4413 GI/2014
(7255)
foÙk ea=kky;
(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2937-—Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad vf/fu;e]
1981 (1981 dj 28) dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM (Ä)
ds mi&[kaM (i) ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh
vjfoUn lqczef.k;u] eq[; vkfFkZd lykgdkj] foÙk ea=kky;] ubZ
fnYyh dks rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'kksa rd] MkW- j?kqjke
th] jktu ds LFkku ij Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad ds funs'kd
e.My esa funs'kd ukfer djrh gSA
¹iQk- la- 9@16@2012&vkbZ,iQ&Iº
xksfoUn jke] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 12th November, 2014
S.O. 2937.—In pursuance of sub-clause (i) of clause
(e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Export Import
Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981), Central Government
hereby nominates Shri Arvind Subramanian, Chief
Economic Advisor, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi as
Director on the Board of Directors of Export Import Bank of
India vice Dr. Raghuram G. Rajan with immediate effect and
till further orders.
[F. No. 9/16/2012-IF-I]
GOVIND RAM, Under Secy.
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 47]
ubZ fnYyh] uoEcj 16—uoEcj 22] 2014] 'kfuokj@dkfrZd 25—vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
No. 47]
NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 16—NOVEMBER 22, 2014, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 25—AGRAHAYANA 1, 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)
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
7256
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky;
(mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx)
(jktHkk"kk ;wfuV)
ubZ fnYyh] 10 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2938-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e 4
ds vuqlj.k esa] ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky; (Ldwy f'k{kk ,oa
lk{kjrk foHkkx) ds varxZr dsUnzh; fo|ky; laxBu (eq[;ky;)]
ubZ fnYyh ds fuEufyf[kr 20 dsUnzh; fo|ky;ksa dks] ,sls dk;kZy;ksa
ds :i esa] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkjh&o`Un us fgUnh dk
dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/lwfpr djrh gS%
1-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] ua- 1] /uckn] fcuksn uxj] /uckn&826001
(>kj[k.M)
2-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] >kjlqxqMk] jsyos dkWyksuh] >kjlqxqMk&768201
(vksfM'kk)
3-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] ftyk&xksMMk&814133 (>kj[k.M)
4-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] flaxkjlh] ,-,iQ-,l- 507] ,l-;w-,-,iQ-
99 ,] ih-vks- (>kj[k.M)
5-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] fguw (izFke ikyh)] Mksj.Mk] jkaph&834002
(>kj[k.M)
6-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] tkerkMk] ckfydk mPp fo|ky; ifjlj]
U;w Vkmu] tkerkMk&815351 (>kj[k.M)
7-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] dq=kk] lsaVj izkbejh Ldwy] ftyk
lqanjx<+&770018 (vksfM'kk)
8-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] lkfgcxat] gchciqj] ftyk lkfgcxat&816109
(>kj[k.M)
9-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] lkfgcxat] fleMsxk] vkfnoklh ckfydk
Nk=kkokl] lkeVksyh] xksrjk] ftyk&fleMsxk&835235
(>kj[k.M)
10-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] iks- cjdkdkuk] ftyk jkex<+&829102
(>kj[k.M)
11-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] irjkrw] Mhty dkWyksuh] ftyk
jkex<+&829120 (>kj[k.M)
12-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] e/qiqj] ftyk nso?kj&815353 (>kj[k.M)
13-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] ua- 2] /uckn] txthou uxj Fkkuk ds
ihNs] iksLV&txthou uxj] /uckn&826002 (>kj[k.M)
14-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] xqeyk] Vªsfuax Ldwy dSEil] djeVksyh
jksM] xqeyk&835207 (>kj[k.M)
15-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] t'kiqj] Mksjdk pkSjk] xEgfj;k]
t'kiqj&496331 (NÙkhlx<+)
16-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] ukeqdqe] jkaph&834010 (>kj[k.M)
17-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] fguw] (f}Ùkh; ikyh)] Mksj.Mk]
jkaph&834002 (>kj[k.M)
18-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] x<ok] fiijk dyka] xk;=kh uxj]
ftyk&x<ok&822114 (>kj[k.M)
19-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] ftyk&ykrsgkj&829206 (>kj[k.M)
20-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] lh-vkj-ih-,iQ-] /qokZ] jkaph&834004
(>kj[k.M)
¹la- &11011&3@2014&jk-Hkk-,-º
lq[kchj flag la/w] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT
(Department of Higher Education)
(O.L. Unit)
New Delhi, the 10th November, 2014
S.O. 2938.—In pursuance of sub. rule (4) of rule 10
of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies
the following 20 Kendriya Vidyalayas of Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan (HQ), New Delhi under the Ministry
of Human Resource Development, (Department of School
Education & Literacy) as offices, whose more than 80%
members of the staff have acquired working knowledge of
Hindi:
1.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, No. 1, Dhanbad, Binod Nagar,
Dhanbad-826001 (Jharkhand)
2.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Jharsuguda, Railway Colony,
Jharsuguda-768201 (Odisha)
3.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Distt.-Godda-814133
(Jharkhand)
4.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Singharsi, AFS, 507, SAUF C/o
99 APO (Jharkhand)
5.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Hinoo (1st Shift) Doranda,
Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand)
6.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Jamtara, Girls High School
Campus, New Town, Jamtara-815351 (Jharkhand)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7257
7.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kutra, At Centre Primary School,
Distt.-Sundargarh-770018 (Odisha)
8.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sahibganj, Habibpur, Distt.
Sahibganj-816109 (Jharkhand)
9.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sahibganj, Simdegaa, At Adiwasi
Balika Chhaatravas, Samtoli, Gotra, Distt. Simdega-
8835235 (Jharkhand)
10.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Post-Barekakana, Distt-
Ramgarh-829102 (Jharkhand)
11.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Patratu, Diesel Colony, Distt.
Ramgadh-829120 (Jharkhand)
12.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Madhupur, Distt.-Deoghar-
815353 (Jharkhand)
13.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, No. 2, Dhanbad, Behind Jagjivan
Nagar Police Station, Post-Jagjivan Nagar, Distt-
Dhanbad-826002 (Jharkhand)
14.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gumla, Training School Campus,
Karam Toli Road, Gumla-835207 (Jharkhand)
15.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Jashpur, Dorka Chora, Gamharia,
Jashpur-496331 (Chhattisgarh)
16.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Namkum, Ranchi-834010
(Jharkhand)
17.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Hinoo (2nd Shift), Doranda,
Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand)
18.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Garhwa, Pipara Kalan, Gayatri
Nagar, Distt. Garhwa-829206 (Jharkhand)
19.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Distt.-Latehar-829206
(Jharkhand)
20.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, CRPF, Dhurva, Distt. Ranchi-
834004 (Jharkhand)
[No. 11011-3/2014-O.L.U]
SUKHBIR SINGH SANDHU, Jt. Secy.
dks;yk ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2939-&dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd blls mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa dks;yk vfHkizkIr gksus
dh laHkkouk gS(
vkSj Hkkjrh; losZ{k.k Vksiks'khV la[;k 64 bZ@7 ¼vkj-,Q- 1%50000½ dk ftlesa mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe {ks= ds C;kSjs
vUrfoZ"V gS] dk fujh{k.k egkizca/kd ¼xos’k.k izHkkx½] lsaVªy ekbu Iykfuax ,.M fMtkbu bULVhV~;wV fyfeVsM] xksanokuk Iysl] dkads
jksM] jkaph ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkÅl LVªhV] dksydkrk & 700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k ftyk dyDVj]
ftyk 'kgMksy] e/; izns'k ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gS A
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~
mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] iwoksZDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe
esa dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS(
mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) dksbZ O;fDr &
¼i½
mDr vf/klwpuk dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds v/khu dh xbZ fdlh dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ ;k lEHkor% gksus okyh fdlh
{kfr ds fy;s mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk( ;k
¼ii½
mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds izHkkoghu gksus dh ckcr ;k mDr
vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ ds v/khu [kuu iV~Vs izHkkoghu gksus ds fy;s izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk
vkSj mls mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼i½ ls [kaM ¼iv½ esa fofufnZ"V enksa dh Ckkcr mixr
O;; dks minf'kZr djus ds fy;s iwoksZDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr lHkh ekufp=ksa] pkVksZa vkSj vU; nLrkostksa dks ifjnRr dj
ldsxkA
jkti= esa bl vf/klwpuk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu dh vof/k ds Hkhrj egkizca/kd ¼xos’k.k izHkkx½] lsaVªy ekbu
Iykfuax ,.M fMtkbu bULVhV~;wV fyfeVsM] xksanokuk Iysl] dkads jksM] jkaph&834031¼>kj[kaM½ ds dk;kZy; dks HkstsaxsA
7258
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqlwph
fcpkjiqj iwoZ CykWd] lksgkxiqj dks;yk {ks=
ftyk&'kgMksy] e/; izns'k
[ Vksiks'khV la[;k 64 bZ@7 ¼vkj-,Q- 1%50000½ ]
Ø
ekStk@
rglhy
iVokjh
cUnkscLr
ftyk
{ks=
{ks=
fVIif.k;ka
la-
xzke
gYdk
la[;k
,dM+ esa
gsDVj esa
la[;k
¼yxHkx½
¼yxHkx½
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1-
ckflu
flagiqj
88
707
“kgMksy
642-09
259-84
Hkkx
2-
Qrsgiqj
flagiqj
92
624
“kgMksy
439-83
177-99
Hkkx
3-
xkSjrjk
lksgkxiqj
71
234
“kgMksy
67-46
27-30
Hkkx
4-
ujljgk
lksgkxiqj
78
510
“kgMksy
52-78
21-36
Hkkx
5-
fcpkjiqj
lksgkxiqj
79
728
“kgMksy
291-39
117-92
Hkkx
6-
ipxkao
flagiqj
88
551
“kgMksy
23-67
9-58
Hkkx
7-
nq/kh
flagiqj
89
445
“kgMksy
26-14
10-58
Hkkx
dqy {ks= % 1543-36 ,dM+¼yxHkx½ ;k 624-57 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½
lhek o.kZu%
d&[k
;g js[kk] fcpkjiqj xzke ds fcUnq *d* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj Qrsgiqj vkSj ujljgk xzke ls gksdj xqtjrh gqbZ xkSjrjk
xzke ds fcUnq ^[k^ ij feyrh gS A js[kk ^d^&[k^ bl CykWd dh mRrjh lhek dk Hkkx gSA
[k&x
;g js[kk xzke xkSjrjk ds fcUnq *[k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj Qrsgiqj xzke ls gksdj xqtjrh gqbZ nq/kh xzke ds fcUnq
*x* ij feyrh gSA js[kk ^[k^&x^ bl CykWd ds iwohZ lhek dk Hkkx gSA
x&?k
;g js[kk xzke nq/kh xzke ds fcUnq *x* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke ckflu ls gksdj xqtjrh gqbZ ipxkao xzke ds fcUnq
*?k* ij feyrh gSA js[kk ^x^&^?k^ bl CykWd ds nf{k.kh lhek dk Hkkx gSA
?k&d
;g js[kk xzke ipxkao ds fcUnq *?k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj ckflu xzke ls gksdj xqtjrh gqbZ fcpkjiqj xzke ds fcUnq
*d* ij tkdj feyrh gSA js[kk ^?k^&d^ bl CykWd dh if'peh lhek dk Hkkx gSA
[Qk- la- 43015@12@2013&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]
nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 17th November, 2014
S.O. 2939.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land in the
locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
And, whereas, the Survey of India Toposheet number 64E/7 (R.F. 1:50000) containing the details of the areas of
land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the General Manager (Exploration Division), Central
Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi or at the office of the Coal Controller,
1, Council House Street, Kolkata - 700001 or at the Office of the District Collector, District of Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh;
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7259
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government
hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule;
Any person interested in the land described in the above mentioned Schedule may—
(i)
claim compensation under sub-section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by
any action taken under sub-section (3) of section 4 of the said Act; or
(ii)
claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting license
ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to
have effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the
expenditure incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the
said Act,
to the Office of the General Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited,
Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi-834031 (Jharkhand) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of
this notification.
