appointed on daily
wages on contract basis, the contract ends at end of day.
It does not amount to retrenchment in view of Section
2(oo) of I.D. Act in violation to Section 25-F, G, H, N is
denied. It is submitted that reservation policy of
Government of India cannot be ignored. The provisions
about reservation are mandatory.
5.
Workman was engaged in Biora branch as casual/
temporary labour in leave vacancy on need basis. He was
not continuously working from 24-10-85 to March 90.
He has not completed 240 days continuous service.
Workman was not employee of the Bank. There was no
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6707
question of conducting enquiry against him. The
recruitment policy was not followed for engaging workman.
He is not entitled for regularization. On such ground, IInd
party prays for rejection of claim.
6.
Workman has filed rejoinder reiterating his
contentions in statement of claim.
7.
Considering pleadings between parties, 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 Bank of India, Gwalior in
terminating the services of Shri
Madanlal Jatav w.e.f. 16-3-90
without following the provision
of Section 25 of I.D.Act, 1947 is
legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
As per final
entitled to?”
order.
REASONS
8.
Workman is challenging termination of his service
for violation of Section 25-F, G, H, N of I.D.Act.
Management denies that workman was engaged casually
on temporary basis as per exigencies.
9.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence stating that
he was working in Biora branch from 24-10-85 to 16-3-90.
He was illegally terminated without notice. Retrenchment
compensation was not paid. He has also stated that in
September 1989, he was transferred to Kacheri branch.
That other employees Durga Prasad, Harish Chandra
Jatav, Rajendra Kumar Kashriya, Durga Prasad S/o
Laluji, Kailash, Ramgopal, Rodsingh, Chhotelal Lekhraj
appointed with him were regularized . His services were
terminated. In his cross-examination, workman says
appointment letter was not given to him. He was
appointed as Badli peon. He was working in the Bank
from 1985 to 1990. He was unable to tell his working
days. He was orally transferred to other branch. The
employees appointed with him as shown in Para-9 of his
affidavit were working as badly peon. He denied
suggestion that he has not completed 240 days service.
10.
Affidavit of management’s witness Shri Debendra
Kumar Biswal is filed on record but was not produced
for cross-examination. Management’s witness Anil
Kumar in his affidavit supported contentions of IInd party
that workman was engaged as casual temporary labour
in leave vacancy on need basis. He was not appointed by
the Bank. There was no question of his retrenchment.
Attendance particulars were maintained by Bank for
purpose of payments shown in Exhibit M-1. In his cross-
examination, management’s witness says workman was
not working during the period January 2005 to 7-6-2006
in Biora branch. He further says that workman was not
terminated. He was not retrenched. There was no question
of retrenchment compensation. He denies that workman
completed 240 days continuous service during 1990.
Workman was paid daily wages. There was no point of
calling workman for work. Workman had not committed
any misconduct. Other persons working with workman
were deserving candidates. He claims ignorance about
workman belongs to ST category. He also denies that
workman completed 240 days. Shri Durga Prasad, Harish
Chandra Jatav, Rajendra Kumar Kashriya, Durga Prasad
S/o Laluji, Kailash, Ramgopal, Rodsingh, Chhotelal
Lekhraj appointed with him were not regularized.
Compliance of Section 25-F of I.D.Ac was not required.
11.
Management’s witness Purushottam Kulmi in his
affidavit in para-14 has stated that in 1997, head office
decided to regularize casual labours as sweepers and
accordingly were given instruction to concerned regions
for appointment of 30 eligible candidates including Mr.
Jatav we.f. 15-4-97. It was decided to appoint Jatav as
part time sweeper on consolidated scale wages at Kachri
branch subject to and only after withdrawal of his case
in CGIT but Shri Jatav did not agreed for the same.
Affidavit is also devoted that workman was not appointed
by the Bank. He not completed 240 days continuous
service. In his cross-examination, management witness
says he had not engaged workman in Bank at Voda branch
during May 2009 till June 2010. Workman was engaged
on casual basis by Branch Manager within his powers.
Workman was engaged as per exigencies. Workman was
supplying drinking water, taking file ledgers etc. his leave
register was not maintained. His wages were deposited
in his account. Some of the casual labours were
regularized as part time employees. Those employees had
completed 240 days working during period of one year.
Workman was not served notice. He was not paid
retrenchment compensation. Settlement was entered to
regularize services to casual badlis. Letter dated 7-1-91
by Union was not replied by management.
12.
The documents produced by workman Exhibit W-1
is copy of award passed by this Tribunal in R/128/91.
Exhibit W-2 is copy of application submitted before ALC
by workman. Exhibit W-3 is also application submitted
to ALC. Workman has alleged that other persons engaged
with him were regularized and he was discriminated.
Exhibit W-4 is letter given by ALC, Bhopal calling reply
of IInd party. Exhibit W-5 is letter of appointment given
to workman on 24-10-85, Exhibit W-6 is letter of
appointment issued to Durga Prasad as badli employee.
13.
Particularly the management’s witness Shri
Purushottam Kulmi in para-14 of his affidavit clearly
says that in 1997, instructions were given to 30 casual
labors including workman. However it was subject to
withdrawal of his case before this Tribunal. It was not
6708
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
accepted by workman. Section 28 of Contract Act
provides-
“Every agreement, by which any party thereto is
restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under
or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal
proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which
limits the time within which he may thus enforce
his rights, is void to that extent.”
In present case, evidence shows that other
employees engaged with workman were regularized. The
workman was also offered regularization subject to
withdrawal of his case before this Tribunal. As per Section
28 of Contract Act, such condition is void but the offer
remains valid. Workman was discriminated as he did not
agree for withdrawal of his case. From above, it is clear
that termination of services of workman is illegal. Workman
is entitled to be regularized as part time sweeper on
consolidated scale w.e.f. 15-4-97. However his services
were terminated without notice, retrenchment
compensation was not paid. Therefore I record my
finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
14.
On the above point, reliance is placed by Shri
A.K.Shashi, counsel for management in Case of
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation versus
T.V.Anandappa reported in 2009(17) Supreme Court
Cases-47. Their Lordship dealing with casual labour,
daily wager, temporary employee, badly worker-
protection under I.D.Act is not available.
Ratio in above cited case cannot be applied I present
case as in 1997 workman was also offered appointment
as part time employee on consolidated salary as stated in
Para-14 of the management’s witness and as other
workers were already regularized. For the same reasons,
ratio held in Case of Jagbir Singh versus Haryana State
Agriculture Marketing Board and another reported in
2009(15) SCC-327 cannot be beneficially applied to
present case.
15.
Point No.2- the termination of services of workman
is illegal as per finding on Point No.1 w.r.t. question
whether workman is entitled to regularization. Para-14
of management’s witness Shri Purushottam Kulmi
supports claim for regularization of workman as part time
sweeper on consolidated scale. Accordingly I record my
finding in Point No.2.
16.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Bank of India,
Gwalior in terminating the services of Shri
Madanlal Jatav w.e.f. 16-3-90 is not legal and
proper.
(2)
IInd party is directed to reinstate workman as part
time sweeper on consolidated scale of wages with
continuity of service but without back wages.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2693-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ
bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 128@97)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26&09&2014 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@105@96&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2014
S.O.
2693.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 128/
97) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Bank of India and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
26/09/2014.
[No. L-12012/105/96-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/128/97
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Rajendra Kumar,
Marimata, Mahalgaon,
Lashkar, Gwalior, MP
.....Workman
Versus
Chairman & Managing Director,
Bank of India,
Head Office, Express Towers,
Ariman Point,
Bombay
.....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 26th day of August 2014
1.
As per letter dated 15-5-97 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-
12012/105/96/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Bank of
India in terminating the services of Shri Rajendra
Kumar w.e.f. 18-10-92 is legal and justified? If not,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6709
to what relief the said workman is entitled and from
what date?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim at Page 5 to 7 challenging termination of his service
for violation of section 25-F of I.D.Act.
3.
IInd party filed written statement at Page 17 to 25
denying claim of the workman on various grounds.
Violation of Section 25-G, H of I.D.Act is denied.
4.
Affidavit of evidence of workman was filed.
Management also filed affidvit of evidence of Shri Vijay
Sharma. He was not produced for cross-examination.
5.
Workman submtited application for taking case on
board and application for withdrawal of the case.
Management gave no objection. Workman is identified
by Narayan Behera, Manager, HR&IR, bank of India,
Zonal office, Bhopal. Zerox copies of IDs are also
produced on record. Workman was explained contents
of his application. He has clearly stated before me that
he is withdrawing his case. Therefore his application is
accepted.
6.
In the result, No Dispute Award” is passed.
7.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2694-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad
vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 93@2012)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26&09&2014 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@8@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2014
S.O.
2694.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 93/2012)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Union Bank of India
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 26/09/2014.
[No. L-12011/8/2012-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR
COURT CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 20th August, 2014
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 93/2012
(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 Union Bank of India and their
workman)
BETWEEN
The General Secretary
: 1st Party/
Union Bank Employees
Petitioner Union
Union – Tamilnadu
Singapore Plaza, IIIrd Floor
164, Linghi Chetty Street
Chennai-600001
AND
The Deputy General Manager
: 2nd Party/
Union Bank of India,
Respondent
Regional Office
139, Broadway
Chennai-600108.
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/
: M/s K.M. Ramesh, Advocates
Petitioner Union
For the 2nd Party/
: Ms. T.S. Gopalan & Co.,
Respondent
Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/8/2012-IR(B.II)
dated 22.11.2012 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the management of Union
Bank of India, Regional Office, Salem in imposing
the punishment of Compulsory Retirement upon
Sri P. Manickam w.e.f. 05.01.2011 is legal and
justified? What relief to which the concerned
workman is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 93/2012 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides entered appearance through their
counsel and filed claim and counter statement
respectively. The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder after
the counter statement was filed.
6710
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner is a Regd. Trade Union represented
by its General Secretary. P. Manickam who is a member
of the Petitioner Union was appointed in the Respondent
Bank as Part-Time Sweeper in the year 1981. He was
promoted as Sub-Staff / Daftary and was posted in
Vazhapadi Branch in 1989. He was discharging his duties
faithfully and efficiently. On 22.09.2001 a Show Cause
Notice was issued to him alleging that on 19.08.1999 he
had made a cash scroll entry for Rs. 30,000/- and issued
token to a woman who impersonated another and had
failed to identify the depositor while issuing token and
this had resulted in premature closure of DRIC. It was
also alleged that he had failed to ensure safe keeping of
records. The Respondent had lodged a complaint with
the District Crime Branch, Salem regarding the incident.
After investigation a charge sheet was laid before the
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Salem and the case was
taken on file. The Respondent did not proceed with the
departmental action in view of the pendency of the
criminal case, on the basis of Clause-4 of Bipartite
Settlement. The Respondent issued a supplementary
charge sheet dated 17.12.2008 on Manickam stating that
the explanation given by him earlier is not convincing
and also giving further acts of omissions and
commissions on the part of Manickam. It was alleged
that on 25.03.1998 he had availed a loan of Rs. 15,000/-
in the name of Sivabakhiam, while earlier loan of Rs.
12,000/- sanctioned against the security given by
Sivabakhiam remained unadjusted. Another allegation
was that Manickam had borrowed Rs. 10,000/- from
Chellappan. It was also alleged that he had collected
money from customers during Diwali in the year 2000
telling that it is to be shared among all the staff. He is
said to have borrowed money from customers and invested
in Chit Funds. No explanation was given for the
inordinate delay in issuing the supplementary charge
sheet. Manickam had filed a Writ Petition before the High
Court of Madras and the same has been allowed. After
this, the Respondent has decided to continue enquiry in
respect of supplementary charge sheet disassociating the
earlier charge sheet. On conduct of enquiry, the Enquiry
Officer submitted a report with the finding that two of
the charges are proved. Manickam had not committed
the misconducts alleged. The punishment of Compulsory
Retirement was imposed on Manickam without any
justification. An order may be passed holding that there
is no justification in the punishment and also directing
the Respondent to reinstate Manickam in service with
continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant
and consequential benefits.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as follows:
On the basis of investigation conducted, a Show
Cause Notice has been issued to Manickam, the Sub-Staff
of Vazhapadi Branch of the Respondent for making cash
scroll entry no. 20 for a LAD 1498 for Rs. 30,000/- on
19.08.1999 and issuing token to a woman who
impersonated as Lakshmi. Manickam’s failure to identify
the depositor while issuing token has resulted in
premature closure of the DRIC for Rs. 30,000/-. A Police
Complaint was filed against Manickam regarding the
incident. In view of the pendency of the criminal case
further proceedings could not be pursued against the
workman. In the course of audit of Vazhapadi Branch on
06.09.1999 it was noticed that a loan with an outstanding
of Rs. 36,235/- in the name of Sivabakhiam did not have
the deposit certificate. The Son of Sivabakhiam who
visited the bank denied having taken a second loan. On
investigation, the involvement of Manickam in the
incident was revealed. Apart from this in 2008 Manickam
had collected deepawali inam from the customers stating
that it was to be shared among the staff. The staff members
have denied having received the share. Manickam had
taken loan of Rs. 5,000/- from an account holder. As per
the service conditions of the Bank, no employee can
borrow money from the constituents of the bank. A Charge
Sheet was issued on 17.12.2008 listing out the acts of
misconducts committed by Manickam. As he did not
submit satisfactory explanation, an enquiry was
conducted. In the enquiry the charge relating to the loan
in the name of Sivabackiam was found not established.
However, the remaining charges were found proved. The
punishment of Compulsory Retirement from service with
superannuation benefits was imposed on Manickam. The
punishment is fully justified and is valid in law. The
concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.
5.
The petitioner has filed a rejoinder in answer to
the Counter Statement, denying the allegations in the
Counter Statement and reiterating his case in the Claim
Statement.
6.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
of WW1 and MW1 and Ext.W1 to Ext.W11 and Ext.M1
to Ext.M29.
7.
The points for consideration are :
(i)
Whether the action of the management in imposing
the punishment of Compulsory Retirement upon
the concerned workman is legal and justified.
(ii)
What is the relief, if any to which the workman is
entitled?
The Points
8.
Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on
the basis of Supplementary Charge Sheet dated
17.12.2008 which is marked as Ext.M3. The
Supplementary Charge Sheet refers to the explanation
submitted by the concerned workman on a previous date
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6711
i.e. 11.10.2001 and states that the explanation of 11.10.2001
is neither convincing nor satisfactory. It is stated in the
Charge Sheet that the concerned workman Manickam is
informed that further acts of omissions and commissions
have been reported against him. The Charge Sheet which
resulted in the issue of a Supplementary Charge Sheet
itself is not produced. However, Ext.M1 the show cause
memo issued to Manickam and the Claim Statement gives
an indication of the previous charge against Manickam.
As seen from the Show Cause Memo a DRC for Rs. 50,000/-
dated 03.06.1996 stood in the name of one Lakshmi with
maturity value of more than Rs. 1,00,000/- Lakshmi had
availed a loan of Rs. 35,000/- against the said deposit. On
19.08.1999 a second loan of Rs. 30,000/- was raised against
the same deposit and the second loan was adjusted on
17.02.2000 prematurely and balance amount was paid in
cash. Since the Deposit Receipts were adjusted towards
the second loan the first loan with interest remained
outstanding to that extent. It is alleged that Manickam
had made the cash scroll entry for Rs. 30,000/- on the day
on which the second loan was taken, that he had issued
token to the woman who impersonated as Lakshmi and his
failure to identify the depositor while issuing token has
resulted in premature closure of the deposit and payment
of cash pending adjustment of the loan in the name of
Lakshmi. The explanation given by Manickam to Ext.M1
memo on 22.09.2001 is the one which was referred to as
unconvincing and unsatisfactory in the Supplementary
Charge Sheet dated 17.12.2008.
9.
After making reference to the previous memo the
Supplementary Charge Sheet refers to the further acts of
omissions and commissions on the part of Manickam. The
first allegation is that on 25.03.1998 a loan of
Rs. 15,000/- was fraudulently availed against the deposit
in the name of Sivabakhiam while the earlier loan of
Rs. 12,000/- sanctioned against the same security remained
unadjusted. It is stated that apart from the loan in the
name of Lakshmi, the loan availed in the name of
Sivabakhiam also is the handiwork of Manickam. The next
allegation is that Manickam had borrowed Rs. 5,000/- from
one Chellappan on 01.03.1998 and Chellappan had lodged
a complaint to the Branch Manager on 18.04.2001. There
is a further allegation that Manickam had collected money
during Diwali in the year 2000 from customers telling them
that the collection should be shared among all the staff
members except the Branch Manager. He is alleged to
have borrowed money from customers and invested it in
Chit Funds and Recurring Deposits.
10.
So far as the incident relating to the account in the
name of Lakshmi is concerned the Respondent was not
able to proceed with the departmental enquiry against
Manickam since a criminal case was pending regarding
the same incident. The case seems to be still pending.
11.
On receiving Ext.M3, Supplementary Charge Sheet
the concerned workman had approached the High Court
seeking to forbear the Respondent from proceeding with
the domestic enquiry. The Writ Petition was disposed with
a direction that the departmental proceedings on the basis
of the First Charge Sheet has to be deferred till the
conclusion of criminal trial in CC 33/2001 on the file of
Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Salem. The Respondent has
proceeded with the enquiry on the Supplementary Charge
Sheet without any reference to the charge in respect of
the misconduct relating to the account of Lakshmi. The
Enquiry Officer has submitted report finding that
the allegation that Manickam had availed loan of
Rs. 15,000/- against the account in the name of Sivabackiam
while the earlier loan subsisted is not proved. The Enquiry
Officer has found that the charge that the concerned
workman borrowed Rs. 5,000/- from one Chellappan and
the charge that he had collected money from customers
in the year 2000 are proved. The misconducts proved
were brought under the category of gross-misconduct
doing acts prejudicial to the interests of the bank and
minor misconduct of collecting money from Bank’s
customers within the premises of the bank. It is on the
basis of this enquiry report the punishment of Compulsory
Retirement from service was imposed on the petitioner.
12.
So far as the first charge i.e. the charge of availing
loan in the name of Sivabackiam is concerned, the
Enquiry Officer has found that the charge is not proved.
His finding has become final. There is no necessity to
discuss this charge before this Tribunal.
13.
The Second Charge against the petitioner is that
he had borrowed Rs. 5,000/- from Chellappan. The
Enquiry Officer has found that this charge against the
concerned workman is proved. The surprising aspect is
that the incident resulting in the charge has occurred on
01.03.1998 much before the Show Cause Notice in respect
of the incident relating to the availing of loan against the
deposit of Lakshmi by impersonation. Yet there is no
reference to this incident in the Charge Memo. Again, one
does not know how the mere borrower of Rs. 5,000/- from a
private individual becomes misconduct.
14.
The Enquiry Officer has entered a finding that the
charge is proved on the basis of the evidence of MW2 in
the enquiry proceedings. MWs 1 and 3 the other witnesses
examined by the Management in the enquiry proceeding
had nothing to do with the incident at all. MW1 was the
Manager of the concerned branch at the time of enquiry.
Though MW3 was the Manager at the time of the incident
he has not given any evidence regarding this charge.
MW2 is the one who is said to have conducted
investigation in the misconducts allegedly committed by
the workman. However, the report of the investigation was
not marked.
6712
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15.
What the Enquiry Officer has stated is that the
charge is proved through the evidence of MW2. He has
relied upon the evidence given by MW2 that he had met
Chellappan, the lender and he had confirmed that the
complaint of borrowal of Rs. 5,000/- is true. Chellappan
himself is not examined. MW2 does not seem to have
recorded the statement of Chellappan also. Ex.W1 is the
copy of letter said to have been written by Chellappan to
the then Branch Manager on 18.04.2001 complaining
that the concerned workman had borrowed Rs. 5,000/-
from him and the Branch Manager is to help him to
recover the money from the workman. Ext.W3 is another
letter allegedly written by Chellappan on 31.10.2001
requesting again to help him to recover the money from
the workman. It is in spite of these two letters there is no
reference to the alleged misconduct of borrowal of money
by the workman from Chellappan in Ext.M1, the Show
Cause Notice. Ex.W6 is also said to be a letter written by
Chellappan to the then Branch Manager on 20.10.2010.
In this what is stated is that the amount of Rs. 5,000/-
was actually borrowed by one Jayaraj and the concerned
workman was only a guarantor to the same. There is no
evidence regardng the authenticity of any of these letters.
More than this there is no acceptable evidence to show
that that the concerned workman had borrowed amount
from Chellappan. Without any foundation in evidence
the Enquiry Officer has found that the charge in this
respect is established against the workman. The finding
is only to be set aside.
16.
The next charge against the workman is that he
had collected money from customers of the Bank during
Diwali in the year 2000 making them believe that the
amount is to be shared among all the staff members except
the Branch Manager. MWs 1 and 2 in the enquiry
proceedings were not in a position to support this case of
the Management. As already stated MW1 was a stranger
to the alleged incident, he having taken charge of the
concerned branch on a later date. So far as MW2 is
concerned his knowledge regarding the incident is based
on the information given by the staff members. So this
evidence also is not material.
17.
The Enquiry Officer has relied upon the evidence
of MW3 to enter a finding that the concerned workman
had collected amount from customers in the year 2000.
What is the evidence given by MW3 who was the then
Branch Manager in this respect? According to this
witness, the concerned workman had given a letter of
confession on 25.10.2000 confessing his involvement in
collection of Diwali Inam. According to him though the
letter was given, subsequently the workman had
threatened to commit suicide if the letter is used against
him and the letter was destroyed. However a photocopy
of the alleged letter was produced in the enquiry
proceedings and is marked here as Ext.W7. Ext.W8 is
a copy of a complaint said to have been containing the
signature of staff of Vazhapadi branch against the
concerned workman for his collecting amount in the name
of other staff also was proved through this witness. MW3
has stated that he is also one of the signatories to this
complaint addressed to the AGM of Regional Office. He
has stated that confession letter was prepared in his hand
as requested by the concerned workman. According to
him, when the letter was written the workman as well as
other staff members were present. The Enquiry Officer
has referred to the evidence of MW3 and the evidence
given by MW1 and MW2 that they were informed of the
incident by the staff to enter a finding that the charge is
proved against the workman.
18.
The workman has taken a stand that he has never
written a letter of confession. Exc.W10 is the
representation given by the workman to the department
of Personnel Nodal Regional Office. He has stated in this
that the recitals in the letter were written by MW3 and
the Xerox copy of his signature must have been obtained.
It is admitted by MW3 himself that the alleged letter of
confession is in his own hand. Even though MW3 has
stated that other staffs of the bank were also present at
the time when the letter was written, none of them were
examined. Though MW3 has stated that the workman
had put his signature in the letter he has not stated that
the signature was put by him, after he has understood
the contents of the letter. The concerned workman is not
an illiterate man. If he was very much willing to give a
letter of confession nothing prevented him from writing
the letter himself. Ex.W8 is the complaint said to have
been given by the staff of the branch to the Chief Manager
against the concerned workman. This contains the
signature of MW3, as stated. However, in the absence of
evidence of any of the other staff the veracity of this letter
also could not be ascertained. Even though it is stated
that the staff came to know about the collection of money
by the concerned workman from one of the customers
from whom also he had collected money, no attempt has
been made to examine that person as well. So there is no
direct evidence to show that the concerned workman has
been collecting amount from customers. In the absence
of any such evidence a confession letter allegedly written
by the concerned workman, which is not properly proved
is not sufficient to establish the case that the concerned
workman had collected money from customers.
19.
Apart from the above is the fact that the Bank has
chosen to proceed against the concerned workman on
this charge after a lapse of several years. Even assuming
that the incident alleged had happened, the bank is to be
assumed to have dropped the entire matter in the absence
of its taking any initiative to proceed against the workman
within a reasonable time. Probably, the fact that the earlier
charge against the petitioner could not be proceeded
against in view of the pendency of the criminal case,
persuaded the bank to proceed against the workman
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6713
digging out incidents which were buried long ago. I find
that the Respondent has not proved this third charge
against the workman also. The punishment imposed on
the workman is only to be set aside. Accordingly an award
is passed as follows:
(i)
The Respondent is directed to reinstate the
concerned workman, Manickam in service within
one month.
(ii)
The Respondent shall pay 50% of the back wages
to the workman from the date of dismissal to the
date of the reinstatement, within one month. If the
amount is not paid in the prescribed time, it will
carry interest @ 9% per annum.
(iii)
The workman will be entitled to continuity of
service and all other attendant benefits.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on
this day the 20th August, 2014)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/
: WW1, Sri P. Manickam
Petitioner Union
For the 2nd Party/
: MW1, Sri R. Loganathan
Management
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
09.04.2001 Copy of the complaint from Staff
Members of Valapady Branch,
UBI to the Asstt. General
Manager, UBI, Coimbatore
Ex.W2
18.04.2001 Copy of letter from M.
Chellappan to the Branch
Manager of Valapady Branch,
UBI with postal cover
Ex.W3
31.10.2001 Copy of letter from M.
Chellappan to the Deputy
General
Manager,
UBI,
Coimbatore
Ex.W4
01.08.2010 Copy of letter from A.
Vairaperumal to the Chief
Manager, UBI, Chennai
Ex.W5
Undated
Copy of letter from M.
Chellappan to the petitioner
enclosing his letter dated
20.10.2010
Ex.W6
20.10.2010
Copy of letter from M. Chellappan
to the Chief Manager, HRM, UBI
Ex.W7
25.10.2010
Copy of letter from P. Manickam
to the Branch Manager, Valapady
Branch, UBI
Ex.W8
02.11.2010
Copy of representation from M/s
G. Senthilkumar and others to the
Chief Manager, HRM, UBI,
Chennai
Ex.W9
xxxx
Copy of cover containing copy
of letter dated 02.11.2010 sent by
M/s G. Senthilkumar and others
Ex.W10
03.12.2010 Copy of representation from P.
Manickam to the Department of
Personnel, Nodal Office, UBI,
Chennai
Ex.W11
18.11.2011
Copy of representation from P.
Manickam to the General
Manager (P&HR), UBI, Mumbai
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.M1
22.09.2001
Show Cause Memo to P.
Manickam
Ex.M2
11.10.2001
Explanation of P. Manickam to the
Show Cause Memo dated
22.09.2001
Ex.M3
17.12.2008
Charge Sheet issued to P.
Manickam
Ex.M4
23.01.2009
Explanation of P. Manickam to the
charge sheet dated 17.12.2008
Ex.M5
04.10.2001
Notice from Judicial Magistrate
No. III, Salem – conditional bail
Ex.M6
10.02.2010
Order of Hon’ble High Court of
Madras in WP No. 16175/2009 and
MP Nos. 1 and 2 of 2009 filed by
P. Manickam against the
Respondent
Ex.M7
25.05.2010
26.05.2010
Proceedings of
05.06.2010
Enquiry
21.07.2010
And
02.08.2010
Ex.M8
30.08.2010
Findings of the Enquiry Officer in
respect of charge sheet dated
17.12.2008 and Show Cause Memo
dated 18.02.2009
Ex.M9
27.10.2010
Order of Disciplinary Authority
proposing
punishment
of
compulsory retirement from
6714
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
service of the Bank and granting
personal hearing dated 13.11.2010
to the CSE on the proposed
punishment
Ex.M10
03.12.2010
Proceedings of personal hearing
before DA
Ex.M11
31.12.2010 Imposing the punishment of
compulsory retirement from the
services of the bank for gross-
misconduct and imposing
punishment of censure for minor
misconduct
Ex.M12
19.08.1999 Union Bank of India – Valapadi
Branch –Cash Scroll Book (Item/
S.No. 20)
Ex.M13
10.05.2010 Communication
from
Respondent to P. Manickam
directing the CSE to submit his
explanation to the supplementary
charge sheet dated 17.12.2008
Ex.M14
10.08.2010 Letter
from
Management
Representative addressed to
Mr. R. Prabhakar, Chief
Manager, enclosing written proof
dated 09.08.2010 with a copy to
CSE P. Manickam
Ex.M15
28.08.2010 Letter
from
Defence
Representative enclosing the
written submission on behalf of
P. Manickam, Charge Sheeted
Employee
Ex.M16
18.11.2010
Letter
from
Disciplinary
Authority to P. Manickam re-
scheduling the personal hearing
on 25.11.2010
Ex.M17
25.11.2010
Letter
from
Disciplinary
Authority to P. Manickam re-
scheduling on his request the
personal hearing to 03.12.2010
Ex.M18
05.02.2011
Appeal from P. Manickam to
General Manager – P & HR,
Appellate Authority
Ex.M19
01.03.2011
Communication from AGM-IR
to P. Manickam granting
personal hearing on 28.03.2011.
Ex.M20
21.04.2011
Letter from I.R. Department,
Central Office of the Bank to
Manickam posting the personal
hearing to 16.05.2011 at his
request
Ex.M21
04.05.2011
Letter from Chief Manager-IR to
P. Manickam postponing the
personal
hearing
from
16.05.2011 to 28.05.2011
Ex.M22
28.05.2011
Proceedings of personal hearing
by the Appellate Authority
Ex.M23
15.07.2011
Sahayak Meta Pradampat –
Communication from AGM-IR to
P. Manickam in Hindi enclosing
the order of Appellate Authority
dated 04.07.2011 confirming the
order of the Disciplinary
Authority
Ex.M24
01.08.2011
Industrial Dispute raised by Union
Bank Employees Union – Tamil
Nadu – regarding – P. Manickam
before ALC (C), Chennai
Ex.M25
08.10.2011
Management reply to ALC(C),
Chennai
Ex.M26
05.09.2001
Complaint from Branch Manager
of Union Bank of India, Valapady
Branch to Superintendent of
Police, Salem
Ex.M27
05.09.2011
Copy of FIR
Ex.M28
14.11.2011
Rejoinder of Union to the Counter
of the Management before ALC
(C) dated 14.11.2011 – Chennai –
with Annexures – D1, D2 and D5
(D5=DEX-4)
Ex.M29
28.11.2011
Notice from District Crime Branch,
Salem requiring to enquire six
employees of the branch
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2695-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fn bafM;u cSad
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 160@2002)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26&09&2014 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2014
S.O.
2695.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 160/
2002) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of The Indian Bank and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
26/09/2014.
[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6715
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 6th day of February, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. NO. 160/2002
Between:
Sri N. Venkateshwar Rao,
S/o M. Somaiah,
R/o Ward No.43, Samathapur Colony,
New Nagole, Hyderabad.
Ranga Reddy District
..….Petitioner
AND
The Zonal Manager cum
Disciplinary Authority,
The Indian Bank, Zonal Office,
Liberty Plaza, 4th Floor,
Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad
….Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
: M/s. G. Ravi Mohan,
R. Devender Reddy,
G. Srinivasa Reddy &
G. Naresh Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent : Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana,
Advocate
AWARD
This is a petition filed by Sri N. Venkateshwara
Rao, the workman invoking Sec.2A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 seeking for setting aside the
termination order dated 18.6.1998 passed by the
Respondent and consequently directing the Respondent
to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of
service, back wages and all attendant benefits.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are
as follows:
Petitioner was appointed as a sub-staff with the
Respondent bank on 27.9.1975. initially he worked in
Narayanaguda branch. He was promoted to the post of
clerk in the year 1985. He has been discharging his duties
to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors since his
appointment. While so he was issued with chargesheet
cum show cause notice dated 22.7.1994 with the following
charges:
“a)
That you have made fictitious entries in the dispatch
register showing the dispatch of some letter/
correspondence to some other branch/office, not
addressed to/copied to in the letter.
Thereby, you have withdrawn the amount in excess
of what actually incurred for postage and
misappropriated the bank funds. The list of such
items is given in Annexure A.
b)
That you have shown in the Dispatch register for
dispatch of some letters, higher amounts than
actually required for the same.
Thereby, you have withdrawn the amount in excess
of what actually incurred for dispatch of letter/
correspondence and misappropriated the bank
funds. The list of such items is given in the
Annexure.B.
c)
That you have shown in the dispatch register
amounts higher than actually required for dispatch
of circular to the branches.
Thereby, you have withdrawn in excess of what
actually required for dispatch of circulars and
misappropriated the bank funds. The list of such
items is given in Annexure C.
d)
That you have shown fictitious entries in the letter
dispatch register showing the dispatch of some
letters/correspondence more than once. Thereby
you have misappropriated bank funds by
withdrawing the amount in excess of what actually
incurred for dispatch of the letters/correspondence.
The list of such items is given in the Annexure.D.
e)
That you have shown dispatch of letters to various
departments in central office, Madras separately
instead of in a single envelop and withdrawn
amount more than actual expenditure.”
Thereby, you have misappropriated the bank funds.
The dates on which such entries are made are given in
the Annexure. E.
Petitioner gave his representation on 1.10.94
requesting for supply of the material and documents on
which the Respondent relief upon. For that Respondent
issued letter dated 7.3.95 permitting the Petitioner to
verify the records in the vigilance department by fixing
the date in advance in consultation with the Zonal office.
Petitioner made another representation dated 16.3.95
requesting him to permit to verify the record with the
help of assistant and also to pay subsistence allowance
along with arrears. But inspite of several demands
Petitioner was not permitted to examine the documents.
Finally without considering the facts and circumstances
and Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct enquiry
into the charges. He conducted enquiry in gross violation
of principles of natural justice and found the Petitioner
guilty of the charge sin his enquiry report dated 27.6.97.
Petitioner gave his objection to the enquiry report on
1.8.97. Respondent issued show cause notice of removal
from service on 16.5.98 for which Petitioner replied
6716
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
denying the allegations. Finally Petitioner was issued
with the proceedings dated 18.6.98 discharging the
Petitioner from service without disqualifying of future
employment. He was permitted to give personal hearing
for the incident and finally Respondent issued
proceedings dated 29.9.99 confirming the order dated
18.6.98. Said action is wholly illegal, arbitrary and
unjust. The Enquiry Officer failed to consider the facts
that the documents filed by the Respondent are without
any signatures and the officers who initialled the dispatch
register have done so, having satisfied with the procedures
and postages. The Enquiry Officer has violated the
principles of natural justice by not summoning the
documents sought to be summoned as defence evidence
and which are in possession of the bank like, circular
issue register referred to by MW1 and circulars. There
was no opportunity is given for cross examining the
officers who checked and ratified all the dispatch entries.
This is irrational and in violation of principles of natural
justice. Petitioner is the only earning member of his entire
family, due to illegal termination of his services its became
very difficult to eak out their livelihood. Hence, the
petition.
3.
Respondents filed their counter with the
averments in brief as follows:
The grounds and facts stated in the petition do not
disclose any valid and substantiate grounds to invoke the
jurisdiction of the court. Since, no dispute has been
raised before ALC(C), this petition can not be taken up
under Sec.2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
it is liable to be dismissed. Petitioner has been working
as clerk in regional office of the bank at Hyderabad with
effect from 10.10.1985. He was mostly entrusted with
dispatch work from 1990 onwards. During May, 1993,
Sri N. Venkateshwar Rao, the officer of the dispatch
section, noticed some irregularities committed by the
Petitioner in the dispatch department. It was suspected
that Petitioner misappropriated some amounts and the
matter was brought to the notice of Asst. General
Manager. Steps were taken to investigate into the mater
to ascertain actual facts. On 10.5.93 Petitioner was taken
out of the dispatch department and was sent on deputation
to service branch, Hyderabad for smooth conduct of
investigation. After shifting the Petitioner so a new
dispatch register was opened with effect from 12.5.1993.
Sri M V R A Sastry inspector of branches submitted
investigation report dated 26.6.93. Apart from this a
separate investigation was also conducted by Cap.
N.S.R.K. Rao, Security Officer, who submitted his report
dated 24.6.1993 to the Asst. General Manager,
Hyderabad. Basing on the said report the Regional
Manager, recommended for suspension of the Petitioner
by virtue of his letter dated 24.6.93 addressed to Zonal
Manager. The investigation revealed that average
expenditure in dispatch section during April, 1993 was
Rs.600/- per day, whereas it came down to less than
Rs.75/- per day from 12.5.93. In consideration of the
investigation report and recommendations of the Regional
Manager Petitioner was suspended from service with effect
from 3.8.93. A show cause notice dated 22.7.94 was issued
to the Petitioner by the Respondent bank classifying the
irregularities and fraud committed by him into five
categories:
“a.
Making fictitious entries in the dispatch register
(as per annexure A)
b.
Showing covers with abnormally excess postages
(as per annexure B).
c.
Showing huge amounts for dispatch of circulars
etc. to 32 branches (as per annexure C).
d.
Showing letters bearing the same numbers in
dispatch register more than once (as per annexure
D).
e.
Showing dispatch of letters to various departments
in Central Office, Madras separately on each day
instead of using a single cover.”
Petitioner was asked to give explanation as to why
disciplinary action shall not be initiated against him.
There on Petitioner gave a representation dated 11.8.94
seeking for the following documents:-
1.
Copy of enquiry/investigation report
2.
Photo copy of dispatch register from where the
above annexures were drawn.
3.
Copies of the vouchers whereby the alleged excess
amounts were either vouched or doubly vouched.
4.
Office order allocating the dispatch work and
supervision.
The Zonal Manager permitted the Petitioner to verify
the relevant material by fixing a date and time in advance
with the chief manager vigilance department, Zonal
Manager, Hyderabad within five days from the date of
receipt of the letter. Petitioner wrote another letter to ZM
seeking permission for taking the assistance of Sri Prakash
Pande for the purpose of verification of the documents. It
was not accepted by the Respondent bank. On 7.3.95 the
Petitioner was permitted to verify the documents and he
was also granted 7 days time to give his explanation. But,
Petitioner failed to utilise the opportunity to verify the
documents and was postponing the disciplinary
proceedings on one pretext or the other. He addressed
another letter dated 16.3.95 seeking permission for
assistance to inspect the documents. Respondent rejected
the said request in their letter dated 8.5.95 and giving
opportunity to the Petitioner to inspect the documents.
But he failed to avail the same again and addressed more
letters seeking copy of preliminary investigation report.
Finally on 13.7.95 he sought for verifying the documents.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6717
With due permission he verified the documents on 15.7.95.
Even there after he failed to given explanation to show
cause notice. Respondent bank sent a reminder dated
31.7.95. Thereafter Petitioner addressed letter dated 5.9.95
informing the Respondent bank unless he permitted to
verify the records by his defence assistant he shall not be
in a position to accept or deny his allegations. Having
understood the intention of the Petitioner to delay/drag
proceedings Respondent finally issued chargesheet dated
18.10.95
appointing
Sri K. Bharavi, Senior Manager as Enquiry Officer to
conduct detailed departmental enquiry. Petitioner was
asked to appear before Enquiry Officer on 27.5.96 at EDP
Cell, Zonal office, Hyderabad. He failed to appear so.
He did not send any communication for his/DR absence.
Proceedings were adjourned to 10.6.96. But Petitioner
has not attended the enquiry. On 18.6.96 preliminary
enquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner
accepted the receipt of chargesheet but pleaded not guilty.
He appointed Sri B. Vijaya Gopal Rao as his Defence
Assistant. The Enquiry Officer permitted the defence
assistant to verify the original dispatch register at his
request and he verified the said document days together.
Meanwhile the Enquiry Officer was transferred as
Regional Manager and a new Enquiry Officer Sri B.
Narasing Rao was appointed in his place on 23.8.1996
and Petitioner was informed of the same. After defence
assistant completed the verification of the documents the
Management witnesses were examined and their
documents were marked. The Petitioner got said
witnesses cross examined. Thereafter the defence was
asked to produce their evidence but inspite of giving
sufficient time they failed to do so. Enquiry Officer
received written briefs from either party and thereafter
adjudicated the matter, scrutinized the documents and
the evidence very keenly and gave his report. A copy of
the report was sent to the Petitioner and Petitioner filed
his submissions on it. A show cause notice was issued to
Petitioner proposing to impose the punishment of
“discharge from bank service without disqualification of
future employment”. On 6.6.1998 a personal hearing
was also given to the Petitioner by the then Zonal Manager
cum Disciplinary Authority and found that the
submissions made by the Petitioner as not different from
the pleadings made by the Defence Assistant before the
Enquiry Officer. Basing on the relevant factors,
Disciplinary Authority confirmed the punishment and
communicated the Petitioner on 18.6.1998. Petitioner
filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority to
reconsider the punishment imposed. Considering all the
facts, material, the Appellate Authority confirmed the
punishment already imposed, by virtue of the order dated
29.9.98. Petitioner filed this petition with malafide
intention and ulterior motives and without valid and
substantial motives. The contention of the Petitioner that
the Enquiry Officer failed to consider the fact that the
documents produced by the Management are not bearing
signatures and that there is violation of principles of
natural justice are not correct. His further contention
that he was not given opportunity to produce defence is
also not correct. He failed to avail the opportunity given
to him to do so. Petition is liable to be dismissed.
4.
While things stood so, Learned Counsel for the
Petitioner represented before the court that Petitioner
concedes that the domestic enquiry conducted in this case
is valid. This representation was made on 18.10.2003.
There on in this case the arguments advanced under
Sec.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were heard.
5.
The points that arise for determination are :
1.
Whether the impugned order of removal of the
Petitioner from service is liable to be set aside and
on what grounds?
2.
To what relief the Petitioner is entitled?
6.
Point No.1:
As can be gathered from the petition filed by the
Petitioner, his grievance has been against the conduction
of enquiry by the Enquiry Officer. He is attacking the
domestic enquiry conducted in this case on five grounds
mentioned in clauses (a) to (e)of para 6 of his petition.
7.
In the first ground, mentioned as “a’’ he claimed
that the Enquiry Officer failed to see that the documents
filed by the Respondent Management were not bearing
any signatures, which is denied by the Respondent. He
failed to state as to which are the documents, which are
not bearing signatures, specifically. Whereas all the
relevant documents of the Management are bearing the
signatures of the concerned.
8.
In the ground ‘b’ it is stated that the officers who
initialled the dispatch register were not examined. But
the material on record shows that some of the officers
who worked in dispatch section were examined as
witnesses and all the relevant documents produced before
the enquiry were properly proved. If some other officers
are not examined and the said event is prejudicing the
interest of the Petitioner, he ought to have taken steps to
get them examined as defence witnesses by getting them
summoned. Evidently he has not taken any such steps.
9.
Petitioner is claiming that there is violation of
principles of natural justice in grounds “c”, “d” and “e”,
stating that some relevant documents were not summoned
by the Enquiry Officer. A perusal of the enquiry
proceeding and enquiry report show that when the
documents like circular issue register were sought to be
summoned, the Enquiry Officer made efforts to secure
them, but found that no such register was in existence.
In the given circumstances it can not be said that there is
violation of principles of natural justice during the
domestic enquiry conducted in this case.
6718
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10.
Further more, an important fact to be noted is,
Petitioner who is attacking the enquiry proceedings in
above manner, in his petition has actually conceded to
the validity of domestic enquiry conducted in this case
during the present case proceedings, which shows that
there is no substance bonafides in the various grounds
on which he sought to attack the validity of domestic
enquiry.