SCHEDULE
Bicharpur East Block, Sohagpur Coalfield
District – Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh
[ Toposheet number 64E/7 (R.F. 1:50000) ]
Sl.
Mouja/
Tahsil
Patwari
Bandobast
District
Area in acres
Area in hectares
Remarks
No.
Village
halkanumber
number
(approximately)
(approximately)
1.
Basin
Singhpur
88
707
Shahdol
642.09
259.84
Part
2.
Fatehpur
Singhpur
92
624
Shahdol
439.83
177.99
Part
3.
Gourtara
Sohagpur
71
234
Shahdol
67.46
27.30
Part
4.
Narsarha
Sohagpur
78
510
Shahdol
52.78
21.36
Part
5.
Bicharpur
Sohagpur
79
728
Shahdol
291.39
117.92
Part
6.
Pachgaon
Singhpur
88
551
Shahdol
23.67
9.58
Part
7.
Dudhi
Singhpur
89
445
Shasdol
26.14
10.58
Part
Total area : 1543.36 acres (approximately) 624.57 hectares (approximately)
Boundary description:
A-B
The line starts from point ‘A’ in Bicharpur village and meets at point ‘B’ in Gourtara village passing
through the Fatehpur and Narsarha villages. ‘A-B’ line forms the northern boundary of the block.
B-C
The line starts from point ‘B’ in Gourtara village and meets at point ‘C’ in Dudhi village passing through
the Fatehpur village. ‘B-C’ line forms the eastern boundary of the block.
C-D
The line starts from point ‘C’ in Dudhi village and meets at point ‘D’ in Pachgaon village passing
through the Basin village. ‘C-D’ line forms the southern boundary of the block.
D-A
The line starts from point ‘D’ in Pachgaon village and meets at point ‘A’ in Bicharpur village passing
through the Basin village. ‘D-E’ line forms the western boundary of the block.
[F. No. 43015/ 12 /2013-PRIW-I]
DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.
7260
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2940-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk&1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 fnlEcj] 2014 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds vè;k;&4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok;
tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS) vè;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk&76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh
gSº ds micaèk rsayxkuk jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—
^^rsyaxkuk jkT; ds uyxksaMk ftys ds f=kiqjkje eaMy esa vkus okys jktLo xk¡o dh lhek ds varxZr {ks=k&isíknsoqyiYyh vkSj
oseqykiYyh eaMy esa vkus okys jktLo xkao dh lhek ds varxZr {ks=k&xktqykiqje**A
¹la- ,l&38013@67@2014&,l-,l- 1º
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 17th November, 2014
S.O. 2940.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st December, 2014 as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and
VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force]
of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Talangana namely :—
"The Revenue Village of Peddadevulapally of Tripuraram Mandal and Gajulapuram of Vemulapally Mandal
in Nalgonda District of Telangana State."
[No. S-38013/67/2014-SS.I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2941-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk&1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 fnlEcj] 2014 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds vè;k;&4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok;
tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS) vè;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk&76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh
gSº ds micaèk tEew ,oa dk'ehj jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—
Øa- la-
jktLo xzke dk uke@{ks=k*
gnoLr la[;k@gkscyh*
rglhy@rkyqd*
ftyk
1
2
3
4
5
1-
tEew fodkl izkf/dj.k ds varxZr vkus okys os lHkh {ks=k] tks mu {ks=kksa ds lehiorhZ gSa tgkWa igys ls gh ;kstuk ykxw gS] vkSj tgkWa
le;≤ ij izkf/dj.k ds {ks=k dk foLrkj gksxkA
2-
xk¡o xkMh x<] ftyk tEew
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
tEew
tEew
3-
xk¡o xqjgk czkgE.kk] ftyk tEew
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
tEew
tEew
4-
xk¡o nksekuk] ftyk tEew
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
tEew
tEew
5-
xk¡o ukxcuh] ftyk tEew
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
tEew
tEew
6-
xk¡o iVksyh czkgE.kk] ftyk tEew
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
tEew
tEew
7-
xk¡o ujoky ckyk] ftyk tEew
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
tEew
tEew
8-
xk¡o Fkaxj] ftyk tEew
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
tEew
tEew
9-
xk¡o j[kjktiqjk] ftyk lkack
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
lkack
lkack
10-
xk¡o ljksj] ftyk lkack
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
lkack
lkack
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7261
11-
xk¡o jk;k eksM+] ftyk lkack
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
lkack
lkack
12-
xk¡o ethu] ftyk tEew
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
tEew
tEew
13-
xk¡o ccfy;kuk] ftyk tEew
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
tEew
tEew
14-
xk¡o cjuksbZ] ftyk tEew
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
tEew
tEew
15-
uxj lfefr@fuxe] dBqvk ds varxZr vkus okys lHkh {ks=kA
16-
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o pd jktw] ftyk dBqvk
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
dBqvk
dBqvk
17-
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o pd jke flag] ftyk dBqvk
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
dBqvk
dBqvk
18-
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o jke flag txriqj] ftyk dBqvk
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
dBqvk
dBqvk
19-
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o pd [kwuh] ftyk dBqvk
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
dBqvk
dBqvk
20-
laiw.kZ SICOP vkS|ksfxd dEIysDl] dBqvk ftyk dBqvk
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o {ks=k
dBqvk
dBqvk
21-
IID dsUnz dBqvk] ftyk dBqvk
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o@dsUnz
dBqvk
dBqvk
¹la- ,l&38013@68@2014&,l-,l- Iº
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 17th November, 2014
S.O. 2941.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st December, 2014 as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and
VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force]
of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Jammu and Kashmir namely :—
Sl. No.
Name of the village Area*
Had Bast No./Hobli*
Tehsil/Taluk*
District
1
2
3
4
5
1.
All the area under jurisdiction of Jammu Development Authority (JDA), which are contiguous to the already
implemented zones and extended from time to time.
2.
Village Gadi Gardh Distt. Jammu
Entire Revenue Village
Jammu
Jammu
3.
Village Guraha Brahmana Distt. Jammu
Entire Revenue Village
Jammu
Jammu
4.
Village Domana Distt. Jammu
Entire Revenue Village
Jammu
Jammu
5.
Village Nagbani Distt. Jammu
Entire Revenue Village
Jammu
Jammu
6.
Village Patoli Brahmana Distt. Jammu
Entire Revenue Village
Jammu
Jammu
7.
Village Narwal Bala Distt. Jammu
Entire Revenue Village
Jammu
Jammu
8.
Village Thangar Distt. Jammu
Entire Revenue Village
Jammu
Jammu
9.
Village Rakhrajpura Distt. Samba
Entire Revenue Village
Samba
Samba
10.
Village Sarore Distt. Samba
Entire Revenue Village
Samba
Samba
11.
Village Raya Morh Distt. Samba
Entire Revenue Village
Samba
Samba
12.
Village Majeen Distt. Jammu
Entire Revenue Village
Jammu
Jammu
13.
Village Babliana Distt. Jammu
Entire Revenue Village
Jammu
Jammu
14.
Village Barnai Distt. Jammu
Entire Revenue Village
Jammu
Jammu
1
2
3
4
5
7262
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
15.All the area falling within limits of Municipal Committee/Corporation Kathua :
16.Entire Revenue Village Chak Raju, Distt. Kathua
Entire Revenue Village
Kathua
Kathua
17.Entire Revenue Village Chak Ram Singh,
Entire Revenue Village
Kathua
Kathua
Distt. Kathua
18.Entire Revenue Village Chak Ram Singh,
Entire Revenue Village
Kathua
Kathua
Distt. Kathua
19.Entire Revenue Village Chak Khuni,
Entire Revenue Village
Kathua
Kathua
Distt. Kathua
20.Entire SICOP Industrial Complex Kathua,
Entire Revenue Village/
Kathua
Kathua
Distt. Kathua
Complex
21.IID Centre Kathua, Distt. Kathua
Entire Revenue Village/
Kathua
Kathua
Centre
[No. S-38013/68/2014-SS.I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYYkh] 18 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2942-—tcfd eSllZ dksdk&dksyk bafM;k bud]
(dksM la[;k ,pvkj@thth,u@10374 ds varxZr xqMxkao {ks=kh;
dk;kZy; esa) (,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :i esa lan£Hkr) us deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fufèk ,oa izdh.kZ micaèk vfèkfu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19)
(,rnqijkar vfèkfu;e ds :i esa lan£Hkr) dh èkkjk 17 dh mi&èkkjk
(1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gS A
2-
vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds
lacaèk esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;e mDr vfèkfu;e dh
èkkjk 6 eas fofu£n"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de
mi;qDr ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèkfu;e vFkok deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 (,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr)
ds varxZr ln`'; Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds
laca/ esa nh tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufèk izlqfoèkkvksa dk Hkh ykHk
mBk jgs gSaA
3-
vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 17 dh
mi&èkkjk (1) ds [k.M (d) n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] bl vfèklwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;èkhu mDr izfr"Bku
dks 19&10&2007 ls vxyh vfèklwpuk rd mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh
micaèkksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A
[la- ,l&35015@105@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqcaèk
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 ds micaèkksa ls NwV
iznku djus lacaèkh 'krs±
1-
fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh; Hkfo";
fufèk vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls funs'kksa
ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds izcaèku gsrq viuh vè;{krk esa ,d
U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fufèk U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr gksxh tks
vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu ds izfr
Hkfo"; fufèk esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj
mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ]
¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—
(i)
fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds lacaèk esa] dkj[kkus
dk Lokeh vFkok vfèk"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj
(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds lacaèk esa] og O;fDr] vFkok izkfèkdkjh
vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt ij vafre
fu;a=k.k gksA
2-
U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd djsxk
vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr (lhih,iQlh)
vFkok mlds n~okjk izkfèkÑr fdlh vfèkdkjh n~okjk le; le; ij
tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z djsxk A
3-
vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks HkfOk"; fufèk ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgs gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks
NwV iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k
tk,xkA
4-
tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr izfr"Bku
ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vFkok Hkfo"; fufèk dk lnL; gks]
mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks fu;ksDrk mls
rRdky fufèk ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA fu;ksDrk ,sls
deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk ls lap;
jkf'k;ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A
5-
fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds
n~okjk le;≤ ij vfèkfu;e ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr nj ls ns;
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7263
va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg
dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh
cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vfèkfu;e
dh èkkjk 7 ds micaèkksa ds vuqlkj lkèkkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h
gksxk A
6-
fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk
vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls
Hkfo"; fufèk dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A
7-
U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk
n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfofèkd lhek rd ykuk
gksxk A
8-
fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksfèkr fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkfèkdkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fufèk ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vfèkla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku
ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A
9-
izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;eksa ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk
?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vfèkfu;e
vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fuèkkZfjr fofHkUu micaèkksa ds
varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A
10-
;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kksèku] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku fu;eksa dh
rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vfèkd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl ds
fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kksèku ds yafcr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw
fd;k tk,xk A
11-
fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kksèku {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;
Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks
viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A
12-
fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh Hkfo";
fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr vfèkdre le; lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk
ls fuiVk, tk,axs A
13-
U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds lacaèk esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk
j[k&j[kko djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vfèkekur%
bYkSDVªkWfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkofèkd :i ls tc
dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr
n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls
lEizsf"kr djsaxs A
14-
U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus
ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk ok£"kd
fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr
fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyCèk djk, tk ldrs gSaA
iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd,
tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkofèkd :i ls vn~;ru fd;k tk,xk A
15-
fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus
ds fy, vko';d izkoèkku djsaxs A
16-
U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk
;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds Hkhrj
ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk
tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md
dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A
17-
U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fufèk ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj
la;qDr :i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfufèk
n~okjk ;Fkk vfèkjksfir vfèk'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A
18-(d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl izdkj
izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) :i eas gksuh
pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa visf{kr
lqfoèkk ds miyCèk u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ
lacafèkr {ks=kh; HkfOk"; fufèk vk;qDr dks bldh lwpuk
nsaxs A
([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A
(x) MhesV [kkrk bl lacaèk esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh
vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh;
ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e
ls [kksyk tk, A
(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn
dh nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh
U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;;
ekuk tk,xk A
19-
izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A
LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk] 1952 ls
NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds
vuqjksèk ij lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks lhèks varfjr
djsxk A
20-
LFkkiuk lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks mu fu{ksikxkj
izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr)
7264
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk
esa U;kl ds eku ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~ izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn
esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml
èkujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj
vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL;
ds Hkfo"; fufèk lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk
vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ
vuqeksnu ds 'krkZèkhu fufèk ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls ckè;dkjh
O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr gksa A
21-
U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k
vU; laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu]
cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A
22-
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus dh
lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSfèkd :i ls fu;ksDrk
vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkfèkdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij muds
lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A
23-
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa
lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds
Hkhrj rRdky fufèk;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu
ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fufèk;ksa ds varj.k esa
dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xk A
24-(d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrk fdlh
;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls
ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds 'krkZèkhu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d
le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu dks vfèkdkj
gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd n~okjk
[kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq, [kpZ
fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A
([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls
31 ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj
ys[kk&ijh{khr rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ
dh izfr lhèks bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k
dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh tkus okyh tkudkjh
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr dh tk,xh
RkFkk lacfèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyCèk
djkbZ tk,xh A
(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vfèkd
ds fy, fu;qDr u fd;k tk, A
25-
yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vkèkkj esa
dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA
26-
fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{k.k
gsrq ,slh lqfoèkkvksa dk izkoèkku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k izHkkjksa dk
Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vfèkfu;e dh
èkkjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤
ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A
27-
U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh
mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacafèkr O;fDr dks bl lacaèk esa
dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xh A
28-
fdlh Hkh èkks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds iQyLo:i
VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk uqdlku iwjk
djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A
29-
fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k] lgk;d
daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;kfn ds
iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko gksrk
gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds
fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A
30-
,d gh Hkfo"; fufèk VªLV esa ,d ls vfèkd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkb;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls
vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";
fufèk VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ
djsxk A
31-
dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks± dks
c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku
bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè; gksaxs A
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2014
S.O.
2942.—Whereas M/s. Coca-Cola India Inc.
[under Code No. HR/GGN/10374 in Regional Office,
Gurgaon] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment)
has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section
(1) of Section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952)
(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2.
And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees
are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees’
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7265
of the said Scheme with effect from 19-10-2007 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/105/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1.
The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to
time. The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from
the Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For
this purpose, the “employer” shall mean :—
(i)
In relation to an establishment, which is a
factory, the owner or occupier of the factory:
and .
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the
person who, or the authority, that has the
ultimate control over the affairs of the
establishment.
2.
The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
Central
Government/Central
Provident
Fund
Commissioner (CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3.
All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the act,
who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted
exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4.
Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5.
The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees
the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from
time to time by the 15th of each month following the month
for which the contributions are payable. The employer
shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the
provisions of Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in
payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6.
The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7.
Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board
of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8.
The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9.
The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central Government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme
framed thereunder.
10.
Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11.
No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give
a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12.
All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organisation.
13.
The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner.
14.
The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject
to nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall
remain in custody of employee to be updated periodically
by the Trustees when presented to them.
7266
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15.
The employer shall make necessary provisions to
enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16.
The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file
such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by
the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within the
specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
17.
The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of
the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per
directions of the Government shall make the Board of
Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may
be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner
or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of
Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the
required facility is not available in the areas where
the trust operates the Board of Trustees shall
inform the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise
register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank
of India and Central Government in accordance
with the instructions issued by the Central
Government in this regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the
Trust. Also all types of cost of investments like
brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be
treated as incidental cost of investment by the
Trust.
19.
All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that
effect.
20.
The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules
and transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event
of his/her leaving service of the employer and any other
receipts by sale of the securities or other investments
standing in the name of the Fund subject to the prior
approval of the Regional PF Commissioner.
21.
Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22.
The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23.
The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also
give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within
the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the
event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit
by a qualified independent Chartered Accountant
annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO
shall have the right to have the accounts re-audited
by any other qualified auditor and the expenses
so incurred shall be borne by the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this
office by the Auditors directly within six months
after the closing of the financial year from
1st April to 31st March. The format of the balance
sheet and the information to be furnished in the
report shall be prescribed by the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation and made available
with the RPFC office in electronic format as well
as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the
relaxation withdrawn from the first day of the
next succeeding financial year.
25.
Any loss for the three consecutive financial years
or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
26.
The employer shall provide for such facilities for
inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7267
Government may from time to time direct under clause (a)
of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27.
In the event of any violation of the conditions for
grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28.
In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any
fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29.
In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger,
acquisition, sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary,
whether wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted
shall stand revoked and the establishment should promptly
report the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30.
In case there are more than one unit/establishment
participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all
the trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/
responsible for any default committed by any of the
trustees/employer of any of the participating units and
the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the
trustees of the common Provident Fund Trust.
31.
The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
ubZ fnYYkh] 18 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2943-—tcfd eSllZ fgUnqLrku psfjVh VªLV] (dksM
la[;k MCY;wch@42498 ds varxZr mi&{ks=kh; dk;kZy;] ikdZ LVªhV
esa) (,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :i esa lan£Hkr) us deZpkjh Hkfo";
fufèk ,oa izdh.kZ micaèk vfèkfu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19) (,rnqijkar
vfèkfu;e ds :i esa lan£Hkr) dh èkkjk 17 dh mi&èkkjk (1) ds
[k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gS A
2-
vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds
lacaèk esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;e mDr vfèkfu;e dh
èkkjk 6 eas fofu£n"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de
mi;qDr ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèkfu;e vFkok deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 (,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr)
ds varxZr ln`'; Lo:i ds fdlh izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/
esa nh tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufèk izlqfoèkkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs
gSaA
3-
vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 17 dh
mi&èkkjk (1) ds [k.M (d) n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] bl vfèklwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;kèkhu mDr izfr"Bku
dks 01&01&2008 ls vxyh vfèklwpuk rd mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh
micaèkksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A
[la- ,l&35015@83@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqcaèk
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 ds micaèkksa ls NwV
iznku djus lacaèkh 'krs±
1-
fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh; Hkfo";
fufèk vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls funs'kksa
ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds izcaèku gsrq viuh vè;{krk esa ,d
U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fufèk U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr gksxh tks
vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu ds izfr
Hkfo"; fufèk esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj
mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ]
¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—
(i)
fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds lacaèk esa] dkj[kkus
dk Lokeh vFkok vfèk"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj
(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds lacaèk esa] og O;fDr] vFkok izkfèkdkjh
vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt ij vafre
fu;a=k.k gksA
2-
U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd djsxk
vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr (lhih,iQlh)
vFkok mlds n~okjk izkfèkÑr fdlh vfèkdkjh n~okjk le; le; ij
tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z djsxk A
3-
vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks HkfOk"; fufèk ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgs gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks
NwV iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k
tk,xkA
4-
tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr izfr"Bku
ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vFkok Hkfo"; fufèk dk lnL; gks]
mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks fu;ksDrk mls
rRdky fufèk ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA fu;ksDrk ,sls
deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk ls lap;
jkf'k;ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A
5-
fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds
n~okjk le;≤ ij vfèkfu;e ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr nj ls ns;
va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg
dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh
cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vfèkfu;e
dh èkkjk 7 ds micaèkksa ds vuqlkj lkèkkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h
gksxk A
6-
fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk
vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls
Hkfo"; fufèk dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A
7268
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7-
U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk
n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfofèkd lhek rd ykuk
gksxk A
8-
fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksfèkr fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkfèkdkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fufèk ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vfèkla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku
ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A
9-
izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;eksa ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk
?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vfèkfu;e
vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fuèkkZfjr fofHkUu micaèkksa ds
varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A
10-
;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kksèku] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku fu;eksa dh
rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vfèkd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl ds
fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kksèku ds yafcr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw
fd;k tk,xk A
11-
fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kksèku {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;
Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks
viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A
12-
fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh Hkfo";
fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr vfèkdre le; lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk
ls fuiVk, tk,axs A
13-
U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds lacaèk esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk
j[k&j[kko djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vfèkekur%
bYkSDVªkWfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkofèkd :i ls tc
dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr
n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls
lEizsf"kr djsaxs A
14-
U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus
ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk ok£"kd
fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr
fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyCèk djk, tk ldrs gSaA
iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd,
tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkofèkd :i ls vn~;ru fd;k tk,xk A
15-
fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus
ds fy, vko';d izkoèkku djsaxs A
16-
U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk
;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds Hkhrj
ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk
tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md
dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A
17-
U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fufèk ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj
la;qDr #i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfufèk
n~okjk ;Fkk vfèkjksfir vfèk'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A
18-(d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl izdkj
izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) :i eas gksuh
pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa visf{kr
lqfoèkk ds miyCèk u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ
lacafèkr {ks=kh; HkfOk"; fufèk vk;qDr dks bldh lwpuk
nsaxs A
([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A
(x) MhesV [kkrk bl lacaèk esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh
vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj
n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e ls
[kksyk tk, A
(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn
dh nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh
U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;;
ekuk tk,xk A
19-
izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A
LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk] 1952 ls
NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds
vuqjksèk ij lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks lhèks varfjr
djsxk A
20-
LFkkiuk lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks mu fu{ksikxkj
izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr)
ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk
esa U;kl ds eku ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~ izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn
esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml
èkujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj
vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL;
ds Hkfo"; fufèk lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk
vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ
vuqeksnu ds 'krkZèkhu fufèk ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls ckè;dkjh
O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr gksa A
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7269
21-
U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k
vU; laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu]
cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A
22-
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus dh
lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSfèkd :i ls fu;ksDrk
vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkfèkdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij muds
lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A
23-
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa
lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds
Hkhrj rRdky fufèk;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu
ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fufèk;ksa ds varj.k esa
dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xk A
24-(d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrk fdlh
;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls
ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds 'krkZèkhu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d
le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu dks vfèkdkj
gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd n~okjk
[kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq, [kpZ
fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A
([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls
31 ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj
ys[kk&ijh{khr rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ
dh izfr lhèks bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k
dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh tkus okyh tkudkjh
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr dh tk,xh
RkFkk lacfèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyCèk
djkbZ tk,xh A
(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vfèkd
ds fy, fu;qDr u fd;k tk, A
25-
yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vkèkkj esa
dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA
26-
fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{k.k
gsrq ,slh lqfoèkkvksa dk izkoèkku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k izHkkjksa dk
Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vfèkfu;e dh
èkkjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤
ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A
27-
U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh
mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacafèkr O;fDr dks bl lacaèk esa
dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xh A
28-
fdlh Hkh èkks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds iQyLo:i
VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk uqdlku iwjk
djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A
29-
fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k] lgk;d
daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;kfn ds
iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko gksrk
gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds
fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A
30-
,d gh Hkfo"; fufèk VªLV esa ,d ls vfèkd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkb;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls
vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";
fufèk VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ
djsxk A
31-
dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks± dks
c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku
bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè; gksaxs A
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2014
S.O.