11.
Thus, the Petitioner is not disputing with the
soundness of the findings arrived at by the Enquiry
Officer. Even otherwise a perusal of the material on
record clearly shows that basing on the evidence which
is substantiating the charges and on due application of
mind to the same, sound and well reasoned findings
were arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. Further more,
sufficient opportunity has been given to the Petitioner to
make his submissions regarding the domestic enquiry
and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, before the
Disciplinary Authority and he availed of the same. A
personal hearing was also afforded to him. Thereafter,
considering all the circumstances of the case, the
Disciplinary Authority proceeded with awarding the
punishment to the Petitioner by virtue of impugned
proceeding, dated 18.6.98. The Petitioner preferred an
appeal against said order to the Appellate Authority. On
due consideration of the material on record he confirmed
the order dated 18.6.98 in his order dated 29.9.98.
Considering the nature of the charges levelled against
the Petitioner, which were proved and which involved
moral turpitude, as it is misappropriation of amount and
cheating, one can not say that the punishment awarded
to the Petitioner is disproportionate to the charges in any
manner. As the Respondent bank lost faith in the
Petitioner due to his grave misconduct they removed him
from service. But, considering his case with some
compassion, his opportunity for future employment has
not been denied to him. Thus, it is a very appropriate
punishment and it also does not require any interference.
12.
In view of the fore gone discussion, the impugned
removal order removing the Petitioner from service is
not liable to interfere with.
This point is answered accordingly.
13.
Point No.II:
In view of the finding given in Point No.I Petitioner
is not entitled for any sort of relief.
This point is answered accordingly.
Result :
In the result petition is dismissed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
Witnesses examined
for the Petitioner
for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2696-—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 ds
chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 96@09)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26&09&2014 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@68@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2014
S.O.
2696.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 96/09)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Central Bank of India and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
26/09/2014.
[No. L-12011/68/2009-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/96/09
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE
General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank karmchari Sangathan,
F-1, Tripti Vihar, Opp. Engineering College,
Ujjain.
.....Workman/Union
Versus
Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Khandwa Branch,
Khandwa (MP)
.....Management
AWARD
Passed on this19th day of August 2014
1.
As per letter dated 4-11-09 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
12011/68/2009-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference
relates to:
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6719
“Whether Shri Deepak Khatwase is entitled for
payment of difference of wages as per the Bipartite
Settlements for the periods he worked with the
Bank?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim. Case
of workman is that he was engaged by IInd party as peon
from 3-7-93. He was working 8 hours per day. He
completed more than 240 days continuous service. That
he was paid wages as per pay scale in bogus names like
Dilip, Dinesh, Baliram, Kamalkumar, Ladlesh, Raju,
Vinay Kumar, Mahesh Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Narayan,
Ramesh, Vikas, Devendra, Deewakar, Dipanshu,
Deenath, Devkumar, Vikas etc. workman claimed
regularization and payment of bonus. Management of
IInd party got annoyed and terminated his services in
violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. He was not paid
retrenchment compensation. Workman challenged
termination of his service vide reference no. 133/02. The
reference is pending. Workman submits that the
settlement No. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 were implemented raising the
pay scale of subordinate staff from Rs. 430 to 790, 815 to
1510, 1600 to 3020, 2750 to 5850 & 4060 to 7560 from
the dates shown in Para-4 of statement of claim. Workman
submits that the employees were classified as per chapter
16, Para 5 to 8. Workman is temporary peon. He is entitled
to pay scales as per settlements. The workman is praying
for payment of difference of wages with interest.
3.
IInd party is proceeded exparte vide order dated
29-8-13. IInd party has failed to case appearance or file
Written Statement in the matter.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether Shri Deepak Khatwase
In Negative
is entitled for payment of difference
of wages as per the Bipartite Settle-
ments for the periods he worked
with the Bank?
(ii) If so, to what relief the workman
Relief claimed
is entitled to?
by workman is
rejected.
REASONS
5.
Workman is claiming difference of pay as per Bipartite
Settlement dated 14-9-84, 10-4-89, 14-2-95, 23-3-00 & 2-6-05.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his
claim. Workman has stated that he had continuously
worked more than 240 days. He was discontinued from
service on 31-8-01. He was engaged as peon from 3-7-93.
That he is entitled to pay scales as per settlement No. 6, 7.
Workman has stated that he was paid pay scale in bonus
names. Claim that he was paid wages in names of different
bogus persons itself is fraudulent. Document P-35
produced by workman that he was appointed as casual
labour as per application dated 1-12-1997. Said order is
issued in name of Shri Prakash Kohli and not in name of
workman himself. Document No. P-37 is with respect to
payment of Rs. 30,978.96 to one Pradeep Devda by Bank
of Maharashtra. No document is produced by workman
about payments made by Central Bank of India. When
workman has produced document about his appointment
as peon, his claim for difference of wages as per settlement
6, 7 cannot be accepted. For above reasons, I record my
finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
6.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
Workman is not entitled for difference of wages as
per Bipartite Settlements.
(2)
Claim of workman is rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2697-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc us'kuy
cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 16@98)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26&09&2014 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@386@96&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2014
S.O.
2697.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/98)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Punjab National Bank and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
26/09/2014.
[No. L-12012/386/96-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/16/98
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE
The President,
Association of PNB employees,
C/o Punjab National Bank,
Bairagarh,
Bhopal
.....Workman/Union
6720
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
Regional Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
4, Sikharvaartha Building,
Bhopal
.....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 12th day of August, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 13-1-98 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.
L-12012/386/96-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Punjab
National Bank, Bhopal in withdrawing the special
allowance meant for Special Assistant from Shri
Satish Waygaonkar and redesignate him as clerk/
cashier w.e.f. 9-8-91 is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief the said workman is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 5/1 to 5/5. Case of workman is that he was re-
designated as Special Assistant on basis of seniority and
oral interview. He was posted at Gwalior Branch of New
Bank of India. Workman resumed duty on 9-10-89. His
performance was good. Special allowance payable to
workman was withdrawn from 8-8-91 without assigning
any reasons. Workman further reiterates that he was
offered re-designation as Special Assistant vide order
dated 30-9-89. Said order is defective and re-designation
was restricted for limited period. That he requested
management to continue special allowance. The request
was not considered. The withdrawal of special allowance
denotes confirmation. Workman referred to various
annexures contending abolition of Hindia’s post at
Neemuch branch of ENBI and creation of Special
Assistant’s new post at the branch where required i.e.
Gwalior branch of ENBI. That the documents
demonstrate powers by management. The vacancy of
Special Assistant at Gwalior was new. One sr. most clerk
was posted. Such posting should have been treated on
probation for six months and then confirmed. Workman
prays for restoration of special allowance from 9-8-91.
3.
Management of IInd party filed Written Statement
at Page 6/1 to 6/5. Preliminary objection is raised by IInd
party on ground of delay in rising dispute. The Writ
Petition filed by workman in High Court was withdrawn
on 8-8-91 and the dispute is raised on 30-6-96. That
workman was granted special allowance for post of
Assistant on temporary basis. Workman is not entitled to
special allowance permanently. On vacancy of Shri R.K.
Hindia, workman was re-designated as Special Assistant.
It was conditional if Shri R.K. Hindia was restored special
allowance or he was not promoted to the officer grade,
workman will not get special allowance. All above points
are reiterated by IInd party and prays for rejection of
claim.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the manage-
In Affirmative
ment of Punjab National Bank,
Bhopal in withdrawing the special
allowance meant for Special Assis-
tant from Shri Satish Waygaonkar
and redesignate him as clerk/cashier
w.e.f. 9-8-91 is legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman
Workman is
is entitled to?
not entitled to
any relief.
REASONS
5.
Workman is challenging withdrawal of special
allowance to him from 9-10-89. Management has opposed
relief claimed by workman. The documents produced by
workman are admitted and marked Exhibit W-1 to W-4.
Document Exhibit W-1 is letter issued by Regional
Manager to workman in the matter of his temporary re-
designation as Special Assistant. That the re-designation
of workman as Special Assistant was against vacancy of
Shri R.K. Hindia on purely temporary basis. Till such times,
Hindia is not restored to special allowance applicable to
Special Assistant or his promotion to officer cadre in any
subsequent selection. Exhibit W-2 & 3 is letter
discontinuing special allowance to the workman. Exhibit
W-4 is representation submitted by workman. Exhibit W-5
is order of punishment imposed on Shri R.K. Hindia.
Punishment of his dismissal was reduced to reduction of
special allowance for a period of 3 years. The documents
Exhibit M-1 to M-7 produced by management also speaks
that workman was granted special allowance in place of
Shri R.K. Hindia temporarily. The appointment of workman
was on temporary basis. Exhibit M-4 is copy of
representation submitted by workman. Exhibit M-5 is letter
given by management rejecting representation of workman.
The document Exhibit M-6 shows workman was granted
special allowance temporarily.
6.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence narrating
the course of litigation. In his cross-examination, workman
says he was appointed in Bank of India which was merged
in Punjab National Bank. He was re-designated by Bank
of India. He was granted re-designation from 9-10-89 or
date may be 30-9-89. Workman was granted special
allowance temporarily. It was withdrawn. Management’s
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6721
witness Shri Deepak Sood has filed affidavit supporting
contentions raised in Written Statement. The cross-
examination of management’s witness shows that Bipartite
Settlements are governing the service of workman. The
permanent post are filled directly after holding interview.
Workman has accepted his re-designation and resumed
working. The evidence on record is clear that workman
was not granted special allowance permanently. He was
not promoted to the post of Special Assistant. Therefore
the withdrawal of special allowance to the workman cannot
be said illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in
Point No.1 in Affirmative.
7.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Punjab National
Bank, Bhopal in withdrawing the special allowance
meant for Special Assistant from Shri Satish
Waygaonkar and redesignate him as clerk/cashier
w.e.f. 9-8-91 is proper and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2698-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks cSad ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 279@97) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26&09&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@355@96&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2014
S.O.
2698.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 279/97) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 26/09/2014.
[No. L-12012/355/96-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/279/97
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE
Secretary,
Indian National Bank Employees Federation,
9, Sanwer Road,
Hardev Niwas,
Ujjain (MP)
....Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
UCO Bank,
E-45, Arera Colony,
Bhopal
.....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 2nd day of September, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 30-9-97 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.
L-12012/355/96-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of UCO
Bank in denying revision of subsistence allowance
on the basis of the 6th Bipartite Settlement during
the period of suspension of Shri Hare Singh Muvel
is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said
workman is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim at Page 9 to 11. Case of Ist party workman is that
he was suspended on 21-9-92 by IInd party pending
enquiry. 6th Bipartite Settlement was settled on
14-2-95. 5th Bipartite settlement was settled on 10-4-89. In
6th Settlement, pay scales were revised for clerk from
Rs.1750 to Rs. 5500/-, for subordinate staff from Rs. 1600
to 3020. 6th settlement was made applicable from
1-11-92. Ist party was not paid subsistence allowance as
per revised pay in 6th Bipartite Settlement. ALC, Bhopal
had directed to pay arrears of subsistence allowance as
per 6th Bipartite Settlement. As per directions in
conciliation proceedings, Ist party was paid arrears of other
allowance on 15-6-97 revised subsistence allowance as
per 6th Bipartite Settlement was not paid to him. This
dispute has been raised. Workman claims for payment of
arrears of subsistence allowance as per 6th Bipartite
Settlement.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 40/1 to 40/
3 opposing claim of workman. Preliminary objection is
raised that no valid or viable award could ensue from the
matter under reference, the reference is vague. For an
effective, just, proper and meaningful adjudication of
revision of subsistence allowance, the factual foundation
period attracting its applicability constitutes a must
requirement and condition precedent. It is further
submitted that workman moved application raising
dispute by Shri Ram Nagwanshi, Rashtriya Bank
Karmchari Sangthan. No documents are produced that
workmen is member of said Union. Resolution passed
to prosecute claim of the workman. It is further submitted
that Shri H.S. Movel had been suspended prior to the
date of salary revision as per 6th bipartite settlement. As
6722
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
per decision of Committee of Indian Bank’s Association, it
was resolved that in case workmen employees and the
officer employees, if the date of suspension is prior to the
date of salary revision, there will be no change in the
subsistence allowance arising out of the salary revision.
However the date of suspension is subsequent to the date
of salary revision is effective, the concerned employee
will be given the salary revision on the due date and his
subsistence allowance will be fixed as per his revised
salary.
4.
IInd party denied claim of Ist party workman that
the suspension order was issued incorporating the rules.
That workman has not disclosed actual period and
duration of his suspension. Bipartite settlement is
admitted with terms and conditions. The conciliation
proceeding and reference of dispute is not disputed.
However it is submitted that workman was already paid
allowance as per Bipartite Settlement and nothing
remained due. Claim of workman is false and incorrect.
If any dues would have been left, computation, calculation
would have been furnished with the application. The
annexure which relates to the reply of the Bank workman
is not disputed. Precisely the IInd party opposed claim
for arrears of subsistence allowance as per 6th Bipartite
Settlement. IInd party prays for rejection of claim.
5.
Workman filed rejoinder at page 53/1 to 53/3
reiterating its contentions in statement of claim. He
further submits that workman belongs to SC was
appointed on 9-9-84. The suspension chargesheet was
issued to workman contrary to the Bipartite Settlement.
That suspension order was issued on 21-9-92 confirming
that subsistence allowance as per rules are paid to the
workman. Workman reiterates that he is entitled to arrear
of subsistence allowance as per 6th bipartite settlement
for the period 21-9-92 to 10-8-94.
6.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the manage- In Affirmative
ment of UCO Bank in denying revi-
sion of subsistence allowance on the
basis of the 6th Bipartite Settlement
during the period of suspension of
Shri Hare Singh Muvel is legal and
justified?
(ii) If so, to what relief the workman is
Workman is
entitled to?
not entitled
to any relief
as claimed.
REASONS
7.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence that he
was appointed in Bank in 9-11-84, he was suspended on
21-9-92 without calling explanation or issuing chargesheet.
That as per 5th Bipartite Settlement, subsistence allowance
was paid. 6th Bipartite Settlement was settled on 14-2-95.
He is entitled to revised subsistence allowance as per pay
revised in 6th bipartite settlement. In his cross-examination,
workman says he has passed Hsc. He claims arrears of
suspension allowance as per 6th bipartite settlement came
in force on 1-11-1992. However he has made improvement
in his cross-examination about his claim till 8-9-97. In his
rejoinder, he had claimed arrears till 10-8-94. That he
submitted copy of 6th Bipartite Settlement. As per 6th
Bipartite Settlement, he was not paid subsistence
allowance. He claims difference of subsistence allowance.
The 6th Bipartite Settlement produced by him is not
complete document. He admits to be an employee of the
UCO Bank. The policy and rules of said Bank are applicable
to him. He claims ignorance whether he submits documents
with Written Statement of the Bank. Bank has not replied
to his claim for subsistence allowance as per 6th Bipartite
settlement. That he has produced document about
payment of subsistence allowance as per 6th Bipartite
settlement by other banks.
8.
Management’s witness Shri Prabhat Pathak in his
affidavit of evidence says for proper adjudication of
revision of subsistence allowance, the factual foundation
period attracting its applicability is an essential
requirement/ condition precedent. That workman has not
specifically mentioned actual period and duration of
subsistence allowance claimed by him. That as per decision
of Personnel Committee Meeting of Bank’s Association
held on 12-9-89 circulated on 28-11-89 the employees and
officers are not entitled to revised suspension allowance
when the date of suspension is earlier to salary revision.
If the date of suspension is subsequent to the date from
which salary revision is effective, the concerned employee
will be given the salary revision on the due date and his
subsistence allowance will be fixed as per his revised
salary.
9.
Management’s witness in his cross-examination
says his affidavit is based on documents. He had
discussion with the Branch Manager but did not recollect
the date. 3-4 days before preparing his affidavit, he had
seen the record. He was not working in the branch during
24-9-92 to 8-9-97. He claims ignorance whether explanation
of workman was called before order of his suspension. If
any employee is suspended on the basis of settlement, he
would not be entitled to benefit of settlement. That circular
of 1989 was policy matter and it is applicable to all. That
6th Bipartite Settlement does not apply to the workman. In
his further cross-examination, management’s witness says
workman was paid medical allowance, haulting allowance
as per 6th Bipartite Settlement. That those allowances are
not based on basic pay. Management’s witness Shri
Deepak Kumar in his affidavit of evidence says that
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6723
workman was placed under suspension on 21-9-92.
Chargesheet was served on him on 24-3-93. As per order
dated 10-8-94, workman was dismissed from service. The
dispute is referred on 30-10-95. In reply to the
representation of workman through Union Representative
dated 25-5-95, Head Office vide letter dated 4-11-95
intimated workman about decision to conduct
departmental enquiry. Union submitted letter dated
18-11-95 for payment of subsistence allowance during
Departmental Enquiry. Workman was paid arrear of
subsistence allowance as per letter dated 9-7-96. The
calculation sheet is enclosed with the said letter. The
circular dated 18-11-89 is reproduced by the witness. The
copy of said circular is also produced on record. Workman
has produced document Exhibit W-1. Management’s letter
about payment of arrears of subsistence allowance
Rs. 56454.19 as per revised pay scaled from 21-11-93.
Exhibit W-2 are copies of cheques, W-3 is order of
suspension dated 21-11-92. Exhibit W-4 is copy of order
passed by management. That subsistence allowance
during enquiry was paid to him. He would not be entitled
to any other claim.
10.
Management produced documents Exhibit M-1 letter
by Assistant General Manager (Personnel) to Union
Secretary Shri Ram Nagwanshi informing that
chargesheet was issued to workman on 24-5-95. Enquiry
would be conducted in Hindi. Exhibit M-2 is copy of
letter by Shri Ram Nagwanshi Secretary dated 18-11-95,
Exhibit M-3 is copy of letter dated 2-3-96 by Regional
Manager, M-4 is copy of letter dated 9-8-96 informing
workman about payments of Rs. 30,663/- on different
counts. M-5 & 5(a) are copy of calculation sheet. M-6 is
copy of letter dated 9-7-96. Workman was paid arrears
of subsistence allowance. Exhibit M-6(a) is calculation
sheet.
11.
The parties are in dispute whether the workman is
entitled to revised subsistence allowance as per 6th
bipartite settlement. Claim is opposed by management
only on ground that as per circular dated 20-11-89,
workman is not entitled to revised subsistence allowance
as per 6th bipartite settlement. To make the point clear,
relevant verbatim of said circular is produced-
“Both in case of workmen employees and the officer
employees, if the date of suspension is prior to the
date of salary revision, there will be no change in
the subsistence allowance arising out of the salary
revision and accordingly no arrears will be payable
unless the period of suspension is treated as on
duty. If however, the date of suspension is
subsequent to the date from which the salary
revision is effective, the concerned employee will
be given the salary revision on the due date and his
subsistence allowance will be fixed as per his
revised salary. The arrears of salary ad subsistence
allowance shall be paid to him accordingly.”
Workman in his cross-examination says that rules
and policy of Bank is binding on him. The copy of award
in R/6/97 is produced on record. The dispute related to
termination of workman from service from 10-8-94. The
claim of workman was not upheld on ground that fresh
enquiry was already initiated. As Bank’s circular dated
28-11-89 is clear that if suspension order is prior to the
date of revision of salary, the employees is not entitled to
revised subsistence allowance. Therefore I do not find
any illegality committed by the Bank. For above reasons.
I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
12.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of UCO Bank in
denying revision of subsistence allowance on the
basis of the 6th bipartite settlement during the
period of suspension of Shri Hare Singh Muvel is
legal and proper.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2699-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj us'kuy
ba'kksjsa'k dEiuh fy- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 18@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 26&09&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&17011@1@99&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2014
S.O.
2699.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 18/2000) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of National Insurance Co. Ltd.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 26/09/2014.
[No. L-17011/1/99-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 18 of 2000
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
National Insurance Company Ltd.
AND
Their workman.
Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
6724
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearance:
On behalf of the
: Mr. Dipak Kumar Ghosh,
Management
Ld. Counsel with
Mr. Ranjay De, Ld. Counsel.
On behalf of the
: None
Workman
State: West Bengal
Industry: Insurance
Dated: 12th August, 2014.
AWARD
By Order No.L-17011/1/99-IR(B-II) dated
23/28.02.2000 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 National
Insurance Co. Ltd., Calcutta in converting the
services of Bradma Operators and comptist
straightway to Assistant (Clerical) ignoring the
seniority of Assistant (Typist) who are also supposed
to be converted to clerical cadre is justified? If not,
what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?”
2.
When the case is taken up today for hearing, none
appears on behalf of the union/workmen though the
management it represented by its Ld. Counsel. It appears
from the record that the union is absent since 23.01.2014.
Considering the above facts and circumstances and the
conduct of the union it may reasonably be presumed that
the union does not want to proceed with the case further.
3.
In view of the above, instant reference case is
disposed of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.
Dated : Kolkata, the 12th August, 2014.
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2700-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj dksydrk
iru U;kl 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[;k 36@2003)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26&09&2014 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&32011@4@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2014
S.O.
2700.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 36/2003) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Kolkata Port Trust and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
26/09/2014.
[No. L-32011/4/2003-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 36 of 2003
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
Kolkata Port Trust
AND
Their workmen
Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the
: Mr. M. K. Das,
Management
Industrial Relations Officer.
On behalf of the
: None.
Workmen
State : West Bengal
Industry: Port & Dock
Dated: 10th September, 2014.
AWARD
By Order No.L-32011/4/2003-IR(B-II) dated
31.10.2003 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour
in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of Kolkata
Port Trust in denying the promotion to Shri Chandi
Charan Debnath from Lascar Grade-I to Deck
Tindal from 1.1.2001 against a supernumerary post
on par with other marine personnel, who were
granted similar benefits is legal and justified? If
not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled
to?”
2.
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 authorized
representative. It appears from the record that none is
appearing on behalf of the union since 06.06.2011, nor
any step has been taken by the union to proceed with the
matter.
3.
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.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6725
4.
Accordingly, the instant reference case is disposed
of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
Dated : Kolkata, the 10th September, 2014.
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2701-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc us'kuy
cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ubZ fnYyh&2 ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
57@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26&09&2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@34@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2014
S.O.
2701.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 57/2007) 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 Punjab National Bank
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 26/09/2014.
[No. L-12012/34/2007-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 57/2007
Sh. Sunder Lal, S/o Sh. Khazan Singh,
16/362 , Trilok Puri, New Delhi-110091
Versus
Sr. Regional Manager, North Delhi Region PNB,
Rajendra Bhawan , Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110066
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide notification No L-12012/34/2007-IR(B-II)) dated
18.09.2007 referred the following industrial Dispute to
this tribunal for adjudication :—
“Whether the action of the Sr. Regional Manager,
Punjab National Bank, Rajendra Place, New Delhi,
in terminating the services of Sh. Sunder Lal Ex-part
time sweeper w.e.f 21.08.2002 is just, fair and legal?
If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and
from which date?”
On 27.09.2007 reference was received in this tribunal.
Which was register as I.D No. 57/2007 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. Wherein he stated as follows:-
1.
That the Central Government, Ministry of Labour,
vide their Order No. L- 12012/34/2007-IR(B-II) dated
18.09.2007 has been pleased to refer the above-
mentioned industrial dispute to this Hon’ble
Tribunal, for adjudication, with the terms as under:—
“Whether the action of the management of the
Sr. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank,
Rajendra Place, New Delhi in terminating the services
of Shri Sunder Lal , Ex-Part-time Sweeper, w.e.f .
21.08.2002 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
2.
That the employer Bank served the workman with
no notice before terminating his services w.e.f.
21/08/2002.
3.
That there was no adverse remark against the said
workman regarding his work and conduct, from any
official of the employer management.
4.
That no departmental or fact finding enquiry was
ordered by the management before abruptly
dispensing with the services of the workman.
5.
That the workman was working with the employer
Bank against permanent vacancy of a Sweeper for a
long time (1730 days w.e.f. 26.11.1997 to 21.08.2002
and was likely to be absorbed in the permanent
services or the Bank as full-time Sweeper as per on–
going negotiations with the majority Union of Bank
Employees.
6.
That immediately after termination of services of the
workman, the employer Bank posted another
Sweeper to do the same job.
7.
That the workman was working in the employer’s
Mayur Vihar Phase –II Branch of the Bank eve since
its opening against a permanent sanctioned vacancy
of a Sweeper and his attendance was marked in the
Attendance Register of the Branch alongwith other
permanent officials of the Bank.
8.
That the workman requested the employer Branch
to confirm him in the service of the Bank as a
6726
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
permanent Sweeper on his successful completion
of six month’s probation period but the employer
Bank preferred to terminate the services of the
workman against all norms and principles of natural
justice.
PRAYER
It is prayed that this august Tribunal may consider
the case in its entirely and order for reinstatement of the
workman in the service of the Bank w.e.f 21.08.2002,
with back wages till the date of his reinstatement in the
service of the Bank, and other consequential benefits as
may be applicable to the workman while in service, for
the said period of his illegal termination from the service
of the employer Bank.
Any other relief, which the court may deem fit,
may also, be awarded in favour of the workman.
Against claim statement management filed following
written statement:-
Most respectfully, it is submitted as under :—
That the aforesaid Industrial Dispute has been
referred for adjudication to this Hon’ble Tribunal by the
Appropriate Government with the following terms of
reference:-
“Whether the action of the management of the
Sr. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Rajendra
Place, New Delhi in terminating the services of
Shri Sunder Lal , Ex-Part-time Sweeper, w.e.f . 21.08.2002 is
just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to and from which date?”
Before submitting reply on merits, we would like
to raise the following preliminary objections:-
A.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
1.
That there was no employer-employee relationship
between the bank and Sh. Sunder Lal and
accordingly what has been referred by the
Appropriate Government to this Hon’ble Tribunal
cannot be termed as an ‘Industrial Dispute’ as per
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India. Sh. Sunder Lal Cannot ask for reinstatement
in service with the bank dehors the rules.
2.
That the term ‘retrenchment’ has been defined in
section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and sub-
clause(bb) of the said section inter-alia provides
as under:-
“Termination of the service of the workman as a
result of non-renewal of the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman concerned
on its expiry or of such contract being terminated
under a stipulation in that behalf contained
therein.”
3.
That Sh. Sunder Lal was engaged for the limited
period in stop-gap arrangement only and by virtue
of Section 2(oo) (bb) reproduced here-in-above the
non continuance of Sh. Sunder Lal in the Stop-gap
arrangement does not constitute retrenchment and
accordingly, there is no violation of Section 25F of
the Industrial Disputes Act as alleged or otherwise.
B.
REPLY ON MERITS
That at the outset, it is submitted that all the
allegations, submissions and averments made by
Sh. Sunder Lal in his statement of claim dated 15.11.2007
be deemed to have been specifically denied unless they
are specifically admitted in this reply.
It is submitted that Sh. Sunder Lal had been
engaged in stop-gap arrangement of a part-time sweeper
at BO: Mayur Vihar, Phase-II Delhi, for a specific period
i.e. till the appointment of a regular sweeper in the branch.
Since the engagement of Sh. Sunder Lal was purely
against stop-gap arrangement, discontinuation of the
same cannot be termed as termination by virtue of
provisions of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
That the Bank had entered into a conciliation
settlement dated 7.05.1984 with ALL INDIA PNB
Employees Federation over the matter of fixation of wages
of part-time sweepers and related matters. In terms of
the provisions of the said settlement, the vacancies of
part-time sweepers of various offices are identified
keeping in view the sweeping area of the concerned office
as well as hours of work per week to be put in by the
part-time sweeper. It is also agreed that the vacancies of
part-time sweepers eligible for ½ , ¾, or full wages arising
at the station where the bank has more than one office on
account of any reason shall be filled up on the basis of
seniority determined by converting the service put in at
1/3, ¼, ¾ of the scale wages into full time service. This
procedure of filling up the vacancies is to be followed
unless ‘thikana’ system is in vogue at that particular area.
That the bank rules further provide that till such
time a permanent sweeper is provided, the branch can
make stop-gap arrangements. The persons engaged in
such stop-gap arrangement are entitled to compensation
equivalent to same proportion of scale wages but at the
initial stage of scale of pay application to subordinate
staff.
Sh. Sunder LAl was engaged at BOL Mayur Vihar,
Phase-II, Delhi in stop- gap arrangement for a specific
period i.e. till the appointment of a sweeper in the branch.
Since his engagement was for a specific period and on
completion of the same, his engagement came to an
automatic end.
C.
PARA WISE REPLY
1.
That the contents of para 1 of the statement of claim
are admitted to the extent that the Appropriate
Government referred the case before Hon’ble court
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6727
for adjudication. However, it is submitted that what
has been referred by the Appropriate Government
to this tribunal cannot be termed as an Industrial
Dispute in view of the Preliminary objections made
here-in-before.
2.
That the content of para 2 are wrong and hence
denied. It is denied that Sh. Sunder Lal was ever
employed by the bank as a part-time sweeper in
BO: Mayur Vihar , Phase –II , Delhi. It is reiterated
that he was engaged only to clean the branch
premises in stop-gap arrangement of a permanent
sweeper for which necessary payment was made to
him from time to time. There was no occasion for
his termination or giving any notice as stated or
otherwise.
3.
That the contents of para 3 are wrong and hence
denied. The submissions made here –in –before are
reiterated.
4.
That the contents of para 4 are wrong and hence
denied. Since there was no employer-employee
relationship between the bank and Sh. Sunder Lal,
there was no occasion for a departmental enquiry.
5.
That the contents of para 5 are wrong and hence
denied. It is vehemently denied that any
negotiations were going on between the bank and
the majority union regarding absorption of part-
time sweepers in the permanent service of the bank.
Sh. Sunder Lal has worked as a part-time sweeper
in stop-gap arrangement w.e.f 26.11.1997 to
21.08.2002 (excluding holidays and Sundays) on
1/3rd scale of wages and his engagement was
discontinued on the posting of permanent sweeper
in the branch.
6.
That the contents of para 6 are wrong and hence
denied. In this connection it is submitted that the
engagement of Sh. Sunder Lal was discontinued
on the posting of a permanent sweeper in the
branch.
7.
That the contents of para 7 are wrong and hence
denied. It is submitted that Sh. Sunder Lal was
working in B.O. Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi as
part time sweeper in a stop- gap arrangement for a
specified period i.e. till the posting of a permanent
sweeper in the branch.
8.
That the contents of para 8 are wrong and hence
denied. It is reiterated that Sh. Sunder Lal was never
appointed in the bank. There was no employer-
employee relation between the bank and Sh. Sunder
Lal and accordingly there was no occasion for the
bank to terminate his service as alleged . It is further
denied that any provision of law or the principle of
natural justice has been violated in discontinuing
the engagement of Sh. Sunder Lal in stop-gap
arrangement.
PRAYER :—
That in view of the submission made here-in-above,
its respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Tribunal may
kindly be pleased to hold the action of the bank in
discontinuation of stop-gap arrangement of Sh. Sunder
Lal as just and proper and that Sh. Sunder Lal is not
entitled to any relief as prayed for or otherwise.
Workman filed rejoinder. Wherein he stated as
follows:-
Most respectfully on behalf of the workman:-
1.
That the workman reiterates the contents of his
statement of claim.
It is reiterated that the workman , Sh. Sunder Lal,
was employed by the management of Punjab
National Bank as a part-time Sweeper on 1/3rd of
Scale Wages of a permanent Sweeper, against
permanent vacancy, arising with the opening of its
new branch at Mayur Vihar , Phase –II , Delhi,
w.e.f 26.11.1997 and his services were abruptly
terminated w.e.f 21.08.2002, without service of any
notice, or holding any enquiry, while the workman
asked for absorption of his services as permanent
Part-time Sweeper of the management Bank.
2.
That there existed no contract between the workman
and the employer Bank to work in a ‘Stop gap’
arrangement for a ‘specific period’, as has been
alleged by the management in the Written
statement.
3.
That even on date, a large number of vacancies of
permanent Sweepers are lying vacant with the
employer management and it is out-sourcing the
sweeping work to outside agencies at the cost of
absorption of those part-time sweepers who have
put in a number of years in the employment of the
management Bank as part-time sweepers and
therefore have a right over the vacancies lying
vacant with the management of the Bank in the
interest of ‘natural justice’. Such an act is also
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The management should not be permitted to
formulate and practice a law unknown to the Indian
legislature and which is also against the principles
of ‘natural justice’.
4.
That the employer Bank is violating the terms of
conciliation settlement dated 07.05.1984, according
to which, it is agreed that the vacancies of part-
time sweepers eligible for 1/3, 3/4 or full wages arising
at the station where the bank has more than one
office on account of any reason shall been filled up
on the basis of seniority determined by converting
the service put in at 1/3, 1/4, 3/4 of the scale wages
into full time service. This procedure of filling up the
6728
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vacancies has not been followed in the case of
workman Sunder Lal and he has been thrown on the
road by the management Bank against the provisions
of this conciliation settlement dated 07.05.1984 . The
management may please be directed to place on
record of this Hon’ble Tribunal a true copy of the
said conciliation settlement dated 07.05.1984.The
management may please be directed to place on
record of this Hon’ble Tribunal a true copy of the
said conciliation settlement dated 07.05.1984, along
with the number of vacancies available in Delhi Circle
of the management Bank, as also the seniority list
prepared by the management, of such part-time
sweepers who fit in this equation, for filling up the
vacancies on the basis of seniority of such part-
time sweepers including the workman claimant.
5.
It is emphatically denied that any of provisions of
the above –referred conciliation settlement dated
07.05.1984 provide that the management Bank make
any ‘Stop gap’ appointment of any Sweeper for any
‘specific period’ or any length of time, or on contract,
till such time a permanent sweeper is provided.
6.
The workman , therefore, has prayed for his
reinstatement in service of the management Bank
with full back wages and all consequential benefits
from the date of his illegal termination.
On 23.04.2012 My Ld. Predecessor mentioned in
order sheet that no issue other than one mentioned in the
reference requires to be framed in this case.
In view of this for evidence of workman on affidavit to
come upon 14.08.2014.
Workman in support of its case filed his affidavit
Ex.WW1/A . He tendered his affidavit and he also placed
reliance on documents which has been marked as WW1/1
to 8 is examination in chief and cross-examination recorded
on 03.05.2013 is as follows:-
I tender my affidavit as evidence, which is Ex. WW1/
A . Alongwith my affidavit, I rely on letter dated 16.07.2010,
28.07.2010, my bio-data, letter dated 18.12.1997, letters dated
07.01.1997 , 16.02.1991, 03.03.2004 and voucher dated
20.08.1999, which documents are Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/
8. These documents maybe read alongwith my affidavit.
XXXXXX Ms. Natasha, Officer (HR) for the management.
It is incorrect that I was a temporary part time
sweeper with the bank. It is correct that bank never gave
in writing to me informing me that I was working as a
permanent part-time sweeper. I have no documents in my
possession to show that I was a permanent part-time
sweeper with the bank.
My Ld. Predecessor on 3.05.2013 fixed 3.07.2013
for remaining evidence of workman as well as evidence
of the management since then neither workman nor his
Ld. A/R turned up before this tribunal on 3.07.2013,
05.08.2013, 17.09.2013, 15.11.2013, 07.01.2014 and 12.03.2014
for remaining evidence of workman but no remaining
evidence has been produced by workman. Evidence
alongwith documents and its copies was filed by
management but afterwards management also adopted
dormancy and could not tendered its affidavit and its
annexed documents filed by management.
Due to continuous dormancy of parties I fixed
5.09.2014 for award on 03.09.2014.
In the light of pleadings and evidence on record no
case of workman is made out for granting him relief in
want of required evidence. Question of determination
mentioned in schedule No.1 of reference is liable to be
decided against workman and in favour of Management.
Which is accordingly decided. Claim statement is hereby
dismissed.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-05.09.2014
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2702-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 73@2012) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26&09&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@111@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2014
S.O.
2702.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/2012)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Indian Bank and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
26/09/2014.
[No. L-12011/111/2011-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Monday, the 8th September, 2014
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6729
Industrial Dispute No. 73/2012
(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 Indian Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN
The General Secretary
: 1st Party/Petitioner
Indian Bank Employees Union
Union
No. 6, Moore Street,
Mannady Corner,
Chennai-600001
AND
The General Manager
: 2nd Party/
Indian Bank
Respondent
Corporate Office
264, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Chennai-600014
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/
: Sri J. Thomas Jeyaprabhakaran,
Petitioner Union
Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/
: M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,
Respondent
Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and
Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/111/2011-IR
(B.II) dated 12.09.2012 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the management of Indian
Bank in proposing to recover an amount to the tune
of Rs. 59,052 and paise 16 paid excessively to Sri
U. Lakshmipathy, Part-Time Sweeper during July
2008 to December, 2010 is legal and justified?
Whether the demand of the Union that
Lakshmipathy should be fitted at the 11th stage on
his elevation of half-scale w.e.f. 02.07.2008 and
the next increment be preponed by 8 months to
02.11.2010 are just and proper? What relief the
workman concerned is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 73/2012 and issued notices to both
sides. The petitioner had entered appearance through
Authorized Representative and the Respondent through
the counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement
respectively. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the
Counter Statement.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement are these:
The dispute pertains to reduced fitment of salary to
U. Lakshmipathy, Part-Time Sweeper of Aminjikarai Branch
of the Respondent Bank. Lakshmipathy was initially
working as Part-Time Sweeper in YWCA Extension Counter
attached to Purusawalkam Branch and 1/3rd scale of wages
was applicable to him at the time. When the extension
counter was upgraded and shifted to a spacious premises
in Aminjikarai, Lakshmipathy became eligible for 1/2 scale
wages from 02.07.2008. As on the date of his elevation he
has put in service of 15 years and 3 months. He had been
sanctioned 16 annual increments of 1/3rd rate of the full
increment, including the increment sanctioned on
computerization in the banking industry, by the time he
became eligible for half scale wages. At the time of his
elevation, he was drawing 1/3rd scale wages at the 17th
stage in the scale of pay eligible for Sub-Staff. On the
basis of the communication from the Circle Office that the
wages of Lakshmipathy has been enhanced to half scale
wages, the Aminjikarai branch has calculated his salary as
Rs. 3,258/- i.e. half of the full scale wages. He was paid at
the above rate till December, 2010. Subsequently, on the
basis of communication from Head Office, the pay of
Lakshmipathy was re-fixed at the sixth stage of pay of
Sub-Staff in half scale w.e.f. 02.07.2008. His date of
increment was fixed as 02.03.2009. The Head office also
instructed the branch to recover the excess salary said to
have been paid to Lakshmipathy. The re-fixation was done
on the basis that the 16 increments in 1/3rd scale on
conversion into full increments would come to 5 and 1/3. It
is accordingly, the pay was fixed in the sixth stage. The
fixation of pay is not in accordance with the provision
made in the Bipartite Settlement for the same. As per the
Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.1989, on elevation from
part time to full time wages, the pro-rata increment earned
in the part-time service should be notionally converted
into full increments. In the case of conversion from
1/3rd scale to 1/2 or 3/4 scale, or from half to 3/4scale, the
pro-rata increments earned in the lower proportionate wage
scale should be notionally converted to higher
proportionate wage scale into which the employee is
elevated. If pay is fixed on this basis, the pay of
Lakshmipathy should have been fixed in the 11th stage on
his elevation to half scale. The remaining fraction of 1/3
increment being equivalent to 8 months in half wage scale,
his next increment should have been advanced by 10
months to 02.09.2008 instead of 02.07.2009. Gross injustice
has been meted out to Lakshmipathy by reducing his salary
by incorrect fixation. An order may be passed directing
the Respondent to fix the wages of Lakshmipathy at 11th
stage on his elevation to half scale w.e.f. 02.07.2008, to
prepone his date of increment by 10 months and declare
02.09.2008 as the increment date and also direct the
Respondent to desist from recovering any amount from
Lakshmipathy as excess amount.
6730
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as follows:
At the time Lakshimpathy was elevated to half scale
wage as part-time sweeper, he had put in 15 years of service
with 15 increments and also a special increment. So on
elevation he was fixed at 16 × 1/3 = 5 and 1/3 increment.
His pay was re-fixed at the 6th stage of his pay and he was
entitled Rs. 3,275/- of pay at half-scale. However, for some
reason Lakshmipathy was being paid excess wages. His
pay was re-fixed and excess amount for the period from
02.07.2008 to 01.05.2010 was sought to be recovered. The
fixation of pay of Lakshmipathy is in terms of the settlement
dated 27.04.2010. The claim of the petitioner is liable to be
rejected.
5.
The petitioner has filed a rejoinder disputing the
mode of calculation by the Respondent and also reiterating
the case in the petition.
6.
The evidence in the case consists of Ext.W1 to
Ext.W11 and Ext. M1 to Ext.M8. No oral evidence was
adduced by either side.
7.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
What is the correct fixation of pay of Lakshmipathy,
the concerned workman on his elevation to half scale
wage as Part-Time Sweeper w.e.f. 02.07.2008? What
is the date of his increment due on elevation?
(ii)
What is the relief to which the concerned workman
is entitled?
The Points
8.
Lakshmipathy, the concerned worker, a Part-Time
Sweeper of the Respondent Bank was getting 1/3rd scale
wages applicable to Sub-Staff cadre employees. When
the extension counter in which he was working was
upgraded and the branch was shifted to a spacious
building, Lakshmipathy became eligible for 1/2 scale wages
w.e.f. 02.07.2008. By the time, Lakshmipathy was elevated
to 1/2 scale wages he had already earned 16 annual
increments including a special increment at 1/3rd rate of
the full increment. Aminjikarai branch in which
Lakshmipathy was working fixed the salary of
Lakshmipathy in 1/2 scale at the 11th stage of Sub-Staff
scale as he had already been sanctioned 16 annual
increments at 1/3rd scale. However, the Head Office
instructed the branch that this calculation of the scale is
not correct. As calculated by the Head Office 16 increments
in 1/3rd scale on conversion into full increments comes to
5 and 1/3. Thus the pay should have been fixed at 6th
stage only in the1/2 scale, according to the Head Office.
On the basis of this instruction, the pay of Lakshmipathy
was re-fixed at the 6th stage in 1/2 scale wages thus
reducing the salary which was drawn by him as per the
calculation of the branch. The dispute is raised on account
of this.
9.
According to the Authorized Representative of the
petitioner, who has raised the dispute on behalf of
Laksmipathy, even though calculation of salary in 1/2 scale
rate as calculated by the branch need not be resorted to,
the salary of Lakshmipathy should have been fixed at the
11th stage. The petitioner as well as the Respondent are
relying upon the relevant clauses in the 9th Bipartite
Settlement to put forth their respective cases. The relevant
clauses in the Bipartite Settlement are extracted below:
“For fitment of part-time employees consequent on
their appointment on full time basis the pro-rata
increments earned by them in the course of their
part-time service shall be converted (notionally and
only for the purpose of fitment) into full increments
and their salary fitted from the date of their
appointment as full time employees after taking into
account such notionally added increments, the
fraction of an increment if any being granted to
them by advancing the date of their next increment
suitably. The advanced date of increment will in
such cases become the date of annual increment in
future years.