2943.—Whereas M/s. Hindustan Charity
Trust [under Code No. WB/42498 in Sub-Regional Office,
Park Street] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment)
has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section
(1) of Section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952)
(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2.
And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees
are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees’
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 01-01-2008 until
further notification.
[No. S-35015/83/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION
FROM THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME, 1952
1.
The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
7270
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to
time. The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from
the Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For
this purpose, the “employer” shall mean :—
(i)
In relation to an establishment, which is a
factory, the owner or occupier of the factory:
and.
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the
person who, or the authority, that has the
ultimate control over the affairs of the
establishment.
2.
The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
Central
Government/Central
Provident
Fund
Commissioner (CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3.
All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the act,
who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted
exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4.
Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5.
The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees
the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from
time to time by the 15th of each month following the month
for which the contributions are payable. The employer
shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the
provisions of Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in
payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6.
The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7.
Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board
of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8.
The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9.
The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central Government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme
framed thereunder.
10.
Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11.
No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give
a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12.
All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organisation.
13.
The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner.
14.
The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject
to nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall
remain in custody of employee to be updated periodically
by the Trustees when presented to them.
15.
The employer shall make necessary provisions to
enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16.
The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file
such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by
the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within the
specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
17.
The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of
the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7271
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per
directions of the Government shall make the Board of
Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may
be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner
or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of
Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the
required facility is not available in the areas where
the trust operates the Board of Trustees shall
inform the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise
register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank
of India and Central Government in accordance
with the instructions issued by the Central
Government in this regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the
Trust. Also all types of cost of investments like
brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be
treated as incidental cost of investment by the
Trust.
19.
All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that
effect.
20.
The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules
and transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event
of his/her leaving service of the employer and any other
receipts by sale of the securities or other investments
standing in the name of the Fund subject to the prior
approval of the Regional PF Commissioner.
21.
Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22.
The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23.
The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also
give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within
the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the
event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit
by a qualified independent Chartered Accountant
annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO
shall have the right to have the accounts re-audited
by any other qualified auditor and the expenses
so incurred shall be borne by the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this
office by the Auditors directly within six months
after the closing of the financial year from 1st
April to 31st March. The format of the balance
sheet and the information to be furnished in the
report shall be prescribed by the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation and made available
with the RPFC office in electronic format as well
as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the
relaxation withdrawn from the first day of the
next succeeding financial year.
25.
Any loss for the three consecutive financial years
or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
26.
The employer shall provide for such facilities for
inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause
(a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15
days from the close of every month.
27.
In the event of any violation of the conditions for
grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28.
In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any
fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
7272
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
29.
In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger,
acquisition, sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary,
whether wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted
shall stand revoked and the establishment should promptly
report the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30.
In case there are more than one unit/establishment
participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all
the trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/
responsible for any default committed by any of the
trustees/employer of any of the participating units and
the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the
trustees of the common Provident Fund Trust.
31.
The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
ubZ fnYYkh] 18 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2944-—tcfd eSllZ ,fDll cSad fyfeVsM (dksM
la[;k ,e,p@45239 ds varxZr ckanzk {ks=kh; dk;kZy; esa) (,rnqijkar
izfr"Bku ds :i esa lan£Hkr) us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ,oa izdh.kZ
micaèk vfèkfu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19) (,rnqijkar vfèkfu;e
ds :i esa lan£Hkr) dh èkkjk 17 dh mi&èkkjk (1) ds [k.M (d)
ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gS A
2-
vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds
lacaèk esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;e mDr vfèkfu;e dh
èkkjk 6 eas fofu£n"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de
mi;qDr ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèkfu;e vFkok deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 (,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr)
ds varxZr ln`'k; Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds
laca/ esa nh tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufèk izlqfoèkkvksa dk Hkh ykHk
mBk jgs gSaA
3-
vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj] mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 17 dh
mi&èkkjk (1) ds [k.M (d) n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] bl vfèklwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;kèkhu] mDr izfr"Bku
dks 01&09&2013 ls vxyh vfèklwpuk rd mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh
micaèkksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A
[la- ,l&35015@94@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqcaèk
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 ds micaèkksa ls NwV
iznku djus lacaèkh 'krs±
1-
fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh; Hkfo";
fufèk vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls funs'kksa
ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds izcaèku gsrq viuh vè;{krk esa ,d
U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fufèk U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr gksxh tks
vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu ds izfr
Hkfo"; fufèk esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj
mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ]
¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—
(i)
fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds lacaèk esa] dkj[kkus
dk Lokeh vFkok vfèk"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj
(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds lacaèk esa] og O;fDr] vFkok izkfèkdkjh
vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt ij vafre
fu;a=k.k gksA
2-
U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd djsxk
vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr (lhih,iQlh)
vFkok mlds n~okjk izkfèkÑr fdlh vfèkdkjh n~okjk le; le; ij
tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z djsxk A
3-
vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks HkfOk"; fufèk ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgs gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks
NwV iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k
tk,xkA
4-
tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr izfr"Bku
ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vFkok Hkfo"; fufèk dk lnL; gks]
mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks fu;ksDrk mls
rRdky fufèk ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA fu;ksDrk ,sls
deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk ls lap;
jkf'k;ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A
5-
fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds
n~okjk le;≤ ij vfèkfu;e ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr nj ls ns;
va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg
dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh
cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vfèkfu;e
dh èkkjk 7 Fk ds micaèkksa ds vuqlkj lkèkkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk
nk;h gksxk A
6-
fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk
vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls
Hkfo"; fufèk dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A
7-
U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk
n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfofèkd lhek rd ykuk
gksxk A
8-
fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksfèkr fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkfèkdkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fufèk ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vfèkla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku
ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A
9-
izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;eksa ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7273
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk
?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vfèkfu;e
vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fuèkkZfjr fofHkUu micaèkksa ds
varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A
10-
;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kksèku] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku fu;eksa dh
rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vfèkd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl ds
fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kksèku ds yafcr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw
fd;k tk,xk A
11-
fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kksèku {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;
Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks
viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A
12-
fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh Hkfo";
fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr vfèkdre le; lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk
ls fuiVk, tk,axs A
13-
U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds lacaèk esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk
j[k&j[kko djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vfèkekur%
bYkSDVªkWfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkofèkd :i ls tc
dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr
n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls
lEizsf"kr djsaxs A
14-
U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus
ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk ok£"kd
fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr
fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyCèk djk, tk ldrs gSaA
iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd,
tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkofèkd :i ls vn~;ru fd;k tk,xk A
15-
fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus
ds fy, vko';d izkoèkku djsaxs A
16-
U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk
;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds Hkhrj
ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk
tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md
dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A
17-
U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fufèk ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj
la;qDr #i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfufèk
n~okjk ;Fkk vfèkjksfir vfèk'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A
18-(d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl izdkj
izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) :i eas gksuh
pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa
visf{kr lqfoèkk ds miyCèk u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh
cksMZ lacafèkr {ks=kh; HkfOk"; fufèk vk;qDr dks bldh
lwpuk nsaxs A
([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A
(x) MhesV [kkrk bl lacaèk esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh
vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj
n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e ls
[kksyk tk, A
(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn
dh nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh
U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;;
ekuk tk,xk A
19-
izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A
LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk] 1952 ls
NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds
vuqjksèk ij lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks lhèks varfjr
djsxk A
20-
LFkkiuk lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks mu fu{ksikxkj
izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr)
ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk
esa U;kl ds uke ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~ izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn
esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml
èkujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj
vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL;
ds Hkfo"; fufèk lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk
vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ
vuqeksnu ds 'krkZèkhu fufèk ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls ckè;dkjh
O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr gksa A
21-
U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k
vU; laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu]
cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A
22-
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus dh
lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSfèkd :i ls fu;ksDrk
vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkfèkdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij muds
lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A
23-
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa
lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds
Hkhrj rRdky fufèk;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu
7274
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fufèk;ksa ds varj.k esa
dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xk A
24-(d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrk fdlh
;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls
ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds 'krkZèkhu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d
le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu dks vfèkdkj
gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd n~okjk
[kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq, [kpZ
fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A
([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls
31 ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj
ys[kk&ijh{khr rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ
dh izfr lhèks bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k
dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh tkus okyh tkudkjh
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr dh tk,xh
RkFkk lacfèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyCèk
djkbZ tk,xh A
(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vfèkd
ds fy, fu;qDr u fd;k tk, A
25-
yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vkèkkj esa
dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA
26-
fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{k.k
gsrq ,slh lqfoèkkvksa dk izkoèkku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k izHkkjksa dk
Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vfèkfu;e dh
èkkjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤
ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A
27-
U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh
mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacafèkr O;fDr dks bl lacaèk esa
dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xh A
28-
fdlh Hkh èkks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds iQyLo:i
VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk uqdlku iwjk
djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A
29-
fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k] lgk;d
daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;knh ds
iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko gksrk
gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds
fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A
30-
,d gh Hkfo"; fuèkh VªLV esa ,d ls vfèkd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkb;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls
vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";
fufèk VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ
djsxk A
31-
dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks± dks
c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku
bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè; gksaxs A
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2014
S.O.
2944.—Whereas M/s. Axis Bank Limited
[under Code No. MH/45239 in Regional Office, Bandra]
(hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied
for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section
17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to
as the Act).
2.
And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees
are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees’
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 01-09-2013 until
further notification.