When wages of part-time employees are re-fixed
from 1/3rd to 1/2 or 3/4th or from 1/2 to 3/4 in the wage
scales, the pro-rata increments earned by them in the
course of their service in the lower proportionate wage
scale shall be taken into account for the purpose of fitment
in the higher proportionate wage scale together with the
benefit of advancing the date of increment where the
fraction of increment is involved as in the case of their
absorption as full time employees.”
10.
The bank has relied upon the first clause extracted
above to calculate the wages of Lakshmipathy and fix it
at the 6th stage in 1/2 scale. What the bank has done as
stated in this clause is to convert the 16 and 1/3 increments
of Lakshmipathy into full increments which will be
6 and a fraction and fix the scale at the 6th stage.
11.
According to the Authorized Representative, this
calculation made by the Bank is not correct. According
to him, when the second clause which refers to elevation
of part-time employees from 1/3 to 1/2 or 3/4 or from 1/2 to
3/4 wage scales are taken into account the pro-rata
increments earned in the lower proportionate wage scale
should be notionally converted into higher proportionate
wages scale, in which case the scale of Lakshmipathy
should be fixed at the 11th stage.
12.
The Authorized Representative has relied upon the
decision of Madras High Court in PONNAMMAL VS.
INDIAN BANK AND OTHERS in Writ Appeal No. 453/
2007 (Unreported) decided on 19.02.2009 in this respect.
In the above case, Ponnammal, the concerned employee
who was earlier working in 1/2 scale wages was granted
3/4th scale subsequently. While fixing salary of Ponnammal
at 3/4th scale the Respondent Bank has converted the
increments that were sanctioned to her while working on
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6731
1/2 scale into full increments and fixed her salary
accordingly. This was challenged before the High Court.
The Hon’ble High Court, rejecting the method of
calculation adopted by the employee as well as the Bank
had adopted its own calculation. The Court has observed
that the mode of pro-rata increment into full increment will
not apply to the worker since she has not been appointed
as a full-time employee. The Court converted the part-time
half increments into part-time 3/4 increments notionally
for the purpose of fitment and fixed the salary. It is pointed
out by the Authorized Representative that the only
difference between Ponnammal’s case and that of the
worker herein was that while Ponnammal was elevated to
3/4th scale from 1/2 scale the worker herein is elevated to
1/2 scale from 1/3rd scale. Thus according to him, the
calculation should be based on the method of calculation
done by the High Court.
13.
The counsel for the Respondent has argued that
method of calculation adopted by the High Court in
Ponnammal’s case could not be adopted for fixing the
salary of Lakshmipathy. According to the counsel, a
reading of the relevant clauses in the earlier Bipartite
Settlements would show that the method in which the
High Court has fixed the salary could not be resorted
to. In the written arguments submitted, the counsel has
referred to the clauses in the earlier Bipartite Settlement
regarding elevation of Part-Time employees. According
to the counsel for the Respondent, the clauses in the earlier
Bipartite Settlements were not brought to the notice of the
High Court and that is why the salary happened to be
fixed in the manner done in the decision. As pointed out
by the Authorized Representative, a new Bipartite
Settlement overrides the earlier one. The earlier one will
not be relevant for any purpose after that. Again, it has
been pointed out by the Authorized Representative that
the High Court while deciding Ponnammal’s case was very
much aware of the earlier settlements also. The salary
fixation of Ponnammal was done by the Respondent on
the basis of the 3rd Bipartite Settlement as the 9th
settlement was yet to come into effect at that time. On
account of the reference to the employees of the bank
who joined the bank prior to 01.01.1980 which is referred
to in the 3rd Bipartite Settlement also it is clear that the
High Court was aware of provisions of the previous
Bipartite Settlements at the time when Ponnammal’s case
was decided.
14.
On a reading of the two relevant clauses of the 9th
Bipartite Settlement, the only conclusion that could be
arrived at is that the clause applicable to the case of
Lakshmipathy is the second one. As noticed by the High
Court, the first clause is relevant only to the extent that
the same mode of calculation is to be adopted but at the
same time the pro-rata increments at the lower scale should
be notionally converted into the higher proportionate
scale. The decision of the High Court also shows that this
is the method of calculation to be adopted. When these
aspects are taken into account, it is clear that the method
of calculation resorted to by the petitioner is to be adopted.
So the increments that were earned by Lakshmipathy in
1/3rd scale has to be converted into 1/2 increments in
which case it would be 10 half increments with a fraction
of 1/3. So on elevation of Lakshmipathy to 1/2 scale he
should be fitted in the 11th stage. The method of
calculation resorted to by the Respondent is only to be
rejected.
15.
The relevant clauses regarding fixing of scale on
elevation states that the fraction of increment, if any,
should be taken into account and the date of increment is
to be advanced suitably. 1/3rd increment which is the
fraction on conversion is equivalent to 8 months in 1/2
scale wage. Lakshmipathy has earned 3 months from the
date of his earlier increments which was 01.04.2008 to the
date of his elevation on 02.07.2008. This three months in
1/3rd scale comes to 2 months in 1/2 wage scale. Thus, he
had 10 months to his credit after fixing his pay at the 11th
stage. So the next increment of Lakshmipathy on advancing
it by 10 months will be 02.09.2008.
16.
On the basis of my findings above, an award is
passed as follows :
(i)
The Respondent is directed to fix the salary of
Lakshmipathy, the concerned workman at the 11th
stage in the 1/2 scale.
(ii)
The first increment date of Lakshmipathy in 1/2 scale
wages is declared as 02.09.2008.
(iii)
The Respondent shall calculate the wages at the
above rate and pay arrears of wages, if any, to
Lakshmipathy within a month of the date of the
award.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 8th September, 2014).
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
Nil
Page No. 12.6 and 12.7 of HRM
Manual of instructions 2009
Ex.W2
25.03.2009
Copy of letter from Circle Office,
Chennai
sanctioning
6732
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
enhancement of scale wages to
Sri U. Lakshmipathy, PTS,
Aminjikarai
Ex.W3
16.12.2010
Copy of letter from HO/HRM
Department re-fixing the wages
to Sri U. Lakshmipathy, and also
for recovery of excess salary paid
Ex.W4
20.12.2010 Copy of letter from Zonal Office
(North), Chennai to Aminjikarai
branch for recover of excess
salary paid
Ex.W5
Nil
Copy of letter from Aminjikarai
branch to HO/HRM Department
for confirmation of amount to be
recovered
Ex.W6
12.01.2011
Copy of the letter from HO/HRM
Department to Aminjikarai
branch instructing to recover Rs.
59,052.16
from
Sri
Lakshmipathy
Ex.W7
29.06.2011
Copy of the letter from Zonal
Office (North), Chennai for
recovery of excess salary paid
Ex.W8
31.01.2011
Letter from Indian Bank
Employees Union, Chennai to
ALC (C), Chennai raising a
dispute over the recovery
Ex.W9
20.04.2011
Copy of the counter reply
submitted
by
HO/HRM
Department
Ex.W10
22.07.2011
Rejoinder submitted by the Union
to the counter reply
Ex.W11
08.08.2011
Letter from Indian Bank
Employees Union, Chennai
addressed to ALC, Chennai over
the contravention of Provision 33
of ID Act by the Indian Bank
Management.
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.M1
15&16/4/1980
Minutes of discussions
between Bank’s Association, All
India
Bank
Employees’
Association
and
National
Confederation
of
Bank
Employees – (Extract of Page
Nos. 245, 246, 247, 248)
Ex.M2
08.09.1983 Memorandum of Settlement
dated 08.09.1983 between the
Management of 58 Banks
represented by the Indian Banks’
Association and their workmen
represented by All India Bank
Employees’ Association and the
National Confederation of Bank
Employees – (Extract of Page
Nos. 261, 629 and 270)
Ex.M3
10.04.1989
Memorandum of Settlement
between the Managements of 54
“A” Class Banks represented by
Indian Banks’ Association and
their workmen represented by the
All India Bank Employees
Association and the National
Confederation
of
Bank
Employees (V-BPS-Extract –
Page Nos. 382, 393, 394 and 395)
Ex.M4
07.01.2011
Letter
(Manuscript)
from
Manager, Aminjikarai Branch to
Chief
Manager,
HRM
Department, Indian Bank, H.O.
Chennai – enclosing salary paid
and salary payable – Calculation
Sheet (Typed one)
Ex.M5
21.06.2011
Letter from Indian Bank, Z.O.,
Chennai North, HRM Secn. –
Chennai-8 to B.M. – Aminjikarai
(ZO-CH-(N)-40-2011/12 dated
21.06.2011)
Ex.M6
20.10.2011
Conciliation Failure Report by
ALC (C), Chennai
Ex.M7
30.03.2012 Letter from U. Lakshmipathy –
PTS – Aminjikarai Branch to
AGM – Corporation Office,
Chennai-600014
Ex.M8
17.05.2012 Letter from Zonal Office,
Chennai North, HRM Section to
Branch Manager, Aminjikarai –
Sanction of Increment.
ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2703-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ykbiQ
bU'kqjUl dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 58@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 6&6&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&17012@16@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6733
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2014
S.O.
2703.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/
2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 6/6/2014.
[No. L-17012/16/2013-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 58 of 2013
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Life Insurance Corporation of India
A N D
Their workman
Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the
: Mr. D. K. Pal, Ld. Counsel
Management
On behalf of the
: None
Workmen
State: West Bengal
Industry: Life Insurance
Dated: 20th May, 2014
AWARD
By Order No.L-17012/16/2013-IR(M) dated 28.10.2013
the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of
its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of Life
Insurance Corporation of India in terminating the
services of Shri Arpan Chatterjee, working as
Development Officer on probation, is legal and
justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
When the case is taken up for hearing today, none
appears on behalf of the workman through the
management is represented by its Ld. Counsel. It appears
from the record that the workman is absent since
03.02.2014, i.e., for three consecutive dates.
3.
The conduct of the workman goes to show that he
is not at all interested to proceed with this reference case
further. Perhaps he has got no grievance against the
management at present.
4.
In view of the above, instant reference is disposed
of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.
Dated, Kolkata,
The 20th May, 2014.
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2704-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vj bf.M;k
fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 31 of
2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30&09&2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&11012@71@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2014
S.O.
2704.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2007)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. Air India Limited,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 30-09-2014.
[No. L-11012/71/2006-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 MUMBAI
Present : JUSTICE S.P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/31 OF 2007
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
Air India Limited
And
Their workman (P.N.Sugunan)
Appearances :
For the first party/
: Ms.Shehwar Qureshi holding
Management
brief for M. Lancy D’Souza
For the second
: None present
party/workman
Satate : Maharashtra
Mumbai, dated the 13th day of August, 2014
AWARD
1.
The present reference has been made by the Central
Government by its order dated 14.6.2007 passed in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of reference as
per the schedule to the said order are as under:
6734
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the action of the Mangement of Air India
Limited, Mumbai in dismissing the services of Shri
P.N.Sugunan, Cleaner w.e.f.24.10.2000 is justified
and legal? If not, to what relief is the concerned
workman entitled?”
2.
By the order dated 29.6.2007, notice was directed
to be issued to the parties fixing 13.8.2007.
3.
Notices were accordingly issued by Registered Post
AD to both the parties. Notice issued to the second party/
Workman was duly served and the Acknowledgement Card
was received back. On 13.8.2007, the post of Presiding
Officer of this Tribunal was vacant. Appearance was put
in on behalf of the first party/Management on the said
date. However, none appeared on behalf of the second
party / Workman nor was any Statement of Claim filed.
The case was thereupon adjourned to 11.10.2007 for filing
Statement of Claim.
4.
On 11.10.2007, the post of Presiding Officer of this
Tribunal was vacant. Representative for the first party /
Management was present. However, none was present for
the second party/Workman. No Statement of Claim on
behalf of the second party/Workman was filed on the said
date. In the circumstances, the case was fixed for 7.12.2007
for filing Statement of Claim.
5.
On 7.12.2007, again, none was present on behalf
of the second party/Workman nor was any Statement of
Claim filed. Representative for the first party/Management
was present. The case was thereupon adjourned to
16.1.2008 for filing Statement of Claim.
6.
The case was thereafter fixed on various dates in
the years 2008 and 2009. In the year 2010 also various
dates were fixed till 20.10.2010. However, on none of these
dates, anyone was present on behalf of the second party /
workman nor was Statement of Claim filed on behalf of
the second party/Workman. Ultimately on 16.12.2010,
Mrs.P.S.Shetty, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of
the second party / Workman and prayed for time for filing
Statement of Claim. The case was accordingly adjourned
to 20.1.2011 for filing Statement of Claim.
7.
Again on 20.1.2011, Mrs.P.S. Shetty, learned
counsel for the second party / Workman prayed for further
time for filing Statement of Claim. The case was
accordingly adjourned to 10.3.2011.
8.
On 10.3.2011, Mrs.P.S.Shetty, learned counsel for
the second party/Workman prayed for further time for
filing Statement of Claim. The case was accordingly
adjourned to 21.4.2011 for filing Statement of Claim.
9.
On 21.4.2011, Mrs. P. S. Shetty, learned counsel
for that second party/Workman stated that the second
party/Workman was not contacting her despite letter
having been sent to the second party/Workman.
10.
In the circumstances, this Tribunal by order dated
21.4.2011, directed for issuance of fresh notice to the
second party/Workman. The said order was reiterated by
this Tribunal on various dates namely 1.2.2012, 14.3.2012,
25.4.2012, 28.6.2012, 30.8.2012, 10.10.2012, 5.12.2012,
30.1.2013, 13.3.2013 and 17.4.2013.
11.
On 9.4.2014, the Tribunal took note of the aforesaid
earlier orders passed for issuance of notice to the second
party/Workman. As needful had not so far been done for
compliance of the said orders, the Tribunal by order dated
9.4.2014 directed for issuance of fresh notice to the second
party/Workman by Registered Post AD. It was further
directed that notice be also given dasti to the learned
counsel for the Management for service on the second
party/Workman.
12.
Notice issued by Registered post AD pursuant to
the order dated 9.4.2014 was served on the second party/
Workman, and the Acknowledgement Card was also
received back. However, despite service of notice wherein
26.6.2014 was fixed, none was present on behalf of the
second party/workman on 26.6.2014. No Statement of
Claim was filed by the second party/Workman on the said
date. Learned counsel for the first party/Management was
present on the said date.
13.
In the circumstances, by the order dated 26.6.2014,
the case was adjourned to 31.7.2014. Again, on 31.7.2014,
none was present for the second party/Workman. No
Statement of Claim on behalf of the second party/
Workman was filed on the said date. Smt.Vrunda Borjee,
holding brief for Shri Lancy D’Souza, learned counsel
for the first party/Management was present.
14.
In the circumstances, by the order dated 31.7.2014,
the case was directed to be put up on 13.8.2014 i.e. today
for filing Statement of Claim.
15.
The case is taken up today. Ms. Shehwar Qureshi,
holding brief for Shri Lancy D’Souza, learned counsel
for the first party / Management is present. However, none
is present on behalf of the second party/workman. No
Statement of Claim has been filed on behalf of the second
party/Workman.
16.
From the above narration of facts, it is evident that
despite the passage of several years, since the reference
was made in the year 2007, no Statement of Claim has so
far been filed on behalf of the second party/Workman.
Despite service of fresh notice on the second party/
Workman, none has put in appearance on his behalf.
17.
There is thus no pleading or evidence filed on behalf
of the second party/Workman in support of his claim as
contained in the present Reference. No relief can, therefore
be granted to the second party/workman.
18.
Reference is answered by stating that no relief can
be granted to the second party / workman.
19.
Award is passed accordingly.
Justice S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6735
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2705-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vjost
b.Vjus'kuy ifCyd fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydrk ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 34 of 2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 30&09&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&11012@14@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2014
S.O.
2705.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/
2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of M/s. Airways International
Public Company Limited, and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 30-09-2014.
[No. L-11012/14/2013-IR (CM-II)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 34 of 2013
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Thai Airways International Public Company Ltd.
AND
Their workman
Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the
: Mr. S. Dawn, Ld. Counsel with
Management
Mr. A.K. Goopta, Ld. Counsel
On behalf of the
: None
Workmen
State: West Bengal
Industry : Civil Aviation
Dated : 19th September, 2014
AWARD
By Order No. L-11012/14/2013-IR (CM-I) dated
11-6-2013 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
Thai Airways International Public Company Ltd. is
justified in terminating the services of Sri Kartik
Ghosh, Cleaner is legal and justified? To what relief
is the concerned workman entitled?”
2.
When the case is taken up for hearing on 21.07.2014,
none appeared on behalf of the union or workman inspite
of service of notice, though the management is represented
by its Ld. Counsel. It appears from the record that union/
workman never appeared in this reference, nor any step
has yet been taken on its behalf to proceed with the matter.
3.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, it
appears that neither the workman nor the union is at all
interested to proceed with the case further. So, no fruitful
purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending.
4.
Accordingly, the instant reference case is disposed
of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
Dated, Kolkata,
The 19th May, 2014.
ubZ fnYyh] 7 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2706-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,uVhihlh ,oa
vkFklZ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1, paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
88@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@09@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@17@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th October, 2014
S.O.
2706.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 88/2014)
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 NTPC & Others and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on 26/09/
2014.
[No. L-42012/17/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-1,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 88 of 2014.
Reference No. L-42012/17/2014/IR(DU)
Dated 01/05/2014
Shri Rajinder Prashad
son of Shri Sawalia,
C/O Shri Inder Kumar Rawat,
Pradhan/AR, House No. 367,
Sector-18, Faridabad-121002.
.....Workman
6736
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
1.
The Manager,
M/s. NTPC, Mujeri,
PO- Nimka, Tigoan Road,
Faridabad.
2.
The Proprietor,
M/s. Dushyant Security Agency,
Shop No. 03, Rao Hira Lal Complex,
Opp. Syndicate Bank, Kadipur,
Pataudi Raod, Gurgoan-122001.
....Respondents
Appearances
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management : Sh. Ajay Chandra and
Shri K.C. Pant for Respdt. No. 1
None for Respondent No. 2
AWARD PASSED ON:-23.09.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-42012/17/2013/IR(DU) dated
01/05/.2014 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:
Term of Reference:
“Whether the action of the management of NTPC
Ltd. & their contractors M/s. Dushyant Security
Agency in terminating the services of the workman
Shri Rajender Prashad w.e.f. 1.4.2013 is just fair
and legal? If not, to what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to?”
2.
Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already two opportunities have been allowed to
file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of
the above the present reference is disposed of for want of
prosecution.
3.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.
be informed.
Chandigarh.
23.09.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2707-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhfu;j
lqifjUVsUMsUV vkWiQ jsyos esy vkj,e,l enqjS fMoh”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; psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 11@2014) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@09@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@127@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th October, 2014
S.O.
2707.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 11/2014)
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 Senior Superintendent of Railway
Mail, RMS, Madurai Division and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 26/09/2014.
[No. L-40012/127/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Monday, the 22nd September, 2014
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 11/2014
(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 Senior Supdt. of Railway Mail Service
and their workman)
BETWEEN
Sri K. Surendra Udaiyar
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Senior Superintendent
of Railway Mail
: 2nd Party/Respondent
RMS, Madurai Division
Madurai-625001
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/
: M/s. Sri R. Malaichamy,
Petitioner
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/
: M/s. Sri M. Liagat Ali (ASGC)
Respondent
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-40012/127/2013-IR(DU)
dated 17.02.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action taken by the Management of
RMS, Sub-Record Office, Tirunelveli in terminating
the services of Sri Surendra Udaiyar, GDS MM w.e.f.
15.05.2012 is justified? If not, what relief is the
workman entitled to?”
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6737
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 11/2014 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
counsel and have filed their claim and counter statement
respectively.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
One Kannan who was working as Gramin Dak
Sevak Mailman (GDS MM) in the Second Respondent’s
office was ordered to officiate as Group ‘D’’ from
02.02.2001. The petitioner was ordered to carry out the
duties of GDS Mailman w.e.f. 03.02.2001. The petitioner
worked as GDS Mailman continuously for more than 10
years. Kannan was given promotion w.e.f. 17.06.2011.
The petitioner was permitted to continue as GDS
Mailman till 14.05.2012. He worked against a clear
vacant post from 17.06.2011 to 14.05.2012 and completed
more than 240 days of work in the capacity of GDS
Mailman. The Second Respondent denied work to the
petitioner from 15.05.2012. The efforts of the petitioner
to get reinstated in service has failed. The action of the
Second Respondent in refusing employment to the
petitioner is illegal and unjustified. The Second
Respondent has removed the petitioner from service in
violation of section-25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
An award may be passed directing the Respondents to
reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, back
wages and other attendant benefits.
4.
The Respondents have filed Counter Statement
contending as follows:
The dispute is not maintainable as there has been
no privity of contract between the petitioner and the
Respondents. The petitioner has stepped into the shoes
of one Kannan and has raised the dispute. He is not an
employee of the Respondents. Kannan, without any
authority substituted the petitioner on his own
responsibility. No order has been made to nominate
anyone in the place of Kannan. The Directorate of the
Respondents has declared GDS Mailman as Wasting
Group by order dated 21.07.2010. The nomination of the
petitioner as substitute for Kannan was only based on an
understanding between Kannan and the petitioner. The
petitioner was never permitted to work as GDS Mailman
by the Respondents. The averment that the petitioner had
completed 240 days of work has no application to the
case. The petitioner never worked in any clear vacancy
post under the Respondents, but only as a substitute of
Kannan. The engagement of petitioner by Kannan as
substitute does not give him any right under Section-25F
of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner is not
entitled to any relief.
5.
The evidence in the case consists of the oral
evidence of the petitioner examined as WW1. No
documents were marked on either side.
6.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the termination of the petitioner if any from
the service of the Respondents is justified?
(ii)
To what relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled?
The Points
7.
The petitioner has claimed that he had worked under
the Second Respondent as GDS Mailman for almost 11
years. According to him, one Kannan who was working as
GDS Mailman under the Second Respondent was ordered
to officiate in a Group ‘D post from 02.02.2001 and
consequently, the petitioner was asked to carry out the
duties of GDS Mailman in the Second Respondent’s office
from the next day. He has claimed that he was working in
this capacity for more than 10 years. Kannan is said to
have been promoted on permanent basis w.e.f. 17.06.2011,
consequent to which the petitioner was permitted to
continue to work against the vacancy created by the
promotion of Kannan. According to the petitioner he has
thus worked from 17.06.2011 to 14.05.2012 and completed
more than 240 days of work as GDS Mailman. The petitioner
has tendered evidence as WW1 reiterating his case in the
petition. According to the petitioner though he was
aspiring to be regularized in service by the Second
Respondent, he was denied work from 15.05.2012.
8.
In the Counter Statement filed by the Respondents
the Respondents have no case that the petitioner never
worked as GDS Mailman. The case that is advanced is
that the Second Respondent itself had never engaged the
petitioner but Kannan seems to have taken the petitioner
as his substitute on his own responsibility. It has been
asserted by the Respondents in the Counter Statement
that the petitioner was never permitted to work in the
capacity of GDS Mailman by them and therefore his claim
that he has completed 240 days of work is without any
substance.
9.
The petitioner has not produced even a piece of
paper to show that he has worked with the Respondents.
His claim is that he had worked in the place of
Kannan for long 10 years until he was promoted on
03.02.2001 and thereafter also against the vacant post
till 14.05.2012. In spite of the claim of a long period of
service there are absolutely no documents to support this
contention.
10.
The counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is
a case where the Respondents have admitted that the
petitioner has been working under them and therefore
non-production of documents by the petitioner is not of
any disadvantage to the petitioner., The counsel has also
referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in
UDAY KUMAR VS. TELECOM GENERAL
MANAGER AND OTHERS reported in 2011 (2) CWC
6738
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
870 where it was held that the Court cannot compel a
litigant to produce a document which is not existing. It
was a case where the Writ Petitioner has worked with
BSNL as Waterboy without any appointment or
termination. In the absence of any such appointment or
termination there was no question of compelling the
concerned worker to produce the documents, it has been
held by the High Court. However, in the above case there
were indisputable internal correspondence to prove the
case on which basis order was made.
11.
So far as the present case is concerned except the
version given by the petitioner during his examination,
there is no other evidence to show from which period to
which period he has been working with the Respondents.
The claim on behalf of the petitioner that there is total
admission on the part of the Respondents regarding the
engagement of the petitioner is not correct. What is stated
by the Respondents is that without any authority by them
Kannan might have engaged the petitioner as an outsider.
According to the Respondents, they never permitted
the petitioner to work as GDS Mailman. If the petitioner
was working under the Second Respondent, even based
on unauthorized engagement by Kannan as a
substitute, the petitioner must have been receiving wages
from the Second Respondent in which case some wage
slips at least must have been there. It is for the petitioner
to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days on a
vacancy as claimed by him under the Respondents. In
the absence of such proof his claim for reinstatement
could not be considered. Even his claim that there is
violation of Section-25F of the ID Act also is to be rejected.
I find that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
12.
The reference is answered against the petitioner.
An award is passed accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/
: WW1, Sri K. Surendra Udaiyar
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/
: None
Management
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 9 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2708-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ Mh ch
vkbZ 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;] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 5@2010)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09&10&2014 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@35@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th October, 2014
S.O.
2708.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 5/2010) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of IDBI Bank and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
09/10/2014.
[No. L-12011/35/2009-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 05 of 2010
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
IDBI Bank Limited
AND
Their workmen
Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
Appearance :
On behalf of the Management
: None.
On behalf of the Workmen
: None.
State : West Bengal.
Industry : Banking.
Dated: 15th September, 2014.
AWARD
By Order No.L-12011/35/2009-IR(B-II) dated
01.06.2009 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 impugned transfer order dated 30th
January, 2009 transferring Shri Jagannath Raymandal
and nine others from Kolkata Branch office to
various branches, is justified and legal? Whether
the action of the management in relieving the
workmen concerned from their duties on 2nd Feb’
09 and strucking their names from the muster of old
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6739
branch from 3rd February’ 2009, is to be treated as
alteration in condition of service to the prejudice to
the workmen during pendency of conciliation? What
relief the workman are entitled for?”
2.
When the case is called out today, none appears on
behalf of either of the parties. It appears from the record
that the union is absent for the last two consecutive dates.
3.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, it
appears that the union is not at all interested to proceed
with the case further. So, it appears that no fruitful purpose
will be served in keeping the matter pending.
4.
Accordingly, the instant reference case is disposed
of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.
Dated, Kolkata,
The 15th September, 2014.
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2709-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ
egkjk"Vªk ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2@09)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09&10&2014 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@124@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th October, 2014
S.O.
2709.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/09)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Bank of Maharashtra and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
09/10/2014.
[No. L-12012/124/2007-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/2/09
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE
General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan,
F-1, Tripti Vihar, Karma Bhoomi,
Opp Engineering College,
Ujjain, MP.
.....Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
Bank of Maharashtra,
1/114, Regional office,
Arera Hills, Jail Road,
Bhopal, MP.
.....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 30th day of July 2014
1.
As per letter dated 7-1-2009 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-
12012/124/2007-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the claim of Shri Nand Kishore Namdeo,
workman that he was in the service of Bank of
Maharashtra from 27-9-01 to 15-3-2005 and his
termination from the services by the management
of Bank of Maharashtra w.e.f. 15-3-2005 after
completing 240 days of continuous service is legal
and justified. What relief the concerned workman
is entitled to?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim through Secretary, Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank
Employees Union at Page 1 to 5. Case of Ist party is that
he was engaged on daily wages by Branch Manager Vijay
Kumar on 27-4-01. The wages were increased from
Rs. 30 to 50, 55, 65. He was paid wages for national
holidays, weekly holidays. He completed 240 days
continuous service. His services were terminated from
15-3-2005 without notice. The termination of his service
is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. Principles of
last come first go was not followed. He was not provided
employment. Other persons were engaged as such IInd
party violated Section 25-F of I.D.Act. on such ground,
workman prays for his reinstatement with consequential
benefits.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement. Case of IInd
party is that workman was engaged as casual labour on
temporary basis. After receiving list of selected
candidates, the workman worked for 40 days during
March to December 2001, 54 days from Jan to Dec-02,
45 days in 2003, 58 days in 2004. Workman has not
completed 240 days continuous service. He is not entitled
to notice under Section 25-F of I.D.Act. on such ground,
IInd party prays for rejection of claim.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the claim of Shri Nand
In Negative
Kishore Namdeo, workman that
he was in the service of Bank of
6740
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Maharashtra from 27-9-01 to
15-3-2005 and his termination
from the services by the manage-
ment of Bank of Maharashtra
w.e.f. 15-3-2005 after completing
240 days of continuous service is
legal and justified
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
Workman is
entitled to?”
not entitled
to any relief.
REASONS
5.
Though workman is challenging termination of his
service under Section 25-F, H of I.D.Act, his claim is denied
by management. Workman failed to participate in reference
proceeding. Application is submitted by workman that he
is in employment of Bank. He is desiring to prosecute
present reference therefore I record my finding in Point
No.1 in Affirmative.
6.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The claim of Shri Nand Kishore Namdeo, workman
that he was in the service of Bank of Maharashtra
from 27-9-01 to 15-3-2005 and his termination from
the services by the management of Bank of
Maharashtra w.e.f. 15-3-2005 after completing 240
days of continuous service is not legal and proper.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed by
him.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2710-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eqacbZ 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;] eaqEcbZ ds iapkV (ds-l-vkS-v- 48@2007)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09&10&2014 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&31011@14@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th October, 2014
S.O.
2710.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 48/2007)
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 Mumbai Port Trust
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 09/10/2014.
[No. L-31011/14/2007-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/48 of 2007
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT
OF MUMBAI PORT TRUST
The Chairman
Mumbai Port Trust
Pot House, Ballard Estate
Mumbai-400 038.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
Shri L. P. Churnarkar
C/o. Ms. Sunita Kamatkar
House No. D-17, Maji Sainik Colony
At Padegaon Aurangabad
Tal. Distt. Aurangabad
M.S.-431 001.
APPEARANCES:
For the Employer : Mr. Umesh Nabar, Advocate
For the Union
: Shri Mahadevan S. Iyer, Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 26th August, 2014
AWARD PART-II
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No.L-31011 / 14 / 2007-IR
(B-II), 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 action of the management of Mumbai
Port Trust in terminating the services of Shri L.P.
Churnarkar w.e.f. 11/1/1999 is justified? If not,
what relief Shri L.P. Churnarkar is entitled to?”
2.
The Second party workman is the employee of the
first party. He was in a habit of remaining absent. On
earlier occasions he was held guilty for absenteeism and
some minor punishments were imposed on him. Inspite
of that the workman did not improve his habit of
absenteeism and he was absent for 555 days on 11
occasions during the period 20/5/1994 to 17/06/1998.
Therefore he was charge-sheeted for the said misconduct
and Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the inquiry
against the workman. The workman appeared before the
I.O. on the first date. However thereafter he remained
absent. The I.O. thus proceeded with the inquiry. He
held the workman guilty and submitted his report to the
Disciplinary authority. On the basis of his report, the
disciplinary authority terminated the services of the
workman. The workman raised industrial dispute before
ALC ©. ALC tried to settle the matter. However
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6741
conciliation failed. Therefore on the report of ALC ©, the
Central Labour Ministry sent the reference to this Tribunal.
In Part-I Award this Tribunal held that the inquiry was fair
and proper and the findings of the I.O. are not perverse
and parties were given liberty to argue on the point of
quantum of punishment.
3.
Now in this part-II award following are the remaining
issues for my determination. I record my findings thereon
for the reasons to follow:
Sr.
Issues
Findings
3
Whether the action of terminating
Yes.
the services of the workman is
shockingly disproportionate to the
proved misconduct?
4
If yes, what relief the workman is
As per order
entitled to?
below.
5
What order?
As per order
below.
REASONS
Issues nos. 1 & 2:-
4.
In the case at hand it was submitted on behalf of the
workman that there was nobody in his family to look after
his ill taken mother who was also physically handicapped.
She was staying at his native place at Chandrapur and he
was required to look after his ill taken and physically
handicapped mother. Therefore on many occasions he
could not attend his duties. In short according to him he
was required to perform pious obligation to attend his ill
taken mother as there was nobody in his family to attend
his mother. According to him his mother expired just few
days prior to the date of termination of his services. In
this respect I would like to point out that absenteeism or
remaining absent from duty though amount to
misconduct, it is not so grievous as like committing theft
or insubordination by assaulting the superior officer or
like that of misappropriation of funds or property. At the
same time I would also like to point out that had it been
first incident, the workman could have been relieved by
giving mere warning. In the case at hand the workman
was found absent from duty repeatedly. Inspite of
awarding some minor penalty, the workman did not show
any improvement. Therefore the disciplinary authority
imposed the extreme penalty of terminating his services.
5.
In this respect the fact is not disputed that the
workman was not before the Inquiry Officer or before the
disciplinary authority to explain the reason of his
absenteeism. Therefore as they found repeated act of
absenteeism, they awarded extreme penalty of termination
of services of the workman. In this respect I would like to
point out that though the reason put forth on behalf of the
workman is not sufficient to absolve him from the charges
of absenteeism, however this reason can very well be
considered while awarding the punishment. Had it been
found that the workman was required at his native place
to take care of his ill taken physically handicapped mother,
the disciplinary authority would not have imposed the
extreme punishment. In the circumstances as the workman
was in genuine difficulty, being the only son he remained
absent from duty in order to perform his pious obligation
to provide treatment to his ill taken mother. These
circumstances lead me to the conclusion that the
punishment of termination of services of the workman is
shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct of
absenteeism. In this respect after considering the overall
facts I am of the opinion that instead of dismissal from
service, compulsory retirement with all pensionary benefits
would have served the purpose. Therefore to meet the
end of justice, I hold that in this particular circumstance
the punishment of dismissal from service is found to be
shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct.
Instead of that I think it proper to substitute the
punishment of compulsory retirement with all pensionary
benefits to the workman. Accordingly I partly allow the
reference and proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) The reference is partly allowed with no order as to cost.
(ii) The punishment of dismissal from service/ termination
of services is hereby set aside. Instead of that the
workman is compulsorily retired with all pensionary
benefits.
Date: 26/08/2014
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2711-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc us'kuy
cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] /uckn&2 ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
10@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
09&10&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@7@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th October, 2014
S.O.
2711.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2007)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 09/10/2014.
[No. L-12011/7/2006-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
6742
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. 10 OF 2007
PARTIES : The General Secretary,
PNB Employees Union,
Exhibition Road,
Patna Camp: LDM Office, Patna.
Vs.
The Zonal Manager
Punjab National Bank,
Zonal Office, Chanaky Place, R Block,
Patna.
Ministry’s Order No. L-12011/7/2006-IR(B-II)
Dt. 06.02.2007
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the
: Mr. D. Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate
workman/Union
On behalf of the
: Mr. O.P. Verma, Ld. Advocate
Management
State : Bihar
Industry : Banking
Dated, Dhanbad, the 25th 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-12011/
7/2006-IR (B-II) dt.06.02.2007.
SCHEDULE
(i) “Whether the action of the Management of Punjab
National Bank, the Zonal Manager, Patna in depriving
Hri Naresh Prasad part time 1/3rd scale of wage from
the promotion to higher scale of wages of part time
sweeper is legal and justified? If not what relief the
workman is entitled to? (ii) Whether the action of
the Management of Punjab National Bank Zonal
Manager, Patna denying the inclusion of the name
of Shri Naresh Prasad in the seniority list of full time
sweeper/part time sweeper is justified? If not what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
On receipt of the Order. No. L-12011/7/2006-
IR(B-II) dt.06.02.2007 of the above mentioned reference
from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and
Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,
the Reference Case No. 10 of 2007 was registered on 20th
February, 2007 and accordingly an order to that effect was
passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to
the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court
on the date fixed, and to file their written statements along
with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said
order, notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the
parties concerned.
Both the parties made their appearances and filed
their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The
Union and the O.P./Management through their own
Learned Counsels appeared in, and contested the case.
2.
The case of workman Naresh Prasad as sponsored
by the PNB Employees’ Union Patna, Bihar, is that he
had been workings as a part time gardener sincerely due
to which he was confirmed as a permanent workman in
1/3 Part time sweeper. Though he had the designation of
Gardener, he had been actually performing the job of
sweeper and a peon. As per the Bipartite settlement, only
the permanent employee performing the job of permanent
nature can be promoted in the scale of 1/3 wages. He was
accordingly promoted and confirmed for 1/3 scale of
wages as the Office Order dt. 20.4.1984 as also confirmed
as per the Zonal Office letter dt. 30.11.1984 whereby his
wage was enhanced to 1/3 scale of wages of a regular
employee w.e.f. 1.4.1984. Accordingly the working hour
of the workman was refixed as per the Bank Rule. The
personnel Division Circular No.772 /84 dt.17.5.1984 and
the Bi-partite Settlement dt. 27.3.2000 are supportive to
the case of the workman who has been working,
practically discharging the job of the peon. The seniority
list as per the Circular dt. 22.7.2003 was prepared for
absorption as peon, But the action of the Management in
denying the inclusion of the workman in the Seniority
List of full time sweeper/part time sweeper, thus depriving
him in part time 1/3 scale of wage of the promotion to
higher scale of wages is neither legal nor justified, as it
was vindictive and anti labour practice. The workman as
well as the Union several times represented for it, but no
effect.Finally, the Industrial Dispute raised ended in
failure due to adamanent attitude of the Management
resulted in the reference for an adjudication.
The workman himself in his rejoinder denying the
allegations of the O.P./Management, alleging his
promotion to the scale of one third wages as per the Bi-
partite Settlement and after completion of six months
satisfactory work, his confirmation as per Order dt.
20.4.1984.So he claims for entitlement to one third wage
scale and inclusion of his name in the seniority list for
full time sweeper/part time sweeper.
3.
Contrary to it, the contra case of the O.P./
Management is that the dispute not validly sponsored as
required under the I.D. Act 1947 is not the Industrial
Dispute. The service conditions of the staff of the Bank
are governed by the Sastry Award, Desai Award and the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6743
Bipartite Settlement dt.19.10.1966 as amended time to time.
Workman Naresah Prasad was appointed as Part Time Mali
(Gardener) in 1/3 scale wages at the Zonal Training
Centre,Patna,to look after the flower plants grown in the
open land and pots there, for which the wages was paid
to him as per the Bipartite Settlement. The fixation of wages
of part time employees (Sweepers) in the subordinate cadre
is regulated by the Settlement dt. 07.05.1984 between the
Bank and All India PNB Employees Federaton,the Majority
Union in the bank which was circulated as per the Division
Circular No.722 dt.17.5.1984. According to the settlment,
the vacancies of part time sweeper in 1/2, 3/4 or 4 full
wages arising at the Station where the Bank has more than
one office shall be filled up on the basis of seniority by
conversion of services at 1/3, 1/2 or 3/4 of scale wages
into full time services. The procedure of the filling up
vacancies is to be followed unless “Thikana” system is in
vogue at that particular area. The fixation of wages payable
to part time employees (Sweeper) in subordinate cadre as
per clause I of the Settlement is effected as such Rs.60
p.m. (revisable time to time by a Bipartite Settlement entered
at Industry level), 1/3, 1/2, 3/4 and full scale wages for
their specified Area cleaned to the hours of work per week,
less than 6, 6-13, 13-19, 19-21 hours and full time
respectively. For eligibility of higher scale wages, the part
time sweeper has to sweep more area for increased hours
which is not the case of the workman. The settlement under
the reference does not provide for any criteria for fixation
of the Gardener’s wages to which he belongs to.Thus, the
workman is not entitled to any relief either in fact or in law.
The O.P./Management has categorically denied all
the allegations of the Union concerned for the workman,
and stated that the appointment of Sri Naresh Pd. as a
Part Time “Mali” (Gardener) at Zonal Training Centre,
Patna, on 01.04.1984 with the consent of H.O. in a special
circumstances. The workman never performed the duties
of a sweeper, rather Shri Gautam Bhattacharya and
Shri Sikander Rai had worked as the sweeper-peon and a
part time sweeper respectively at the relevant time. The
appointment of a part time employee on 1/3 scale of wages
does not constitute promotion. The wages of the workman
was enhanced to 1/3 scale wages w.e.f. 01.04.1984. He was
neither promoted nor confirmed in the 1/3rd scale, rather
his confirmation in that scale was on 01.10.1984 after
completion of 6 months. The action of the Management is
neither against the principle of natural justice and the
settled law of Land nor vindictive nor discriminatory.
FINDING WITH REASONS
4.
In this reference,WWI Naresh Prasad, the workman
himself on behalf of the Union, and MWI Santosh Kumar,
the Senior Faculty for the O.P./Management on their own
affidavited chiefs have been examined respectively.
On perusal of the materials on the case record, it
appears to be incontroversial that the status of workman
is as a part time gardener who has got the enhancement of
1/3 rd wages of a regular employee w.e.f. 1.4.1984 as
communicated by the letter dt.20.4.84 of the Training
Manager (Ext.W.1 = Ext.M.1/1) to him. The workman
was also communicated by the Training Manager as per
his letter dt. 2.1.1985 (Ext.M 1/2) on the PNB letter pad
as earlier that his service be deemed as permanent on 1/3
salary in the Bank, for which the Training Manager’s
letters dt. 29.2.84 and 27.12.1985 (Extt. M.3 & 1/3
respectively) seem to be his recommendation letters to
the Zonal Manager and the Manager Personnel concerned
for keeping the workman as a part time gardener on 1/3
basics in sanctioned vacancy in place of Sri Biswanath
Sah Mali as noted in pen by the Training Manager
himself. It is evident that the workman possesses neither
appointment letter nor any confirmation letter as a proof
of it or even for the post of the part time gardener nor
any document to show his working as sweeper at any
time.
5.
Mr. D.Mukherjee, the Learned Counsel for the
workman has to argue as per his note of argument that
the workman in his evidence corroborated the pleading
and the workman (WWI) in his cross examination has
stated not to have worked as a Gardener, as there was no
Gardener, Mr. Sikandar Raj who also worked as a sweeper
in the Garden of P & T Training Centre from 1984, as
well as in the Punjab National Bank premises, has been
made a clerk four/five years ago. Further plea of Mr.
Mukherjee for the workman is that the Management
witness (MWI) in his cross examinations has practically
admitted that in fact the workman was working as peon
and sweeper. which is evident from the copies of the Dak
Delivery Register and conveyance Allowance voucher
etc., filed by the workman and confronted to the
Management witness Santosh Kumar (MWI) who had
established so, though the designation of the workman
as Gardener.There is no such clear admission of the MWI.