[No. S-35015/94/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION
FROM THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME, 1952
1.
The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to
time. The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from
the Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For
this purpose, the “employer” shall mean :—
(i)
In relation to an establishment, which is a
factory, the owner or occupier of the factory:
and
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7275
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the person
who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control
over the affairs of the establishment.
2.
The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
Central Government/Central Provident Fund Commissioner
(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3.
All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the Act,
who have been eligible to become members of the Provident
Fund’ had the establishment not been granted exemption,
shall be enrolled as members.
4.
Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5.
The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees
the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from
time to time by the 15th of each month following the month
for which the contributions are payable. The employer shall
be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of
Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues
towards the Board of Trustees.
6.
The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7.
Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board
of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8.
The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9.
The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central Government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme framed
thereunder.
10.
Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11.
No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give
a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12.
All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organisation.
13.
The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner.
14.
The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject
to nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall
remain in custody of employee to be updated periodically
by the Trustees when presented to them.
15.
The employer shall make necessary provisions to
enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16.
The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file
such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by
the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within the
specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
17.
The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of
the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per
directions of the Government shall make the Board of
Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may
be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner
or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of
Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the
required facility is not available in the areas where
the trust operates the Board of Trustees shall
7276
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
inform the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise
register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank
of India and Central Government in accordance
with the instructions issued by the Central
Government in this regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the
Trust. Also all types of cost of investments like
brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be
treated as incidental cost of investment by the
Trust.
19.
All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that
effect.
20.
The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules
and transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event
of his/her leaving service of the employer and any other
receipts by sale of the securities or other investments
standing in the name of the Fund subject to the prior
approval of the Regional PF Commissioner.
21.
Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22.
The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23.
The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also
give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within
the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the
event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by
the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by
a qualified independent Chartered Accountant
annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO
shall have the right to have the accounts re-audited
by any other qualified auditor and the expenses
so incurred shall be borne by the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this
office by the Auditors directly within six months
after the closing of the financial year from 1st
April to 31st March. The format of the balance
sheet and the information to be furnished in the
report shall be prescribed by the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation and made available
with the RPFC office in electronic format as well
as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the
relaxation withdrawn from the first day of the
next succeeding financial year.
25.
Any loss for the three consecutive financial years or
erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial
year.
26.
The employer shall provide for such facilities for
inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause (a)
of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27.
In the event of any violation of the conditions for
grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28.
In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any
fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29.
In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition,
sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether
wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand
revoked and the establishment should promptly report the
matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30.
In case there are more than one unit/establishment
participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the
trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible
for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7277
of any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take
suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common
Provident Fund Trust.
31.
The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
ubZ fnYYkh] 18 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2945-—tcfd eSllZ VkVk gkmflax MsoyiesaV
daiuh fyfeVsM (dksM la[;k ,e,p@35195 ds varxZr ckanzk {ks=kh;
dk;kZy; esa) (,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :i esa lan£Hkr) us deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fufèk ,oa izdh.kZ micaèk vfèkfu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19)
(,rnqijkar vfèkfu;e ds :i esa lan£Hkr) dh èkkjk 17 dh mi&èkkjk
(1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gS A
2-
vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds
lacaèk esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;e mDr vfèkfu;e dh
èkkjk 6 eas fofu£n"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de
mi;qDr ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèkfu;e vFkok deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 (,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr)
ds varxZr ln`'; Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds
laca/ esa nh tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufèk izlqfoèkkvksa dk Hkh ykHk
mBk jgs gSaA
3-
vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 17 dh
mi&èkkjk (1) ds [k.M (d) n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] bl vfèklwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;èkhu mDr izfr"Bku
dks 01&01&1991 ls vxyh vfèklwpuk rd mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh
micaèkksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A
[la- ,l&35015@110@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqcaèk
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 ds micaèkksa ls NwV
iznku djus lacaèkh 'krs±
1-
fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh; Hkfo";
fufèk vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls funs'kksa
ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds izcaèku gsrq viuh vè;{krk esa ,d
U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fufèk U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr gksxh tks
vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu ds izfr
Hkfo"; fufèk esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj
mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ]
¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—
(i)
fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds lacaèk esa] dkj[kkus
dk Lokeh vFkok vfèk"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj
(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds lacaèk esa] og O;fDr] vFkok izkfèkdkjh
vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt ij vafre
fu;a=k.k gksA
2-
U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd djsxk
vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr (lhih,iQlh)
vFkok mlds n~okjk izkfèkÑr fdlh vfèkdkjh n~okjk le;≤
ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z djsxk A
3-
vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks HkfOk"; fufèk ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgs gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks
NwV iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k
tk,xkA
4-
tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr izfr"Bku
ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vFkok Hkfo"; fufèk dk lnL; gks]
mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks fu;ksDrk mls
rRdky fufèk ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA fu;ksDrk ,sls
deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk ls lap;
jkf'k;ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A
5-
fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds
n~okjk le;≤ ij vfèkfu;e ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr nj ls ns;
va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg
dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh
cksMZ dks fdUgha ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vfèkfu;e
dh èkkjk 7 ds micaèkksa ds vuqlkj lkèkkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h
gksxk A
6-
fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk
vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls
Hkfo"; fufèk dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A
7-
U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk
n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfofèkd lhek rd ykuk
gksxk A
8-
fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksfèkr fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkfèkdkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fufèk ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vfèkla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku
ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A
9-
izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;eksa ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk
?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vfèkfu;e
vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fuèkkZfjr fofHkUu micaèkksa ds
varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A
10-
;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kksèku] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku fu;eksa dh
rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vfèkd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl ds
fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kksèku ds yafcr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw
fd;k tk,xk A
7278
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11-
fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kksèku {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;
Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks
viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A
12-
fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh Hkfo";
fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr vfèkdre le; lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk
ls fuiVk, tk,axs A
13-
U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds lacaèk esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk
j[k&j[kko djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vfèkekur%
bYkSDVªkWfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkofèkd :i ls tc
dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr
n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls
lEizsf"kr djsaxs A
14-
U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus
ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk ok£"kd
fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr
fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyCèk djk, tk ldrs gSaA
iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd,
tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkofèkd :i ls vn~;ru fd;k tk,xk A
15-
fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus
ds fy, vko';d izkoèkku djsaxs A
16-
U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk
;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds Hkhrj
ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk
tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md
dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A
17-
U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fufèk ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj
la;qDr #i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfufèk
n~okjk ;Fkk vfèkjksfir vfèk'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A
18-(d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl izdkj
izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) :i eas gksuh
pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa visf{kr
lqfoèkk ds miyCèk u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ
lacafèkr {ks=kh; HkfOk"; fufèk vk;qDr dks bldh lwpuk
nsaxs A
([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A
(x) MhesV [kkrk bl lacaèk esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh
vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj
n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e ls
[kksyk tk, A
(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn
dh nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh
U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;;
ekuk tk,xk A
19-
izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A
LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk] 1952 ls
NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds
vuqjksèk ij lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks lhèks varfjr
djsxk A
20-
LFkkiuk lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks mu fu{ksikxkj
izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr)
ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk
esa U;kl ds eku ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~ izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn
esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml
èkujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj
vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL;
ds Hkfo"; fufèk lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk
vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ
vuqeksnu ds 'krkZèkhu fufèk ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls ckè;dkjh
O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr gksa A
21-
U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k
vU; laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu]
cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A
22-
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus dh
lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSfèkd :i ls fu;ksDrk
vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkfèkdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij muds
lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A
23-
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa
lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds
Hkhrj rRdky fufèk;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu
ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fufèk;ksa ds varj.k esa
dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xk A
24-(d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrk fdlh
;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls
ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds 'krkZèkhu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d
le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu dks vfèkdkj
gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd n~okjk
[kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq, [kpZ
fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7279
([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls
31 ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj
ys[kk&ijh{khr rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ
dh izfr lhèks bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k
dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh tkus okyh tkudkjh
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr dh tk,xh
RkFkk lacfèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyCèk
djkbZ tk,xh A
(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vfèkd
ds fy, fu;qDr u fd;k tk, A
25-
yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vkèkkj esa
dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA
26-
fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{k.k
gsrq ,slh lqfoèkkvksa dk izkoèkku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k izHkkjksa dk
Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vfèkfu;e dh
èkkjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤
ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A
27-
U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh
mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacafèkr O;fDr dks bl lacaèk esa
dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xh A
28-
fdlh Hkh èkks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds iQyLo:i
VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk uqdlku iwjk
djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A
29-
fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k] lgk;d
daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;knh ds
iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko gksrk
gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds
fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A
30-
,d gh Hkfo"; fuèkh VªLV esa ,d ls vfèkd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkb;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls
vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";
fufèk VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ
djsxk A
31-
dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks± dks
c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku
bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè; gksaxs A
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2014
S.O.
2945.—Whereas M/s. Tata Housing
Development Company Limited [under Code No. MH/
35195 in Regional Office, Bandra] (hereinafter referred
to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under
clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Employees’
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
(19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2.
And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees
are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees’
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 01-01-1991 until
further notification.
[No. S-35015/110/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION
FROM THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME, 1952
1.
The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to
time. The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from
the Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For
this purpose, the “employer” shall mean :—
(i)
In relation to an establishment, which is a
factory, the owner or occupier of the factory:
and .
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the
person who, or the authority, that has the
ultimate control over the affairs of the
establishment.
2.
The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
Central
Government/Central
Provident
Fund
Commissioner (CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3.
All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the act,
who have been eligible to become members of the
7280
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted
exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4.
Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5.
The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees
the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from
time to time by the 15th of each month following the month
for which the contributions are payable. The employer
shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the
provisions of Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in
payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6.
The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7.
Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board
of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8.
The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9.
The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central Government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme
framed thereunder.
10.
Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11.
No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give
a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12.
All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organisation.
13.
The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner.
14.
The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject
to nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall
remain in custody of employee to be updated periodically
by the Trustees when presented to them.
15.
The employer shall make necessary provisions to
enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16.
The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file
such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by
the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within the
specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
17.
The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of
the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per
directions of the Government shall make the Board of
Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may
be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner
or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of
Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the
required facility is not available in the areas where
the trust operates the Board of Trustees shall
inform the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise
register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank
of India and Central Government in accordance
with the instructions issued by the Central
Government in this regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7281
Trust. Also all types of cost of investments like
brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be
treated as incidental cost of investment by the
Trust.
19.
All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that
effect.
20.
The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules
and transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event
of his/her leaving service of the employer and any other
receipts by sale of the securities or other investments
standing in the name of the Fund subject to the prior
approval of the Regional PF Commissioner.
21.
Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22.
The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23.
The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also
give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within
the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the
event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit
by a qualified independent Chartered Accountant
annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO
shall have the right to have the accounts re-audited
by any other qualified auditor and the expenses
so incurred shall be borne by the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this
office by the Auditors directly within six months
after the closing of the financial year from 1st
April to 31st March. The format of the balance
sheet and the information to be furnished in the
report shall be prescribed by the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation and made available
with the RPFC office in electronic format as well
as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the
relaxation withdrawn from the first day of the
next succeeding financial year.
25.
Any loss for the three consecutive financial years
or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
26.
The employer shall provide for such facilities for
inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause
(a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15
days from the close of every month.
27.
In the event of any violation of the conditions for
grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28.
In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any
fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29.
In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger,
acquisition, sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary,
whether wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted
shall stand revoked and the establishment should promptly
report the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30.
In case there are more than one unit/establishment
participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all
the trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/
responsible for any default committed by any of the
trustees/employer of any of the participating units and
the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the
trustees of the common Provident Fund Trust.
31.
The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
ubZ fnYyh] 7 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2946-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
7282
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fuxe fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 54@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
05@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th November, 2014
S.O.
2946.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 54/2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Bharat sanchar Nigam Limited and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 05/11/2014.
[No. L-42025/03/2014-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present:Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 8th day of October, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.54/2006
Between:
Sri K.V.V. Prasad,
S/o Ramaiah,
C/o Pala Venkat Rao,
Gaddalagunta Palem,
Ongole,
Prakasam District.
...Petitioner
AND
1.
The Chief General Manager
(Telecom), B.S.N.L.,
A.P. Circle,
Door Sanchar Bhawan,
Nampally Station Road,
Hyderabad.
2.
The General Manager
(Telecom), B.S.N.L.,
Ongole,
Prakasam district.
...Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. V. Govinda Rajulu & A.V.
Rama Rao, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
Sri MC. Jacob, Advocate
AWARD
This petition filed invoking Sec.2 A (2) of the I.D.
Act, 1947 by Sri K.V.V. Prasad, the workman seeking
for declaring the action of the Respondents in disengaging
the Petitioner as illegal, void, arbitrary and contrary to
the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the
Indian Constitution and consequently direct the
Respondents to reengage the Petitioner and regularize
his services with all consequential benefits.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are
as follows:
Petitioner was appointed as casual mazdoor in the
Respondent organization and worked without any
complaint till September, 1999 and further upto
31.12.2000 on ACG-17, on voucher payment under
SDOT, Ongole as and when the work exists. From
1.6.1984 to 31.8.1992 he worked for 1818 days under
the Assistant Engineer, Railway Electrification (P&T)
Madras; from 1.8.1993 to 31.1.1994 he worked for 152
days; from 31.3.1996 to 31.12.1996 worked for 282 days;
from 31.1.1997 to 31.12.1997 for 231 days; from 1.1.1998
to 31.8.1998 for 225 days – he worked under SDOT,
Ongole and from 1.9.1998 to 30.9.1999 he worked under
SDE (F-10B) New Telephone, Ongole for 273 days. Thus,
the Petitioner worked for 2981 days in total in the
Respondent organization as casual mazdoor. Thereafter
he was engaged on ACG -17 basis till 31.12.2000. Since
1.10.2001 he was not reengaged and he was not
regularized as in the case of other casual mazdoors who
were regularized though they are juniors to the Petitioner
in all aspects. Since the year 2001 the officials of the 2nd
Respondent office informing the Petitioners that they
will reengage him whenever there is work and
subsequently regularization shall be made. But for the
reasons not known to the Petitioner he was never reengage
till date in any kind of work. He worked for more than
240 days in the year 1996 and 1998-99. He did not stop
away from work at any point of time on his volition.
Disengagement of the Petitioner is illegal, dishonest and
enforceable. Respondent reengaged number of his juniors
as mazdoors and they were regularized by granting
temporary status in Group-D posts. Petitioner possesses
the requisite qualification for reengagement and
conferment of temporary status and for regularization of
his service. Despite making representations to the
Respondents his case was not considered. The last
representation is made on 19.5.2005. The action of the
management is in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the
Indian Constitution and violation of Sections 25(F), 25(H)
and 25(G) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the
Petitioner has been working since the year 1984 and
disengaged from 1.1.2001, the case of the Petitioner for
regularization is very much prior to the year 1998, thus,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7283
the imposition of ban in recruitment in Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd., is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner.
Hence, the petition.
2.
Respondents filed a counter with the averments
in brief as follows:
Petitioner never worked under SDOT, Ongole. The
working days certificate submittd by the Petitioner in the
Railway Electrification Project was found bogus and as
such he was given one month notice by proceedings dated
7.12.1993 and his engagement was terminated w.e.f.
1.4.1994 by proceedings dated 28.3.1994. Since his
services were terminated for producing bogus certificates
after giving 30 days of notice of termination, the entire
contentions made by the Petitioner are liable to be
rejected. The question of seniority etc claimed by the
Petitioner does not arise. Petitioner’s contention that
authorities told him that he will be reengaged
subsequently etc are brought in only for the purpose of
this proceedings and is liable to be rejected. His
contention that he worked till September, 1999 and
worked upto 31.12.2001 on ACG-17 is specifically
denied. The list of casual mazdoors engaged by the
Respondents during the said period does not bear
Petitioner’s name. The contentions raised basing on the
working days is also liable to be rejected. The Petitioner's
contentions regarding the period of work is denied and
the certificate produced by the Petitioner in this regard
was found bogus and he was disengaged by the authorities
on 1.1.1994. since he was never engaged, question of
regularization on completion of 240 days etc., will not
arise as per rules. No one by name the Petitioner worked
with the Department during the period upto 31.12.2000.
Contentions of the Petitioner that the Respondent
authorities violated proceedings of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and Constitution of India is untenable and liable
to be rejected. Petitioner never challenged the
proceedings issued as early as 17.12.1993 and 28.3.1994
wherein he was directed to produce the original
documents for verification of work days before
30.11.1993 and he could not produce the certificates. The
present proceedings attract delay, latches on the part of
the Petitioner. Petitioner is not entitled for any of the
reliefs sought for and the petition is liable to be dismissed
with costs.
3.
To substantiate the contentions of the Petitioner he
examined himself as WW1 and marked Ex.W1 to W7.
On behalf of the Respondent management, chief
examination affidavit of MW1 was filed. But MW1 was
not cross examined for the Petitioner though the said
witness was present again and again before the court and
ample opportunity was given to the Petitioner to cross
examine him. Through MW1, Ex.M1 to Ex.M3 marked.
4.
Heard the arguments.
5.
The points that arise for determination are:-
I.
Whether the action of the Respondent management
in disengaging the Petitioner is illegal, void,
arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and Indian Constitution and if
so on what grounds?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for the reliefs
sought for?
6.
Point No.I:
It is the contention of the Petitioner that he worked
as casual mazdoor with the Respondent organization for
about 2981 days, but his services were not regularized
and temporary status in Group-D category was never
confirmed on him though he was entitled for the same
and on the other hand he was disengaged by the
Respondent organization since 1.1.2001, which is
neither legal nor justified. He is relying upon his own
evidence as WW1 and Ex.W1 to W7 in this regard.
7.
Ex.W1 is the Photostat copy of representation dated
19.5.2002 said to have been given by the Petitioner to
the Respondent organization. This documents does not
bear signature of the Petitioner or any other person. It
does not bear any acknowledgement of the Respondent
authorities to show that this representation was actually
submitted to the Respondent organization by the
Petitioner. Ex.W2 is said to have been a certificate issued
by Asst. Engineer, Railway Electrification, which is a
copy of the document but not original. The signatory of
this document is not examined to prove the same. Same
is the case with Ex.W3 to W7, the copies of mazdoor
days certificates. The person who issued these documents
is not examined before the court by the Petitioner. This
lapse assumes importance in this case since it is the
contention of the Respondent that Petitioner’s services
were terminated by the Respondent since it was found
that the service certificates produced by him were not
genuine documents and when he was asked to produce
original service certificates in the year 1994, he failed to
produce the same his services were terminated by virtue
of order dated 28.3.1994 after giving due notice to him.
The fact remains that even in the present petition
proceedings, Petitioner never produced any original
certificates.
8.
To substantiate the contentions of the Respondent
that the services of the Petitioner were terminated by
virtue of orders dated 28.3.1994, Respondent produced
the attested copies of proceedings dated 28.3.1994 and
also 17.12.1993. They also produced attested copy of
mazdoor list from 1993 to 1998 to show that Petitioner
never worked as mazdoor with the said organization
during this period. The evidence of MW1 remains
unchallenged, as the Petitioner never chosen to cross
examine MW1 inspite of giving ample opportunity to
7284
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
him. MW1 categorically stated in his deposition that the
working days certificate submitted by the Petitioner in the
Railway Electrification Project was found to be bogus and
as such he was given one month notice vide proceedings
dated 17.12.1993 and his engagement was terminated w.e.f.
1.4.1994 by proceedings dated 28.3.1994, for submission
of bogus certificates. He categorically contended that the
contention of the Petitioner that he worked with
Respondent organization upto 31.12.2001 is totally
incorrect ant that the mazdoor list maintained by the
Respondent organization clearly show that Petitioner
never worked with the said organization as being claimed
by him.
9.
In view of the above discussion, evidence on record,
it is very much clear that the contentions put forth by the
Petitioner are far from truth and that his services were
disengaged by the Respondent organization by virtue of
proceedings dated 28.3.1994 for the reason that he
produced bogus service certificates, and that there is no
truth in the contentions of the Petitioner that he was
disengaged by the Respondent corporation from 1.1.2001.
This point is answered accordingly.
10.
Point No. II:
In view of the finding given in Point No.I, Petitioner
is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for.
This point is answered accordingly.
Result:
In the result, petition is dismissed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for
Petitioner
the Respondent
WW1: Sri K.V.V. Prasad
MW1: Sri I. Srinivasa Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photostat copy of representation by WW1 to
Respondent dt.19.5.2005
Ex.W2:
Photostat copy of service certificate for the
period from 1.6.1984 to 31.1.1992
Ex.W3:
Photostat copy of mazdoor days certificate for
the period from 1.8.1993 to 31.1.1994
Ex.W4:
Photostat copy of mazdoor days certificate for
the period from 21.3.1996 to 31.12.1996
Ex.W5:
Photostat copy of mazdoor days certificate for
the period from 31.1.1997 to 31.12.1997
Ex.W6:
Photostat copy of mazdoor days certificate for
the period from 1.1.1998 to 31.8.1998
Ex.W7:
Photostat copy of mazdoor days certificate for
the period from 1.9.1998 to 31.5.1999
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photostat copy of mazdoor list from 1993 to
1998
Ex.M2:
Photostat copy of proceedings dated
17.12.1993
Ex.M3:
Photostat copy of proceedings dated 28.3.1994
ubZ fnYyh] 7 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2947-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jktLFkku
ijek.kq fo|qr ?kj ;wfuV 1&6 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;] t;iqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 66@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 05@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@05@2006&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th November, 2014
S.O.
2947.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 66/2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Rajasthan Parmanu Vidyut Ghar
Unit 1 to 6 and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 05/11/2014.
[No. L-42012/05/2006-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D.66/2006
Reference No.L-42012/5/2006-IR(DU)
dated: 28.9.2006
The Gen. Secretary
Rajasthan Anushakti Pariyojna
Karamchari Sangh, (INTUC)
Pratap Circle, Rawatbhata Via Kota
Rawatbhata (Kota)-323307.