Mr. Mukherjee referring to the verdict of Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of F.C.I. Workers Union Vs. F.C.I. & Ors,
reported in 1996 (2)L.L.N.871(SC) as a guide for
appreciation of evidence and the documents on the instant
case record has submitted as held there in that The
approach made by the Tribunal even in the matter of
marshalling or considering the materials placed before
it would be wrong for the following reasons. The Tribunal
was apparently of the view that there should be evidence
to prove the facts as per the provisions of Evidence Act.
It is not so, the Tribunal is not a Court. There should be
only “materials” and not evidence as required by the
Evidence Act. In fact, the Tribunal is not a Court, but a
quasi judicial forum. The Labour Court/Tribunal is
invested u/s 11 of the I.D.Act, 1947 read with its Rule 24
with the same powers as vested in a Civil court under the
6744
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit/case, in respect
of the matters: the attendance of a person and his
examination, and production of documents and material
object .As per Rule 10B (6) of the I.D.Act mandatorily to
make a Memorandum of the substance of what is being
deposed.
The term ‘Evidence’ means and includes oral and
documentary facts as materials as to be likely to influence
the determination of a cause as represented in the form
of pleadings. The evidence in generic is applicable to the
Industrial Dispute. It is settled law that it requires
preponderances for an adjudication.Mr. Mukherjee by the
materials in the instant means only filing of the
documents on the case record without any statement of
the workman at the point. Whereas he pleads for the
evidence of the workmen as corroborative to his pleading.
Consideration of the pleading and materials by this
Tribunal in general manner as a prudent man is not a
matter of marshalling. So such plea of Mr.Mukherjee
appears to be far wide off the upright view of the Hon’ble
Apex Court.
In this reference, the cross evidence of the workman
(WWI) that he was appointed as a Sweeper part time but
not as a Gardener is directly reverse to his pleading “had
been working as a part time gardener…actually
performing the job of sweeper and a peon” When
confronted with the letter of Sri S.Samanta,Training
Manager of the PNB dt.20.4.84 (Ext.W,.1),the workman
has affirmed it about the enhancement of his wages as
gardener to 1/3 of wages of a regular employee w.e.f.
1.4.1984 as well as of refixing of his working hours as per
Bank’s rule
Further emphatic plea of Mr.Mukherjee, Learned
Counsel for the workman is that the Dak Delivery
Register (of the PNB Circle Training Centre, Patna-
unauthenticated photocopies in nine sheets for two and
seven days only in the year 1998 and 1999 respectively)
on confrontation to Shri Santosh Kumar (MWI) bears
the name of workman Naresh Pd. against the name of
Peon, though the Management witness wondered how
his name came into the register, as it is not the duty of
the Gardener to deposit challan. The Management witness
has flatly denied the working of the workman as a peon,
expressing his ignorance of any payment of conveyance
allowance to him for deposit of Tax Challan.The witness
of Management has positively affirmed his chief in Para
7 of his affidavit that ‘There is not any Cadre Scheme
and criteria for fixation of higher wages for the part-
time gardener (Mali)’ nor the Shastri Award provides for
promotion of the workman in higher scale of part time
sweeper, as the nature of job of a part time sweeper and a
part-time Gardener is quite different, because the former’s
work is governed by working hours and the area of
cleaning.
6.
On perusal and consideration of the materials on
the case record, I find that the workman was only part
time Gardener in 1/3 wage scale and there is no provision
under the Bank rule for his promotion to higher Scale of
a Part time sweeper’s wage. Hence, it is, in the terms of
the reference, responded and accordingly awarded as
such:
(i)
No question arises as to the action of the
management of PNB, Zonal Manager,Patna,in
depriving Sri Naresh Prasad Part time 1/3rd scale
of wage from the promotion to higher scale of wages
of Part Time Sweeper as legal or illegal or justified
or unjustified. The workman is not entitled to any
relief.
(ii) The action of the Management of PNB Zonal
Manager, Patna, denying the inclusion of the name
of Sri Naresh Prasad in the Seniority List of full
time Sweeper/Part Time Sweepers is justified. So,
the workman is not entitled to any relief.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2712-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 40@2013) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09&10&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@90@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th October, 2014
S.O.
2712.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2013)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Indian Bank and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
09/10/2014.
[No. L-12012/90/2012-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Friday, the 19th September, 2014
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 40/2013
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6745
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between
the Management of Indian Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN
Sri K. Sekar
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Zonal Manager
: 2nd Party/Respondent
Indian Bank, Zonal Office
10, Kamaraj Salai
Puducherry-605011
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
: Sri J. Thomas Jeyaprabhakaran,
Petitioner
Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/
: M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,
Respondent
Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/90/2012-
IR(B.II) dated 05.03.2013 referred the following
Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the management of Indian
Bank in imposing the punishment of dismissal
without notice to Sri K. Sekar is legal and justified?
What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 40/2013 and issued notices to both
sides. The petitioner has entered appearance through his
Authorized Representative and the Respondent through
its counsel and filed their claim and counter statement
respectively.
3.
The averments in the Claim statement in brief are
these:
While the petitioner was working as Clerk/Shroff
at Sulankurichi Branch of the Respondent Bank he was
issued
with
a
Show
Cause
Notice
dated
17.02.2011alleiging that he had misappropriated Bank’s
money to the extent of Rs. 4,500/- by two occasions. The
petitioner has given reply denying the allegation. After
this the Charge Sheet dated 30.05.2011 was served on
him. Charge No. 1 in the Charge Sheet is that while
functioning as Key Holding Shroff the petitioner had been
negligent and due to his dereliction of duty there was
shortage of one note each in two sections of Rs. 1000/-
denomination held in the closing balance on 02.02.2011
which was detected on 03.02.2011 and that there was
shortage of 5 pieces in the currency chest of Rs. 500/-
denomination sent by him to the Currency Chest on
31.12.2010 and thus exposed the Bank to possible penal
action from RBI. The Second Charge against the petitioner
was that he had stealthily removed the notes from the
Cash Sections mentioned under the First Charge and
misappropriated Bank’s cash and consequent to the
detection of the same he had compensated the Bank for
the misappropriated amount. The reply submitted by the
petitioner was found not satisfactory and a departmental
enquiry was ordered against him. The enquiry was not
conducted in a fair and just manner. The petitioner was
not given opportunity to defend the case. He was not
allowed to cross-examine the witnesses during the enquiry
proceedings. The Enquiry Officer had submitted report
with a finding that the charges against the petitioner are
established. On the basis of this, the punishment of
dismissal without notice was imposed on the petitioner.
There is no justification for the punishment. The
petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with
continuity of service and back wages.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as follows:
While the petitioner was working at Pudupattu
branch of the Respondent Bank there were numerous
complaints against him in the matter of handling cash
including complaint of surreptitiously removing currency
notes received from the Account Holders. On 26.02.2008
a Show Cause Notice had been issued to him and he had
given a reply accepting all the charges and pleading for
leniency. The punishment of censure and bringing down
to lower stage in the scale of pay by one stage without
cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner.
Subsequently, he has been posted at Sulankurichi Branch.
At Sulankurichi Branch the petitioner and one Sridhar
were working as Cash-cum-Shroff and the post of Cashier
used to be assigned to them by rotation. Sridhar had joined
duty as Cashier on 03.02.2011. While he was checking
the cash to take over charge from the petitioner, one piece
each in two sections of Rs. 1,000/- denominations received
from City Union Bank were found missing. This was
reported to the Branch Manager. When the Branch
Manager enquired with the petitioner he confessed the
mistake, apologized and gave withdrawal slip for
Rs. 2,000/- to make good the shortage. On 04.02.2011
Sulankurichi Branch had received a call from Cuddalore
Currency Chest that 5 pieces were missing from one of
the sections of Rs. 500/- denomination remitted from the
Branch. Even before the Branch received a written
complaint from the Currency Chest the petitioner
confessed to the Branch Manager and others that he had
taken the money and agreed to make good the shortage.
He gave a withdrawal slip of Rs. 5,000/- and after
collecting the cash remitted Rs. 2,500/- and this was
recorded in the cash balance book of 04.02.2011. On
07.02.2011 a Show Cause Notice was issued to the
petitioner regarding the two incidents of shortage. The
petitioner gave a reply denying the charges. A Charge
6746
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sheet was issued to him for misconduct. The explanation
given by him was not satisfactory. He was asked to appear
for an enquiry and the first date of enquiry was fixed as
10.08.2011. On 07.07.2011 while the Branch Manager,
Ravichandran had been proceeding to the Zonal Office,
the petitioner who followed him in the same bus stabbed
Ravichandran. The co-passengers in the bus overpowered
the petitioner and handed him over to the nearby Police
Station. A criminal case is pending regarding the incident.
The petitioner had participated in the enquiry. Initially
he had refused to cross-examine the witnesses. However,
later the representative of the petitioner wanted to recall
the witnesses for cross-examination. This request was
declined by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer gave
his report holding that the charges against the petitioner
are made out. After hearing the petitioner the Disciplinary
Authority passed order imposing the punishment of
dismissal from service on him. Without prejudice to the
stand of the Respondent that enquiry against the petitioner
was fair and proper, the Respondent is seeking leave to
lead evidence on the merits of the charges by examining
the witnesses. The dismissal of the petitioner is fully
justified and is valid in law. The petitioner is not entitled
to any relief.
5.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
of WW1 and MWs 1 to 5 and documents marked as
Ext.W1 to Ext.W56 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M41.
6.
In the Claim Statement the petitioner has raised
the contention that enquiry was not conducted in a fair
and proper manner. This was mainly on the ground that
the petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine
the witness of the management in the enquiry
proceedings. The Respondent, even while contending that
the enquiry was held in a proper manner had also stated
that opportunity should be given to it to examine the
witnesses. According to the Management, the petitioner
had declined to cross-examine the witnesses at an earlier
instance and it was not a case of denial of opportunity to
the petitioner. At a later stage, when request was made
by the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, this was
declined by the Enquiry Officer. It is in this background,
the Respondent had examined 5 witnesses before this
Tribunal to establish its case.
7.
It is apparent from the very Counter Statement of
the Respondent itself that the petitioner did not get
sufficient opportunity to defend his case in the enquiry
proceedings. This is clear from the fact that the Enquiry
Officer has declined his request to cross-examine the
witnesses. Even assuming that it was made at a later stage,
the evidence given by the witnesses could be tested only
by cross-examination and in the absence of this the
enquiry proceedings could not be treated as one held in a
fair and proper manner.
8.
The Respondent has examined all the witnesses
who were presented at the enquiry before this Tribunal
also. They were cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner.
The petitioner had also given evidence before this
Tribunal. All the concerned documents are marked also.
Having found that the enquiry was not held in a fair and
proper manner, the proceedings of enquiry need not be
referred to by this Tribunal. The evidence let in before this
Tribunal will be relied upon for adjudication of the dispute.
9.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the Management in imposing
the punishment of dismissal without notice on the
petitioner is legal and justified?
(ii)
To what relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled?
The Points
10.
One limb of the initial charge against the petitioner
is that there was shortage of one note each in two sections
of Rs. 1,000/- denominations held in the closing cash
balance of 02.02.2011. The shortage was detected on the
morning of 03.02.2011 while MW1 was counting the two
sections to disburse amount to customers. The first charge
includes another case that there was shortage of 5 notes
in a section of Rs. 500/- denomination sent by the
petitioner to the Currency Chest on 13.12.2010. In view
of the shortage it is alleged that the petitioner had removed
the cash sections referred to earlier and this is the basis
of the second charge.
11.
The incident of shortage of two Rs. 1,000/- notes
detected by MW1 on 03.11.2010 can be dealt with first.
The petitioner and MW1 are the two Clerk-cum-Shroff
in the branch. The practice in the branch was to assign
the duty of Cashier to one of these two on rotation of
three months. The period of rotation of petitioner was to
come to an end by the end of January, 2011 and MW1
was to take charge as Cashier on 1st February. However,
he happened to be on leave on 1st and 2nd and he took
charge only on 03.02.2011. It happened that in the
morning of this day itself MW4 who was the Asstt. Branch
Manager of Chinna Salem branch had come to the branch
for surprise cash verification. Before taking charge MW1
wanted to reconcile the cash available in the cash box in
the presence of the petitioner, MW2, the Asstt. Manager
and MW4, MW1 found that one piece of note is missing
from each sections when he counted two sections of 1,000
rupee denominations. According to MW2, the Asstt.
Manager of the Branch also two pieces were missing from
each of the sections and this was brought to his notice.
This is the evidence given by MW4, the Asstt. Manager
an outsider who came for surprise inspection also.
According to this witness, while MW1 was counting the
loose cash, the customers had begun to arrive at the
counter. Apart from the counted cash, there were two
sections of Rs. 1,000/- from City Union Bank, one section
of Rs. 1,000/- from Indian Bank and a bundle of 10
sections of Rs. 50/- denomination also. According to MW4,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6747
in order to disburse cash to customers, MW1 had opened
a section of Rs. 1,000/- of City Union Bank and found that
one piece was missing. Then he opened another section
of the same bank and found one piece missing from this as
well.
12.
There is no doubt that one piece each from two
sections counted by MW1 were missing. It is also apparent
from the evidence of MW1 and MW4 that these sections
were of City Union Bank. The petitioner having been the
person who was in-charge of the cash until the previous
day he is seen made responsible for the shortage in the
cash. The assumption is that he had stealthily removed
one piece each from these sections, as seen from Charge
No. 2.
13.
Is it possible that the petitioner could have removed
the notes from the sections and this is the reason for the
shortage? It is clear from the evidence of MW1 that he is
the one who opened the two sections. According to him
he had opened these sections in the absence of the Officer
as permitted by the Officer. He had admitted that the Cash
Officer who verified the sections before he had taken
charge also did not count the three sections. This would
show that sections which reached the branch from City
Union Bank were not opened or counted. This is clear
from the fact that the wrapper of the City Union Bank was
on these two sections. According to MW1, usually when
remittance is received from City Union Bank, sections
would be counted by breaking at one end. Only on
assuring that the sections contain all the pieces, the
wrapper will be removed and will be replaced by Indian
Bank wrapper and that also only after the Officer has
verified the quantity. MW1 does not remember if there
was any discrepancy or tampering on the two sections
before he opened them. MW2 the Asstt Manager had
spoken about the manner in which the currency received
from outside will be dealt with. He was the Officer-in-charge
of the Cash Section at that time. He has stated that when
currency is received, it will be made into sections and the
Officer-in-charge will verify the number of pieces in each
section. He has stated that so far as the two sections of
Rs. 1,000/- denominations of City Union Bank that were
opened by MW1 on the day are concerned, he did not
check them since they were already checked and wrapped.
Thus what is to be seen from the evidence of this witness
is that the sections that were brought from City Union
Bank were kept without any verification. This is evident
from the version of MW4 also. She is an outsider who
has come for surprise inspection and her evidence has
got more weight when compared to that of other witnesses
who are of the same branch. This witness has stated that
the three sections including two sections of City Union
Bank were covered as per the norms of RBI and there was
no tampering of the wrapper of any of these sections. The
evidence given by MW5, the Manager of the Bank only
strengthens the probability that the sections were in the
same manner in which they were opened by MW1 on
03.02.2011. This witness has admitted that both sections
in which shortage was found were packed as per the new
procedure covering from all four sides and because
pilferage was not possible on account of such packing
they were not opened till 03.02.2011. What more evidence
is required to show that the sections were not opened
until 03.02.2011?
14.
The vague suggestion that has been advanced on
behalf of the Respondent during argument is that the notes
might have been removed by the petitioner even while
keeping the wrapper intact. A demonstration has been
made by the Authorized Representative of the petitioner
in court showing that this is absolutely impossible. The
sections which are tied tightly using twains and which
are wrapped on all four sides could not be opened without
tampering the wrapper. The counsel for the petitioner
was not able to demonstrate how it would have been
possible for the petitioner to open the sections without
causing any tampering, to remove the notes.
15.
In fact MW3 who conducted an enquiry after the
notes were found missing had found the Asstt. Branch
Manager negligent. He has stated in his report marked
as Ext.W20 that the Manager should have counted the
cash apart from the Cashier. So far as the two sections
from which notes were found missing are concerned, they
were not counted at all after they reached the branch from
City Union Bank. MW3 has found fault with the petitioner
only for the reason that he was supposed to count with
the sections on the date of receipt itself and it was since
this was not done he has stated in his report that the
contention of the petitioner that shortage might have
occurred from City Union Bank itself could not be
accepted. He stated that this misconduct of negligence is
applicable to Asstt. Branch Manager also. In fact this
witness has asserted that the sections received from City
Union Bank were covered on all sides as per the new
norms of RBI and MW2 had not counted these sections
as pilferage was not possible. What MW3 has stated
during his cross-examination is that the fact that the
sections were not counted by Asstt. Branch Manager was
taken advantage of by the petitioner to remove the notes
from the sections. But the Management has not brought
out how this could have been done by the petitioner. As
already discussed this would have been an impossibility.
16.
On 31.12.2010, the petitioner is said to have sent
currency to the Currency Chest out of which there was a
shortage of five pieces in a section of Rs. 500/-
denomination. It is MW1 and MW5 who had gone to
Kallakurichi branch to handover the remittance to be
made with Cuddalore Chest. Sulankurichi branch being
a small branch, the practice was to handover the amount
to be remitted at the Chest to Kallakurichi branch which
6748
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
is the larger branch nearby. According to MW5, the
petitioner had gone to Kallakurichi branch on 04.02.2011
for collection of cash and he was informed that one section
of Rs. 500/- denomination that was remitted on
31.12.2010 was short of five pieces. The reason for
attributing the responsibility for the shortage on the
petitioner is that he was the Cashier at that time. It is the
responsibility of the Officer who is in-charge of the cash
also to see that the sections are properly counted before
they are wrapped. After wrapper is put on the sections,
the Clerk who counted the notes as well as the Officer
who verified are expected to put their signature on the
wrapper. The Management had not adduced any evidence
to show who had counted and made the sections or who
was the Officer who verified the sections. None of the
witnesses have stated that the petitioner is the one who
counted them or that the wrapper contained his signature.
According to MW1, before himself and MW5 proceeded
to the Chest on 31.12.2010, he had assured that the
sections were wrapped properly and there was no
meddling or tampering. So it is to be assumed that care
was taken to count the notes and wrap them as per the
norms of the RBI. At which time the petitioner could
have stealthily removed the note out of the section? There
is no clarity in the evidence regarding this. The vague
evidence given by the witnesses in this respect could not
be accepted. Thus the available evidence will not show
that the petitioner had removed the notes from one of the
sections that were sent for remittance to the Chest and
two sections that were handed over to MW1 on
03.02.2011.
17.
The main basis upon which guilt is attributed upon
the petitioner is the alleged confession said to have been
made by the petitioner. MW1 has stated in his evidence
that on 03.02.2011 after shortage was noticed, the incident
was immediately brought to the notice of MW2, the Asstt.
Manager and also to MW5, the Manager who was outside
the branch, immediately after he came back. According
to MW1, the petitioner confessed the mistake, apologized
and gave a withdrawal slip of Rs. 2,000/- to make good
the shortage. So far as the shortage in the Rs. 500/- section
is concerned it is stated by MW1 that after the petitioner
came back from Kallakurichi branch, he gave a
withdrawal slip for remittance of Rs. 2,500/- which is
the shortage. MW1 further stated that the petitioner
admitted an embezzlement of shortfall amounts on his
own volition. He stated that he was present when the
petitioner made confession. MW2 also has stated that
the petitioner made an admission and he was also present
when he confessed and apologized to the Branch
Manager. However, it could be seen from the version
during cross-examination of MW2 that when the
petitioner was asked about the shortage immediately after
it was detected he has stated that he is not the only person
responsible but MW2 himself, MW1 and also MW4 who
conducted verification are responsible for the same. He
then stated that it was when himself, MW1, MW4 and
MW5 were present the petitioner confessed that he has
taken the money and had apologized.
18.
MW4 is the only disinterested witness in the case,
apart from MW3 who conducted enquiry. Though, MW2
would claim that it was in the presence of MW4
confession was made by the petitioner, MW4 does not
support this case. There is no case for her that in her
presence the petitioner confessed to having removed the
notes from the sections. MW3 has stated during his
examination that the petitioner had not admitted guilt
during his interrogation. MW3 had reached the branch
for enquiry on 09.02.2011, a few days after the alleged
incident. If the petitioner had actually admitted guilt
before the Branch Manager he would have admitted guilt
before MW3 also, in the normal course.
19.
There is the evidence given by MW5 also that the
petitioner accepted the mistake and admitted that he was
responsible for the shortage. However, the alleged
admission made by the petitioner does not find a place in
Ext.W21, the report dated 05.02.2011 given by MW5 to
the Zonal Manager regarding the incident. What he has
stated in this is that after the enquiry with both Cashiers
the petitioner handed over the cash to MW1 and gave
pay order of Rs. 2,000/- and on 04.02.2011 also after he
came back with the section of missing pieces he remitted
the shortage of the cash. There is no indication in
Ext.W21 at all that any admission was made by the
petitioner to the effect that he had removed the pieces
from the sections and embezzled the amount.
20.
The main reason for the case of confession by the
petitioner seems to be the remittance made by the
petitioner to make good the loss. Admittedly, he remitted
Rs. 2,000/- to make good the shortage of 03.02.2011 and
Rs. 2,500/- on 04.02.2011 to make good the shortage in
the section that was given for remittance at the chest.
The case that is advanced by the petitioner is that he
had accepted responsibility for the shortage since he was
the cashier earlier. According to him he did not make a
confession that he had removed the notes from the
sections. The admission made by MW5 reveals what was
the method used by him to make the petitioner remit the
amounts. He has admitted during his cross-examination
that he had told the petitioner that since he was the
Cashier he should accept the responsibility and the matter
could be settled in the branch itself and this was why the
petitioner remitted the amount. This admission by MW5
alongwith the absence of the case of admission in
Ext.W21 probabalize the case that the petitioner could
not have made a confession. In the wake of evidence that
has come out that the wrappers from the two sections
opened on 03.02.2011 were intact and that the wrapper
on the section which was sent to the chest in which
shortage was found was verified by MW1, it was unlikely
that the petitioner would have made a confession.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6749
21.
The Authorized representative of the petitioner has
referred to withdrawal slips marked as Ext.W23 (series)
by which the petitioner had withdrawn money to make
good the shortage. In both the slips as well as the
documents showing the remittance, what is recorded is
that the amount paid is for correction. It is pointed out
by the Authorized Representative that this also would
show that there was nothing of confession at that time
and the remittance was made by the petitioner as he was
instructed by the Manager. This also goes against the
case of the Management that there was a confession of
guilt by the petitioner.
22.
Only when there is some acceptable evidence
regarding the incident itself, a confession has got any
value. Otherwise it is a very weak piece of evidence. The
evidence given by the witnesses regarding the incident
having been found also not acceptable also the case of
confession is to be rejected.
23.
The counsel for the Respondent has tried to refer
to the past conduct of the petitioner to show that his
service is not one without blemish. Earlier the petitioner
seems to have been censured and his pay brought to a
lower stage. As seen from Ext. M26 several misconducts
which allegedly occurred earlier are referred to. The
petitioner was given the above punishments on the basis
of the admission made by him, as seen from Ext. M27.
What the petitioner has stated in Ext. M27 is that his
salary being the only income of his family, he had felt it
prudent to get back into the service of the Bank than
prolonging his difficulties and so he is accepting the
charges. It is on the basis of this, the above punishments
were imposed. This would be having some bearing on
the present case only if the charges against the petitioner
are established. This was brought in on behalf of the
Respondent to show that there were earlier instances of
his indulging in misconduct. However, in the absence of
any evidence regarding the charges under consideration,
the previous punishments could not be of any
consequence.
24.
Another fact that has been brought out are the
complaints allegedly made by certain customers on
04.02.2011 making allegations against the petitioner.
However, all these are on the next day of the incident
and there is something odd in this, as pointed out by the
Authorized Representative. These too could not be taken
into account.
25.
On 07.07.2011, while the Branch Manager was
proceeding to the Zonal Office by bus, the petitioner had
allegedly followed him in the same bus and had stabbed
him and inflicted injuries upon him. This, if committed
is certainly a very grievous offence revealing the criminal
mentality of the petitioner. However, this is an incident
that has occurred subsequently. Even if true this, incident
could not influence the result of the present dispute. The
criminal case regarding the incident is now said to be
pending. The Respondent has to proceed against the
petitioner separately on the basis of the alleged incident.
There is no necessity to combine this with the present
dispute. I find that Management has failed to establish
the charges against the petitioner. Consequently, there is
no option but to reinstate the petitioner in service.
26.
The Respondent is directed to reinstate the
petitioner in service within two months with 25% back
wages payable within two months which will carry
interest @ 9% per annum on expiry of the prescribed
period.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : WW1, Sri K. Sekar
For the 2nd Party/
: MW1, Sri M. Masilamani
Management
MW2, Sri A. Jagannathan
MW3, Sri M.K. Sundar
MW4, Sri V. Nagajothi
MW5, Sri C. Ravichandran
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
17.02.2011
Show-Cause Memo from ZO,
Cuddalore addressed to K. Sekar
Ex.W2
04.03.2011
Reply to the Show-Cause Memo
addressed to the Asstt. General
Manager, ZO, Cuddalore
Ex.W3
30.05.2011
Charge
Sheet
from
ZO,
Cuddalore addressed to K. Sekar
Ex.W4
18.08.2011
Written brief of the Presenting
Officer, Sri S. Rajasekaran,
Manager, ZO, Cuddalore
Ex.W5
20.09.2011
Defence summing up on the
enquiry against K. Sekar
Ex.W6
08.10.2011
Letter from the Zonal Manager
enclosing the findings of the
Enquiry Officer
Ex.W7
08.10.2011
Findings of the Enquiry Officer,
Sri U.V. Ramachandran
Ex.W8
19.10.2011
Reply by Sri K. Sekar to the
Enquiry Officer’s findings
addressed to the Zonal Manager/
Disciplinary Authority
Ex.W9
03.11.2011
Proposed punishment order from
the Zonal Manager / Disciplinary
Authority
proposing
the
punishment of dismissal without
notice
6750
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W10
07.11.2011
Reply by Sri K. Sekar to the Zonal
Manager / Disciplinary Authority
for the proposed punishment
Ex.W11
24.11.2011
Letter from Zonal Manager /
Disciplinary
Authority
confirming
the
proposed
punishment
Ex.W12
24.11.2011
Speaking orders from the Zonal
Manager / Disciplinary Authority
confirming the punishment of
dismissal without notice
Ex.W13
20.12.2011
Appeal submitted by Sri K. Sekar
to the Appellate Authority against
the punishment of dismissal
without notice
Ex.W14
25.05.2012
Letter Ref. No. HRM/DPC/55166/
2011-12 enclosing the orders of
the Appellate Authority
Ex.W15
20.03.2012
Orders of the Deputy General
Manager / Appellate Authority
confirming the punishment of
dismissal without notice
Ex.W16
11.08.2011
Proceedings of the enquiry held
at Kallakurichi Branch
Ex.W17
17.08.2011
Proceedings of the enquiry held
at Kallakurichi Branch
Ex.W18
25.08.2011
Covering letter from Sri U.V.
Ramachandran enclosing the last
page of the enquiry proceedings
held on 17.08.2011
Ex.W19
-
Extract of Cash Handling Manual
– Pages 1.19 and 1.20
Ex.W20
10.02.2011
Investigating Report of the
Vigilance Officer, Sri MK Sundar
who conducted the investigation
at the Sulankurichi Branch on
10.02.2011
Ex.W21
05.02.2011
Letter from the Branch Manager,
Sulankurichi Branch addressed to
the Zonal Manager regarding the
shortage of cash during cash
verification
Ex.W22
-
Key Movement Register of the
branch from 10.01.2011 to
03.02.2011
Ex.W23
-
Two withdrawal slips of K. Sekar
dated 04.02.2010 and 03.02.2011
Ex.W24
-
Attendance Register of the branch
for the month of February 2011
Ex.W25
03.02.2011
Extract of the cash balance book
on 03.02.2011
Ex.W26
Nil
Representation by K. Anjalai
regarding short credit
Ex.W27
04.02.2011
Representation by K. Girija
regarding short payment of
Rs. 1,000/- on 16.12.2010
Ex.W28
04.02.2011
Representation
by
E.
Chandrasekaran regarding short
credit of Rs. 500/-
Ex.W29
09.02.2011
Interrogation statement obtained
from Ms. V. Nagajothi, Asstt.
Manager, Chinna Salem Branch
Ex.W30
09.02.2011
Interrogation statement obtained
from Sri V. Ravichandran,
Manager, Sulankurichi Branch
Ex.W31
09.02.2011
Interrogation statement obtained
from A. Jagadeesan, Asstt.
Manager, Sulankurichi Branch
Ex.W32
09.02.2011
Interrogation statement obtained
from
M.
Sridhar,
Clerk,
Sulankurichi Branch
Ex.W33
09.02.2011
Interrogation statement obtained
from
K.
Sekar,
Clerk,
Sulankurichi Branch
Ex.W34
14.06.2012 Petition under Section-2(A)
addressed to the Asstt. Labour
Commissioner (C), Puducherry
Ex.W35
03.09.2012 Counter by the Management
addressed to the Asstt. Labour
Commissioner, Chennai
Ex.W36
20.09.2012 Rejoinder submitted to the Asstt.
Labour Commissioner (C),
Chennai
Ex.W37
25.09.2012
Reply to the rejoinder by the
Management to the Asstt. Labour
Commissioner, Chennai
Ex.W38
08.06.2011
Representation by K. Sekar
addressed to the Asstt. General
Manager / Disciplinary Authority
seeking permission to verify
documents
Ex.W39
11.06.2011
Letter from Zonal Office,
Cuddalore to Sri K. Sekar
granting extension of time to
reply
Ex.W40
17.06.2011
Representation from K. Sekar to
the Zonal Manager / Disciplinary
Authority seeking permission to
peruse the disputed three
currency section and the
denomination slip
Ex.W41
22.06.2011
Letter from Zonal Manager /
Disciplinary Authority to K.
Sekar informing non-availability
and inability to produce the
sections and slips
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6751
Ex.W42
27.06.2011
Reply submitted by K. Sekar to
the
charge
sheet
dated
30.05.2011
Ex.W43
03.08.2011
Letter from the Enquiry Officer to
K.
Sekar
informing
commencement of enquiry on
10.08.2011
Ex.W44
06.08.2011
Representation by K. Sekar
requesting the Enquiry Officer to
adjourn to a later date
Ex.W45
10.08.2011
Letter from Zonal Manager /
Disciplinary Authority informing
that the next date of enquiry
would be communicated by the
Enquiry Officer
Ex.W46
10.08.2011
Letter from the Enquiry Officer
informing fixing the proceedings
on 11.08.2011
Ex.W47
13.08.2011
Letter from the Enquiry Officer
fixing the enquiry on 16.08.2011
Ex.W48
13.08.2011
Letter from the Union to the
Zonal Manager / Disciplinary
Authority requesting direction to
the Enquiry Officer to provide the
opportunity to cross-examining
the prosecution witnesses and to
fix the enquiry on 17.08.2011
Ex.W49
13.08.2011
Letter from the Enquiry Officer
fixing the enquiry on 17.08.2011
Ex.W50
16.08.2011
Letter from Asstt. General
Manager,
Zonal
Office,
Cuddalore
to
the
Union
informing that the Disciplinary
Authority’s no role on Enquiry
Officer’s decision
Ex.W51
19.08.2011
Letter from the Union to the
General Manager / CVO, Head
Office, Chennai over the denial
of opportunity to cross-examine
Ex.W52
30.08.2011
Letter from the Enquiry Officer
instructing to submit the Defence
brief
Ex.W53
03.09.2011
Letter from the Defence
Representative to the Enquiry
Officer bringing to the notice the
representation made to the
General Manager / CVO
regarding the opportunity of
cross-examining the prosecution
Ex.W54
07.09.2011
Letter from the Asstt. General
Manager,
HO,
Vigilance
Department informing the
Defence Representative that the
General Manager / CVO would
not interfere in the decisions of
the Enquiry Officer
Ex.W55
17.09.2011
Letter from the Enquiry Officer
to K. Sekar instructing to submit
the brief on or before 21.09.2011
Ex.W56
29.08.2003 Circular issued by the bank on
RBI’s Clean Note Policy
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.M1
10.08.2011
Proceedings of enquiry in the
charge sheet dated 30.05.2011
Ex.M2
16.11.2011
Proceedings of personal hearing
before Disciplinary Authority. In
respect of charge sheet – CO/
CUD/VIGI/30/2011/12 dated
30.05.2011
Ex.M3
31.01.2012 Proceedings of personal hearing
before Appellate Authority (In
respect of charge sheet dated
30.05.2011 – order dated
24.11.2011 of D.A.)
Ex.M4
16.10.2012 Conciliation Failure Report by
ALC (C), Puducherry
Ex.M5
07.07.2011
Charge Sheet issued to K. Sekar–
physically attacking Mr. C.
Ravichandran, Branch Manager
by sharp weapon while travelling
in bus on duty
Ex.M6
07.07.2011
FIR – Inspector of Police,
Ulundurpet
Ex.M7
08.07.2011
News item published in Dina
Thanthi on 08.07.2011 in respect
of the above stabbing incident
Ex.M8
08.07.2011
News report in Hindu – C.
Ravichandran, Branch Manager
inflicted with stab injury
Ex.M9
07.07.2011
Report on the stabbing incident
by PV Ramachandran, Chief
Manager, ZO, Cuddalore
Ex.M10
07.07.2011
Statement of Ravichandran,
Branch Manager on the stabbing
incident in bus
Ex.M11
07.07.2011
Report of Azhagarasan of
Ulundurpet in respect of the
stabbing incident
Ex.M12
07.07.2011
Wound Certificate issued by
Casualty
Department,
Government
Hospital,
Ulundurpet of Mr. Ravichandran
Ex.M13
09.01.2008 Complaint of K. Srinivasan,
Customer against K. Sekar, Cl/
Sh., Pudupattu Branch
Ex.M14
18.01.2008 Representation of employees of
Pudupattu branch against K.
Sekar regarding his drunken
behavior etc.
6752
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.M15
14.01.2008
Complaint from Branch Manager,
Pudupattu, against K. Sekar
leaving office branch early
Ex.M16
22.01.2008 Complaint of B. Sivakumar,
Appraiser of Pudupattu branch
against K. Sekar regarding
cheating him for Rs. 380/- with
two enclosures
Ex.M17
22.01.2009 Letter from N. Moorthi, Assistant
Branch Manager, Sankarapuram,
addressed to Investigation Officer
regarding shortage in cash
remittance in Pudupattu Branch
Ex.M18
22.01.2008 Letter from K. Sumathi,
facilitator of Samnguppoo,
S.H.G. Magalir Mandram,
Pudupattu SB A/c No. 5490 –
complaining against K. Sekar
Ex.M19
22.01.2008 Letter from S. Rajeshwari, Om
Sakthi Mahalir Membattu
Mandram in Pudupattu – SB A/c
No. 2083 against K. Sekar
Ex.M20
22.01.2008 Letter from N. Ravi, Krishna
Agents, complaining against K.
Sekar regarding misconduct of
his cash handling etc.
Ex.M21
22.01.2008 Letter from N. Ravi, SR No.,
27912, Indian Bank, Pudupattu
Branch Cl/sh. – complaining
about K. Sekar – drunken
behavior,
cash
shortages,
cheating to customers etc.
Ex.M22
22.01.2008 Letter from PM Udaya Sooriyan,
SB Account holder in Pudupattu
Branch – complaining against K.
Sekar
Ex.M23
03.12.2007
Letter from Branch Manager,
Pudupattu Branch, addressed to
AGM, Circle Office, Cuddalore –
report on the shortage of cash on
30.11.2007 in Sekar’s cash
counter
Ex.M24
13.12.2007 Letter from Branch Manager,
Pudupattu to AGM – CO,
Cuddalore on cash shortage in
closing of cash balance on
13.12.2007
Ex.M25
21.01.2008 Letter from Vigilance Cell, C.O.,
Cuddalore addressed to K. Sekar
placing K. Sekar on suspension
pending further investigation
Ex.M26
26.02.2008 Show Cause Notice issued to
petitioner listing of 9 incidents
of various acts of misconduct i.e.
unseemly/unsatisfactory behavior
while on duty towards officers of
the bank, drunkenness, or riotous
or disorderly, or indecent
behavior in the premises of the
bank, willful insubordination of
refusal of reasonable orders of
superior, incurring debts etc.
Ex.M27
19.03.2008 Explanation of petitioner towards
charge sheet dated 26.02.2008
Ex.M28
20.03.2008 Proposing punishment of censure
and bringing down to lower state
in scale of pay by one stage
without cumulative effect in view
of voluntary admission of guilt –
personal hearing (In respect of
show cause memo dated
26.02.2008)
Ex.M29
25.03.2008 Proceedings of personal hearing
on 25.03.2008 in respect of Show
Cause Memo dated 26.03.2008
Ex.M30
26.03.2008 Imposing punishment of censure
in respect of charges 1,2,3,5 and
9 and “Brought down to lower
stage in the scale of pay by one
stage without cumulative effect”
in respect of charges 4,6,7 & 8
Ex.M31
04.07.2011
Complaint of K. Jayaram,
Account holder in Sulankurichi
Branch against K. Sekar –
misappropriation of Rs. 1,500/-
Ex.M32
15.07.2011
Investigation report by ZO,
Cuddalore to Zonal Manager,
Cuddalore
Ex.M33
26.07.2011
Charge Sheet issued to K. Sekar
Ex.M34
08.08.2011
Reply of K. Sekar to the charge
sheet dated 26.07.2011
Ex.M35
02.07.2011
Pay-in-Slip
–
crediting
Rs. 32,500/- in the account of
Jayaram towards his jewel loan
account by his wife
Ex.M36
15.07.2011
Interrogation done with regard to
the complaint received from K.
Jayaram, Customer against K.
Sekar
Ex.M37
02.08.2011
Representation from Jayaram to
Zonal Office, Indian Bank,
Cuddalore
Ex.M38
11.07.2011
Proceedings of enquiry on the
complaint of K. Jayaram
Ex.M39
16.09.2011
Proceedings of enquiry in respect
of charge sheet dated 26.07.2011
Ex.M40
16.09.2011
Proceedings of enquiry in respect
of charge sheet dated 26.07.2011
Ex.M41
16.09.2011
Proceedings of enquiry in respect
of charge sheet dated 26.07.2011
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6753
ubZ fnYyh] 9 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2713-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 74@2013) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09&10&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@42@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th October, 2014
S.O.
2713.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 74/2013)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
09/10/2014.
[No. L-12012/42/2013-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 24th September, 2014
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 74/2013
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between
the Management of Indian Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN
Sri A. Rajendran
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Zonal Manager
: 2nd Party/Respondent
Indian Bank, Central Office
359, Dr. Nanjappa Road,
Coimbatore -641018
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
: Sri J. Suresh, Authorized
Petitioner
Representative
For the 2nd Party/
: M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,
Management
Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/42/2013-IR
(B.II) dated 25.06.2013 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of Indian Bank Management
in respect of imposing punishment of dismissal
without notice on the petitioner Sri Rajendran, an
employee of the Indian Bank, Valparai Branch is
justified or not? What relief the workman is entitled
to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID No. 74/2013 and issued notices to
both sides. The petitioner has entered appearance through
Authorized Representative and the Respondent through
counsel and filed their Claim and Counter Statement
respectively. The petitioner has filed rejoinder after the
Counter Statement was filed.
3.
The averments in Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner had entered the service of the
Respondent Bank as a Sub-Staff and was subsequently
promoted as Clerk. He was transferred to Valparai Branch
of the Respondent Bank in the year 2005. He was
discharging his duties faithfully and sincerely. While
working in Valparai Branch, the petitioner was placed
under suspension on 06.10.2009. A Charge Sheet dated
12.10.2009 was issued to the petitioner. It was alleged in
the Charge Sheet that the petitioner had misappropriated
an amount aggregating to Rs. 13,000/- by removing pieces
of notes from different sections of Rs. 500/- denomination.
Another charge against the petitioner is that on
26.04.2006 he had received illegal gratification of
Rs. 100/- from a customer of the branch. The third
allegation against the petitioner is that while holding cash
safe keys of the branch, he had left the station on
18.04.2009 without handing over the keys to the branch
and he failed to report for duty on time in 19.04.2009
and reported only by about 12.40 PM. The petitioner had
submitted a reply to the Charge Memo denying the
allegations. He is not involved in the misappropriation
of the money of the bank. The petitioner did not receive
any illegal gratification. The petitioner had obtained
permission from the Branch Manager to leave the station
for attending death ceremony of a relative. Due to
mechanical failure of the vehicle in which he was
travelling, he could report for duty at 1230 PM only. The
Respondent who was not satisfied with the reply had
ordered departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The
Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report finding the
petitioner guilty of all the three charges. The Disciplinary
Authority imposed the punishment of “Dismissal Without
Notice” on the petitioner by order dated 30.08.2010. The
Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal preferred by
the petitioner. The dispute is raised accordingly. The
allegations made against the petitioner are without any
basis . There is no justification for imposing the
punishment of dismissal on the petitioner. An order may
6754
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
be passed directing the Respondent to reinstate the
petitioner in service and to pay back wages and other
allowances.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as follows:
The petitioner was working as Chief Cashier in
Valparai Branch and was the joint custodian of the Safe
Keys. On 18.04.2009, the petitioner informed the Branch
Manager that he will be late by 10 minutes on the next
day. As it was late in the evening, no other staff was
available to entrust the keys. The petitioner left the branch
with the keys. On 19.04.2009 the petitioner did not reach
the branch even by 10.00 AM so Balasubramaniam,
another Clerk was directed to attend payment counter
with the cash available with the receiving cashier. The
petitioner reached only by 12.40 PM. Though the Branch
Manager instructed the petitioner to handover the key to
Balasubramanaim, he was reluctant to do so. It was only
after the Manager insisted he handed over the key to
Balasubramaniam. On 20.04.2009 by 09.15 AM the
petitioner telephoned to the Branch Manager and asked
him to direct the Asstt Branch Manager to see that the
keys are handed over to him. However, the Branch
manager instructed him to work in some other section
and asked Balasubramaniam to continue in cash. By 11.30
AM on that day Balasubramaniam noticed shortage of 6
notes in a sealed section of Rs. 500/- denomination, when
he opened the section and counted it, to make payment
to a customer. He reported the matter to the Officer who
had initialed the slip on the section. When another section
of Rs. 500/- denomination was opened and counted
Balasubramaniam encountered shortage of 8 notes. The
Branch Manager who came to the cash counter, opened
the next section of Rs. 500/- denomination in the presence
of Balasubramaniam and another and found shortage of
4 notes. The remaining section of Rs. 500/- denomination
in the Till Cash Box was set aside and counted in the
evening and there was shortage of 8 pieces in this section
also. Balasubramaniam, the petitioner and Kaliappan,
another Clerk refused to make good the loss. The matter
was reported to the Circle Office. An investigation was
conducted as ordered by the Circle Office. The Vigilance
Department also conducted investigation. He came to
the conclusion that shortage had occurred in the sections
due to removal of notes by the petitioner. It was revealed
during investigation that the petitioner had concealed the
fact that he had gone to Perur to attend the 5th day death
ceremony of his wife to be held on 19.04.2009. He had
left without informing the Branch Manager to avoid
giving cash keys to others though he knew that he will
be late in reaching the office on the day. It was also
revealed during investigation that the petitioner had taken
bribe of Rs. 100/- from a customer on 26.04.2006 and
the customer had given a complaint. The petitioner was
also known to have taken a Rs. 500/- note on an earlier
occasion and he had returned it to the Manager later. A
sealed section of note can be opened by applying steam
or hot stainless lunch box. After removing some pieces,
it can be sealed by the same adhesive. The petitioner is
not entitled to any relief.
5.
Te petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the
allegations in the Counter Statement and reiterating his
case in the Claim Statement.
6.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
of the petitioner examined as WW1 and documents
marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W19 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M13.
7.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the management in
dismissing the petitioner from its service is
justified?
(ii)
What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is
entitled?
The Points
8.
The petitioner was working as payment cashier at
Valparai Branch of the Respondent Bank. At the time of
the alleged incident he was assigned the duty of Payment
Cashier for a period of three months from 01.02.2009 to
30.04.2009. the Respondent has alleged that while
working as such he had removed pieces of notes from
four sections of Rs. 500/- denomination amounting
to 26 pieces in total and had thus misappropriated
Rs. 13,000/-. Another allegation is that the petitioner
reported for duty on 19.04.2009 by about 12.40 PM only
even though he was holding the Cash Safe Keys in his
capacity as Payment Cashier. There is also a charge that
the petitioner had received illegal gratification of Rs. 100/-
from a customer on 26.04.2006.
9.
A Charge Memo was issued to the petitioner after
he was placed under suspension and a departmental
enquiry was conducted. The petitioner had fully
participated in the enquiry proceedings. Before the
Enquiry Officer, two Officers who had conducted
investigation, Balasubramaniam, the Clerk who had
started to do the work of the petitioner consequent to his
coming late on 19.04.2009, the then Branch Manager
and two others were examined. The petitioner and another
witness was examined on the side of the petitioner. The
Enquiry Officer had submitted report finding that all the
three charges against the petitioner are proved. The
Enquiry Officer has entered a finding of guilt on the
petitioner regarding the charge of misappropriation on
the reasoning that only the petitioner had dire need for
money and opportunity for committing theft from the
concerned sections. The Enquiry Officer has taken a note
of the fact that the petitioner was drawing a very small
amount as salary and he was very much in need of money
and had come to the conclusion that he must have
removed the notes. The Enquiry Officer has accepted the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6755
case of the management that the petitioner was reluctant
to part with the keys and had made much effort to retain
the keys with him even though he was leaving the station.
Regarding the second charge of accepting bribe of
Rs. 100/- which had allegedly taken place 3 years prior
to the charge sheet also the Enquiry Officer has entered
a finding against the petitioner even though the person
who allegedly gave the bribe herself has come and stated
before him as PW2 that she did not pay any bribe to the
petitioner. Regarding the third charge of reaching the
office late on 19.04.2009, the Enquiry Officer, apart from
other evidence, relied upon the evidence given by the
petitioner also to enter a finding that he came late without
informing the Manager and without handing over the
keys to someone else. In arriving at the finding on the
1st charge, the Enquiry Officer has mainly relied upon
the report of Investigation Officer who had resorted to a
process of elimination. The Enquiry Officer has, in his
report, referred to the version given by the witnesses and
also referred to the fact of counting of the notes in the
currency chest to find out any shortage in the section
from the concerned branch and on analyzing them had
come to the conclusion that any other staff in the bank
could not have committed the act and it is only the
petitioner who could have done it.
10.
It is an admitted fact that the petitioner came to
the branch late on 19.04.2009 even though he was holding
the Cash Key on that day. Consequent to his late coming,
Balasubramaniam, examined as MW6 was asked to take
the position of the petitioner. When the petitioner reached
the bank by 1240 PM, he was instructed to hand over the
Cash Key to MW6. The petitioner had been attending to
some other work on the day. On the next day also MW6
continued to hold the key. The shortage of pieces of notes
was noticed by MW6 while he was counting sections of
notes. Initially, he had opened and counted a section of
Rs. 500/- denomination which was counted and packed
by Kaliappan, another staff. He had immediately informed
the Assistant Manager about the same. Subsequently, he
opened another section of Rs. 500/- denomination
obtained from the currency chest and shortage was noticed
in this section also. The Assistant Branch Manager was
informed and he came to the counter and he himself
opened one more section of Rs. 500/- denomination
and this was also found to be short of certain pieces. One
more section of Rs. 500/- denomination which was in
the till cash was kept aside. This section was opened and
counted by the Manager in the presence of staff including
the petitioner and this was also found to be short of certain
pieces.
11.
What is the evidence given by the witnesses
regarding the shortage of notes that were handled by
MW6? MW1 who had investigated in the matter had
stated during his examination that he assumed that the
section of notes prepared by Kaliappan must have been
packed only after it was counted by the Officer also since
that is the normal practice. However, it has come out
during the cross-examination of MW1 itself that it is
unlikely that the notes were counted by the Officer.
According to MW1, during interrogation the Branch
Manager has told him that whenever the Sub-Staff is there
to assist Kaliappan he will be counting the notes at the
counter itself and packing also will be done at the counter
and then only it will be sent to the Officer for signature.
The Manager had also told him that only after the incident
on hand they started counting all sections in front of the
Officers before they were packed. Thus it is clear from
even the evidence of MW1 that there was no practice of
counting the notes in the presence of the Officer in spite
of the instructions of the Reserve Bank. The Sub-Staff
who was questioned by MW1 also had informed him that
receipt cash will be counted at the Receipt Cash Counter
itself and it is only the closed packed that is taken to the
Officer for signature. MW1 did not ascertain during the
investigation whether the section of notes packed by
Kaliappan was tampered in any way at the time of
opening. The witness has also stated that there are
counting machines at the branch and the counting at the
branch might have been done using the machine only.
According to MW1, he did not suspect Kaliappan for the
shortage in the section that was packed by him since
shortage was found out in three sections received from
the Currency Chest also. It could be seen from MW1’s
evidence that he has merely placed suspicion on the
petitioner. According to him, there were strong
circumstances for putting suspicion on the petitioner. He
did not fix responsibility for the incident on the petitioner.
12.
The statement of interrogation of the concerned
Sub-Staff who used to help in counting and packing also
is available in the enquiry proceedings. He has stated to
the Investigation Officer that only after the incident in
question, they started counting of individual pieces of
Currency Chest sections. There is also the statement of
Branch Manager given to the Investigating officer that
normally when they receive cash from Currency Chest,
only the number of sections in the bundles were counted
by the Cashier in the presence of Asstt. Manager and the
concerned Cashier and it was only after the incident, they
have started counting individual pieces.
13.
The Enquiry Officer has referred to the evidence
given by the Manager that the concerned sections were
found loose on account of the removal of the notes. It is
pointed by the Authorized Representative that there was
no such case earlier and it was only during evidence such
a case was put forth. In fact he has stated during his
evidence that the sections opened by him were intact.
MW6 who had handled the sections on 20.04.2009 on
which day shortage was noticed also had given a version
to this effect. What he has stated during the cross-
examination is that all the sections were packed with
6756
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
plus band and officials had signed on the packets also
and those were intact also. This would go to show that at
the time when this witness handled the section on
24.04.2009 the sections were intact. That means the
sections were not tampered with at all. If any of the
sections were actually loose, MW6 would have noticed
it, he being the one who had opened two of the four
sections wherein shortage was noticed.
14.
The mode of packing the sections introduced by
the Reserve Bank is with the intention that nobody could
open it and take out notes from the sections. It has been
pointed by the Authorized Representative that adhesive
used for packing the sections could be used only once. In
that case if the packed section is opened it would not be
possible to replace the wrapper without causing any
damage to the same. Though there is no such case during
the enquiry proceedings, what is stated in the Counter
Statement is that if heat is applied to the portion of
the adhesive which according to the Counter Statement
could have been done using a lunch box with hot contents,
the wrapper could have been opened without any damage
and could have been replaced also. However, it was not
shown by the Management that before MW6 or MW2,
the Manager, the petitioner opened the sections. It seems
to be practically impossible to remove the wrapper of the
section without causing any damage and replace the same.
If it was possible a demonstration to that effect could
have been done on behalf of the Management. But this
was not done.
15.
It is clear from the evidence that one of the sections
in which shortage was noticed was packed by the Clerk
by name Kaliappan and that also most probably not in
the presence of the Officer concerned. It is also clear from
the evidence that the branch was not in the habit of
counting individual pieces in the sections that were
received from the Currency Chest. This is the evidence
given by the Manager. They will be counting only the
number of sections in the presence of the Officer. Since
the sections are received from the Chest it is presumed
that they are counted and packed properly and there is
no possibility of any shortage. The counsel for the
Respondent has been referring to the report of MW1 to
the effect that he has verified the sections in the Currency
Chest to find out if there was any pilferage. He has
reported that he did not notice any shortage on
verification. However, as pointed out by the Authorized
Representative only at random, sections were counted by
MW1 and not all the sections. This certainly is not an
effective measure to find out if shortage has occurred at
the Currency Chest itself.
16.
The Authorized Representative has referred to the
representation by the Federation of Indian Bank
Employees Union (Page-143 of the Petitioner’s Typed
set) wherein it is pointed out that on counting notes
through note counting machines some discrepancy had
occurred and this had come to light on physical counting.
The Secretary General of the Federation had requested
to take necessary steps in this respect. The Authorized
Representative has referred to the Investigation Report
given by MW1 also in this respect. The report (Page-121
of Petitioner’s typed set) refers to an incident where
shortfall was noticed in the amount that was loaded in
the ATM which must have counted through counting
machines. These facts were pointed out to show that there
were instances of malfunctioning of the counting
machines.
17.
It could be seen from the evidence that immediately
after the shortage was noticed, suspicious eye was
drawn not only against the petitioner but all those who
had handled the cash. MW2, the Manager had stated
during his examination that on his discussing the matter
with the Circle Office he was instructed to ask MW6
who was in cash on the day on which shortage was noticed
to make good the loss. When MW6 refused, the petitioner
was asked to do so. When he also refused Kaliappan who
had counted one of the sections in which shortage was
noticed was asked to take the responsibility of the shortage
found in the particular section prepared by him. When
all these attempts failed he had obtained a letter from
MW6 regarding the shortage, debited the necessary
register and had tallied the cash as instructed by the Circle
Office. I have referred to this incident only to show that
initially all those including the petitioner who had
handled cash were asked to make good the loss and not
the petitioner alone.
18.
In spite of the fact that there is no evidence to show
that the sections in the Till Cash that were under the
custody of the petitioner were tampered with, guilt has
been attributed on the petitioner. This was done based
on certain circumstances which according to the
Management point to the petitioner as the guilty one.
One such aspect that was put forth by the Management
is that the petitioner was reluctant to handover the key
even though he knew that he will be late on 19.04.2009.
MW2 has also given evidence that the Assistant Manager
had called him on the morning of 20.04.2009 and had
told him that the petitioner had telephoned to him
requesting that the safe keys should be returned to him.
For these reasons and also because the petitioner was the
one who was in custody of the concerned sections of notes
for some days and he was having the opportunity to
remove the notes from the sections it was assumed that
he is responsible for the shortage. These are in fact only
circumstances which point to the petitioner as the person
who might have done the act. However, these are merely
circumstances and could not replace proof. There is
absolutely no evidence to come to the conclusion that the
petitioner is the person responsible for the shortage of
the notes. In fact it is in the absence of convincing
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6757
evidence, the Enquiry Officer has relied upon the
elimination process resorted to by MW1 and concluded
that the petitioner must have been the person responsible
for the incident. There is no legal basis for arriving at
such conclusion.
19.
It has been brought out that the proceedings had
been initiated against the petitioner on previous occasions.
However, it has come out that all these were for
unauthorized absence from duty. MW2 has admitted
during his cross-examination that there was no previous
instance of misappropriation of cash by the petitioner. So
the Management could not justify the charge based on
any previous incident also. There is no basis for the
finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer on Charge No. 1.
The finding on the charge is to be set aside.
20.
There is also a charge against the petitioner that on
26.04.2006 he demanded and received illegal gratification
of Rs. 100/- from one Kamalam, a customer of the branch.
To prove this incident, MW3 and MW5 were relied upon.
MW3 who had worked as Assistant Manager at Valparai
Branch earlier has stated that the petitioner had taken
bribe from Kamalam. He has further stated that the
petitioner had admitted his mistake and had assured that
he would not repeat the mistake. MW5 is also a previous
Assistant Branch Manager at Valparai Branch. He has
stated that a report was given from the branch to the Circle
Office regarding the incident of the petitioner taking bribe.
A complaint said to have been given by Kamalam regarding
the incident also was produced in the enquiry proceedings.
The case of the petitioner himself is that on account of
some emergency the Kamalam who had been to the bank
had obtained a loan of Rs. 100/- from him and she has
returned this amount to him when her pension amount
was credited to her account. Kamalam, who allegedly paid
bribe herself has been examined as DW2 on behalf of the
petitioner herein, in the enquiry proceedings. She has
denied to have paid any bribe to the petitioner. She has
supported the case of the petitioner that she was only
repaying the loan that was taken from the petitioner. When
the person concerned herself has come and stated that
she has not given any bribe and the petitioner has not
accepted any bribe there is no necessity to disbelieve this
version.
21.
More than the fact that DW2 supports the case of
the petitioner, the fact that no action has been taken by
the Management against the petitioner until 06.10.2009
regarding the incident that had allegedly occurred on
26.04.2006 weakens the case of the Management. In Ext.W3,
the Suspension Order dated 06.10.2009 it is stated that the
petitioner had taken bribe of Rs. 100/- from Kamalam on
26.04.2006. It is for this reason the petitioner was suspended
from service by Ext.W3-Suspension Order. The suspension
is much after 20.04.2009 on which date shortage was
noticed in Till Cash yet. There is no reference to this
incident in Ext.W3. By Ext.W4 the suspension was
extended on the basis of the alleged misappropriation of
the Rs. 13,000/- by removal of notes from the sections
also. It is clear from the evidence that no action has been
taken by the Management based on the alleged complaint
that was received from Kamalam. The incident seems to
have been dropped by the Management. It must have
been either for the reason that they were aware that the
petitioner had not committed the misconduct of receiving
bribe or because they have decided to drop the issue for
the reason not known. In either case, there was no reason
for the Management to take up the matter that had
allegedly occurred three years earlier and furnish a charge
sheet on the petitioner regarding that also. Probably the
Management might have been under the impression that
this will strengthen the other charges. There is no
justification for the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the
charge of acceptance of bribe by the petitioner is proved.
22.
The last charge against the petitioner is that while
holding the cash safe keys of the branch, the petitioner
had proceeded out of station on 18.04.2009 without first
handing over the keys and he had not reported for duty in
time on 19.04.2009 but reached office only by 12.40 PM on
19.04.2009 and this uninformed abstention from duty while
holding the keys resulted in detriment to the customer
service rendered at the branch. Admittedly, the petitioner
was holding the keys of the cash safe on 18.04.2009. Even
though the keys were with him and he had reached the
Bank on 19.04.2009 only by 12.40 PM, admittedly, the
argument that is advanced on behalf of the petitioner is
that it is not uninformed abstention from duty. According
to the Authorized Representative, the permission was
obtained from the Manager of the Bank. It has been argued
by him that such permission having been obtained there
is no basis for the charge at all.
23.
MW2, the Branch Manager has stated during his
examination that the petitioner had informed him on
18.04.2009 that he would be coming late by 10 minutes on
the next day i.e. 19.04.2009. According to MW2, by the
time the petitioner gave this information it was 07.30 PM
and all other staff had already left and the petitioner was
also about to leave. According to him normally the petitioner
would be reaching the bank at 10.05 in the morning. So he
had not treated it as a serious issue. Even then he had told
the petitioner that because 19.04.2009 was a Sunday
(Sunday was working day for the branch) there would be
heavy work and had instructed him to come by 10.10 AM.
The petitioner had failed to reach in time. Even as seen
from the evidence of MW2, at 10.00 AM on 19.04.2009 the
petitioner had telephoned him and had told him that he
would be reaching by 10.30 AM. So he had asked the
Receipt Cashier to manage the cash counter till the
petitioner reached. By 11.15 or 11.30 AM the petitioner
6758
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
had called again and had informed that he was getting
delayed since the vehicle had broken down. MW6 having
found that there is a crowd of customers had agreed to
take the cash from the Receipt Cashier. The petitioner
reached the branch only at 12.40 PM. MW2 had
instructed the petitioner to handover the key to MW6.
According to him the petitioner had not handed over the
key immediately and it was only on further instruction
that he handed over the key to MW6.
24.
It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that
the petitioner having informed the previous day itself that
he would be coming late and having informed his inability
to reach even at 10.10 AM due to reasons beyond his
control, it was not a case of uninformed abstention.
25.
No doubt the petitioner had informed the Branch
Manager that he would be late by 10 minutes. However,
what he has not informed is that he would be leaving the
station. It has come out in evidence that the petitioner
had left the station and had travelled upto Perur 120 kms
away from Valparai branch to attend the death ceremony
of his wife. It is clear from the evidence of MW2 that he
had taken the information given by the petitioner only as
a delay of 10 minutes in reaching the office. He did not
take it seriously as the petitioner was in the habit of
reaching the office by 10.00 or 10.05 only in the morning.
It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that MW2
was given information that the petitioner would be leaving
the station. But this does not seem to be true when the
circumstances are taken into account. What the petitioner
has stated during his examination as DW1 is that he had
told MW2 that his wife’s death ceremony is to held at
Perur on the next day and he would be coming late by 10
minutes. According to him, he had asked for permission
on account of this. This case of the petitioner is false as
seen from the very explanation given by him to the Charge
Sheet and marked as Ext.W2. In Ext.W2 he had referred
to his dead wife as a “close relative” . If he did not want
to disclose even in Ext.W2 that the person who died was
his wife, it is unlikely he had informed MW2 that he was
leaving the station to attend the ceremony in connection
with the death of his wife. Prabably, there was sufficient
reason for t6he petitioner to keep the fact concealed. He
had been separated from his wife for several years and
probably did not want to disclose the news of death of
his wife to his colleagues. Probably, that may be why he
decided to come back and attend the office on the same
day, taking so much effort. If MW2 had any hint that the
petitioner was leaving the station and travelling to a
destination 120 miles away he would not have taken the
chance of retaining the keys of the cash safe with the
petitioner. The petitioner certainly was duty bound to
entrust the keys to the Manager in advance to see that
the work on the next day will not suffer on account of the
delay in his reaching the office. Merely because he had
informed MW2 during his journey about the delay, his act
could not be justified. If he had told the truth to MW2 and
that also in advance or if he had at least informed MW2
that he would be leaving the station, MW2 could have
made alternate arrangement regarding custody of the keys.
So certainly the petitioner was at fault in not giving
information to MW2 before he proceeded out of station
and reaching the office at 12.40 PM only.
26.
The misconduct of uninformed abstention from duty
is a minor misconduct and is not liable to be visited with
the punishment of discharge from service. Some minor
punishment would have been sufficient for the misconduct.
Now the petitioner who had been without work after he
was discharged from service is sufficiently punished for
the said misconduct.
27.
Charges 1 and 2 having been found not established,
the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service.
28.
The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner
in service within two months with 50% back wages which
would carry interest @ 9% per annum if not paid within
two months.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 24th September, 2014)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
: WW1, Sri A. Rajendran
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/
: None
Management
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
12.10.2009
Charge Sheet No. CO:CBE:VG:
288:2009-10 issued to Sri A.
Rajendran
Ex.W2
10.11.2009
Reply to the Charge Sheet
Ex.W3
06.10.2009
Letter No. CO:CBE:VG:285: 2009-
10 suspending Sri A. Rajendran
Ex.W4
12.10.2009
Letter No. CO:CBE:VG:CS:
286:2009-10
Ex.W5
18.03.2010
Proceedings of the departmental
19.03.2010
enquiry against Sri A. Rajendran
Ex.W6
20.01.2010
List of management exhibits
alongwith copies of management
exhibits and defence exhibit
Ex.W7
12.04.2010
Written brief of Presenting Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6759
Ex.W8
08.05.2010
Defence summing up by the
defense representative alongwith
enclosure
Ex.W9
09.06.2010
Letter from CO/Coimbatore
CO:CBE:VG:597:2009-10
enclosing the findings of the
Enquiry Officer
Ex.W10
28.06.2010 Comments on Enquiry Officer’s
findings
Ex.W11
16.08.2010 Second Show Cause Notice
issued by AGM/Disciplinary
Authority CO:CBE:VG:529:
2009-10
Ex.W12
24.08.2010 Reply to the Second Show Cause
Notice
Ex.W13
30.08.2010 Speaking orders of Assistant
General Manager/Disciplinary
Authority,
Circle
Office,
Coimbatore
Ex.W14
30.09.2010 Appeal submitted by Sri A.
Rajendran to Deputy General
Manager/Appellate Authority
Ex.W15
25.06.2011
Orders of the Deputy General
Manager/Appellate Authority
Ex.W16
28.10.2011
Petition under 2(A) of ID Act
Ex.W17
31.01.2012 Counter submitted by the
management for the ID
Ex.W18
26.05.2012 Rejoinder by Sri A. Rajendran
Ex.W19
10.08.2012 Reply to the rejoinder
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.M1
26.08.2010 Proceedings of personal hearing
before the Disciplinary
Authority
Ex.M2
07.06.2011
Proceedings of personal hearing
before the Appellate Authority
Ex.M3
31.03.1994 Letter from the Respondent to
Petitioner awarding punishment
of stoppage of one increment
without cumulative effect in
respect
of
Disciplinary
Proceedings initiated against the
petitioner (Ref. ZO/VG/108/94)
Ex.M4
07.01.1998 Letter from Bank to Petitioner
advising to be more cautious in
future to avoid frequent
unauthorized absence (Ref. ZO/
CBE/BPS/98/25
dated
07.01.1998)
Ex.M5
24.03.2000
Letter from Bank to Petitioner
cautioning to avoid unauthorized
absence in future (Ref. ZO/PRNL/
SS-42/99-2000)
Ex.M6
27.03.2001
Letter from Bank to Petitioner
cautioning and advising not to
resort to absent without obtaining
leave – 122 days unauthorized
absence (Ref. RO/CEBE/DP-
2001/45)
Ex.M7
07.01.2005 Awarding
punishment
of
stoppage of one increment with
cumulative effect and proven
charge in respect of Charge No.
1 and 2, warning in respect of
Charge No. 3 and recording
adverse remarks in Service
register in respect of proven
Charge No. 4 – in respect of
charge sheet issued to Petitioner
under reference CO/CBE/DP/
2003-61 dated 10.10.2003
Ex.M8
25.02.2008 Orders of AGM/Disciplinary
Authority in respect of Charge
Sheet CO/CBE/VG/77/2007-
2008 dated 25.02.2008 regarding
issue of Cheque No. 487829
dated 12.07.2003 returned for
want of sufficient funds –
punishment recording on adverse
remarks in his Service Register
Ex.M9
25.02.2008 Orders of AGM/Disciplinary
Authority in respect of Charge
Sheet CO/CBE/VG/78-2007-
2008 dated 28.04.2007 in respect
of issuing Cheque No. 499707
dated 21.08.2003 for Rs. 22,000/
- - returned for want of sufficient
funds – punishment – making
entry of adverse remarks in
Service Register.
Ex.M10
25.02.2008 In respect of Charge Sheet CO-
CBE-VG-75A-2007-08 dated
25.02.2008
by
AGM/DA
awarding
punishment
of
recording adverse remarks in
Service Register
Ex.M11
05.03.2008 Òrder of AGM/DA in respect of
Charge Sheet CO/CBE/VG/76A-
2007-08 dated 23.05.2007
awarding punishment to bring
down in lower stage in the scale
of pay in 2 stages with cumulative
effect
6760
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.M12
08.05.2008
Order of Appellate Authority in
respect of the above charge sheet
– modifying the punishment as
bringing down in lower stage in
the scale of pay by one stage.
Ex.M13
25.07.2008
In respect of Charge Sheet – CO/
CBE/VG/36/2009-10 dated
27.04.2009 – in respect of
unauthorized absence during
various period from 05.02.2013
to 24.07.2004 etc. (Ref. DP
Proceedings in respect of charge
sheet dated 25.07.2009 was kept
in abeyance in view of his
dismissal from service vide order
dated 30.08.2010)
ubZ fnYyh] 9 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2714-—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; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 150@2004)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09&10&2014 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@74@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th October, 2014
S.O.
2714.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 150/
2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Hyderabad 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
09/10/2014.
[No. L-12011/74/2004-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer
Dated the 10th day September, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 150/2004
Between :
The General Secretary,
Bank of Baroda Staff Union, Andhra Pradesh,
C/o Bank of Baroda, 155, Sikh Road,
Opp. AWHO Colony, Sector-C, Bowenpally,
Secunderabad – 500009.
.....Petitioner
AND
The Asst. General Manager,
Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office, Hyderabad Business Centre,
Old MLA Quarters Road, Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad – 500 029.
.....Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
: M/s. K. Rama Reddy &
Y. Ranjit Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent : M/s. K. Srinivasa Murthy,
V. Umadevi, Adibabu,
Praveen & Sanjay, Advocates
AWARD
Vide order No. L-12011/74/2004-IR(B-II) dated
18.8.2004 of Government of India, Ministry of Labour and
Employment, New Delhi a reference is made to this Tribunal
calling upon it to give its award on the question,
“Whether the action of the Management of the Bank
of Baroda, Regional Office, Andhra Pradesh by
ordering of recovery of amount in respect of the
workmen (S/Sh. G. Ch. Demudu, Ch. Harinath,
Kondala Rao, K. Appa Rao, P. V. Ramana, D.V.L.N.
Murthy) on the ground of excess reimbursement /
double expenses is legal and justified? If not, what
relief are the workmen concerned entitled to?”
On receiving the reference, both the Petitioner union
and the Respondent Management were notified of the
same. Both of them appeared before this Tribunal and
engaged their respective counsels with the consent of
each other and leave of the Tribunal.
2.
The Petitioner union filed their claim statement
with the averments in brief as follows:-
The present petition is in respect of illegal deduction
of certain amounts under the guise of “wrong payments”
from the salary of three members of the Petitioner union
working in various branches / offices the details of which
are given here under:
Sl.
Name of the
Branch
Amount
Resp. Lr No.
No.
Employee/
recovered `
and Date
Member
1.
G. Ch. Demudu
Asilmitta,
8,400-00
19.9.2003
Vizag
2
Ch. Harinath
Vadlapudi
520-00
-do-
3
Kondal Rao
-do-
40,200-00
-do-
4
K. Appa Rao
-do-
6,370-00
-do-
5
P.V. Ramana
MVP Colony 17,860-00
-do-
6
DVLN Murthy
Vizag Main
300-00
-do-
The Respondent bank enclosed a chart while issuing
letters to the employees while effecting recovery of the
amounts under the guise of wrong payments. The said
charts are containing the dates and alleged amounts paid
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6761
to each of the employees but the same are neither
exhaustive nor explicit. On the other hand they show that
the amounts were paid almost five or six years prior to the
date of giving notice. During the conciliation proceedings
the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),
Visakhapatnam vide his notice dated 22.12.2003 advised
the Respondent bank not to alter the conditions of service
of the connected workmen in terms of the obligations
imposed on the employer under Sec.33 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. Inspite of it, Respondent bank
resorted to recovery of the alleged wrong payments while
the dispute raised by the Petitioner union has been
pending conciliation exhibiting scanned respect in the law.
With vindictive mind Respondent bank is resorting to
recovery of the amounts without heeding the requests
made by the employees to reconsider their decision. The
order of recovery is baseless and the allegations are
unfounded. Respondent bank neither given any prior notice
nor hearing to the affected employees to enable them to
know how the Respondent bank has come to the
conclusion that payments were illegal. Thus, the action
of the Respondent bank is illegal, arbitrary and against
the law and in violation of principles of natural justice.
The details of amounts such as the heads of account under
which the amounts were claimed by the employees and
were sought to be recovered, were not given. The
Respondent bank failed to realise that every payment has
been duly authorised by not less than two officers of the
bank and that more than 40 officers/Managers were
involved in the process of authorisation of the alleged
wrong payments over the period of five-six years.
Respondent bank failed to provide the details/log book of
the alleged van engaged by the bank for the exclusive
purpose of cash remittance and also the vouchers
submitted by the employees pertaining to each of
payments. The so called report submitted by the security
official of the bank basing on which the alleged recovery
was ordered, is not furnished. The said security official
never met the employees to question them regarding the
various payments during the investigation. The report
was submitted behind the back of the employees
concerned. The profit and loss account in which the
alleged payments were accounted for year after the year
were audited from time to time by the officials of the
Respondent bank and the other statutory organizations
and the accounts were finalised year after the year and the
balance sheets for the respective financial years were also
drawn by the bank and submitted to RBI, for their scrutiny,
duly audited and certified by the auditors that every
account is drawn as per the norms of the bank. Therefore,
the letters of the first Respondent dated 19.9.2003 issued
to the employees mentioned in the reference are to be
quashed and a direction is to be issued to the first
Respondent to refund the illegally recovered amounts with
suitable interest and pass other suitable orders.
3.
The Respondent Management filed their counter
with the averments in brief as follows:-
The Petitioner union is seeking a recourse to an
administrative action taken by the Respondent bank in
respect of its employees in their individual capacity which
is not maintainable. The individual employees while
working in Vadlapudi branch of the bank made certain
claims of reimbursement of conveyance and out of pocket
expenses against their entitlement. The issue of
reimbursement of any expenses can arise only when it has
actually been borne. But, the given employees who
claimed and received reimbursement of conveyance
expenses had not incurred any such expenses either by
way of using their own vehicle or through hired vehicle
instead they travelled by the transport provided by the
bank. The bank hired a van for the purpose of providing
conveyance to staff travelling on official work as well as
cash remittances. While making use of the said company
provided transport the employees had submitted bills
seeking for reimbursement of conveyance expenses or out
of pocket expenses at the rate of Rs.150/- per day which is
illegal. Thus, they are wrong claims. Instead of initiating
disciplinary proceedings for such wrong doing the bank
decided only to recover the wrong payments made to them
in easy instalments after communicating the same to them.
But the union has raised an issue before the conciliation
officer, but it could not be conciliated as the employees
made a false claim with full knowledge of their
disentitlement. The contention that bank has no right to
effect recoveries of wrong payments made belatedly is
not correct as it is a minimum logical assumption that such
things can be effected only upon finding such anomalies.
There can not be any time limit for the same. Detailed
submissions were made before conciliation officer by the
bank. The contentions raised before the conciliation
officer that,
a.
The said amounts were not incurred as expenses by
the beneficiaries.
b.
The vehicle was provided by the bank.
c.
No provision existed for payment of out of pocket
expenses.
d.
Even when other banks/branches remitted cash to
the Vadlapudi Branch, wherein no role of staff of
Vadlapudi Branch was involved, then also amounts
were paid to them.
The bank never made any alterations in service
conditions of the employees during the pendency of the
dispute as alleged in the petition. Bank has given prior
notice and an opportunity of hearing to the employees
before effecting the recovery. The information relating to
the wrong claims together with the respective dates and
amounts has been furnished. The same is more than
sufficient to satisfy the employees about the wrong claims
6762
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
made by them and to effect recovery of the same.
Employees are not eligible for anything wrongly claimed
and it does not matter whether an officer who has passed
the vouchers had seen it or not before signing the voucher
since such things are done in good faith as they were
also co-employees. When wrong claims are faced it is to
be rectified. The bank being a public sector bank can not
over look such illegal payments. The Petitioner union
can not make a flimsy allegation that the log book does
not show details irrelevant. The log book will be
maintained for the purpose of running the kilometres and
consumption of fuel and also to note the details of people
who were carried to which destination and for what
purpose. The security and vigilance reports form part
of privileged documents which can be used only by
Management. The facts relating to the false claims were
clearly mentioned and it can never be said that report
was submitted behind the back of the employees. It is
only a case of false claim and subsequent recovery from
the individual employees and the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
4.
To substantiate the claim of the Petitioner WW1
was examined and Ex. W1 to W7 were marked. On behalf
of the Respondent Management MW1 was examined. No
documents were marked for the Respondent Management.
5.
Heard the arguments of either party. Written
arguments were also filed by either party and the same
are considered.
6.
The points that arise for determination are:-
I.
Whether the order passed by the Respondent
Management ordering for recovery of amount in
respect of the workmen S/Sh. G. Ch. Demudu, Ch.
Harinath, Kondala Rao, K. Appa Rao, P. V.
Ramana, D.V.L.N. Murthy on the ground of excess
reimbursement /double expenses/ wrong payment
is legal and justified?
II.
To what relief the workmen are entitled to?
7. Point No. I :
It is an admitted fact that the Respondent
Management ordered for recovery of the amounts as
mentioned in the claim statement from the workmen
concerned as described in the claim statement. It is also
an admitted fact that the said amounts were recovered
from the salaries of the respective workmen even after
the dispute was raised by the Petitioner union before the
conciliation officer.
8.
It is the contention of the Petitioner that the said
recovery is illegal and unjustified and that without giving
prior notice and hearing to the concerned workmen the
said recovery was effected arbitrarily. Whereas it is the
contention of the Management that the said amounts were
wrongly and without entitlement claimed and received
by the concerned workmen and thus the recovery is
justified and correct. It is also their contention that prior
notice and hearing were accorded to the workmen.
9.
Now, it is to be verified whether there is any prior
notice and hearing. The prior notice given by the
Management according to them are Ex.W2 to W7, i.e.,
the impugned orders, under which the recovery has been
ordered. Thus, it can not be termed as a prior notice.
This is the final order itself but, not a notice whereunder
an opportunity has been accorded to the concerned
workmen to explain/set out their defence/to state the
reason why recovery shall not take place. There is no
record to show that there has been prior hearing
opportunity was provided to the workmen to state their
contentions to the Disciplinary Authority / Management.
Thus, it can clearly be seen that without providing any
prior notice and prior hearing the Management has taken
the decision to recover the amounts, claiming that they
are wrong payments made to the workmen. This is
certainly in clear violation of principles of natural justice
and thus, it is an arbitrary and unjustified order.
10.
It is the contention of the Management that there
has been a van provided by the Respondent bank and
thus, the workmen would not have incurred the
expenditure and thus, there was no need for any
reimbursement and inspite of it they claimed the
reimbursement and got it and thus, it is a wrong payment.
But, inspite of specifically questioning MW1 regarding
it and specific plea being raised by the Petitioner union
in the claim statement, the particulars of the van said to
have been provided by the bank are not given. Further,
the Petitioner pressed for production of the log book but
it is not produced. Reasons for non-production of the
same and non-revealing of the particulars of the van are
not given. Thus, it is to be deemed that the contentions
of the Respondent Management that there has been a
van provided and that it has been utilised by the workmen
for discharging their official duties is not correct. Thus,
the contention of the Respondent Management that the
expenses were not actually incurred and there was no
entitlement for the reimbursement is not correct.
11.
It is an admitted fact that atleast two senior officers
will be scrutinizing the vouchers and passing of the same
before the reimbursement of the amounts be done in the
bank. In such case if there is no entitlement at all for
payment of out of pocket expenses, the reimbursement
would not at all have been done. But in this case after
due scrutiny the payments were made long prior to the
ordering of the recovery. In such case the contentions of
the Respondent bank that there is no entitlement at all
and that out good faith the scrutiny officers have passed
the vouchers, is not an acceptable version. It is not the
case of the Respondent bank that any action has been
taken against the officers who scrutinized the vouchers
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6763
and passed the same. Further, there is no answer for the
contention of the Petitioner that there was regular audit of
the bank accounts in each and every financial year by the
officials of the Respondent bank and other statutory
organizations and that the accounts finalised year after
year and the Respective balance sheets for each financial
year were also drawn by the bank and submitted to the
RBI, for their scrutiny duly audited and certified by the
auditors that every account is drawn as per the norms of
the bank. In such case, how a security officer’s report
could point out the incorrectness of the reimbursement of
the amounts of the workmen all of a sudden and after
lapse of substantial period from the dates of reimbursement
is a question which shall be answered and explained to
the workmen. The security officer’s report which lead to
the recovery must be revealed to the affected workmen as
they are entitled to know the reason why the recovery
was ordered. But it was not done and the workmen are
kept in dark.
12.
In view of the fore gone discussion, it can clearly be
seen that the impugned orders dated 19.9.2003 are arbitrary,
unjust and are in violation of principles of natural justice
and they are liable to be set aside.
This point is answered accordingly.
13.
Point No.II:
In view of the finding given in point No.I above, the
recovery of the amounts made by the Respondent
Management from the respective salary of the workmen
herein is not at all justified and thus, the said amount
shall be refunded to the workmen by the Respondent
Management with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of recovery to the date of refund.
This point is answered accordingly.
Result :
In the result the reference is answered as follows:
The action of the Management of the Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office, A.P. / Management in ordering recovery
of amount in respect of the workmen, S/Sh. G.Ch. Demudu,
Ch. Harinath, Kondala Rao, K. Appa Rao, P. V. Ramana,
D.V.L.N. Murthy on the ground of excess reimbursement/
double expenses/wrong payment is neither legal nor
justified. Thus, the said orders dated 19.9.2003 are hereby
set aside. These six workmen shall be refunded with the
amounts recovered from their respective salaries together
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
recovery to the date of refund.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,
Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 10th
day of September, 2014.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence :
Witnesses examined
Witnesses examined
for the Petitioner
for the Respondent
WW1: Sri Y. Jankiram
MW1: Sri B. Priya Kumar
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1 :
Photostat copy of lr. No.7/11/2003-ALC
dt.22.12.2003
Ex.W2 :
Photostat copy of Respondent bank’s lr. to
Sri G.Ch. Demudu dt.19.9.2003
Ex.W3 :
Photostat copy of Respondent bank’s lr.
Sri D.V.L.N. Murthy dt.19.9.2003
Ex.W4 :
Photostat copy of Respondent bank’s lr.
Sri K. Appa Rao dt.19.9.2003
Ex.W5 :
Photostat copy of Respondent bank’s lr.
Sri P.V. Ramana dt.19.9.2003
Ex.W6 :
Photostat copy of Respondent bank’s lr.
Sri Kondal Rao dt.19.9.2003
Ex.W7:
Photostat copy of Respondent bank’s lr.
Sri Ch. Harinath
dt.19.9.2003
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 9 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2715-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u
vksojlht 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
41@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09&10&2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@32@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th October, 2014
S.O.
2715.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2006)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Indian Overseas Bank
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 09/10/2014.
[No. L-12012/32/2006-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer
Dated the 11th day of September, 2014
6764
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 41/2006
Between:
Smt. P. Samrajya Laxmi,
D.No.26-13-4, A.T. Agraharam,
4th Lane Ending, Malla Reddy Nagar,
State Bank Colony,
Guntur – 522004.
.....Petitioner
AND
The Regional Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Regional Office,
Benz Circle,
Vijayawada.
.....Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
: Sri William Burra, Advocate
For the Respondent : M/s. K. Suryanarayana,
C. Sridhar, S. Srikanth &
G. Narasimha, Advocates
AWARD
Vide proceeding No. L-12012/32/2006-IR(B-II)
dated 20.7.2006, Government of India, Ministry of
Labour and Employment, New Delhi made a reference
to this Tribunal requiring this Tribunal to give its award
on the question,
“Whether the action of the Management of Indian
Overseas Bank, in removing the services of Smt.
P. Samrajya Laxmi, Ex. Messenger of Guntur
branch from service is justified or not? If not, what
relief the individual is entitled to?”
On receiving the said reference this Tribunal
notified the workman Smt. P. Samrajya Laxmi and also
the Management of Indian Overseas Bank, Vijayawada
Region. Both the parties appeared before the Tribunal
and engaged their respective counsels with the consent
of each other and the leave of the Tribunal.
2.
Smt. P. Samrajya Laxmi the workman, has filed
her claim statement with averments in brief as follows:
The workman was appointed as messenger on
18.8.1997 on compassionate grounds since her husband
died on 24.6.1996 while in service of the bank. She has
been attending to her duties regularly and without any
bad remark. While so, she fell ill due to lung disease in
March, 1999. She suffered acute breathelessness and
unable to walk due to exertion and attendant problems.
She took prolonged treatment for about 6 months. She
informed of the same to the Respondent bank orally and
requested them to grant leave as per rules in force. On
completion of the treatment she reported to duty in
November, 1999 with a doctor’s certificate. But due to
her ill-luck the Respondent has treated the entire period
as unauthorized absence and issued show cause notice
dated 24.7.2000 proposing the punishment of compulsory
retirement from bank’s service under Clause 17.6(b) of
Bipartite settlement dated 14.12.1996. Later she was
removed from service by the Disciplinary Authority on
31.3.2003 awarding penalty of removal service with
superannuation benefits, i.e., pension and/or Provident
fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under the
rules and regulations prevailing at the relevant time and
without disqualification from future employment”, in
terms of 6.6(b) of bipartite settlement dated 10.4.2004.
Aggrieved by the same she preferred an appeal to the
Appellate Authority but the Appellate Authority
confirmed the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary
Authority. Thereon she approached the Labour
Commissioner (C), Vijayawada who tried to resolve the
dispute amicably but in vain. Thereafter reference is made
by the Government of India. Respondent bank
deliberately made false charge that the workman was
absent unauthorizedly even though she and her sons
periodically informed about her sickness. If such oral
information is not satisfactory Respondent should have
issued a letter directing the workman to submit written
application or other requirements if any. The intentions
of the Respondent bank appear to be waiting for an
opportunity to throw her out of employment. She is an
illiterate person and not knowing the rules and regulations
did not submit the written application for grant of leave.
She has not committed any grave mistake warranting
compulsory retirement. The earlier awarded punishment
was stoppage of two future increments with cumulative
effect vide chargesheet/order dated 26.11.1999.
Evidently the Management bore grudge and enhanced
the punishment to compulsory retirement which is illegal,
arbitrary and against the rules and regulations and also
against principles of natural justice. The said punishment
is disproportionate to the offence committed by the
workman. Hence, the order dated 31.3.2003 is liable to
be quashed. The workman is entitled for reinstatement
from the date of termination with full back wages,
continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
3.