V/s
The Station Director
Rajasthan Parmanu Vidyut Ghar
Unit 1 to 6, Rawatbhata (Kota).
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7285
Present:
For the Applicant Union :
None.
For the Non-applicant
:
Sh. Dharmendra Jain, Adv.
AWARD
30.9.2014
1.
The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of sub-section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:-
“Whether the demand of the Rajasthan Anushakti
Pariyojna Karamchari Sangh for grant of Promotion
to Shri Deepak Anjana as skilled ‘D’ w.e.f. 1.11.2001
is legal & justified? If yes, to what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to and from which date?”
2.
Pursuant to the reference order dated 28.9.2006 a
case was registered as CGIT case no,66/2006. Registered
notices were sent to both the parties on 21.11.2006 fixing
20.12.2006 for filing of claim. The court became vacant on
4.7.2006 due to retirement of the then Presiding Officer Sh.
R.C.Sharma. Regional Labour Commissioner Sh.
M.C.Sharma was in-charge of the court & the case was
registered under his seal & signature. Notices sent vide
order dated 16.11.2006 were treated not served because of
non receipt of the acknowledgement back to the court.
3.
The next presiding officer took charge on 3.9.2009 &
judicial working started taking place in the file for
advancement of the case. As per order dated 27.11.2009
notices were sent to both the parties fixing 6.1.2010 for
filing statement of claim. Acknowledgement concerned
with applicant as well as opposite party is available on
record which indicates that notices have been served upon
the parties. On 21.5.2010 learned counsel for opposite party
appeared & filed his vakalatnama on behalf of Station
Director. Vakalatnama has been filed by learned counsel
for the applicant on 23.12.2010 & opportunity has been
given for filing statement of claim by 3.3.2011. Prior to
3.3.2011 on 28.10.2010 opportunity was given to applicant
to file statement of claim & authority letter by 23.12.2010
& further this opportunity of filing statement of claim was
extended till 3.3.2011.
4.
Orders sheet dated 3.3.2011 indicates that time was
taken by applicant to get the statement of claim signed so
that the same may be filed by next date hence, till 11.4.2011
opportunity was given to file statement of claim. On
11.4.2011 also statement of claim was not filed & it was
alleged that after securing the signature statement of claim
will be filed hence, 27.6.2011 date fixed for filing statement
of claim. On 27.6.2011 claim was not filed. After 27.6.2011
eighteen dates have been given but till now statement of
claim has not been filed. On 1.4.2014 representative of the
union Sh. P.B. Sharma (Retired) appeared & moved
adjournment for time to file statement of claim which was
granted with last opportunity & 1.5.2014 was fixed for filing
statement of claim yet claim was not filed. On 1.5.2014
none appeared from both sides & 3.6.2014 was fixed for
further order. On 3.6.2014 Presiding Officer was on leave,
applicant was absent & opposite party was present. Next
date 7.7.2014 was fixed on 3.6.2014. From 7.7.2014 till
15.9.2014 learned counsels were on strike hence no adverse
order was passed for not filing statement of claim. On
25.8.2014 date was fixed for filing statement of claim by
15.9.2014 but after the end of the strike by the learned
counsels also statement of claim has not been filed till
date fixed on 29.9.2014.
5.
Looking into above facts & circumstances & the
lack of the interest in applicant to continue proceeding of
the case & non-appearance, the case was reserved for
award.
6.
It is evident from the entire proceeding taken up by
the tribunal to adjudicate the reference that the applicant
is not interested in bringing the claim for adjudication
before the tribunal. Long interval between the date of
service of notice & date of reservation of award has failed
to peruse the applicant to file the claim although at one
occasion on 3.3.2011. It has been alleged that only
signature of applicant is required before filing the
statement of claim. It is pertinent to note that applicant
has been served in person & acknowledgement is available
on record. Beside this it is also important to note that the
Hon’ble Ministry vide reference order dated 28.9.2006 has
mandated the applicant to file the case before the tribunal
within 15 days from the date of receipt of the reference
forwarding the copy of such statement of claim to opposite
parties involved in the dispute. Failure on the part of
applicant to comply of the order of the Ministry & direction
of the court to file statement of claim is indicative of the
fact that applicant is not having any interest to pursue the
case further. Under above circumstances, no material could
be brought on record for adjudication of the reference
order under consideration on merits, therefore, “No Claim
Award” is passed in this matter. The reference under
adjudication is answered accordingly.
7.
Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2948-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr gSoh
bysfDVªdYl fyfeVsM] jkuhisV ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
7286
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 64@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 05@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@55@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th November, 2014
S.O.
2948.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 64/2014)
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 Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,
Ranipet and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 05/11/2014
[No. L-42011/55/2014-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 21st October, 2014
Present:
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 64/2014
(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 Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and
their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
Anaithu Oppandha
Thozhilalar Sangam
BAP/BHEL/Ranipet
Chennai-632406
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Senior Manager/HR-IR
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
Boiler Auxilaries Plant,
Indira Gandhi
Industrial Complex
Ranipet
Chennai-632406
2nd Party/Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
:
Sri S. Parthasarathi, Advocate
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/
:
Sri F.B. Benjamin George,
Management
Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-42011/55/2014-IR
(DU) dated 05.08.2014 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the management of BHEL,
Ranipet in not considering the charter of demands
of the representative of the Petitioner Union is
justified or not? If not, to what relief the employees
are entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID No. 64/2014 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides entered appearance through their
counsel.
3.
Though Vakalat was filed on behalf of the petitioner,
the petitioner has failed to file Claim Statement in spite
of repeating postings. The petitioner as well as the counsel
were continuously absent also. The petitioner seems to
be not interested in pursuing the case. No material of
any kind has been tendered to justify an award. So the
reference is answered against the petitioner.
4.
An award is passed accordingly.
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
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 7 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2949-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jk"Vªh; oL=k
fuxe fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa 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 69@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 05@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@18@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7287
New Delhi, the 7th November, 2014
S.O.
2949.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 69/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the National Textiles Corporation Ltd.
and Others and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 05/11/2014.
[No. L-42011/18/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 15th October, 2014
Present :
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 69/2013
(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 National Textiles Corporation Ltd.,
Coimbatore and Another and their workmen)
Between :
1. The Secretary
:
1st Party/1st Petitioner
Anna Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam
Union
(ATP)
M/s. Pioneer Spinners,
Kamudhakudi, Paramakudi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram Distt.
2. The Secretary
:
1st Party/2nd Petitioner
Dr. Ambedkar Thozhilalar Sangam
Union
M/s. Pioneer Spinners,
Kamudhakudi, Paramakudi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram Distt.
3. The Secretary
:
1st Party/3rd Petitioner
Mill Thozhilalar Sangam (AITUC)
Union
M/s. Pioneer Spinners,
Kamudhakudi,
Paramakudi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram Distt.
AND
1. The General Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
National Textiles Corporation Ltd.
SRO, NTC House, PO Box No. 2409
25-B, Somasundaram Mills Road
Coimbatore-641009
2. The General Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
M/s. Pioneer Spinners
Kamudhakudi, Paramakudi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram-623719
Appearances:
For the 1st Party/
:
M/s. Ramapriya
Petitioner Unions
Gopalakrishnan, Advocate
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-42011/18/2013-IR(DU)
dated 24.05.2013 referred th following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the NTC Management
Southern Region/Coimbatore and M/s. Pioneer
Spinners Mill, Kamudakudi in respect of not
allowing the Petitioner Unions to raise Industrial
Dispute for common/general issues which fall under
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is justified or not? To
what relief the unions ae entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID No. 69/2013 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
counsel and have filed chaim and counter statement
respectively.
3.
The case has been repeatedly posted for enquiry.
However, the petitioner as well as the counsel are absent.
The petitioner has not taken steps to proceed with the
trial in spite of repeated postings and directions. So, it is
to be presumed that the petitioner is not interested in
proceeding with the case. Therefore the ID is closed.
The reference is answered accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Unions
:
None
For the 2nd Party/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] 7 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2950-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jk"Vªh; oL=k
fuxe fyfeVsM] ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
7288
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 70@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
05@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@19@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th November, 2014
S.O.
2950.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 70/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the National Textiles Corporation Ltd.
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 05/11/2014.
[No. L-42011/19/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 15th October, 2014
Present :
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 70/2013
(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 National Textile Corporation Ltd.,
Coimbatore and their workmen)
BETWEEN
The Secretary
: 1st Party/Petitioner
Sivagangai District Workers
Union
Union (AITUC)
1/87, Thondi Road
Kalayarkoil
And Three Others
AND
The Sr. Manager (HR)-L
: 2nd Party/
National Textile Corporation Ltd.
Respondent
NTC House, P.O. Box No. 2409
35-B, Somasundaram Mills Road
Coimbatore - 641009
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
:
M/s. Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan,
Petitioner Union
Advocate
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-42011/19/2013-
IR(DU) dated 24.05.2013 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the management of NTC
Ltd., Kalayarkoil in respect of not considering the
demands of the non-recognized Union is justified
or not? To what relief the representatives of the
Petitioner Unions are entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID No. 70/2013 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
counsel and have filed claim and counter statement
respectively.
3.
The case has been repeatedly posted for enquiry.
However, the petitioner as well as the counsel are absent.
The petitioner has not taken steps to proceed with the
trial in spite of repeated postings and directions. So, it is
to be presumed that the petitioner is not interested in
proceeding with the case. Therefore the ID is closed.
The reference is answered accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/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] 7 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2951-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d] Jh
jaxkfoykl vksVkbZ fLifuax ,aM ohfoax feYl] dks;EcVwj] 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 50@2013) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@212@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7289
New Delhi, the 7th November, 2014
S.O.
2951.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 50/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the General Manager, Sri Rangavilas
Ginning Spinning & Weaving Mills, Coimbatore and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 05/11/2014.
[No. L-42011/212/2012-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 15th October, 2014
Present :
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 50/2013
(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 Rangavilas Ginning, Spinning and
Weaving Mills and their workmen)
BETWEEN
The Secretary
:
1st Party/
Coimbatore Erode District
Petitioner
Dravida Panchalai
Union
Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam (MLF)
VKK Menon Road,
Sidhdhapudur
Coimbatore-641044
AND
The General Manager
:
2nd Party/
Sri Rangavilas Ginning Spinning
Respondent
and Weaving Mills,
333, Avinashi Road,
PO Box No. 1604, Peelamedu Post)
Coimbatore
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
:
M/s. Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan,
Petitioner Union
Advocate
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-42011/212/2012-
IR(DU) dated 15.04.2013 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the management of
Sri Rangavilas Ginning, Spinning and Weaving
Mills, Coimbatore in respect of not holding
discussions with Petitioner Unions viz. MLF, AITUC,
ATP, HMS and BMS for engaging woman workers
during third shift and introducing Contract Labour
system in the permanent vacancies is justified or
not? To what relief the petitioners are entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID No. 50/2013 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
counsel and have filed claim and counter statement
respectively.
3.
The case has been repeatedly posted for enquiry.
However, the petitioner as well as the counsel are absent.
The petitioner has not taken steps to proceed with the
trial in spite of repeated postings and directions. So, it is
to be presumed that the petitioner is not interested in
proceeding with the case. Therefore the ID is closed.
The reference is answered accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/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] 13 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2952-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkiQ
cSMksnk 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; v:ukdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
4@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@78@2009&vkbZvkj (ch-&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
7290
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2014
S.O.
2952.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 4/2010)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the Bank
of Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 05/11/2014.
[No. L-12011/78/2009-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present:
Shri.D.Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding Officer
(Wednesday the 27th day of July, 2014/5th Bhadrapada, 1936)
ID 4/2010
Workman
: Shri K Vijayakumaran Nair T.C.41/1171,
Lalitha Bhawan ARWA-2, Kuriathi
Manacaud P O Thiruvananthapuram
By Adv. Shri M S Vijayachandra Babu
Management : The General Manager(SZ) Bank of Baroda
Zonal Office 90, CP Ramaswamy Road,
Alwar Pet Chennai
By M/s. B. S. Krishnan Associates
This case coming up for final hearing on 13.08.2014
and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 27.08.2014 passed
the following:
AWARD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government
of India/Ministry of Labour vide its Order No-L-12011/78/
2009-IR(B-II) dated 23.11.2009 has referred the industrial
dispute Scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this
tribunal.
2.
The dispute is:
‘‘Whether the action of the management of Bank of
Baroda in removing Shri K Vijayakumaran Nair, ex-
Computer Operator working at its Thodupuzha
Branch from the service of the bank was proper and
justified? To what relief he is entitled to?’’
3.
The workman had joined as Stenographer in the
service of the management bank in 1981. While he was
working as Computer Operator at the Fort Branch,
Trivandrum he was transferred to Thodupuzha Branch on
11.08.2005. He had joined there on 19.08.2005. While he
was working there disciplinary action was initiated against
him by issuing chargesheet dated 10.08.2006. The charges
levelled against him are as under:-
“1.
Willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the
property of the Bank or any of its customer under
clause 5(d) of the Bipartite Settlement.
2.
Willful insubordination or disobedience of any
lawful and reasonable order of the management
or of a superior- under clause 5(e) of Bipartite
Settlement.
3.
Doing act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank
or gross negligence or negligence involving or
likely to involve the bank in serious loss- under
clause 5(j) of Bipartite Settlement.
4.
Remaining unauthorisedly absent without
intimation continuously for a period exceeding 30
days under clause 5(p).
5.
Failure to submit details of your assets and
liabilities – under clause 37(ii) of the Bipartite
Settlement dated 2.6.2006.
6.
Incurring debts to an extent considered by the
management as excessive – under clause 7(1) of
Bipartite Settlement.
7.
Absence without leave – under clause 7(a) of the
Bipartite Settlement.
8.
Unpunctual or irregular attendance – under clause
7(b) of the Bipartite Settlement.
9.
Neglect of work or negligence in performing duties
– clause 7(c) of the Bipartite Settlement.”
4.
The charges levelled against him are on the basis
of the allegations in the charge sheet which reads as
follows:
“1.
You were relieved from Fort Branch, Trivandrum
on 11.08.2005 on your transfer to Thodupuzha
branch and consequently, your SOD account with
Fort Branch, Trivandrum was closed. Although the
account was closed, you did not surrender the
remaining/unused cheque leaves nor you informed
details of the cheques in your possession/cheques
already issued by you in respect of the said account.
The following cheques of your closed SOD account
presented at Fort branch,Trivandrum, were to be
returned unpaid:
(i)
Cheque No.24934 dated 7.11.2005 for
` 1910/- favouring HDFC Bank presented
at Fort branch, Trivandrum & returned on
7.11.2005.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7291
(ii)
Cheque No.211614 dated 8.11.2005 for
` 1371/- favouring HSBC Bank presented
at Fort branch, Trivandrum & returned on
8.11.2005.
(iii)
Cheque No.211615 dated 05.12.2005 for
` 1371/- favouring HSBC Bank presented
at Fort branch, Trivandrum & returned on
6.12.2005.
(iv)
Cheque No.24935 dated 7.12.2005 for
` 1910/- favouring HDFC Bank presented
at Fort branch, Trivandrum & returned on
07.12.2005.
(v)
Cheque No.211616 dated 05.01.2006 for
` 1371/- favouring HSBC Bank presented
at Fort branch, Trivandrum & returned on
6.01.2006.
(vi)
Cheque No.24936 dated 09.01.2006 for
` 1910/- favouring HDFC Bank presented
at Fort branch, Trivandrum & returned on
09.01.2006.
(vii)
Cheque No.211617 dated 05.02.2006 for
` 1371/- favouring HSBC Bank presented
at Forth branch, Trivandrum & returned on
7.02.2006.
(viii)
Cheque No.24937 dated 08.02.2006 for
` 1910/- favouring HDFC Bank presented
at Fort branch, Trivandrum & returned on
08.02.2006.
(ix)
Cheque No.211617 dated 05.02.2006 for
` 1371/- favouring HSBC Bank re-
presented at Fort branch, Trivandrum &
returned on 14.02.2006.
(x)
Cheque No.24938 dated 07.03.2006 for
` 1910/- favouring HDFC Bank presented
at Fort branch, Trivandrum & returned on
08.03.2006.
(xi)
Cheque No.24939 dated 07.04.2006 for
` 1910/- favouring HDFC Bank returned
on 08.04.2006.
(xii)
Cheque No.24940 dated 07.05.2006 for
` 1910/- favouring HDFC Bank returned
on 08.05.2006.
(xiii)
Cheque No.24941 dated 7-6-06 for
` 1910/- fvg. HDFC Bank returned on
8-6-06.
(xiv)
Cheque No.24942 dated 7-7-06 for ` 1910/- fvg.
HDFC Bank returned on 8-7-06.
(xv)
Cheque No.24943 dated 7-8-06 for ` 1910/- fvg.
HDFC Bank returned on 8-8-06.
2.
Our Thodupuzha branch has received the following
written complaints regarding your conduct of financial
matters:
(i)
Complaint received on 6.12.2005 from one
Ms.K Radhamma from Trivandrum stating that
you borrowed ` 25,000/- from her in July,
2004, (while you were posted at Fort,
Trivandrum branch), which is not repaid.
(ii)
Complaint dated 25.04.2006 from one Mr.
P.A.Ashraff, Thodupuzha, stating that you
have borrowed ` 23,000/- from him which is
not repaid.
3.
You were issued letter No.BR:STF:13/281 dated
26.4.2006 by Thodupuzha branch to submit statement of
your assets and liabilities within 4 days. However you
failed to comply with the instructions.
4.
Thodupuzha branch has also reported about
complaints/calls over phone received from the following
persons:
20.09.2005
-
Call from SBI Card Manager Mr. Ajit.
29.10.2005
-
One Mr.Suresh from HDFC Bank Credit
Card Dvn, Trivandrum called at 10 a.m.
14.11.2005
– Call from Trivandrum at 5.30 pm
revealing that the call is from Police
Commissioner, Trivandrum. Identifying
Mr. Abdullah Ahmed, talked regarding
loan of ` 40,000/- from HDFC Bank.
Again there was a call for you at around
6.20 pm
13.12.2005
– One Ms.Radhamma called from
Trivandrum for ` 25,000/- plus interest
for one and half years. Her complaint in
writing was received on 6.12.2005.
13.12.2005
– call from HSBC Bank around 2 pm.
13.03.2006
– One Mr. Jibu came and told that you
borrowed ` 15,000/- from Mangattukavala
area and ` 3,000/- & ` 2,000/- from
different persons.
20.04.2006
– Call from Mr.Arun, HDFC Bank,
Trivandrum regarding ` 70,000/-
overdues.
21.04.2006
– Call from Mr.Biju John, HDFC Bank,
Cochin regarding ` 70,000/- overdues.
24.04.2006
– One Chandra from Kizhakkekotta called
regarding dues of ` 10,000+
` 13,000/-.
5.
You had remained unauthroisedly absent from
17.04.2006 to 24.06.2006. In the recent past, you were
absent on the following dates
7292
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8.11.2005, 9.11.2005, 18.11.2005, 5.12.2005 &
6.12.2005.
Your loss of pay as on 25.6.2006 stands at 181 days.
6.
On 30.1.2006 around 1.20 pm you shouted at Ms.
Smilu Babu, Agrl. Officer, in the Banking Hall as under:
“Why you are telling that I am pretending to be
sick, when I am actually sick”
On 6.4.2006 around 11.40 am, Mr. P B Sasi, a
customer tendered cash along with paying in slip
to the cashier Mr. V. Krishnankutty. He (Cashier)
asked you to put the receipts serial number. You
then shouted at the cashier why he has accepted
the cash before scrolling.
It is also reported that there are occasional outbursts
from you in the Banking Hall which adversely affect
the Bank’s image/business.
7.
It is reported that while you were working as
Computer Operator at Thodupuzha Branch, one
Ms.Sujathamol, holder of SB a/c No.3218 had handed
over to you ` 800/- in cash along with pay-in-slip for
crediting the amount in her SB a/c. You had accepted
the cash from her on that day and entered the amount in
passbook and initialed for having received and credited
the amount for ` 800/- in her SB account. However, on
her next visit to the branch on 22-6-06 for withdrawing,
she noticed that the balance in her SB account was only
` 100/- and ` 800/- handed over to you on 10-10-05 has
not been accounted for, although necessary entry of
depositing ` 800/- was made by you in the passbook. It
has resulted in complaint made by her vide letter dated
22-6-06 to Branch Manager with regard to non-credit of
` 800/- in her account. You have not deposited ` 800/-
in the above account and also made false entry in SB
passbook given to Sujathamol. Further you had admitted
the same vide your letter dated 11-7-2006".
5.
Mr. M C George, Senior Branch Manager, Aluva
Branch was appointed as the enquiry officer to enquire
into the charges levelled against him. After conducting
enquiry the enquiry officer submitted enquiry report after
finding that all the charges except charge Nos.7 and 8
levelled against him were proved in the enquiry. The
disciplinary authority accepted the findings and imposed
the penalty of “Removal from Bank’s service with
superannuation benefits, i.e. Pension and/or PF Gratuity
as would be due otherwise under the rules or regulations
prevailing at the relevant time”. The workman filed an
appeal challenging the imposition of penalty before the
Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority did not
interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority but
as the wording of punishment was not in conformity with
the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action
Procedure dated 10.04.2002 it was changed as “Removal
from the service with superannuation benefits i.e., pension
and/or provident fund and gratuity as would be due
otherwise under the rules or regulations prevailing at the
relevant time and without disqualification from future
employment”.
6.
After appearance before this Tribunal workman filed
claim statement challenging the validity of the enquiry on
the grounds that there is violation of the principles of
natural justice in conducting the enquiry and that the
findings of the enquiry officer are perverse as the same
were entered into without having proper appreciation of
the evidence. The legality of the punishment imposed on
him is challenged on the ground that it is grossly
disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled
against him. The allegations in the chargesheet are
disputed by stating that the 15 cheques, each one not
exceeding ` 1,910/-, were issued for loan repayment to
HDFC, HSBC Bank and SBI from his staff overdraft account
maintained in the Fort branch before his transfer to
Thodupuzha branch and that those cheques were
happened to be bounced since his account in the Fort
branch was closed after his transfer. The bouncing of