Respondent filed their counter with averments
in brief as follows:
The services of the workman who has been given
compassionate appointment were confirmed on
18.2.1998. She was in the habit of taking unauthorised
leave and was continuously on loss of pay for months
together. She did not change her attitude and refrained
from availing unauthorised absence inspite of several
letters, reminders etc.. She was given chargesheet on
26.11.1999 for her unauthorised absence after conducting
domestic enquiry as per procedure and after giving
personal hearing and show cause notice the workman
was awarded with the punishment stoppage of two future
increments with cumulative effect vide order dated
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6765
7.5.2001. Inspite of the same she continued to be absent
to her duties though several letters, reminders and
warnings were issued to her. Thus, she was again
chargesheeted on 8.7.2002 and again domestic enquiry
was conducted against her as per procedure. Personal
hearing and show cause notice were issued to her.
Thereafter the punishment of removal from service with
superannuation benefits was awarded to her vide order
dated 31.3.2003 and the same was confirmed by the
Appellate Authority vide order dated 8.7.2003. She raised
the present industrial dispute challenging the said order.
To the various letters addressed by the bank to the
workman, she did not give any reply. During the domestic
enquiries conducted against her she admitted her guilt
regarding the charge of unauthorised absence and wilful
insubordination and disobeying lawful and reasonable
orders. After extensively going through the record of
the workman and her case, enquiry proceedings, show
cause notice and personal hearing the Disciplinary
Authority awarded the punishment of removal from
service with the superannuation benefits which has been
confirmed by the Appellate Authority on duly considering
the material on record. There is no violation of principles
of natural justice in this case. The procedure has been
scrupulously followed by the Disciplinary Authority and
Appellate Authority. The workman has been given
various opportunities but for no purpose. She did not
change her habit of unauthorised absence. In the said
circumstances, having no other option her services were
terminated by removing her from service with
superannuation benefits. The workman has no right of
seeking employment in any manner, the claim is liable
to be dismissed.
4.
Along with the counter the Respondent
Management produced the entire record of domestic
enquiry proceedings and the same is perused. The
workman also produced the documents like chargesheet
dated 26.11.1999, order of Disciplinary Authority dated
31.3.2003, the Appellate order dated 8.7.2003, the
representations and applications made by her and a bunch
of medical record and the same are perused.
5.
Since, the Petitioner reported that she is not
disputing regarding the validity of domestic enquiry the
same is held as valid by virtue of the order dated
29.4.2013.
6.
Heard the arguments under Sec.11A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments are
also filed for the workman and the same are considered.
7.
The points that arise for determination are:
I.
Whether the action of the Management of the
Respondent bank in removing the workman from
service is justified or not?
II.
To what relief the workman is entitled to?
8.
Point No.I:
The very admitted facts of this case indicate that
Smt. P. Samrajya Laxmi, the workman has been
continuously absent from duties for months together and
she failed to apply for grant of any kind of leave for
these periods. The Respondent bank was constrained to
issue several letters to her requiring her to report to the
duty but without any response from the workman. When
the Respondent bank issued a letter to the workman to
report to duty within 30 days from the date of receipt of
letter dated 4.11.1999 otherwise it would be deemed that
she has voluntarily retired from service on her own
accord, the workman who has been unauthorizedly absent
from service from 17.3.1999 to 7.9.1999, reported duty
on 8.9.1999 and submitted a letter of undertaking not to
be absent from duty unauthorizedly thereafter.
9.
But again she unauthorizedly absented herself from
duty during the months of September, October and
November, 1999 which resulted into issuance of the first
chargesheet dated 26.11.1999. Regular departmental
enquiry was conducted against her and she duly
participated in the said enquiry. After giving due
opportunity to her the Respondent bank awarded the
punishment of stoppage of two future increments with
cumulative effect to her.
10.
Even there after as she was unauthorizedly absenting
herself from duties the Respondent bank was constrained
to issue the second chargesheet dated 8.7.2002, after
giving due opportunity to her to improve her conduct but
in vain. Thereafter, a regular domestic enquiry was again
conducted against the workman giving her due
opportunity. She participated in the said enquiry and
after duly hearing her and considering the material on
record the impugned order dated 31.3.2003 has been passed
by the Disciplinary Authority which has been confirmed
by the Appellate Authority. All these aspects are being
considered as admitted facts, since the workman failed to
say anything contra in her claim statement.
11.
Further more, a fact to be noted is that the workman
has made an effort to conceal the true facts in her claim
statement by stating that consequent to show cause notice
dated 24.7.2000, the order dated 31.3.2003 was passed
which is far from truth as can be gathered from the
material on record. Show cause notice dated 24.7.2000
is in connection with the first enquiry conducted against
the workman in which the punishment of stoppage of
two future increments with cumulative effect, has been
awarded. The order dated 31.3.2003 has been passed
against the workman, after conducting second domestic
enquiry against her, since she was continuously absenting
herself from her duties even after the earlier departmental
enquiry and awarding punishment and after giving
several other opportunities to improve her conduct by
addressing letters again and again by the Respondent
6766
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
bank. Thus, there is no truth in the contentions of the
workman that the Respondent bank issued show cause
notice dated 24.7.2000 proposing the punishment of
compulsory retirement from bank’s service and later she
was removed from service by the Disciplinary Authority
on 31.3.2003. These two proceedings are pertaining to
two different disciplinary proceedings initiated against
the workman by the Respondent bank in connection with
two different spells of unauthorised absence from duty
on the part of the workman.
12.
The material on record goes to show that the
Respondent bank has indulged the workman by giving
opportunity time and again to change her ways and
improve her conduct by addressing several letters, giving
several warnings, accepting her undertakings which were
not actually honoured by her, but inspite of it as she
failed to change her ways and improve her conduct by
refraining herself from being unauthorizedly absent from
duties, the Respondent bank was constrained to initiate
disciplinary proceeding against her time and again. In the
first domestic enquiry also she has been shown
indulgence by awarding lesser punishment that is,
stoppage of two future increments with cumulative effect,
but the said punishment also could not cure the ways of
the workman. she was again continuously absenting
herself from duty unauthorizedly which resulted into the
initiation of second domestic enquiry in which the
impugned order has been passed.
13.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is contending
that the removal from service is not proportionate
punishment to the charges levelled and proved against
the workman and that such grave penalty ought not to
have been imposed when different categories of penalty
can be imposed in respect of the misconduct committed
by the workman. in this regard he is relying upon the
principles laid down in the cases of : R.M. Parmar Vs.
Gujarat Electricity Board (1983) (1) LLJ 261; Alliance Mills
(Lessees) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of West Bengal 1991 (1) LLJ
71 ; and also Ramu Vs. District & Sessions Judge, Kolar &
others, 1990 (1) LLJ 137. The facts and circumstances of
all these cases are totally different to that of the present
case. The facts of the present case discussed above,
clearly show that the Respondent bank has indulged the
workman and gave her opportunity over opportunity to
reform herself but in vain. A lesser penalty also was
imposed once. But inspite of it the workman did not cure
her ways and continued to be unauthorizedly absent from
duty. Thereon the Respondent bank was constrained to
initiate Disciplinary action against her again, and evidently
noting that there was no hope of improvement in the
conduct of the workman, awarded the punishment of
removal from service. Thus, the various principles laid
down in the above referred cases are not helpful to the
cause of the workman herein.
14.
No doubt, it is the contention of the workman all
along that due to ill-health she could not attend to the
duties regularly but a perusal of the departmental enquiry
proceedings reveal that even though due opportunity was
afforded to her by the Enquiry Officer she failed to
produce any medical record which can substantiate her
contention that owing to ill-health she could not attend
to her duties regularly. Evidently she did not produce
any such medical record either before the Enquiry Officer
or before the Disciplinary Authority at any point of time
during Disciplinary proceedings. Now, before this
Tribunal she produced some medical record which can
not be looked into for the reason that this forum can
look into the record of the departmental enquiry only
and verify whether the same were conducted properly
and as per the procedure and the punishment was awarded
in proportion to the gravity of the charges levelled and
proved. Further more, it is not the case of the workman
that she was not granted any opportunity to produce the
relevant medical record during the course of the domestic
enquiry. On the other hand the domestic enquiry
proceedings reveal that opportunity was given but she
failed to produced the same, as already observed above.
In the given circumstances, the principles laid down in
the case of J. Nageswara Rao Vs. Chairman and MD,
Visakhapatnam Steel Plant 1994(II) LLN 82 (APDB)
relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the workman are
not applicable to the facts of the present case.
15.
Learned Counsel for the workman is contending that
for more period of absence from duty, the Disciplinary
Authority awarded stoppage of increments in the first
domestic enquiry proceedings conducted against the
workman whereas for lesser period of absence from duty
the second disciplinary proceedings were launched and
for that the workman was removed from service, which is
not proper. This contention can not be accepted for the
reason that the Disciplinary Authority in their wisdom and
to give opportunity to the workman to mend her ways
awarded lesser form of punishment in the first occasion of
Disciplinary action but inspite of it she failed to mend her
ways which resulted into the second Disciplinary action.
Considering the conduct of the workman through out while
deciding the punishment to be imposed during the second
disciplinary action, which include the punishments
suffered by her as a result of the first disciplinary action
the Disciplinary Authority has rightly resorted to award
the punishment of removal from service against the
workman. One another fact to be noted is that even then
the Disciplinary Authority has shown indulgence by not
denying the retirement benefits, i.e., pension and provident
fund and also future employment. When the case is
considered in its entirety what one can reasonably
understand is that the workman herein has been awarded
with appropriate and proportionate punishment only, for
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6767
her conduct. Thus, the impugned order dated 31.3.2003
and is not liable to be interfered with in any manner.
This point is answered accordingly.
16.
Point No. II :
In view of the finding given in Point No.I above, the
workman is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for.
This point is answered accordingly.
Result :
In the result, the reference is answered as follows:
The action of the Management of Indian Overseas
Bank in removing the workman Smt. P. Samrajya Laxmi, Ex.
Messenger of Guntur branch from service is justified. The
said workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
Witnesses examined
for the Petitioner
for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 9 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2716-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯lfMdsV 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 16@2004)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09&10&2014 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th October, 2014
S.O.
2716.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2004)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
09/10/2014.
[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer
Dated the 15th day of September, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 16/2004
Between :
Balimidi Lakshmi alia Kusuma Kumari,
W/o Late Varadaiah,
D. No.27/727, Balajinagar,
Main Road, Nellore -524 002.
....Petitioner
AND
1.
The Deputy General Manager,
Syndicate Bank,
Industrial Relation Cell,
Zonal Office, D.No.6-3-653,
Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 500 482.
2.
The General Manager(P),
Syndicate Bank,
Head Office,
Manipal – 576 119.
...Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
: M/s. D. Bala Raju &
K. Ajay Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent : Sri Alluru Krishnam Raju,
Advocate
AWARD
Smt. Balimidi Laxmi alias Kusuma Kumari, the
workman has filed this petition invoking Sec.2A(2) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking for setting aside
the orders dated 31.12.1997 and 24.4.1998 of the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively and to direct them
to reinstate her into service of the Respondent bank with
continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant
benefits.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as
follows:
The Petitioner was appointed to the post of clerk in
the Respondent bank on 29.11.1986 on compassionate
grounds owing to sudden demise of her husband while on
duty of the bank. She was given posting at Nellore and
had been working continuously to the satisfaction of her
superiors. At the time of joining into service she joined in
Tutorial College, Nellore to pursue degree course in single
sitting and attended to the examination through the said
Tutorial College, in Meerut University. The said college
has issued degree certificate and marks list issued by
Meerut University. She believed the same as genuine
6768
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
certificates and submitted the same to the Respondent
bank as her educational qualifications and the bank
accepted the same. But surprisingly, first Respondent
issued chargesheet dated 26.12.1990 to her alleging that
she produced false educational certificates and got
appointment in bank for clerk post and thus she committed
misconduct within the meaning of clause 19(5) of the
bipartite settlement and describing it as, “doing acts
prejudicial to the interests of the bank” and knowingly
making false statement in connection with the employment
in the bank. But she did not commit any misconduct as
alleged. Clauses 19.5(j) and (m) of bipartite settlement are
not applicable to the alleged misconduct of the Petitioner
and much prejudice has been caused her to defend her
case with good faith and believing the version of the
tutorial college at Nellore she joined the degree course,
pursued the said education and attended to the
examinations after attending the contact classes at New
Delhi. The tutorial college got hall tickets issued by Meerut
University to write the examination for her and other
candidates who attended to the said course and they all
were taken to New Delhi where the examinations were
conducted. The Tutorial College, Nellore put a notice on
their notice board that the Petitioner and other persons
who studied in their college and attended to the
examinations at New Delhi for degree course passed the
examinations. Some days later, they gave the provisional
certificate and marks list to the Petitioner and two others.
She submitted the same to the bank as her educational
qualification. Without questioning the genuineness of
the said certificates bank has received the same. She was
under bonafide impression that the said certificates are
genuine. Only after receipt of the chargesheet and when
she made enquiries, she came to know that she was
cheated by the said tutorial college and that the provisional
certificate and marks list given by the said tutorial college
only but not by Meerut University. Petitioner is an
innocent and poor widow who was cheated by the tutorial
college. She never intended to practice any deception or
fraud on the Management of the bank. She never intended
to secure job in the bank by producing false education
certificate. The bank accepted the degree certificate issued
by Meerut University to several employees like, Sri
Kaleswara Rao, working in main branch Nellore, Sri Sowri
Rajan, working in Alluru branch. There are about 32
employees who are still in the service of the Respondent
bank who got such certificates, but Respondents picked
the Petitioner herein only and issued chargesheet against
her and ultimately dismissed her of services which is highly
discriminatory. This is a public cheating on the part of the
Tutorial College. In case of public cheating, orders were
passed by the Government of A.P., granting one time
amnesty to the victims of such cheating, the Management
is well aware of the same. The State Government has not
dismissed the services of the employees who submitted
fake certificates. When most experienced staff of the bank
have fallen a prey to the cheating perpetuated by the
Tutorial College/public media the Petitioner who has been
a house wife without having exposure to public life can
not be blamed or singled out for obtaining degree from
Meerut University. She gave her explanation to
chargesheet with the true facts. But instead of dropping
further action, the domestic enquiry has been ordered
against the Petitioner and also 17 other employees of the
bank. A common domestic enquiry was conducted against
them all. But no full and fair opportunity was given to the
Petitioner. Copy of CBI report and the reports of Registrar
or concerned authorities of Meerut University letter dated
22.12.1998 are not supplied to her. Copies of Ex.M1 to
M87 are also not supplied to her. The Enquiry Officer
acted as prosecutor and judge. Principles of natural justice
were totally violated. Relevant rules of the bank were not
supplied to her. No eye witnesses were examined to
prove the misconduct. The authorities of Meerut
University were not examined. Petitioner opposed the
common enquiry but in vain. The common enquiry caused
much prejudice to her defence. She was not given any
opportunity to give her evidence. Common enquiry report
was given for all 18 employees. The findings of Enquiry
Officer are perverse and biased. 1st Respondent ought to
have differed from the said findings. But he accepted the
same in routine and mechanical way and without
considering the explanation of the Petitioner given in her
comments on the enquiry findings and also during
personal hearing. Without issuing 2nd show-cause notice
for proposed punishment the impugned proceeding dated
31.12.1997 was issued dismissing the Petitioner from
service which is illegal and it is liable to be set aside. The
punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to
the charges. The reformative theory propounded by the
Apex Court is not followed. Since her appointment was
on compassionate grounds education qualification was
not necessary and it was not pre-condition. Further, during
the year 1993 she sat for entrance examination for BA
Degree in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University and passed
degree course and now she is a graduate. She submitted
the information to the Respondent bank. She is a poor
widow having two children and she is suffering financially
and mentally due to her dismissal from service. She has
no other source of income to maintain herself and her
children. She could not secure any alternative job inspite
of her best efforts. She preferred an appeal to the 2nd
Respondent seeking for reconsidering her case but in vain.
As she got no financial capacity and legal knowledge there
was delay in approaching the Tribunal on her part. Hence,
the petition.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6769
3.
The Respondent Management filed their counter
with the averments in brief as follows:
Petitioner was appointed in Respondent bank on
compassionate grounds consequent to the death of her
husband who worked as an officer in the said bank and
died while in service. She applied for the job and on the
basis of information provided by her while seeking
employment in the clerical cadre she was appointed as a
clerk in the year 1986. The fact remains that she
suppressed true information while applying for the
employment and knowingly submitted false information
regarding her educational qualification. The same came
to the knowledge of the Management on a later date.
Petitioner has not even passed school final examination,
which is the basic educational qualification and
minimum requirement to get appointment as a clerk in
any bank. But Petitioner falsely claimed that she is a
graduate and thus, she was given additional benefit at
the time of recruitment itself by way of additional
increments payable only to graduates. Subsequently she
herself admitted that she was cheated by the tutorial
college where she studied and that her declaration is false.
When the Respondent Management came to know about
the false educational certificate submitted by the
Petitioner, she was served with the chargesheet during
the year 1990 and a departmental enquiry was conducted
in which Petitioner participated along with her defence
representative. Since her explanation was not
satisfactory only departmental enquiry was initiated. Her
contention that enquiry was not conducted properly and
she was not given opportunity during enquiry to defend
her case are all after thoughts and incorrect versions.
She never raised such pleas at any stage before filing WP
No.15644 of 2001. Her contention that charges are vague
is also incorrect and it is a belated plea taken. Her
contention that some employees who were similarly
situated submitted similar certificates from the same
tutorial college and that they got promotion and increment
basing on such certificates and that the Management in
such cases has only rebutted those employees by one grade
and has withdrawn the monetary benefits are all not
correct. Her further contention that some of the employees
similarly joined in the service of the bank are continued
in the service is also not correct. Some of the employees
who joined the bank with required minimum qualification
subsequently for the purpose of obtaining promotion
submitted certificates to the effect that they became
graduates and they were elevated to the post of clerk and
were given attendant benefits. When the bank came to
know that such certificates were not genuine
Departmental action was initiated and thereafter they
were reverted back to their original posts and all the
benefits which were given to them were withdrawn and
amounts paid consequent to the said promotions were
recovered. But in the case of the Petitioner she was not
having even the minimum i.e., Matriculation certificate
with 60% marks to secure job as a clerk in a bank. She
submitted that she left the school while studying SSC. It
was not mentioned whether she passed SSC examination.
She was appointed on the basis of graduation certificate
produced by her which is found to be a fake certificate.
Further investigation was done and it was observed that
Petitioner produced a certificate stating that she left the
school while studying SSC which was not properly
observed by bank officials at the time of recruitment by
over sight. The provisions of service conditions applicable
to the Petitioner clearly state that any information given
by any employee while taking up employment in the bank,
if proved to be false, would amount to major misconduct
and thus she was charged for committing misconduct.
Petitioner can not allege that she was discriminated.
There is no violation of articles 14 and 16 of Constitution
of India. It is the responsibility of the Petitioner to ensure
that the courses for which she has applied for are
genuinely conducted by the University and the certificates
given to her are genuine. The disciplinary action was
initiated and conducted as per the service conditions
applicable to her. There is no violation of principles of
natural justice. The enquiry report is legal, contra
contention is incorrect. Petitioner failed to show how
prejudice is caused to her case, on account of alleged
violations in conducting the departmental enquiry. While
giving employment to the Petitioner in the bank she was
specifically informed that if it is found that the
information furnished by her or the certificate submitted
by her is found to be not correct/false, her services can
be terminated as per the rules of the bank. Petitioner
accepted the said terms and conditions of the service and
joined the service of the bank on 8.12.1986. Since she
produced a Photostat copy of the certificate while seeking
the employment she was asked to produce the original,
vide letter dated 14.10.1987 for verification but she did
not produce. Again a letter dated 22.12.1988 was served
on her informing her that since in the copy of the
certificate submitted by her at the time of seeking
employment it is stated that she appeared for SSC
examination in the year 1967 but it was not clearly
mentioned whether she actually passed the same. She
was asked to produce the original SSC certificate for
verification and she was also requested to inform whether
actually she has passed the exam or any other examination
other than the BA degree examination which she had
submitted while seeking employment with the bank. She
did not give any reply. Thereafter she sought permission
during the year 1994 vide letter dated 14.7.1994 to join
BA Degree in Ambedkar Open University, Hyderabad.
She was issued with chargesheet dated 16.12.1990 for
having submitted false information regarding her
educational qualifications while seeking employment.
She accepted the guilt and repaid all the monetary benefits
which she received by falsely submitting that she passed
BA Degree. Even at the stage, she has not rebutted the
allegation and did not produce any proof for having
passed the degree examination and did not prove that
6770
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the certificate produced by her has been genuine. At the
time of personal hearing to hear the matter of punishment
proposed she claimed that the Board of Secondary
Education, Andhra Pradesh issued a certificate which can
prove that she passed X standard during March, 1989
and that she was not a matriculate or holding SSC
certificate on the date of seeking employment. Thus, it
is clear that she passed SSC only during the year 1989
and that the degree certificate produced by her while
seeking employment by her is not genuine. In the
given circumstances, she is not entitled to continue in
the services of the bank as per service conditions
applicable to her and as per the terms and conditions of
her employment.
4.
By virtue of order dated 25.7.2012 the domestic
enquiry conducted in this case is held as valid as Learned
Counsel for the Petitioner represented that Petitioner is
not challenging the validity of the same.
4A.
Heard the arguments under Sec.11(A) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments were
also filed for either party and the same are considered.
5.
The points that arise for consideration are:
I.
Whether the orders dated 31.12.1997 on 24.4.1998
passed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively
are liable to be set aside? If so, on what grounds?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement
into service of the Respondent bank with continuity
of service, back wages and other attendant benefits?
6.
Point No.I:
It is an admitted fact that Petitioner submitted a
fake educational qualification certificate to the effect that
she has been a graduate and secured employment with
the Respondent bank as a clerk on compassionate grounds
owing to the death of her husband in harness.
7.
It is the claim of the Petitioner that she genuinely
believed that the educational qualification certificate
produced by her with the Respondent bank while seeking
employment was a genuine certificate and that she was
cheated by the Tutorial College in which she joined and
pursued the degree course. But, there is no record
produced by the Petitioner to show that she has taken
any legal action against the said Tutorial College, as can
be seen from the domestic enquiry record, produced before
this Tribunal for consideration. In any way the fact
remains that the educational qualification certificate
produced by the Petitioner before Respondent bank is a
fake certificate.
8.
One another important aspect to be noted is that
Petitioner has made a vague statement in her application
regarding her education particulars by stating that she
left the school while studying SSC. But the fact remains
that, further enquiry revealed that she never attended any
SSC course. Further, she herself revealed before the
Management that she could secure SSC pass certificate
only in the year 1989, thus, it is very much clear that she
was not having even minimum education qualification i.e.,
matriculation for securing the job as clerk with the
Respondent bank as on the date of her appointment as
clerk with the said bank i.e., 8.12.1986.
9.
As can be seen from the very contentions of the
Petitioner, the employees who got promotion /increments
basing on such false education certificates were reverted
back and monetary benefits extended to them were
recovered by the bank, when they found that the said
certificates are fake certificates and enquired into the said
matter. The Respondent bank is claiming that they were
continued in the employment since at the time of their
initial appointment they were holding minimum
educational qualification required but later on to gain
promotions, they produced further educational
qualification certificates which were found to be fake and
the benefits extended to them basing on such false
educational certificates alone were denied to them by
reverting them to their original posts and by recovering
the monies paid to them consequent to extending such
benefits.
10.
As can be gathered from the contentions put forth
for the Respondent bank even in the case of the Petitioner
an enquiry has been made to know whether she was
holding a minimum educational qualification i.e.,
matriculation/SSC by the date of her initial appointment,
when it was noted that the degree certificate produced by
her is a fake certificate but the enquiry revealed that she
was not holding any such matriculation /SSC qualification
by that date. Even it is not the contention of the Petitioner
that she was having any matriculation/SSC qualification
by the date of her joining with the service of the
Respondent bank. Thus, it is clear that she was not
qualified to secure the job of clerk with the Respondent
bank as on the date of joining into service by her. She is
not disputing with the fact that while employing her she
was made known to the condition that, “if it is found
that the information furnished by her or the certificates
submitted by her is found to be not correct/false her
services can be terminated as per the rules of the bank”.
In the given circumstances it can not be said that the
action taken by the bank against the Petitioner is in
violation of any rule, or that there was any discrimination
shown against her by the Respondent bank. If she was
having the minimum education qualification i.e.,
matriculation /SSC by the date of joining her service,
the Respondent would have continued her in service but
only taking the action of recovering extra increments
granted to her believing that she was a graduate by the
date of joining in service as they have done in the other
cases. As she was not having the very minimum education
qualification required for her recruitment as a clerk, by the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6771
date of her joining into the service, the Respondent bank
was constrained to remove her from service. It is a just
and correct action on the part of the Respondent bank.
11.
As can be gathered from the material on record, the
Enquiry Officer did not violate any principles of natural
justice. the common enquiry conducted against the
Petitioner and other similarly placed employees has not
resulted into any prejudice to her. It can be said so since,
she could not specify any such prejudice. The domestic
enquiry conducted in this case has been held as valid
since she herself has chosen not to challenge the same.
As the punishment awarded is concerned it is the only
course of action to be taken by the Respondent
Management in this case Petitioner she was not holding
the minimum required education qualification by the date
of joining into the service by her.
12.
In view of the fore gone discussion the impugned
orders dated 31.12.1997 and 24.4.1998 passed by the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively are not liable to be
set aside.
This point is answered accordingly.
13.
Point No. II:
In view of the finding given in point No. I, Petitioner
is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in this
petition.
14.
Result:
In the result, petition is dismissed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
Witnesses examined
for the Petitioner
for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 9 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2717-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯lfMdsV 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 151@2004)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09&10&2014 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@73@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th October, 2014
S.O.
2717.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 151/2004)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
09/10/2014.
[No. L-12011/73/2004-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer
Dated the 10th day of September, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No.151/2004
Between :
The General Secretary,
Bank of Baroda Staff Union, Andhra Pradesh,
C/o Bank of Baroda, Machilipatnam Branch,
Revathi Complex, Machilipatnam-521001
Krishna District.
.....Petitioner
AND
The Asst. General Manager,
Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office, Hyderabad Business Centre,
Old MLA Quarters Road, Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad – 500 029.
.....Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
: M/s. K. Rama Reddy &
Y. Ranjit Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent : M/s. K. Srinivasa Murthy,
V. Umadevi, Adibabu,
Praveen & Sanjay, Advocates
AWARD
Vide order No. L-12011/73/2004-IR(B-II) dated
18.8.2004 of Government of India, Ministry of Labour
and Employment, New Delhi a reference is made to this
Tribunal calling upon it to give its award on the question,
“Whether the action of the Management of the Bank
of Baroda, Regional Office, Andhra Pradesh by
ordering of recovery of amount in respect of the
workmen (Shri/Sh. M.V. Sivaram, N.S.N. Raju, P.
Chandra Rao) on the ground of excess
reimbursement / double expenses is legal and
justified? If not, what relief the workmen concerned
entitled to?”
6772
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
On receiving the reference, both the Petitioner union
and the Respondent Management were notified of the
same. Both of them appeared before this Tribunal and
engaged their respective counsels with the consent of
each other and leave of the Tribunal.
2.
The Petitioner union filed their claim statement
with the averments in brief as follows:-
The present petition is in respect of illegal deduction
of certain amounts under the guise of “wrong payments”
from the salary of three members of the Petitioner union
working in various branches / offices the details of which
are given here under:
Sl.
Name of the
Branch
Amount
Resp. Lr No.
No.
Employee/
recovered
and Date
Member
Rs.
1.
M.V. Siva Ram
Visakhapatnam6,390-00
19.9.2003
2
N.S.N. Raju
Vadlapudi
22,460-00
-do-
3
P. Chandra Rao Chilkalguda
8,490-00
-do-
The Respondent bank enclosed a chart while issuing
letters to the employees while effecting recovery of the
amounts under the guise of wrong payments. The said
charts are containing the dates and alleged amounts paid
to each of the employees but the same are neither
exhaustive nor explicit. On the other hand they show
that the amounts were paid almost five or six years prior
to the date of giving notice. During the conciliation
proceedings the Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central), Visakhapatnam vide his notice dated
22.12.2003 advised the Respondent bank not to alter the
conditions of service of the connected workmen in terms
of the obligations imposed on the employer under Sec.33
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Inspite of it,
Respondent bank resorted to recovery of the alleged wrong
payments while the dispute raised by the Petitioner union
has been pending conciliation exhibiting scanned respect
in the law. With vindictive mind Respondent bank is
resorting to recovery of the amounts without heeding the
requests made by the employees to reconsider their
decision. The order of recovery is baseless and the
allegations are unfounded. Respondent bank neither given
any prior notice nor hearing to the affected employees to
enable them to know how the Respondent bank has come
to the conclusion that payments were illegal. Thus, the
action of the Respondent bank is illegal, arbitrary and
against the law and in violation of principles of natural
justice. The details of amounts such as the heads of
account under which the amounts were claimed by the
employees and were sought to be recovered, were not
given. The Respondent bank failed to realise that every
payment has been duly authorised by not less than two
officers of the bank and that more than 40 officers/
Managers were involved in the process of authorisation
of the alleged wrong payments over the period of five-six
years. Respondent bank failed to provide the details/log
book of the alleged van engaged by the bank for the
exclusive purpose of cash remittance and also the
vouchers submitted by the employees pertaining to each
of payments. The so called report submitted by the
security official of the bank basing on which the alleged
recovery was ordered, is not furnished. The said security
official never met the employees to question them
regarding the various payments during the investigation.
The report was submitted behind the back of the
employees concerned. The profit and loss account in
which the alleged payments were accounted for year after
the year were audited from time to time by the officials
of the Respondent bank and the other statutory
organizations and the accounts were finalised year after
the year and the balance sheets for the respective financial
years were also drawn by the bank and submitted to RBI,
for their scrutiny, duly audited and certified by the auditors
that every account is drawn as per the norms of the bank.
Therefore, the letters of the first Respondent dated
19.9.2003 issued to the employees mentioned in the
reference are to be quashed and a direction is to be issued
to the first Respondent to refund the illegally recovered
amounts with suitable interest and pass other suitable
orders.
3.
The Respondent Management filed their counter
with the averments in brief as follows:-
The Petitioner union is seeking a recourse to an
administrative action taken by the Respondent bank in
respect of its employees in their individual capacity which
is not maintainable. The individual employees while
working in Vadlapudi branch of the bank made certain
claims of reimbursement of conveyance and out of pocket
expenses against their entitlement. The issue of
reimbursement of any expenses can arise only when it
has actually been borne. But, the given employees who
claimed and received reimbursement of conveyance
expenses had not incurred any such expenses either by
way of using their own vehicle or through hired vehicle
instead they travelled by the transport provided by the
bank. The bank hired a van for the purpose of providing
conveyance to staff travelling on official work as well as
cash remittances. While making use of the said company
provided transport the employees had submitted bills
seeking for reimbursement of conveyance expenses or
out of pocket expenses at the rate of Rs.150/- per day
which is illegal. Thus, they are wrong claims. Instead of
initiating disciplinary proceedings for such wrong doing
the bank decided only to recover the wrong payments
made to them in easy instalments after communicating the
same to them. But the union has raised an issue before
the conciliation officer, but it could not be conciliated as
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6773
the employees made a false claim with full knowledge of
their disentitlement. The contention that bank has no
right to effect recoveries of wrong payments made
belatedly is not correct as it is a minimum logical
assumption that such things can be effected only upon
finding such anomalies. There can not be any time limit
for the same. Detailed submissions were made before
conciliation officer by the bank. The contentions raised
before the conciliation officer that,
a.
The said amounts were not incurred as expenses by
the beneficiaries.
b.
The vehicle was provided by the bank
c.
No provision existed for payment of out of
pocket expenses.
d.
Even when other banks/branches remitted cash to
the Vadlapudi Branch, wherein no role of staff of
Vadlapudi Branch was involved, then also amounts
were paid to them.
The bank never made any alterations in service
conditions of the employees during the pendency of the
dispute as alleged in the petition. Bank has given prior
notice and an opportunity of hearing to the employees
before effecting the recovery. The information relating
to the wrong claims together with the respective dates
and amounts has been furnished. The same is more than
sufficient to satisfy the employees about the wrong claims
made by them and to effect recovery of the same.
Employees are not eligible for anything wrongly claimed
and it does not matter whether an officer who has passed
the vouchers had seen it or not before signing the voucher
since such things are done in good faith as they were
also co-employees. When wrong claims are faced it is to
be rectified. The bank being a public sector bank can not
over look such illegal payments. The Petitioner union
can not make a flimsy allegation that the log book does
not show details irrelevant. The log book will be
maintained for the purpose of running the kilometres and
consumption of fuel and also to note the details of people
who were carried to which destination and for what
purpose. The security and vigilance reports form part
of privileged documents which can be used only by
Management. The facts relating to the false claims were
clearly mentioned and it can never be said that report
was submitted behind the back of the employees. It is
only a case of false claim and subsequent recovery from
the individual employees and the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
4.
To substantiate the claim of the Petitioner WW1
and WW2 were examined and Ex. W1 to W7 were
marked. By virtue of order dated 17.7.2013, the evidence
of WW1 has been eschewed. On behalf of the Respondent
Management MW1 was examined. No documents were
marked for the Respondent Management.
5.
Heard the arguments of either party. Written
arguments were also filed by either party and the same
are considered.
6.
The points that arise for determination are:-
I.
Whether the order passed by the Respondent
Management ordering for recovery of amount in
respect of the workmen S/Sri M.V. Sivaram, N.S.N.
Raju and P. Chandra Rao on the ground of excess
reimbursement /double expenses/ wrong payment
is legal and justified?
II.
To what relief the workmen are entitled to?
7.
Point No. I:
It is an admitted fact that the Respondent
Management ordered for recovery of the amounts as
mentioned in the claim statement from the workmen
concerned as described in the claim statement. It is also
an admitted fact that the said amounts were recovered
from the salaries of the respective workmen even after
the dispute was raised by the Petitioner union before the
conciliation officer.
8.
It is the contention of the Petitioner that the said
recovery is illegal and unjustified and that without giving
prior notice and hearing to the concerned workmen the
said recovery was effected arbitrarily. Whereas it is the
contention of the Management that the said amounts were
wrongly and without entitlement claimed and received
by the concerned workmen and thus the recovery is
justified and correct. It is also their contention that prior
notice and hearing were accorded to the workmen.
9.
Now, it is to be verified whether there is any prior
notice and hearing. The prior notice given by the
Management according to them are Ex.W2 to W4, i.e.,
the impugned orders, under which the recovery has been
ordered. Thus, it can not be termed as a prior notice.
This is the final order itself but, not a notice whereunder
an opportunity has been accorded to the concerned
workmen to explain/set out their defence/to state the
reason why recovery shall not take place. There is no
record to show that there has been prior hearing
opportunity was provided to the workmen to state their
contentions to the Disciplinary Authority / Management.
Thus, it can clearly be seen that without providing any
prior notice and prior hearing the Management has taken
the decision to recover the amounts, claiming that they
are wrong payments made to the workmen. This is
certainly in clear violation of principles of natural justice
and thus, it is an arbitrary and unjustified order.
10.
It is the contention of the Management that there
has been a van provided by the Respondent bank and
thus, the workmen would not have incurred the expenditure
and thus, there was no need for any reimbursement and
inspite of it they claimed the reimbursement and got it and
6774
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
thus, it is a wrong payment. But, inspite of specifically
questioning MW1 regarding it and specific plea being
raised by the Petitioner union in the claim statement, the
particulars of the van said to have been provided by the
bank are not given. Further, the Petitioner pressed for
production of the log book but it is not produced. Reasons
for non-production of the same and non-revealing of the
particulars of the van are not given. Thus, it is to be deemed
that the contentions of the Respondent Management that
there has been a van provided and that it has been utilised
by the workmen for discharging their official duties is not
correct. Thus, the contention of the Respondent
Management that the expenses were not actually incurred
and there was no entitlement for the reimbursement is not
correct.
11.
It is an admitted fact that atleast two senior officers
will be scrutinizing the vouchers and passing of the same
before the reimbursement of the amounts be done in the
bank. In such case if there is no entitlement at all for
payment of out of pocket expenses, the reimbursement
would not at all have been done. But in this case after
due scrutiny the payments were made long prior to the
ordering of the recovery. In such case the contentions of
the Respondent bank that there is no entitlement at all
and that out good faith the scrutiny officers have passed
the vouchers is not an acceptable version. It is not the
case of the Respondent bank that any action has been
taken against the officers who scrutinized the vouchers
and passed the same. Further, there is no answer for the
contention of the Petitioner that there was regular audit
of the bank accounts in each and every financial year by
the officials of the Respondent bank and other statutory
organizations and that the accounts finalised year after
year and the Respective balance sheets for each financial
year were also drawn by the bank and submitted to the
RBI, for their scrutiny duly audited and certified by the
auditors that every account is drawn as per the norms of
the bank. In such case, how a security officer’s report
could point out the incorrectness of the reimbursement
of the amounts of the workmen all of a sudden and after
lapse of substantial period from the dates of
reimbursement is a question which shall be answered and
explained to the workmen. The security officer’s report
which lead to the recovery must be revealed to the affected
workmen as they are entitled to know the reason why the
recovery was ordered. But it was not done and the
workmen are kept in dark.
12.
In view of the fore gone discussion, it can clearly
be seen that the impugned orders dated 19.9.2003 are
arbitrary, unjust and are in violation of principles of
natural justice and they are to be set aside.
This point is answered accordingly.
13.
Point No.II:
In view of the finding given in point No.I above,
the recovery of the amounts made by the Respondent
Management from the respective salary of the workmen
herein is not at all justified and thus, the said amount
shall be refunded to the workmen by the Respondent
Management with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of recovery to the date of refund.
This point is answered accordingly.
Result :
In the result the reference is answered as follows:
The action of the Management of the Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office, A.P. / Management in ordering recovery
of amount in respect of the workmen, S/Sri M.V. Sivaram,
N.S.N. Raju and P. Chandra Rao on the ground of excess
reimbursement/ double expenses/wrong payment is neither
legal nor justified. Thus, the said orders dated 19.9.2003
are hereby set aside. These three workmen shall be
refunded with the amounts recovered from their respective
salaries together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of recovery to the date of refund.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
Witnesses examined
for the Petitioner
for the Respondent
WW1: Sri P. Chandra Rao
MW1: Sri B. Priya
(eschewed)
Kumar
WW2: Sri V. Rama Krishna
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photostat copy of lr. No.7/11/2003-ALC
dt.22.12.2003
Ex.W2:
Photostat copy of Respondent bank’s lr. to
Sri M V Sivaram dt.19.9.2003
Ex.W3:
Photostat copy of Respondent bank’s lr. to
Sri N.S.N. Raju dt.19.9.2003
Ex.W4:
Photostat copy of Respondent bank’s lr. to
Sri P.C. Rao dt.19.9.2003
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2718-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k 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]
pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 54@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08&10&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41011@51@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6775
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2014
S.O.
2718.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2014)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Southern Railway and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
08/10/2014.
[No. L-41011/51/2014-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 17th September, 2014
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 54/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between
the Management of Southern Railway and Railway
Employees Coop. Credit Society Ltd. and their workman)
BETWEEN
The General Secretary
: 1st Party/Petitioner
Railway Employee’s
Union
Co-op. Society Staff Union
2/30, Lettangs Road, Vepery
Chennai-600007
AND
1.
The General Manager
: 2nd Party/
Southern Railway
1st Respondent
Chennai-600002
2.
The Chief Executive
: 2nd Party/
The Railway Employees
2nd Respondent
Coop. Credit Society Ltd.
Ashok Vihar Complex,
Old Zoo Road
Chennai-600007
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
: M/s D. Nagasaila, Advocates
Petitioner Union
For the 2nd Party/
: Set Ex-parte
1st Respondent
For the 2nd Party/
: Sri C.K. Chandrasekkar,
2nd Respondent
Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-41011/51/2014-IR (B.I)
dated 03.07.2014 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the demand of the RECSS Union in
restoration of medical treatment facility in Railway
Hospital arising out of change of bye-laws of the
Society is legal and justified? If so, to what relief
the Union is entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 54/2014 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
counsel.
3.
The case was posted for filing Claim Statement.
However, without filing Claim Statement, the counsel
for the petitioner has filed a memo stating that the
petitioner is not proceeding with the matter and the ID is
to be closed. It is stated in the memo that the petitioner is
seeking to close the matter since this Tribunal has no
jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
4.
On the basis of memo filed on behalf of the
petitioner, the ID is closed.
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 17th September, 2014)
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: None
For the 2nd Party/1st and 2nd Management : None
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2719-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 9@2010) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08&10&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@38@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
6776
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2014
S.O.
2719.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 9/2010)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of State Bank of India and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
08/10/2014.
[No. L-12011/38/2009-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/9/2010
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE
General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmchari
Sangathan, F-1, Tripti Vihar,
Opp Engg. College,
Ujjain.....Workman/Union
Versus
Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office,
Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur
.....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of September 2014
1 As per letter dated 7-1-10 by the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10
of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12011/38/2009-
IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmchari Sangathan, Ujjain for
regularization of services of Shri Dilip Chohtel,
sweeper/ Messenger of SBI, City Branch, Jabalpur
from 1-6-07 is fair, legal and justified? If yes, what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at page
1 to 5. Case of workman is that he was engaged on daily
wages as sweeper from 1-6-07. He was paid wages Rs. 50,
70 per day. His name was entered in muster roll. He was
working 8 hours every day. He was paid bonus. He
completed 240 days continuous service. During pendency
of conciliation proceedings, his services were terminated
in violation of Section 25-F, 33 of I.D.Act. he further
submits that city branch building is of 7000 sq.ft. the
building has 3 floors. He was continuously working for
more than 240 days as such he acquired status of regular
employee under Section 25 B of I.D.Act. On such ground,
he prays for regularisation in service.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement . Preliminary
objection is raised that Union Representative Shri Ram
Nagwanshi was dismissed from service, he is not
competent to represent workman. Workman was engaged
on daily wages on contract basis during July 2007 to
31-10-08 for 185 days. The engagement of workman on
daily wages was ending at end of the day. His
discontinuation doesnot amount to be retrenchment under
Section 2(oo) of I.D.Act. it is covered under Section
2(oo)(bb) of I.D.Act. IInd party reiterates that workman
had not completed 240 days continuous service. He is not
entitled to regularisation. He was not appointed following
selection procedure. IInd party prays for rejection of claim.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the demand of the
In Negative
General Secretary, Dainik
Vetan Bhogi Karmchari
Sangathan, Ujjain for regulari-
zation of services of Shri Dilip
Chohtel , sweeper/ Messenger
of SBI, City Branch, Jabalpur
from 1-6-07 is fair, legal and
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman
Relief prayed
is entitled to?”
by workman
is rejected.
REASONS
5.
Workman is claiming regularisation in service of
IInd party as sweeper/messenger from 1-6-07. IInd party
had denied claim of workman. It is submitted that
workman was engaged on daily wages by Branch
Manager. He not completed 240 days continuous service.
Workman is not entitled for regularisation.
6.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence covering
his contentions in statement of claim that he was engaged
on daily wages from 1-6-07. Wages were paid to him at
Rs.50, 70, 80, per day- 6 days in a week. He was also
paid wages in name of Pradeep and Vineet. In his further
evidence, workman says that copy of muster roll paper
No.31 was given to him by Shri J.P.Nema. In his cross-
examination workman says he has no knowledge about
recruitment rules, the post was not advertised, he was
not interviewed. Appointment letter was not given to him.
He was engaged by Branch Manager because of his
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6777
acquintance. He was supplying drinking water, he was
doing work of messengers. He continuously worked from
May 07 to Jan-09. He was member of Union from May 97.
He has not produced documents about his Union
membership. He denied that he was working part time.
Management’s witness Mahesh Kumar Rathore supported
contentions of IInd party that workman was engaged on
daily wages at Rs.30, 40 per day. Workman had worked for
total 185 days. He not completed 240 days continuous
service. In his cross-examination management witness says
during 2007 to 09, he was not working in the City Branch.
Name of workman was not sponsored by Employment
Exchange. Workman was not interviewed. Appointment
letter was not given to workman. He claimed ignorance
whether wages were paid to workman by Bankers cheque.
Witness of management also claims ignorance about
document Page 154. He denies that said document bears
signature of Branch Manager.
7.
The legality of termination of workman is decided in
R/10/10, terms of present reference relates to claim for
regularisation of workman. Workman was not appointed
after following selection process. He was engaged on daily
wages. Any rule or scheme is not produced on record
conferring right on workman for regularisation. In absence
of such scheme or rule, claim cannot be allowed. For above
reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
8.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The demand of the General Secretary, Dainik Vetan
Bhogi Karmchari Sangathan, Ujjain for regularization
of services of Shri Dilip Chohtel , sweeper/
Messenger of SBI, City Branch, Jabalpur from 1-6-
07 is not proper.
(2)
Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2720-—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 tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 273@89) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08&10&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&17012@23@88&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2014
S.O.
2720.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 273/
89) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Life Insurance Corporation
of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 08/10/2014.
[No. L-17012/23/88-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/273/89
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri shital Prasad,
S/o Shri Nathu Ram
Bheem Ward, Chhotti Bazaria,
Distt. Bina, Jabalpur
.....Workman
Versus
Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Deevan Prakash,
Jabalpur Divisional Office,
Madan Mahal, Jabalpur
.....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 22nd day of September 2014
1. As per letter dated 15-12-89 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-17012/
23/88-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether action of the management of LIC of India,
Jabalpur in terminating of services of Shri Shital
Prasad, S/o Shri Nathu Ram, Sub staff from 28-3-88
without any compensation under the provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is justified? if not,
to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Page 3/1 to 3/4. Case of workman is that he is resident of
Bina. He has passed HSc..In October 1985, he got
knowledge about vacant post of peon in LIC. He submitted
application to Branch Manager his application was
accepted. He was permitted to work in LIC office Bina
Branch. That he worked from 30-10-85 to 28-3-87.
Thereafter he was temporarily stopped working. Again he
was permitted to work from 16-4-87 to 10-7-87,
26-12-87 to 28-3-88. That he was paid basic salary Rs.430
plus DA. He was also paid bonus15 % for 86-87. Workman
submits that he was in continuous employment from
6778
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
30-10-85 to 28-3-87. His services were terminated on 28-3-
88. In violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. That he was in
continuous service for more than one year. He was not
served with notice for termination of his service. Any
chargesheet was not issued to him. His services are orally
terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. His
services were not regularized. On such ground workman
prays for his reinstatement with back wages.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to
5/8. IInd party denied claim of workman for reinstatement
with back wages. That claim of workman is misconceived.
It is submitted that various association of Class III, IV
employees working in LIC raised issues regarding
quantum of wages to be paid to Badli temporary part
time employees. The issue was referred by Govt. of India
to National Industrial Tribunal presided over by Justice
R.D.Turbule on 28-5-85. The issue related to what would
be the wages and other conditions of service of part time
workman of LIC as well as the conditions of their
absorption in regular cadre. That NIT issued interim order
dated 15-1-86 directing that no temporary employees of
the corporation be removed till Tribunal gives the final
award provided he gives undertaking that no benefit on
his behalf would be claimed. If he continue in position
for a period of more than 85 days. Interim order is
reproduced.
4.
IInd party further submits that National Tribunal
passed final award on 17-4-86 published in gazette on
7-6-86. Tribunal laid down period 1-1-82 to 28-5-85 as
cut off date. The temporary employees who were within
said period for specified number of days were to be
covered by provisions of the award. Temporary employees
in Class III whether Assistant or typist who had put in
85 days worked in 2 calendar year, Class IV-70 days in 3
calendar years within the cut off date were eligible for
absorption if they are covered within the cut off date.
IInd party has contented that there was controversy about
the award passed by National Tribunal. Matter was taken
up before Hon’ble Apex Court. IInd party further submits
that as per the agreement, workman had failed to submit
application for absorption till 7-7-1986. Consequently
services of workman were terminated. All other
contentions of workman that he completed 240 days
continuous service, he was entitled for regularization/
absorption are denied. It is denied that services of
workman were terminated in violation of Section 25-F
of I.D.Act. On such ground, IInd party prays for rejection
of claim.
5.
Considering pleadings and all aspects, award was
passed by my predecessor on 18-4-95 against workman.
Said award was challenged by workman in Writ petition
No. 2380/96. Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated
28-7-08, set aside the award passed by my predecessor
and remanded the matter to this Tribunal for adjudication
on merit.
6.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether action of the manage-
In Negative
ment of LIC of India, Jabalpur
in terminating of services of Shri
Shital Prasad, S/o Shri Nathu Ram,
Sub staff from 28-3-88 without any
compensation under the provisions
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
As per
entitled to?”
final order.
REASONS
7.
Workman is challenging termination of his service
from 28-3-88 for violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act.
The claim of workman is opposed only on the ground
that the matter of service conditions and wages of Badli
part time workman was referred to NIT. The interim
direction was issued not to terminate services of part time
Badli workman till decision of award. Final award was
passed. However matter was challenged before Apex
Court. Union and management settled compromise before
Apex Court. Workman has not completed application for
absorption within prescribed time limit.
8.
Workman filed affidavit supporting his contentions
in statement of claim. He was engaged by management
on 30-10-85 to 28-3-88. He was paid basic salary Rs.430
per month along with DA. He was paid 15% bonus for
86-87. He completed 240 days continuous service. His
services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of
I.D.Act. In his cross-examination, workman claims
ignorance about the rules for recruitment in LIC. He was
engaged as casual worker by IInd paprty. At the instance
of Union, rules for regularization of casual part time
employees, the reference was made to National Tribunal.
He claims ignorance about the award passed by National
Tribunal. He had not submitted application in prescribed
time. He denies that he not completed 240 days working.
9.
Management witness Shri Tirath Kumar Shrivas filed
affidavit of evidence supporting contentions of the
management. As per evidence of management’s witness,
final award was passed by NIT on 7-7-86. Interim award
was passed on 17-4-86. Final award challenged before
Apex Court was compromised. Workman had not submitted
application for absorption till 6-3-87. Therefore he was
not considered for absorption. In his cross-examination,
management witness says he submitted affidavit of
evidence as per record. He was unable to tell the date of
appointment and the period of working of workman.
However he denied suggestion that workman completed
240 days working. Workman was not issued notice,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6779
retrenchment compensation was not paid to him before
termination of his service.
10.
Parties are not in dispute about interim award and
final award passed by National Tribunal. As per interim
award, the period of working protected by interim award
was not considered. Copy of interim award is produced
R-I. Relevant portion of interim award reads as under.
“The employees continues in position for a period
more than 85 days. The Unions are agreeable and
the workman concerned shall give an undertaking
that they would not claim any benefit on account
of such continuation for a period more than 85 days
if it occurs, of absorption of any other benefit subject
to that he may be continued.”
In present case, the interim award was passed on
15-1-86. Workman was working in IInd party prior to it
i.e. from 30-10-85. He had already completed more than
85 days. Management has not produced any documents
about undertaking given by workman in pursuance of
the interim award. The evidence of workman that he
was working with IInd party from 30-10-85 till 28-3-88
with intermittent break is not settled. The terms of
compromise settled before Hon’ble Apex Court are
produced at R-3. It clearly provides casual badly part
time employees working 85 days in 2 years during the
period 1-1-82 to 20-5-85 were to be considered for
absorption on submitting application within prescribed
period. Workman has not submitted application during
prescribed period therefore he cannot claim benefit for
his absorption.
11.
The terms of reference donot relate to absorption
of workman as per compromise settled before Apex Court,
the reference relates to legality of termination of
workman. Workman had worked more than 2 ½ years.
His services were terminated without notice, he was not
paid retrenchment compensation. Thus termination of
service of workman is illegal for violation of Section 25-
F of I.D.Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in
Point No.1 in Negative.
12.
Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.1,
the termination of services of workman is in violation of
Section 25-F of I.D.Act, question arises whether he is
entitled for reinstatement with back wages. Evidence of
workman shows that he was engaged on casual basis, he
was not appointed following recruitment rules. Learned
counsel for management Shri P.K.Tripathi submits that
workman is not entitled to reinstatement. Reliance is placed
on ratio held in
“Case of Hari Nandan Prasad versus FCI reported in
AIR 2014 SC-1848. Their Lordship held daily wagers
who worked for 3 years is not entitled for
reinstatement. Their Lordship further held that
mere long service as daily wager cannot be basis
for directing regularization.”
Considering the ratio held in above case, workman
cannot be allowed reinstatement with back wages.
Considering the dispute pending since 1989, workman
is out of employment, the workman was working for about
2 ½ years, compensation Rs. 75,000/- would be
reasonable. Accordingly I record my finding in Point
No.2.
13.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of LIC of India,
Jabalpur in terminating of services of Shri shital
Prasad, S/o Shri Nathu Ram, Sub staff from 28-3-88
is not legal.
(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
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2721-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; thou
chek fuxe izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 17@98)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08&10&2014 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@203@96&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2014
S.O.
2721.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/98)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of State Bank of Indore Merged
State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 08/10/2014.
[No. L-12012/203/96-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/17/98
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Ram Nagwanshi,
General Secretary,
All India State Bank of Indore Employees Congress,
Sanwer Road, Ujjain
.....Workman/Union
6780
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
General Manager (Operations),
State Bank of Indore,
Merged as State Bank of India
Local Head Office,
Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal
.....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of September 2014
1.
As per letter dated 13-1-98 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.
L-12012/203/96-IR(B). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Regional
Office, Bank of India in not paying Shri
S.R.Prajapati, Rajgarh subsistence allowance after
2-9-92 before completion of enquiry not granting
annual increment is justified and legal? If not, to
what relief the concerned workman is entitled for?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim
at Page 2/1 to 2/3. Case of Ist party Union is that workman
Shri S.R.Prajapati was working as Head clerk at State
Bank of Indore, Rajgarh, Distt. Dhar. That on 4-8-92,
due to negligence of Bank Manager Hemand Phadke,
saving account ledger keeper Shri Meena, Head Cashier
Shri Rathore and Daftary, fraud of Rs. 20,000/- was
committed. Management wanted to protect those
employees. Ist party workman had informed about said
fraud to Regional Office. Regional Manager Shri
K.G.Baheti has visited branch on 18-8-92. Manager was
scolded why information about fraud of Rs. 20,000/- was
not given to him. There were also talks that amount of
Rs.20,000 involved in the fraud should be deposited by
contributing from all employees. Workman had opposed
for it. It is submitted that workman was suspended without
any notice. That higher officer of the management had
received letter of threat of their life. Said incident was
reported to police after one month. Workman was
suspended. Enquiry was not conducted against him.
Reports submitted to police was silent about involvement
of the workman. Workman was entitled for subsistence
allowance as per bipartite settlement dated 8-9-93.
Workman was not paid full subsistence allowance after
period of one year. The proceeding under Section 33(C)
for recovery of amount was pending.
3.
It is further submitted that the employees suspended
were paid arrears of subsistence allowance at revised rates.
Mr. Chandrashekhar Mehendle, Shri Balwant Singh Gaur
and Shri Sunralkumar Mukati. The workman was not
paid revised subsistence allowance.
4.
IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page 3/1
to 3/2. Case of IInd party is amount of fraud of Rs.20,000/-
was committed on 4-8-92 w.r.t. account of Shri Pathak at
Rajgarh branch. The amount was dishonestly withdrawn
in collision with one Hiralal. The payment voucher was
missing. Workman was suspended from 4-9-92. DE was
initiated against him. Workman is also prosecuted for
offence under Section 420, 109, 201, 34 of IPC. As per
Para19.4 of settlement dated 19-10-66, the enquiry was
stayed. Criminal case was prosecuted against workman
about giving threats to the officers of the Bank. Chalan
was submitted in Court under section 506/507 of IPC.
Workman is paid subsistence allowance as per settlement
dated 8-9-83. The chargesheet is submitted in Criminal
Court against workman. Criminal case is pending against
him. Workman is not entitled to arrears of subsistence
allowance claimed by him.
5.
Workman filed rejoinder at Page 4/1 to 4/6 reiterating
its contentions in statement of claim. Chargesheet was
issued to him without substance. Revised subsistence
allowance was not aid to him. Enquiry was deliberately
prolonged by appointing different Enquiry officers,
Presenting Officers. The request of workman not to change
Enquiry Officer, presenting Officer was not considered.
6.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the manage-
In Affirmative
ment of Regional Office, Bank of
India in not paying Shri S.R.Prajapati,
Rajgarh subsistence allowance after
2-9-92 before completion of enquiry
not granting annual increment is
justified and legal.
(ii) If so, to what relief the workman
Workman is
is entitled to?”
not entitled
to any relief.
REASONS
7.
Statement of claim filed by workman is signed only
by Shri Ram Nagwanshi claiming to be General Secretary
of Union. Any objection was not raised on above point at
the time of argument. Therefore I donot consider it
appropriate to make comments about locus-standi of
Union regarding Ram Nagwanshi. Claim of workman for
revised claim of subsistence allowance has been denied.
It is submitted that criminal case prosecuted against
workman is pending. Enquiry was conducted as per Clause
19.5 of settlement. In above context, the Union
Representative submitted in writing that the documents
are produced. Workman does not desire to adduce any
evidence. Thus claim of workman is not supported by his
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6781
evidence. The documents produced by workman
alongwith list Page 4/7 are not admitted by IInd party. The
documents are not proved by the workman. Therefore it
would not be appropriate to allow claim of workman on
said documents. Particularly P-13 relates to payment of
subsistence allowance and reference of ratio held in case
of Umesh Chandra Mishra versus Union of India. Relevant
portion has been reproduced on the facts and
circumstances of the case therefore we set aside the order
of the Tribunal and direct the respondents to pay the
appellant the following amounts. Subsistence allowance
(i) from 20-11-75 to 19-5-76 @ 50 % of the salary. Claim
of workman has made out from statement of claim
pertains to non-payment of the revised subsistence
allowance. The statement of claim is silent how much
subsistence allowance was paid to him and how much
amount is due against IInd party. As stated above, claim
of workman is not supported by any evidence. The
documents are not admitted. IInd party denied claim of
workman. The workman has not produced documents
about revised rates of subsistence allowance payable to
him. In absence of such documents, I record my finding
in Point No.1 in Negative.
8.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Regional Office,
Bank of India in not paying Shri S.R.Prajapati,
Rajgarh subsistence allowance after 2-9-92 before
completion of enquiry not granting annual
increment is legal and proper.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to relief claimed by him.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2722-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 10@2010) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08&10&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@41@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2014
S.O.
2722.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2010)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 08/10/2014.
[No. L-12011/41/2009-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/10/2010
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmchari
Sangathan, F-1, Tripti Vihar,
Opp Engg. College,
Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Dy.General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office,
Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of September, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 11-1-2010 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
12011/41/2009-IR(B-I).The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the demand of the General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmchari Sangathan, Ujjain
in reinstating Shri Dilip Chohtel , sweeper/
Messenger in service w.e.f. 9-1-09 is fair, legal
and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim at page 1 to 5. Case of workman is that he was
working as sweeper in IInd party Bank after promotion
of sweeper Shri Satwan Singh from May 2007. The
branch premises of 7000 sq.ft, 3 storied building. For its
cleaning and sweeping, workman was engaged from
1-6-07 by Branch Manager Nema. He was working from
9.30 AM to 2 PM and 5 PM till closure of Bank. He was
paid Rs.50/- per day. He was engaged orally. The wages
were increased to Rs.70/- per day. The payment was made
from petty cash under payment voucher, muster roll was
maintained. He was also paid wages in name of Shri
Pradeep from 1-11-08 and from 16-12-08 in name of
Pradeep and Vineet. He completed 240 days continuous
service. He was also paid bonus arrears. His services are
terminated during pendency of conciliation proceedings
in violation of Section 33, 25-F.
3.
Workman submits that he was paid bonus Rs.1286/-,
1086/- for 2007-08, 08-09 respectively. Though he
6782
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
completed 240 days continuous service, his services were
terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. he was
not issued notice. Notice pay was not paid to him. On
such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement.
4.
IInd party filed Written Statement denying claim of
workman. Objection is raised that Union representative
Shri Ram Nagwanshi was dismissed from service of Bank.
He is not competent to represent workman. That workman
was engaged on contract basis for sweeping work in City
Branch, Jabalpur. He worked for 185 days in 2007-08.
Workman was engaged on daily wage basis. His services
used to end at end of the day. His discontinuation is not
retrenchment. Workman was not appointed by the bank
following selection process. Workman was not
continuously working. He has not completed 240 days
continuous service preceding 12 months. Workman was
doing cleaning work for two hours. He is not entitled for
reinstatement. There is no violation of Section 25-F of
I.D.Act. Workman was paid wages for his working days.
On such ground, IInd party prays for rejection of claim.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the demand of the
Partly in Affirmative
General Secretary, Dainik
Vetan Bhogi Karmchari
Sangathan, Ujjain in rein-
stating Shri Dilip Chohtel,
sweeper/ Messenger in
service w.e.f. 9-1-09 is fair,
legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?”
REASONS
6.
Workman is submitting that he was regularly
working with IInd party doing cleaning work. He
completed 240 days service. His services are terminated
in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. He was not paid
retrenchment compensation. Above all contentions of
workman are denied by IInd party.
7.
Workman filed affidavit covering his contentions.
He was engaged for sweeping work, cleaning work from
1-6-07. He was paid wages Rs. 50, 50, 80 per day. For
some period he was paid wages in different names. He
was paid bonus Rs. 1286/- on 9-7-09, 1086 on 9-6-09. In
his cross-examination, workman says post was not
advertised, he was not interviewed, appointment letter
was not given to him. He was engaged on the work
because of his acquaintance with Branch Manager. He is
member of Union. He reiterates that he was continuously
working. He denies that he was working for 2 hours only.
8.
Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Mukesh
Kumar supporting contentions in Written Statement filed
by management that workman was engaged for cleaning,
sweeping work from 1-6-07 to 31-10-08. Wages were paid
Rs. 30,40 per day. Workman had worked for 185 days in
the Bank. He not completed 240ays continuous service.
Section 25-F of I.D.Act was not violated. Branch manager
was apprised to engage persons for specific task on daily
wages. In his cross-examination management witness
says his affidavit is based on documents. Those
documents are not produced on record. The witness of
management was not working in the branch during 2007
to 09. Witness of management had not discussed with
other Branch Managers about the services of Ist party
workman. Thus witness of the management has no
personal knowledge. Documents on which his affidavit
is based are not produced. The attendance register of
workman was not maintained. The denial by
management’s witness that workman had not completed
240 days service is not supported by documents.
9.
So far as evidence of workman, his evidence is
supported by documents Exhibit W-2 payment vouchers
at Sl. No. 7 to 21. The amount of wages was paid to
workman at different time. Exhibit W-3 shows payment
of wages to workman on various dates. Exhibit W-4 is
notice issued by ALC, W-5 is payment vouchers about
wages paid to the workman. Thus evidence of workman
is corroborated by documents. Evidence of management’s
witness is not supported by documents. Witness of
management has no personal knowledge about working
days of workman as he was not posted in the branch at
the relevant period. Therefore evidence of workman
deserves to be accepted. It is proved from evidence of
workman and documents on record that workman was
working in IInd party as sweeper from 1-6-07 till
discontinuation of his services. No documents are
produced on record that workman was only working for
two hours in the branch. The suggestions in that regard
are denied by the workman. Evidence is sufficient to hold
that workman was working more than 240 days preceding
the termination of his services. He was not served notice,
retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. Thus
termination of service of workman is in violation of
Section 25-F of I.D.Act. however workman was engaged
on daily wages. He was not appointed following
conciliation process. Therefore workman is not entitled
for reinstatement. For above reasons, I record my finding
on Point No.1 partly in Negative.
10.
Point No.2- as per my findings in Point No.1,
termination of service of workman is in violation of
Section 25-F the workman was working in the branch
from 1-6-07 till 9-1-09. Considering the period of
working and he was engaged on daily wages, his services
were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act,
reasonable compensation would be justified. In my
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6783
considered view, compensation Rs. 50,000/- would be
reasonable. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.
11.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The demand of the General Secretary, Dainik Vetan
Bhogi Karmchari Sangathan, Ujjain in reinstating
Shri Dilip Chohtel , sweeper/ Messenger in service
w.e.f. 9-1-09 is proper.
(2)
IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.50,000/
- to the workman Shri Dilip Chohtel.
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] 10 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2723-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 28@78) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01&10&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@128@76&Mh (II A)&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2014
S.O.
2723.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/78)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 01/10/2014.
[No. L-12012/128/76-D (II A)-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/28/78
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE
Assistant Secretary,
State Bank of India &
Subsidiary Bank Employees Union,
C/o SBI, Bhopal
....Workman/Union
Versus
The Regional Manager,
Region-I, State Bank of India,
Local Head Office, Hamidia Road,
Bhopal
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 28th day of March, 2013
1.
As per letter dated 23-26/5/1978 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-
12012/128/76-D(IIA) . The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of the State
bank of India Local Head Office, Bhopal in
dismissing Shri B.K.Unde official-in-charge, Jawar
Sub Office, Ashta Branch of the Bank w.e.f. 27-8-
75 is justified? If not to what relief is the workman
entitled?”
2.
After receipt of reference notice were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted Statement of claim
at Page 6 to 13 of the record. The case of Ist party
workman is that he was appointed as clerk in city branch
on 1-1-56. Since his appointment, he was doing duties
honestly and efficiently, his work was appreciated by the
higher authorities. That there was no warning or
chargesheet or any other adverse remark against him.
He was working at Jawar Sub office of Ashta Branch of
State Bank of India in 1971. That he was put incharge of
recovery and he was extremely busy during February to
May 1971. He claims to be overworked and under staffed
during this period. That from 5-6-71 to 4-7-71 , he was
on leave.
3.
It is submitted that Shri A.P.Khunte cashier at Ashta
Brach was served with chargesheet. Ist party workman
B.K. Unde had took active interest in the case of
Shri Khunte. It is annoyed by Bank Manager Shri P.K.
Jain. During the period workman was on leave, Branch
Manager Shri P.K. Jain with the help of cashier incharge
Shri K.R. Khan tried to manufacture cases against
Shri Unde and got complaints and letters etc. written
against workman. On his return from leave workman
reported some mistake committed by Shri Mohanlal and
Shri Khan on 5-7-71 which was annoyed by Branch
Manager Mr. Jain. Workman was suspended on 23-7-71.
According to Ist party, the suspension was contrary to
the provisions of Shastri and Desai Award. It is further
submitted that no chargesheet was given, suspension
order was issued prior to chargesheet. It is illegal, arbitrary.
For more than a year, no chargesheet was given to the
workman. He submitted that Union believes that
documents and evidence were being manufactured against
workman by interested persons. If there was any serious
or substantial allegation against the workman there was
no reason why a chargesheet could not issued immediately.
6784
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It is submitted that workman was kept under suspension
to create evidence and to destroy relevant documents. It
is alleged that there was intention somehow to punish
workman as some persons were annoyed with him.
Chargesheet was given to him on 15-9-1972. Chargesheet
was not accompanied with list of witnesses, list of
documents relied by management. Copies of statement
of witnesses taken, copies of the relevant documents were
supplied with the chargesheet. Workman in his reply
dated 25-9-72 informed management that since the
chargesheet contains 13 charges covering several
transactions in the sub office, the workman was unable
to submit detail explanation in absence of access to books,
ledgers, daily statements etc. However he denied the
allegations against him.
4.
Ist party workman submits that enquiry was not
started till 23-9-1974. The enquiry started on that day
with questioning of workman. The defence had submitted
objection contending that he had given letter for
inspection of documents and supply of documents as he
had requested that all necessary documents be submitted
before the enquiry proceeds. It is alleged that Branch
Manager, Shri P.K.Jain made false statement before the
Enquiry Officer that the documents were shown in the
presence of field officer Shri A.B.Yadav who had denied
it. That it is alleged that without giving the workman
sufficient opportunity to prepare the Defence Enquiry was
conducted. The Enquiry Officer acted as prosecutor
helping management by asking leading questions.
5.
Ist party workman further submits that vide letter
dated 19-10-1972, he had requested for copies of
statements of the prosecution witnesses. His request
was refused by management as per Letter dated 7-12-71
and again on 3-4-74. The copies of statements of Munna
Khan and Gangaram were not supplied to him. He
suffered prejudice in defence. There was no justification
in denying copy of statement of witnesses.
6.
Ist party workman submits that enquiry held against
him is illegal as list of witnesses, documents, copies of
statements of witnesses were not supplied to him.
Approach of Enquiry Officer was biased. He was acting
as prosecutor asking leading questions to the witnesses.
Ist party was not allowed inspection of record for his
defence. That 7 witnesses Shri R.P.Sarothia, Ramesh
Sharma, Om Prakash Jain, Nutankumar Jain, A.P.Khunte,
Atmaram Durghe and Mishrilal Ajmera were not
examined in the enquiry. Ist party workman was refused
opportunity to examine witness V.M.T.Joshi and
P.C.Sharma inspite of his written request dated 24-9-94
and letter dated 25-9-94. That Enquiry Officer did not
inform on 25-9-94 that the evidence of the prosecution
was closed and the workman may examine himself and
defence witness. It is alleged that Enquiry Officer without
justification refused to examine defence witness. That
Mohanlal Messenger was the most important witnesses
in the case, he was not examined. Non-examination of such
witness has prejudiced the defence. It is alleged that
findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse, without giving
opportunity Enquiry Officer drawn adverse inference.
That evidence of hostile witnesses to the workman is
relied upon the Enquiry Officer. The proceedings were
not correctly recorded. That destruction of record between
the period of suspension and enquiry caused prejudice.
That Enquiry Officer couldnot find workman guilty of
some of the misconducts alleged against him. Inspite of
it, management held him guilty for all the misconducts.
After declaration of emergency in June 1975, services of
Ist party were terminated on 17-8-75. It is alleged that
termination of service of Ist party workman is by way of
victimization. On above contentions, Ist party workman
prays for his reinstatement with full back wages and other
all consequential benefits.
7.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 2 to 5 of
the record. All material allegations of Ist party workman
are denied in the Written Statement by IInd party. It is
submitted that workman was suspended from 23-7-91
on allegations of fraudulent acts. After thorough probe
into the matter, the picture become clear about fraudulent
acts committed by workman, then chargesheet was issued
on 15-9-72. The explanation submitted by workman was
not found satisfactory Therefore Departmental enquiry
was initiated. By amendment, IInd party contended that
workman is not covered as workman under I.D.Act. He
was receiving wages more than Rs.500/- per month.
Shri B.K.Unde was supervisory work so as to administer,
control, conduct and control of the affairs including the
staff and other matters pertaining to the sub office Jawar
that the present reference is not tenable in this Tribunal.
8.
IInd party further submitted that the enquiry could
not be conducted earlier due to adjournments of enquiry
on several occasions at the instance of the defence counsel
and for collection of a number of witnesses including
outsiders. That enquiry Officer could not submit his report
till 21-2-1975 as the Presenting Officer and Defence
Counsel both by submitting their written arguments, the
defence counsel submitted extensive written arguments
(63 pages). The Enquiry Officer was also required to
attend his daily duties being Regional Manager time
required to carefully peruse the voluminous enquiry
proceedings. The Enquiry Report was submitted after
considering the evidence. Showcause notice was issued
to workman on 16-6-75. Reply was given to showcause
notice, the workman accepted his guilt and pleaded for
mercy. It is submitted that workman was given proper
opportunity for his defence. Principles of natural justice
were followed. The order of dismissal was challenged by
workman. His appeal was dismissed after due
consideration. It is further submitted that Bank is a credit
institution and its employees enjoys fiduciary position.
As a credit institution, the Bank has primarily to deal
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6785
with money matters and other documents relating to
payments and receipts of money etc. In this case, Bank
has sufficient ground to lose faith. Applicant Shri
B.K.Unde has no case for warranting reconsideration
by this Tribunal. It is further submitted that if it is found
that enquiry proceedings are defective, IInd party prayed
to lead evidence for proving his misconduct.
9.
The amendment in Written Statement of IInd party
contends that Ist party workman is not covered as
workman under I.D.Act. It is denied by Ist party filing
reply annexed with the rejoinder. In his rejoinder filed at
Page 15 to 17, Ist party retreats his earlier contentions
that enquiry conducted against him is not fair and proper.
That chargesheet was not immediately issued for
fabricating witnesses and evidence. It is submitted that
Enquiry Officer was committed to hold him guilty and it
was the reason for submitting his report after long delay.
That while giving reply to show cause notice, workman
was advised by interested parties if he gives reply on the
lines suggested to him, management will not take serious
action. However he has not admitted the guilt as alleged.
He was defending charges against him. That punishment
imposed against him is contrary to Shastri/Desai Award.
The enquiry was not correctly recorded . That enquiry
proceedings was not produced which would show the
correct state of affairs. It is submitted that contention of
management about loss of faith as held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Michel John is out dated
and not applicable in the present case. Ist party retreated
his claim for reinstatement with back wages.
10.
Management filed rejoinder at Page 18 to 23. The
contention of IInd party in his Written Statement are
retreated. It is denied that Ist party workman was
discharging his duties honestly with devotion. It is denied
that workman was overloaded due to shortage of staff. It
is submitted that Mr. Unde was suspended much prior to
Mr.Khunte was chargesheeted. The allegation of
manufacturing evidence, documents by Branch Manager
are denied. It is denied that the suspension of workman is
contrary to Desai/Shastri Award. It is denied that Enquiry
Officer was committed to record finding of his guilt. It is
submitted that the workman had taken inspection of the
documents on 28-9-72 in presence of the Field Offficer
A.P,.Yadav. All other contentions in statement of claim
and rejoinder filed by workman are denied. It is denied
that the enquiry suffered from any defect alleged by the
workman. It is denied that the Enquiry Officer acted as a
prosecutor. The allegation of victimization are denied. By
amendment, IInd party has contended that Govt. is
incompetent to make reference. Earlier he Govt. had refused
to make reference as per Letter no. L-12012/128/76 dated
15-11-76. IInd party prayed that there is no substance in
demands of Ist party and relief prayed by Ist party be
rejected.
11.
Considering pleadings between the parties and after
recording evidence, my learned predecessor decided
preliminary issue vide order dated 20-6-79 . The Enquiry
was held vitiated. It is observed that incomplete part of
enquiry shall be completed before this Tribunal. First
delinquent workman have been examined and then he
will have the opportunity to adduce evidence of defence
witness including his own. Vide order dated 23-5-81,
objection raised by IInd party that Ist party is not workman
under I.D.Act and reference is not tenable,. The said issue
has been decided in favour of the Union rejecting
contentions of IInd party management.
12.
Other parties adduced evidence and after hearing
the arguments, my learned predecessor passed award
dated 4-2-83 holding that the action of the management
of SBI was justified in dismissing workman B.K.Unde,
Official Incharge , Jawar sub office, Ashta branch w.e.f.
27-8-75. The workman was not entitled to any relief.
13.
The said award was challenged by Ist party filing
miscellaneous petition No. 2498/84. The said Writ
Petition was decided on 4-3-91 by Hon’ble High Court.
The petition was allowed. The award dated 4-2-83 by
this Tribunal was quashed. The case is sent back to the
Tribunal with a direction that the Bank shall furnish to
the petitioner the copies of the complaints made by Munna
Khan, Ganga Ram and Kudrat Ali. Thereafter the
Tribunal shall afford an opportunity to the Bank to prove
the misconduct against the petitioner and the petitioner
shall also be allowed to adduce such evidence in rebuttal
as he may deem necessary to meet the charges levelled
against him and thereafter the Tribunal shall give a fresh
award.
14.
Considering above background and finding that Ist
party is covered as workman under I.D.Act recorded by
my predecessor is not challenged or set aside, said finding
is issued finally.
15.
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 charges alleged against
Partly in
Ist party workman are proved?
affirmative
(ii)
Whether punishment of dismissal
In Affirmative
imposed by IInd party is harsh,
disproportionate and calls for
interference?
(iii)
If so, what order?
As per final
order.
REASONS
16.
In view of finding on preliminary issue, the enquiry
was held defective. The management adduced evidence
to prove charges against workman. The workman
examined himself and 2 witnesses to substantiate his
defence. The evidence with respect to fairness of enquiry
6786
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
is not necessary to discuss. The directions of Hon’ble
High Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 2498/84 are clear
that the copies of statement of witnesses were to be
supplied to the workman. Ist party workman was to
examine himself generally. The management was allowed
to adduce evidence. Ist party was permitted to lead
evidence in rebuttal. In pursuance of the directions in
Miscellaneous petition, the evidence is recorded. In
enquiry proceedings, Shri A.B.Yadav Field Officer did
not support the contentions of the Bank Manager that
documents were shown to the workman is of no
consequence. As pr evidence adduced as per the directions
in miscellaneous petition 2498/84 Shri Munnakhan in
his evidence has stated that he had not withdrawn amount
of Rs.200/- . The withdrawal bearing signature were
submitted. Complaints with letters requesting enquiry
about short balance amount Rs.200/- in his pass book. In
his cross-examination, in his evidence is not shattered.
However his evidence in cross-examination shows that
amount of Rs.200/- was deposited in his Account No.
26571 but he claims that he had not deposited the said
amount. The deposit slip did not bear his signature.
Management’s witness Shri Gangaram has stated in his
evidence that amount Rs.500/- was not withdrawn by him.
He admits that he had submitted complaint with letters
requesting enquiry. That the pass book was with Shri
B.K.Unde, the workman. When he asked about it, Mr.
Unde told him that pass book would be handed over to
him after it was signed by Branch Manager, Ashta
Branch. The evidence of Gangaram further shows that
withdrawal No. 310577 dt. 7-5-71 for Rs.600/- doesnot
bear his signature. Zerox copy document Exhibit 2/A
was produced in the enquiry. In his further evidence, he
says that on the day of withdrawal of Rs.1690 he was
asked whether all the money in his account were
accounted for and he was in dire need for money. He
had signed the letter of withdrawal of complaint. On
3-6-71 the amount of Rs.600/- was credited in the account
was deposited. Both the witnesses tried to support
workman that the amount in their account were properly
deposited. Their evidence in cross-examination shows
that workman had personally approached there and on
his representation that his service was in risk, they had
given letters for withdrawal of their complaint. The question
is which version is to be relied upon. As per Evidence Act,
the conduct of person is relevant, when the Ist complaint
was submitted by both of them that the amount in their
account was not properly shown. After the amount was
properly accounted for and narrated about it by the
workman, they had given letter for withdrawal of their
complaints. If all those facts are carefully considered, the
allegations in the complaint submitted by both of them
cannot be said false or motivated to falsely implicated
workman.
17.
The evidence of cashier Mr. Khan in the enquiry is
crucial. In his evidence says that withdrawal slip of
Rs. 200/- from account of Munna Khan was submitted by
Manohar lal messenger on instructions of Ist party
workman. He had paid to Manohar lal. In his further
evidence, cashier says that Manohar lal paid amount
Rs. 200/- to the workman. His evidence how he could see
handing over of amount by Manohar lal to workman Unde
is not clear from his evidence. The evidence in cross-
examination of Khan needs to be considered carefully. In
his cross-examination, he says that two explanations dated
28-9-72 and 29-9-72 were submitted by him were in his
handwriting. He admits that while he was posted at Jawar
as acting cashier incharge and he was staying at Jawar. In
reply to next question, he says that he was doing up down
from Astha and he told lie about it. This witness was unable
to tell how many payments he had made on 6-7-74 as cashier
incharge at Jaswar sub-office. He was unable to tell
without looking into record names of parties whom he
made payments. The evidence of this witness was recorded
after long gap of the alleged transaction of withdrawal of
amount from Account of Munna Khan, Gangaram. The
witness in his cross-examination was unable to tell without
looking to record about money received by him from other
persons on 6-7-74. It is therefore difficult to believe that
the amount deposited in account of Munna khan on 26-7-
71 was paid to him by Shri B.K.Unde, the workman. The
evidence of other witness in the enquiry P.J.Pathak is on
the point of general information about irregularities in the
accounts of customers. He had discussed matter with Mr.
Sharma, Union Secretary. He has no personal knowledge
about deposit or withdrawal of the amount.
18.
Shri Kudrat Ali in his evidence has stated that he
has filed complaints Exhibit 3(c) & 3(d) that short amount
were deposited. To be precise, he says that on 13-2-71, he
deposited amount of Rs.650/- in the Bank. The amount
was given to the workman Shri Unde. The entry of Rs.650/
- was taken in account books. He produced voucher dated
16-2-71 of Rs.500/- for credit in his account. He says that
he did not sign the voucher. The photocopy of vouchers
produced are Exhibit 3(a). That he had given money to
Shri Unde. He handed over money as cashier. The amount
of less amount Rs. 150/- was deposited. He deposited said
amount on 4-3-71 after withdrawing Rs.1900/- from his
account.
19.
Shri B.K.Unde in his evidence has denied to have
received amount from either of these witnesses. He claims
to be falsely implicated. He denies allegation of fraud.
The signatures of Munna Khan appears on the
documents. His signatures were not examined by
handwriting expert. Any criminal proceeding was not
initiated against workman or messenger Manoharlal. The
evidence of Branch Manager about DD of Rs.170/- issued
to the workman. The amount was less in his account
therefore amount under DD and cheque of Rs.200/- was
not paid. The evidence on record is not sufficient to
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6787
establish that amount actually received by workman for
wrongful gain with dishonest intention rather amount of
Rs. 200/- less in account of Munnakhan was deposited
within 20 dyas. The short amount of Rs.150/- in account
of Shri Gangaram was also depsotied in March 1971.
Despite the letters of withdrawal of complaint was given
by Gangaram and Munnakhan, fresh letters were obtained
from them requesting enquiry. The evidence of this
witness is clear that they have not written the letters
produced on record requesting enquiry about the
irregularities in their accounts. The charge of forgery,
misappropriation, wrongful gain cannot be proved from
evidence on record against workman. The evidence on
record is sufficient to prove that withdrawal payment
vouchers were sanctioned by workman without verifying
signatures of the account holder. The amount of Rs.650/-
deposited by Gangaram was handed over to cashier Khan
without verifying the same from receipt. It shows
negligence from duty on part of workman.
20.
So far as evidence on record shows upon depositing
amount Rs. 200 in account of Munnakhan on 26-5-71
doesnot pointout that the deposit slip was signed by the
workman.
21.
Register of enquiry produced in the matter shows
that when enquiry was initiated against messenger
Manoharlal. He was not examined as witness in enquiry
against Ist party workman to establish that the amount
withdrawing from Account of Munnakhan and Gangaram
was handed over to workman Unde. The legal position
with respect to burden of proof in matter of domestic
enquiry is that there should be some evidence to make
out the charges alleged against the delinquent workman.
The standard of proof is not required as in criminal case
to establish charges beyond doubt.
22.
Shri Gangaram and Munnakhan when examined
before this Tribunal, they tried to support the workman.
Shri Gangaram says that he did not remember withdrawal
of Rs.600 . That Exhibit M-21 bears his signature. In his
cross-examination, he says that he did not remember
that he withdraw Rs. 600/- or deposited Rs. 600/- vide
Exhibit M-19. The witness is supporting half heartedly
on the allegation of management. Similarly Munnakhan
in his evidence before Tribunal says that he has not lodged
complaint. Bank has obtained his signature on some paper,
he had not read the papers. In his cross-examination he
says that had not given any complaint to the Bank. Some
agent came to his house and obtained signature on Exhibit
M-1. It appears that both witnesses are not supporting
whole heartedly because of certain influence. After
directions in Miscellaneous Petition 2498/84, management
produced affidavit of witnesses. However the right to
cross-examine those witnesses was closed for repeated
absence of the workman. Their evidence remained
unchallenged. Thus the evidence on record varies at
different stags but considering the conduct of the
witnesses submitted complaints, they supported
allegation against workman at the Ist instance in the DE,
observations to be relied upon. The evidence on record
proves charge No.1,2,3,4 but dishonest intention for
receiving wrongful gain on part of workman cannot be
proved as alleged in Charge No.1 to 3 cannot be
established. So far as Charge No.5 ( a to h) are
miscellaneous error observed by Enquiry Officer. No errors
or omissions on part of the workman while maintaining
the account are established. Accordingly I record for
reasons discussed above that the transactions in charges
1,2,3 are proved. The wrongful intention, forgery of
signature by documents in Ist party workman Shri Unde is
not established.
23.
Charge No.4- Negligence on part of Ist party
workman is proved.
24.
After receiving report of the Enquiry Officer,
punishment of dismissal from service is imposed. The
charges 1 to 5 against delinquent workman included
dishonest and fraudulent intention of withdrawing
amount and depositing the same in wrongful way by
receiving the amount in wrongful gain of fraudulent and
forgery on part of Ist party workman is not supported by
satisfactory evidence. Ist party workman is unfortunate
that despite of repeated anxiety of P.O, the matter could
not be decided earliest. The case was adjourned from 1994
for argument. Counsel for IInd party management many
times even the counsel for Ist party workman sought
adjournment and did not argue the matter. After issuing
notice to the counsel for IInd party management, they
did not appear and argue the matter. I am not benefitted
with the argument on behalf of IInd party management.
In judgment by my brother in passing the award on
23-5-81 observed that though the order of punishment of
dismissal from service of workman was upheld as just
and legal observed considering present hard times, in
case the workman is agreeable to be appointed on the
post last held by him or even low post, management
should consider favorably, such prayer if any made by
workman. It appears that said observation was not
respected by the management. The award was challenged
by Ist party in miscellaneous petition No. 2498/84 and
the award has been set-aside with direction to supply
copies of statements and allow opportunity to adduce
evidence to both parties. As discussed above, the
evidence on record is not sufficient to establish that
workman with dishonest intention withdrawing amount
from account of Shri Munnakhan and Gangaram and
wrongfully used said amount for his own benefit. Amount
in account of Munnakhan and Gangaram was properly
accounted even prior to the enquiry initiated or the
chargesheet was issued. Complaint were withdrawn by
both of them but some officer from the Bank persuaded
them to give fresh letters requesting enquiry in the matter.
If those aspects are considered carefully, the punishment
of dismissal from service of workman which results in
Civil Death and ultimate punishment to family members
6788
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
surely is not justified. It is disproportionate to the proved
misconduct. In view of Section 11 A of I.D.Act, punishment
needs to be modified.
25.
At the time of argument, the learned counsel for
workman Shri Shashi submits that workman could not
be in service as he is more than 70 years of age,
reinstatement is not possible. That few days of his life
has remained. On above lines, he submits that Ist party
may atleast get pensionery benefit. Considering the facts
and circumstances of the case in my considered view,
reinstatement of workman without back wages will
certainly give pensioner benefits to workman and will
fulfill the expectations of Ist party to live smooth life
during the last phase of his life. For above reasons I hold
that the punishment of dismissal against workman is not
proper. It is disproportionate.
26.
In the result, the award is passed as under:-
“1.
The Act of IInd party management of dismissal of
service of Ist party from 27-8-75 is not legal. The
order of his dismissal is set aside.
2. IInd party is directed to reinstate Ist party workman
Shri B.K.Unde without back wages.”
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2724-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 97@2005) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01&10&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12025@01@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2014
S.O.
2724.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 97/2005)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 01/10/2014.
[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 18th day of March, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 97/2005
Between:
Sri V. Bala Raju,
S/o Ramaiah,
C/o Sri S. Ravindranath,
Advocate, 3-4-142/9, Flat No.302,
III floor, Lalitha Apartment,
Barkatpura, Hyderabad -27.
….Petitioner
AND
1.
The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office, Bank Street,
Koti, Hyderabad.
2.
Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Main Branch,
Narasarao Pet, Guntur (Dist).
3.
Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Accampet, Acchampet (M.D.)
Guntur (A.P)
….Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
: M/s. S. Ravindranath,
V. Ramu & M.V.R. Rao,
Advocates
For the Respondents
: M/s. B.G. Ravindra Reddy &
B.V. Chandra Sekhar,
Advocates
AWARD
This is a petition filed by Sri V. Bala Raju, the
workman invoking Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 seeking for to reinstate him into service with
full back wages and all attendant benefits by declaring
that the oral order of retrenchment dated 13.8.2002
rendered by the Respondents as void and without
jurisdiction.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are
as follows:
Petitioner who got registered in the employment
exchange office at Guntur for the post of Driver. Being
possession of all required qualifications for the said post
received call letter and attended interview conducted in
the State Bank of India, Narasaraopet, Agricultural
Development Branch for the said post of Driver-cum-
Messenger. He got selected in the interview and was
appointed in the said post on 5.2.1974 against permanent
vacancy. Whereas one Mr. P. Peddbhai was appointed
as temporary Driver-cum-Messenger post along with the
Petitioner and his services were regularised in 1978 itself
but the Petitioner was denied the same benefit. Petitioner
discharged his duties as Driver-cum-Messenger till 1980
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6789
at Narasaraopet on wages of Rs.250/- per month from
petty cash. He was informed by the officers of the said
branch that they were taking suitable steps in making the
Petitioner as permanent employee. On that ground he was
transferred from Narasaraopet (ADB) branch to
Sattenapalli branch. He was under the impression that
his services would be regularised on par with the other
employees. While he was working in Sattenapalli branch
Respondent advanced a loan for purchase of a Jeep
bearing No. MRD 5667 for the purpose of their official use
and assured that he would be continued as Driver-cum-
Messenger. His services were utilised exclusively for the
purpose of bank. In this connection Respondent also
opened SB A/c N.P.24/7645 and the bank used to deposit
the amounts into the said account stating it to be the
salary after deducting the instalment of loan amount
directly. Petitioner worked in Sattenapalli till 28.6.1991.
Later he was transferred to Narasaraopet branch in the
capacity of Driver-cum-Messenger and worked there till
30.4.1997. During that period he also worked for a brief
period at State Bank of India, Peddakurapadu. The bank
officials utilised his services exclusively for the purpose
of bank to operate on the above said Jeep. After Petitioner
was transferred to Narasaraopet branch Respondent used
to pay the amounts by way of bankers cheque till 1.5.1997
on the day of which his services were disengaged and he
was asked not to attend the duties. Petitioner was under
full control of the Respondents and was transferred to
various places as per the instructions of the higher officials
from time to time. Respondents extracted work from the
Petitioner in various fields like Driver, Messenger and
Watchman. Respondent failed to pay the salary as per the
scale applicable to Driver etc., at any point of time despite
extracting work from the Petitioner. He was forced to work
every time even after office hours. As per the directions
of the officials. But suddenly 2nd Respondent removed
the Petitioner from service w.e.f. 1.5.1997 without giving
any notice. Though the vehicle is shown as Petitioner’s
own vehicle it was kept under the custody of the
Respondent. Petitioner also worked under the control of
the Respondents. 3rd Respondent again took the
Petitioner into service and extracted work from 4.12.2001
to 13.8.2002 and terminated his services without assigning
any reasons. He was driven out of the employment after
30 years of services mercilessly. The said act is highly
arbitrary and illegal. Taking advantage of the Petitioner’s
illiteracy and ignorance, Respondents played fraud on him
and thrown him on to the road at the verge of his retirement
age. Since he is the only bread winner of his family, the
acts of the Respondents tantamount retrenchment under
Sec.25F and Chapter V-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Petitioner tried to his level best to secure alternative
employment, but he could not secure one. Hence the
petition.
3.
Respondents/Management filed their counter with
the averments in brief as follows:
Petitioner was never appointed or engaged as Driver.
There is no relationship of employee and employer
between the Petitioner and the Respondents. The question
of termination does not arise. The Petitioner has got his
own Jeep bearing registration No.AAk 3347 and the same
was given on hire to the bank, on rent. Petitioner used to
drive the said jeep and he used to collect the hire charges,
depending upon the usage. The jeep along with the driver
was taken on hire during the period from 1.1.1995 to
31.3.1997 by the Narasaraopet branch and from 1.2.2002 to
8.4.2002 by the Atchampet branch depending upon the
requirement from time to time. Necessary vouchers towards
the charges/rent paid to such services rendered by the
Petitioner are filed as material papers. Petitioner never
worked as employee either as casual employee or as
temporary employee. Petition is not at all maintainable as
there is no industrial dispute. Petition is liable to be
dismissed.
4.
To substantiate the contentions of the Petitioner/
workman he examined himself as WW1 and got marked
Ex.W1 to W8. On behalf of the Respondents/
Management MW1 was examined and Ex.M1 to M3 were
marked.
5.
Heard the arguments of either party. Written
arguments are also filed for either party and the same are
considered.
6.
The points that arise for determination are:
1.
Where there is relationship of employer and
employee between the Respondent bank and the
Petitioner?
2.
Whether Petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought
for?
7.
Point No. I :
It is the contention of the Petitioner that he attended
the interview with the Respondent bank, in pursuance of
a call letter received by him from the Employment
Exchange with whom he registered himself and in the said
interview he was selected and appointed as a Driver-
cum-Messenger and in that capacity he worked since the
year 1974 in various branches of the said bank. Whereas
it is the contention of the Respondents that Petitioner
was never appointed as Driver-cum-Messenger by them
and that they only hired the Jeep owned by the Petitioner
and Petitioner has driven the said jeep and rendered
services as the said hired jeep driver only but not as their
employee and that there was never any relationship of
employee and employer between the Petitioner and the
Respondent bank.
8.
But Petitioner is relying upon Ex. W1 to W8 in
support of his contentions, apart from his own oral
evidence as WW1. Ex.W1 is copy of call letter dated
6790
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
23.1.1974 received by the Petitioner from Employment
Exchange, Guntur which clearly shows that Petitioner was
asked to attend the interview held on 5.2.1974 at 2.30 PM
by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Agricultural
Development Bank, Narasaraopet, Guntur district for the
post of Driver-cum-Messenger which carries Rs.116/- plus
allowances as salary. Ex.W2 is the particulars of services
rendered by the Petitioner with the Respondent bank
issued by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India,
Agricultural Development Bank, Narasaraopet, Guntur
district which is to the effect that Petitioner worked in
subordinate cadre as Driver-cum-Messenger/Watchman/
Special Messenger with the said bank. Ex.W3 is the
certificate issued by the Branch Manager, State Bank of
India Agricultural Development Bank, Narasaraopet
certifying that Petitioner has put in a temporary service of
3 months and 16 days in various categories in the said
Branch as Driver-cum-Messenger/Watchman/Special
Messenger and that his conduct and character are good.
Ex.W4 is the copy of savings account pass book pertaining
to the Petitioner. Ex.W5 is the office copy of the
representation made by the Petitioner to the Respondent
bank claiming that he worked as a driver for the
Respondent bank, but injustice was done to him. Ex.W6
is the acknowledgement under which the said letter was
received by the Respondent bank. Ex.W7 is the order
dated 10.7.2012 issued by the Central Information
Commission, New Delhi whereunder Respondent bank
was directed to make available the information sought in
the RTI application filed by the Petitioner connecting with
his service verification within 30 days after the receipt of
the said order. Ex.W8 is also copy of the SB Account pass
book pertaining to the Petitioner with the Respondent bank
which contains various entries regarding all the amounts
credited by the Respondent bank into his account.
9.
The Chief Manager of the Respondent bank Sri T. G.
Prabhakar who was examined as MW1, has stated during
his cross examination that he is not disputing with Ex.W1
to W4. That means, the factum of Petitioner attending an
interview conducted by the Respondent bank for the post
of Driver-cum-Messenger and subsequently his working
for the said bank in that capacity is concerned evidently,
there is no dispute. Such is the case, it is for the
Respondent bank to come out with the information
regarding what transpired between the said bank and the
Petitioner later on. Respondent bank is the custodian of
all the service particulars and service record of the
Petitioner. It is for them to produce all relevant record
before the court. Whereas, apart from not filing said record
before this court to reveal the true nature of the affairs,
when the Petitioner filed an application invoking Right to
Information Act, seeking for the said particulars, evidently,
the Respondent bank not even bothered to answer the
same. Ex.W7 order clearly shows that Respondent bank
has not responded to the RTI application made by the
Petitioner seeking for furnishing such particulars.
Evidently they purposefully misunderstood the application
and gave irrelevant answers before the information
authorities by which Petitioner was constrained to file
appeal, from appeal and finally to the Central Information
Commission, New Delhi, who has rendered Ex.W7 order
requiring the Respondent bank to make the information
sought for by the Petitioner available within the time limit
prescribed. But evidently, so far such information has
never been furnished to the Petitioner. While MW1 was
deposing before the court he undertook to produce the
some documents before this court and also comply with
the direction given in Ex.W7 order. But no such document
is produced before this court and there is no information
revealed before this court to show that Ex.W7 order was
complied with. This conduct on the part of the
Respondent bank clearly shows that they are bent upon
suppressing vital information relevant to the present
industrial dispute and are purposefully evading their
liability to reveal the true nature of the affairs regarding
the service of the Petitioner with them.
10.
It is the contention of the Respondent bank that
under Ex.M1 vouchers, hire charges were paid to the
Petitioner for the jeep hired by them. The Respondent’s
bank described the said vouchers in the chief examination
affidavit of MW1 stating that these vouchers are signed
by the Petitioner in token of receiving hire charges.
Whereas while MW1 was under cross examination, he
admitted that Petitioner’s signatures are not available on
Ex.M1 vouchers and further that his name also was not
mentioned in them. In that case how the Respondent
bank could connect these vouchers to the Petitioner is a
question which remained unanswered.
11.
Petitioner specifically stated that along with him one
Sri Peddbhai was also appointed as Driver-cum-
Messenger and that his services were regularised.
Whereas Petitioner, whose services were continuously
taken as Driver-cum-Messenger for long period of 30 years,
was not regularised and thus there is discrimination.
Respondent has not chosen to answer this contention at
all. For Petitioner, it is argued that purposefully, the
services particulars of Sri Peddbhai which are readily
available with the Respondent bank are not filed before
this court. It is a fact that, that said service particulars
were not filed before the court. MW1, the witness who is
examined before the court on behalf of the Respondent
bank Management has stated that he does not know
whether one Sri Peddbhai is junior to the Petitioner and
whether Sri Peddbhai has worked as Driver-cum-
Messenger. If such is the evidence adduced for the
Respondent, in this industrial dispute what one can
understand is that Respondent is evasive in this respect
also and therefore, it is to be taken that contentions of the
Petitioner with this regard are true and correct.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6791
12.
It is the specific contention of the Petitioner that
one Sri Prabhakar Rao, a senior official of the Respondent
bank enquired into the matter and made a report to the
effect that Petitioner worked for the Respondent bank from
1974 to 2002 and that said report is being suppressed
purposefully by the Respondent bank. MW1 though
denied the truth of this suggestion, failed to file the said
report before the court inspite of his giving an undertaking
that he would produce official letter register and also the
said enquiry report before the court. As already discussed
above, Ex.W7 order has not been complied with so far by
the Respondent bank. It all clearly give rise to reasonable
understanding that purposefully Respondent bank is
suppressing the material record in this case. Thus, an
adverse inference is to be drawn to the effect that if such
record is produced before this court and is revealed to the
Petitioner, Petitioner’s contentions would be proved only,
Respondent bank is suppressing the said record.
13.
In the given circumstances, it is to be taken that
there is relationship of employee and employer between
the Petitioner and the Respondent bank.
This point is answered accordingly.
14.
Point No. II :
In view of the finding given in Point No.I, it can
safely be held that what all the contentions raised by the
Petitioner are correct regarding his service with the
Respondent bank and that the contentions contra raised
by the Respondent bank stating that Petitioner’s jeep has
been hired by the Respondent bank and that was the only
relationship between them is not acceptable. Thus, it is
to be taken that Respondent bank which employed the
Petitioner has terminated his service without serving any
notice or assigning any reason w.e.f. 13.8.2002 by way of
an oral order. The said order is in violation of the provisions
of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and further it is arbitrary
and illegal. Thus, it is liable to be set aside. In
consequence, Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into
service with all attendant benefits and back wages.
This point is answered accordingly.
RESULT:
In the result petition is allowed. The oral termination
order dated 13.8.2002 under which Petitioner’s services
were terminated by the Respondent bank is hereby
declared as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of provisions
of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it is hereby set aside.
Respondent bank is hereby directed to reinstate the
Petitioner into service as Driver- cum-Messenger forth
with w.e.f. 13.8.2002. Petitioner is entitled for all attendant
benefits and back wages consequently.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence :
Witnesses examined
Witnesses examined
for the Petitioner
for the Respondent
WW1: Sri V. Bala Raju
MW1: Sri T.G. Prabhakar
Documents marked for the Petitioner :
Ex.W1:
Photostat copy of call letter from Employment
Exchange dt. 23.1.1974
Ex.W2:
Photostat copy of particulars of service
rendered by Petitioner during 1974-1975
Ex.W3:
Photostat copy of certificate issued by the
Respondent Branch Manager dt.12.7.75
Ex.W4:
Photostat copy of SB A/c No.P.24/7645 of
Sattenapalli Branch dt. 14.2.1991
Ex.W5:
Photostat copy of representation by WW1
dt. 4.10.2004
Ex.W6:
Photostat copy of acknowledgement dt.
5.10.2004
Ex.W7:
Photostat copy of order dt. 10.7.2012 passed
by Central Information Commission
Ex.W8:
Photostat copy of pass book pertaining to
the Petitioner issued by Sattenapally Branch
Documents marked for the Respondents :
Ex.M1:
Photostat copy of bunch of vouchers signed
by the Petitioner in token of receiving hire
charges
Ex.M2:
Photostat copy of statement of charges
account
Ex.M3:
Photostat copy of circular dt. 26.12.2005
No.CDO/OP&SP/23./05-06
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2725-—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
,oa Je U;k;ky;] iq.ks ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 17@2007) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01&10&2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41011@28@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2014
S.O.
2725.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2007)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Pune
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Central Railway and their
6792
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workmen, received by the Central Government on
01/10/2014.
[No. L-41011/28/2006-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI D.H. DESHMUKH, PRESIDING
OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, AT PUNE
Reference (IT) No.17 of 2007
Between :
The Divisional Railway Manager
Central Railway, Pune.
...First Party
And
The Chairman,
Rail Kamgar Union,
C/o Madhya Railway Sthaniya,
Lakadhikar Samiti,
Central Railway,
Pune 411 001.
...Second Party
Advocates:
Smt. Salunkhe, Advocate for First Party.
Smt. S. A. Lokhande, Advocate for Second
Party.
AWARD
(Date : 23-04-2014)
This is a reference made by Government of India, for
adjudication of industrial dispute between Divisional
Railway Manager, Central Railway, Pune(“the first party”
for short) and the Chairman, Rail Kamgar Union, Central
Railway, Pune (“the second party” for short). The Schedule
to the reference order is as follows :-
“Whether the action of the management of Central
Railway, Pune in not reinstating 9 persons who have
been working as Vendor at Miraj Railway Station is
legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen
are entitled to ?”
The reference order is dated 3-10-2007.
2.
The second party union has filed the Statement of
Claim at Exh.U-2, which has got Annexure ‘A’, containing
names of 8 workmen/concerned workers along with details
like year of joining etc. Those names, the year of joining
and other details are as follows :-
ANNEXURE ‘A’
Sr.
Name
Year of Joining
Designation
Batch No.
Identity
Medical
No.
(at the time of
Card
Exam.
termination)
No.
Date
1.
Suryakant Nakul Masurkar
1990
Assistant Vendor/
1990
Helper
2.
Dayanand Moolay
1990
”
1990
3.
Ramesh B
1990
”
1990
4.
Padmanabha V. Moolya
1990
”
1990
5.
Vasudeo Moolya
1990
”
1990
6.
Ulhas Nakul Masurkar
1990
”
1990
7.
Yusuf a. Shaikh
1990
”
1990
8.
Thirugnanam
1990
”
1990
3.
The second party has contended that the concerned
workers were working as Assistant Vendors/Helpers for
increasing sale of various canteen items from railway such
as food, snacks, mineral water. Their work was supervised
by Manager of the first party Railway. They were required
to work in first shift. It is contended that the Industrial
Tribunal had earlier decided a similar matter with different
set of workers, and accordingly, regular employment has
been granted to those workers. The award is also passed.
The union has then contended that the concerned workers
were given 12% commission on sale of food etc. The
concerned workers were subjected to the medical
examination by the Medical Officer of the Railway. They
were also given badges and identity cards for
administrative convenience. The contention is that the
concerned workers had worked for many years, and were
liable to be absorbed in the permanent employment of the
railway. However, their services were abruptly orally
terminated in March 2001, without complying with Section
25-F of the I. D. Act. The termination is legal and justified.
The second party wants all the workers to be reinstated,
and absorbed in the services of the railways as Assistant
Vendor/Helper.
4.
The first party railways has resisted the claim,
denying the adverse allegations. The employment, the
alleged supervision etc are all denied. It is contended
that Commission Vendors were engaged by Railway
Authority for sale of various catering items such as food,
snack, mineral water on commission basis, and vendor
shops were managed on day to day basis by the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6793
Commission Vendors themselves. The Commission
Vendors were not the employees of the railway, but earned
commission on items sold by them. The working hours
of the Commission Vendors were not decided or
supervised by the first party. The supervision was only
from the view point of health, sanitation, cleanliness and
the quality of food. The railway authority maintained
the Live Register, containing the names of Vendors. The
concerned workers were not employed by the railways.
The concerned workers were engaged by the Commission
Vendors on their own without knowledge, approval or
consent of the first party.
5.
The first party makes recruitment strictly in
accordance with law and rules. The concerned workers
were subjected to the medical examination only in the
interest of passengers, and from health and hygiene point
of view. The badges and identity cards were issued by
railway, so as to facilitate free entry at the station. The
allegations of termination of services are denied. It is
contended that the first party has got recruitment rules,
& according to which, recruitment is made. The first party
has pressed for rejection of the claim.
6.
The issues and my findings thereon are as
follows :
ISSUES
FINDINGS
1.
Whether there exists employer-
No.
employee relationship between
the workmen mentioned in the
Schedule to the Reference and
the First Party ?
2.
Whether the demand raised by the
No.
Second Party Union is justified ?
3.
What Award ?
As per
final award.
REASONS
7.
There is some oral and documentary evidence. I
have gone through the entire record, including the written
argument, and the case law, and have heard the
submissions made by the learned counsels.
The reference order states about 9 persons who
claim of reinstatement. The Statement of Claim restricts
the claim to the 8 persons mentioned in Annexure ‘A’.
The reference order does not have the date of termination
or the date from which the relief is required to be given.
In the statement of claim, the allegation is that the services
were terminated by the first party in March 2001. No
date is mentioned. The second party wants reinstatement
as well as absorption in regular employment. In support
of such a claim, the only evidence led by the second party
is the oral evidence of Suryakant Masurkar, one of the
concerned workers, and copies of few documents.
Suryakant stated in his affidavit that he is working in
railway as Vendor. He along with the other workers named
in Annexure ‘A’ were stopped from working without
giving sufficient reasons, and were asked to leave the
work premises. Suryakant has stated that he is President
of the second party union, and was in employment of the
first party since 1990. At the time of termination he was
working as Assistant Vendor/Helper. He and the
concerned persons were given the duties of increasing
sale of various catering items such as food, snacks, cold
drinks and mineral water, etc, and they were paid 12%
commission. The work was supervised by the Catering
Supervisors of the first party. The concerned workers were
required to work in various shifts. The concerned workers
were subjected to the medical examination, and were also
given identity cards and badges for administrative
convenience and discipline. Suryakant then stated that
there was another reference, which was decided by the
Tribunal, and some relief was granted regarding
reinstatement etc. Suryakant then stated about the interim
order passed in this case, which according to him was
not complied by the first party.
8.
In cross-examination, Suryakant has admitted that
he worked under T. Ganeshan, and Ganeshan was his
Vendor. Suryakant was not given written appointment
letter by railway. The other concerned workers also were
not given written appointment letters by railway. No
written agreement was signed between concerned workers
and railway. There are no documents regarding payment
made by railway. Further cross indicates that there is no
post of Assistant Vendor/Helper. Suryakant denies a
suggestion that identity card was given only for the
purpose of identification. He also denies the suggestion
that medical examination was taken only from the point
of view of hygiene.
9.
The first party has examined Shri Chandrakant
Arjun Kamble, who is Chief Law Assistant with the
Railway. Chandrakant has stated on the lines of the
defence in the written statement. According to
Chandrakant, Vendor Shops are given on tender basis to
the Vendors by the Railway Authorities for sale of various
catering items such as food and other snacks, including
mineral water, and Vendor Shops are managed by Vendors
themselves, who are not employees of the Railway. The
work, working hours etc. of the Vendors are not
supervised by railway, but the services of the Vendors
from the point of view of health, sanitation, cleanliness,
quality of food are supervised by the Catering Manager
of the first party. Kamble denies that the concerned
workers were working under the supervision of Catering
Supervisor. The concerned workers were medically
examined and were given badges and identity cards for
the benefit and safety of the passengers, and the same
were not given as employees of the Railway. Kamble
denies the allegation of employment as well as
termination of services. According to him, Railway has
to follow procedure for recruitment of staff, and in the
present case, no such procedure was followed.
6794
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10.
In cross-examination, Kamble clarifies that the
concerned workers are not Vendors, but they were
Assistant of the Vendors. The railway has got contract
with the Vendors, but the contract is not produced. The
identity cards of the concerned workers are not given by
railway. Prior to 2002, there was catering department of
railway, and railway was giving contract. At that time
railway used to make payment of permanent employees
of catering department, and further used to give
commission to Commission Vendors. Identity cards and
badges are given for the sake of identification. Kamble
admits that the catering department work is of perennial
nature. The concerned workers were medically examined,
but not as employee. Kamble clarifies that medical
examination was taken from hygiene point of view etc.
11.
With Exh.U-6 are copies of statement of claim, and
order below Exh.U-3 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Pune
in Reference (IT) No.22 of 2002. The order appears to be
an interim order. With Exh.C-10 second party produced
xerox copies of 8 identity cards of the concerned workers.
The identity cards bear seal of Railway. However, the
information written indicates that those persons were
working as Assistant to the Vendors, or Assistant of
Vendors. The names of Vendors are also mentioned.
12.
I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsels of both the sides, orally as well as in the
written argument at Exh.U-13. On behalf of the second
party, three judgments were sought to be relied upon,
which are (1) 1957 Vol.I LLJ Pg.477(S.C) Dharangadhra
Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra and others,
(2) 1958 Vol.II LLJ Pg.252 (S.C) Chintaman Rao & anr.
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (3) 1978 LAB. I. C. Pg.1264
(S.C) Hussainbhai Vs. The Factory Tezhilali Union &
Ors. The judgments are cited to show the test to determine
whether particular person is a workman or not. What is
held in the judgments is undisputable.
13.
The first party is Central Railway. The employer is
therefore, a Government of India’s Department. The first
party has pleaded and also stated in evidence that
recruitment is made in accordance with rules, and no
such rules were followed in order to make appointments
in the present case. It is not the case of the second party
that the concerned workers were recruited in accordance
with the recruitment rules. Before granting any relief,
the Tribunal has to keep this fact in mind. Apart from
that, the claim is on behalf of 8 workers. The second
party appears to be the registered Trade Union. Suryakant
is President of the said union, and therefore, union has
the authority to espouse such a dispute. The concerned
workers claim to have been working since 1990. Their
services were allegedly abruptly/orally terminated in
March 2001. No date is mentioned. Reference came to
be made to this Tribunal in 2007. What prevented the
second party to raise the dispute immediately is not
explained. Secondly to prove the continuous employment
for almost 11 years, and the termination thereof, the only
evidence led is the testimony of Suryakant, who is one of
the workers, and copies of few identity cards. Suryakant
in his evidence has not stated specifically about the
continuous employment of other workers. In the affidavit,
he only states that the 8 workers were stopped from
working, but when, that is no where stated. Suryakant
admits in cross examination that he worked under
Shri T. Ganeshan, who was Vendor. Admittedly none of
the workers was given any appointment letter. There is
no evidence of supervision and control by railway
administration, or payment of wages by railway
administration. Having regard to the evidence that is led,
I find very clearly that to cater to the needs of the
passengers vendor shops were given to some parties on
commission basis. Those vendors run the shops or the
activity of catering food etc. Vendors appointed
Asstt.Vendors and worker like the concerned workers.
The commission of 12% was paid by railways. Identity
cards and badges were issued, so as to enable the workers
to enter the Railway Stations etc. The medical
examination was done, apparently for the sake of ensuring
good health and hygiene. All that was done, for and in
the interest of passengers. The material on record no
where points to direct employer-employee relationship
between the concerned workers and the railway
administration. I therefore, find that the second party has
failed to prove that the concerned workers were a
“workman” employed by the first party. Thus, there was
no employer-employee relationship. The second party has
also failed to prove that the services were terminated by
the first party. In fact, there could be no such occasion of
first party terminating the services. I therefore, do not
find any justification in the demand that, the management
of Central Railway has refused to reinstate the concerned
8 workers. That refusal or action or inaction cannot be
said to be illegal or unjustified. The reference is
accordingly, answered in the negative.
Pune
Date : 23-04-2014
D. H. DESHMUKH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2726-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 01@2009) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08&10&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@23@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6795
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2014
S.O.
2726.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 01/2009) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of State Bank of India and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
08/10/2014.
[No. L-12011/23/2008-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/01/2009
Date: 22.09.2014
Party No.1 (a) : The Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Region-IV, Zonal Office,
S.V. Patel Marg, Kingsway, Nagpur.
(b) : The Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, S.V. Patel Marg,
Kingsway, Nagpur.
V/s.
Party No. 2
: The Asstt. General Secretary,
State Bank of India Staff Union,
C/o. SBI, Zonal Office,
S.V. Patel Marg, Kingsway,
Nagpur
AWARD
(Dated: 22nd 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 State Bank of India and their workman,
Shri D.K. Pranjile, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-12011/
23/2008-IR (B-I) dated 12.12.2008, with the following
schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of India (Asstt. General Manager, Region IV,
Zonal Office, Nagpur) and the Deputy General
Manager, State Bank of India Kingsway, Nagpur in
awarding punishment of dismissal from the Bank
services to Shri D. K. Pranjle, Ex-part time
Messenger-cum-Farrash, vide Orders No. AGM/IV/
AS/5412 dated 08.02.2005 and No. DGM/DISC/
2.5.2006 dated 01.08.2005, is justified and legal? If
not, to what relief the workman concerned is
entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to
file their respective statement of claim and written
statement, in response to which, the workman, Shri D.K.
Pranjle, (“the workman” in short) through his union, the
“State Bank of India Staff Union”, (“the union” in short)
filed the statement of claim and the management of State
Bank of India, (“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 the workman was
appointed in the services of party no.1 at its Treasury
Branch, Akola, as a part time Sweeper-cum-Waterman
vide order dated 03.09.1992 and he was confirmed in
the services of the Bank and the workman was suspended
vide order dated 19.04.2003, pending departmental
enquiry to be conducted against him, for some alleged
misconduct and the disciplinary authority issued the
charge sheet dated 12.02.2004 against the workman,
under paragraphs 5 (b) (d) (j) and (l) of the Bipartite
settlement and the workman submitted his explanation
to the charge sheet, specifically denying all the charges
and as such, party no.1 decided to conduct the
departmental enquiry against the workman and appointed
the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer conducted the
departmental enquiry and the workman participated in
the enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted his report
dated 18.10.2004, holding the charges to have been
proved against the workman and on the basis of the said
enquiry report, the disciplinary authority awarded the
punishment of dismissal from services against the
workman, vide his final order dated 08.02.2005 and the
workman carried the said order before the Appellate
Authority, but the appeal preferred by the workman came
to be rejected by the Appellate Authority.
It is further pleaded by the union on behalf of the
workman that the service conditions of the employees of
party no.1 are governed by the provisions of Sastry Award,
Desai Award and Bipartite settlements and on 05.04.2003,
there was a robbery at State Bank of India, in which, the
culprits robbed Rs. 21 lacks and while the robbery was
undertaken, the workman was on duty alongwith other
officials of the Bank and the culprits entered into the
cash department, despite all the security arrangements
made by the Bank and a FIR was lodged immediately by
the Bank Officials with the police and after investigation,
police filed a criminal case in the court, arraying the
workman as one of the accused persons and the said
criminal case is still subjudiced in the Court of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Akola and as the criminal prosecution
was initiated by the party no.1 against the workman, it
was not necessary to initiate the disciplinary action
against him till the result of the said criminal complaint
was given by the court, but the party no.1 hastily decided
to simultaneously conduct the departmental proceedings
6796
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
against the workman and completely violated the
provisions of clause 521 of the Sastry Award and the
workman was not involved in the said robbery and the
party no.1 committed error of law in dismissing the
workman from services, without waiting for the decision
of the criminal trial and in view of the matter, the
departmental enquiry and the punishment awarded are
ab-initio illegal and invalid.
It is further pleaded by the union on behalf of the
workman that the enquiry officer was biased and the
charge sheet was not given in accordance with the
procedure envisaged in Sastry Award and vital documents
demanded during the course of the enquiry were not given
to the workman and thereby, reasonable opportunity of
defence was not given and the enquiry was conducted
without following the principles of natural justice and
the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse, as the
same are not based on the evidence recorded during the
course of the enquiry and the enquiry officer did not take
into account the defence evidence and gave unnecessary
weight to the evidence of the management and the report
of the enquiry officer is short of proper reasoning and
the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer are such,
which no reasonable man can arrive at on the facts and
circumstances of the case and the disciplinary authority
as well as the appellate authority passed the orders without
application of mind and both the orders are mechanical
and the authorities did not take into consideration the
past record of the workman and the punishment is not
proper and is shockingly disproportionate.
Prayer has been made by the union for reinstatement
of the workman in service with continuity, full back wages
and all consequential benefits.
3.
The party no.1 in the written statement has pleaded
inter-alia that the workman was working at its Akola
Treasury Branch as a Messenger-cum-Farrash on 3/4th
Part Time Scale, when the charge sheet came to be issued
against him and on 05.04.2003 at about 6.30 PM, Arun
Katole, the Brother-in-Law of the workman entered into
the strong room of the branch and robbed the bank with
cash of Rs. 21 lacks and the workman was standing near
the watchman, while Arun was trying to enter the strong
room, but he did not show any familiarity with him and
even after the robbery in the bank, the workman did not
disclose the fact that his brother-in-law committed the
robbery and he also did not raise any alarm, when his
brother-in-law was committing the robbery and instead
of doing anything to prevent the culprit from doing the
misdeed, the workman helped his brother-in-law in
putting higher denomination currency notes in a bag from
the strong room and also had briefed his brother-in-law
the secret information, such as geography of the branch,
the timing of loading the cash in the strong room and
receipt of cash remittance from Reserve Bank of India and
the workman was therefore issued with the suspension
order dated 19.04.2003 and he was suspended w.e.f.
20.04.2003 and charge sheet dated 12.02.2004 was issued
against the workman, which was received by him on
16.02.2004 and the enquiry was conducted by the enquiry
officer from 10.06.2004 to 27.08.2004 in three sittings, giving
ample opportunity to the workman to defend his case and
the workman attended the enquiry with his defence
representative, Shri Y.P. Ambekar and he was provided
with all the documents relied upon by the Bank and was
informed about the witnesses to be examined and the
witnesses were examined in presence of the workman and
they were cross-examined by the representative of the
workman and the request of the workman for further cross-
examination of the witness, Shri Makasdar was allowed
by the enquiry officer and Shri Makasdar was recalled and
cross-examined further on 27.08.2004 and though
opportunity was given to the workman to adduce evidence
in his defence, the workman declined to examine any
witness in his defence and the copy of the proceedings
was given to the workman on each and every date of the
enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted his report dated
18.10.2004 to the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary
authority issued the second show cause notice dated
21.12.2004 alongwith enquiry officer’s report, proposing
the punishment of “dismissal without notice” to the
workman and the workman submitted his reply dated
10.01.2005 to the show cause notice and personal hearing
was given to the workman alongwith his defence
representative on 10.01.2005 by the disciplinary authority
and the disciplinary authority after considering the material
on record of the enquiry and the report of the enquiry
officer, passed the final order dated 08.02.2005 of “dismissal
without notice” and the workman preferred an appeal
against the final order and the Appellate Authority gave
personal hearing to the workman on 19.04.2005 and the
appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on
01.08.2005 and all the principles of natural justice were
complied with, while conducting the enquiry against the
workman and the enquiry officer assigned justifiable
reasons in support of his findings and having regard to
the gross misconduct of the workman, the punishment
was rightly imposed and it has lost confidence in the
workman and the punishment is commensurate with the
gross-misconduct committed by the workman and the
same is not shockingly disproportionate.
It is further pleaded by the party no.1 that during
the departmental enquiry, the workman had not raised any
objection regarding conduction of the same simultaneously
with the criminal trial and for the first time, said issue has
been raised and therefore, on this ground itself, the
contention of the union is liable to be rejected and the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6797
Hon’ble Apex Court have held that departmental
proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed
simultaneously and there is no bar to conduct departmental
enquiry and criminal proceeding simultaneously and the
charges in the disciplinary proceedings and the charges
in the criminal trial against the workman are not the same
or similar and it had lodged a FIR against the robber and
during investigation, police found the involvement of the
workman in commission of the offence and named him as
an accused in the case and the trial of the criminal case
began in the criminal court on 03.12.2008 and much before
the trial of the criminal case, the disciplinary enquiry was
already completed and the workman is not entitled for any
relief.
4.
No rejoinder has been filed either by the union or
the workman.
5.
As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from
service as punishment, after conducting of a departmental
enquiry against him, the fairness or other wise of the
departmental enquiry was taken up as a preliminary issue
for consideration and as per order dated 15.07.2014, the
enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be
legal, proper and in accordance to the principles of natural
justice.
6.
During the course of argument, it was submitted
by the learned advocate for the workman that charge sheet
dated 12.02.2004 containing three charges under the
paragraphs 5 (b),(d),(j) and (l) of the Bi-Partite settlement
was issued against the workman, while he was working
as a part- time waterman- cum- sweeper and pending the
departmental enquiry, the workman was put under
suspension vide order dated 19.04.2003 and as the
workman in his reply to the said charge sheet denied the
charges levelled against him, departmental enquiry was
conducted against him and he took part in the
departmental enquiry and after conclusion of the
departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer vide his report
dated 18.10.2004 declared all the charges to have been
proved against the workman and on the basis of the said
enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority awarded the
punishment of dismissal from services by order dated
08.02.2005 and the appeal preferred by the workman was
rejected by the Appellate Authority and on 05.04.2003,
there was robbery of a sum of Rs.21 lacks from the Bank
and a police complaint was filed by the officials of the
Bank for the said occurrence and after investigation,
police filed a criminal case in the court, making the
workman as one of the accused persons and during the
pendency of the criminal case against the workman, the
party No.1 initiated the departmental enquiry against him
and proceeded with the same in contravention of clause
521 of the Sastri Award, in spite of his protest and party
No.1 did not wait for the final result of the criminal case
and committed error in Law in dismissing the workman
from services and in view of the matter, the entire
departmental enquiry and punishment imposed are ab-
initio illegal and invalid.
It was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the workman that the report of the Enquiry Officer is
not based on the evidence on record of the departmental
enquiry and the Enquiry Officer did not take into
consideration the defence evidence and gave unreasonable
weight to the evidence of the management and the report
of the Enquiry Officer is short of proper reasoning and
perversity is writ large on the face of the enquiry report
and the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer are as
such, which cannot be arrived at by any reasonable man
on the material on record of the enquiry and the findings
of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and the Disciplinary
Authority and so also, the Appellate Authority passed
the orders without due application of mind and the orders
are mechanical and while passing the order of
punishment, the Authorities did not consider the past
service records of the workman and the punishment is
not proper and shockingly disproportionate and is liable
to be set aside and for that the workman is entitled for
reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
7.
In reply, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the party No.1 that by order dated 26.05.2014, the
Tribunal has already held the departmental enquiry
conducted against the workman as legal, proper and in
accordance with the principles of natural justice and at
the time of deciding the preliminary issue of the legality
or other wise of the validity of the departmental enquiry,
the Tribunal has already considered and decided the
question of initiation of the departmental inquiry against
the workman by the party No. 1 during the pendency of
the Criminal case and completing of the said inquiry and
as such there is no scope to reconsider the same again
and more over, the final order of punishment in the
departmental inquiry was passed on 08.02.2005, whereas,
the trial of the criminal case started on 31.12.2008, when
the evidence of the first witness was recorded and it is
clear that much before the beginning of the trial of the
criminal case, the disciplinary enquiry had been
completed, so there was no question of staying of the
disciplinary proceedings by the party No.1 and such a
request was also never made by the workman during the
conduct of the departmental enquiry and the workman
was acquitted in the criminal case on 17.02.2012 and
the acquittal of the workman cannot affect the already
concluded disciplinary enquiry and the charges in the
departmental inquiry and in the criminal case were not
exactly the same and the witnesses examined in both the
6798
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11, 2014/ASVINA 19, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
proceedings were also not the same and as such the
acquittal of the workman in the criminal case is of no avail
to him.
It was further submitted by the learned advocate for
the party No.1 that in the departmental inquiry four
witnesses were examined by the management to prove
the charges against the workman and their evidence
remained unchallenged as there was no cross-examination
and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on the
evidence on record of the departmental enquiry and the
same are not perverse and the punishment imposed
against the workman cannot be said to be shockingly
disproportionate to the grave misconduct proved against
him in a properly conducted departmental enquiry and
therefore, there is no scope for the Tribunal to interfere
with the punishment and the workman is not entitled to
any relief.
In support of the submissions, the learned advocate
for the party No.1 placed reliance on the decisions
reported in Civil Appeal No. 8513 of 2012 (SC) (The
Deputy Inspector General of Police Vs. S. Samuthiram),
(2011) 4 SCC-584 (State Bank of Bikaner Vs.
Nemichand), (2006) 2 SCC-255 (TNCS Corporation
LTD. Vs. K. Meerabai), 2003 LAB. IC-281 (The
Commissioner of Police Vs. Rachakonda R. Subbaiah),
AIR 2003 SC-1571Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
United Commercial Bank Vs. P.C. Kakkar ), AIR 2003
SC-1462 (Regional Manager, UPSRT Vs. Hotilal), 2006
AIR SCW-5457 (State Bank of India Vs. Ramesh Dinkar),
2012 AIR SCW-5835 (Avinash S. Bhosale Vs. Union of
India), (2013) 2 SCC-740 (State Bank of India Vs.
Narendra Kumar Pandey), AIR 1996 SC-1556 (Bharat
Forge Company Ltd. Vs. A.B.Zodge) and 2010(6) Mh.
L.J.-309 (General Secretary,General Kamgar Union Vs.
Noble Paint & Varnish Co. Pvt. Ltd.)
8.
At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention
that the submissions made by the learned advocate for
the workman in regard to initiation of the departmental
enquiry against the workman during the pendency of the
criminal case and proceeding with the same without
waiting for the result of the criminal case had been
considered at the time of deciding of the preliminary issue
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 other submissions in regard to the
validity of the departmental enquiry.
9.
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 mala fide is certainly not a matter of the
Tribunal to concern itself with. The Tribunal also 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.
It is also settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court 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.
11.
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 on the record of departmental
enquiry in a rational manner and has assigned reasons in
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 11] 2014@vkf'ou 19] 1936
6799
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.
12.
So far the question of proportionality of the
punishment is concerned, it is found that grave
misconduct of unauthorized disclosure of confidential
information regarding the affairs of the Bank which were
prejudicial to the interest of the bank, willful damage or
attempt to cause damage to the property of the bank, doing
any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank and gross
negligence involving the bank in serious loss have been
proved against the workman in a properly conducted
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
departmental enquiry. Hence, the punishment of
termination of the services of the workman cannot be said
to be shockingly disproportionate. From the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is found that there is no
scope to interfere with the punishment imposed against
the workman. Hence, it is ordered:-
ORDER
The action of the management of State Bank of
India (Asstt. General Manager, Region IV, Zonal Office,
Nagpur) and the Deputy General Manager, State Bank
of India Kingsway, Nagpur in awarding punishment of
dismissal from the Bank services to Shri D.K. Pranjle,
Ex-part time Messenger-cum-Farrash, vide orders No.
AGM/IV/AS/5412 dated 08.02.2005 and No. DGM/
DISC/2.5.2006 dated 01.08.2005 is justified and legal.
The workman concerned is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer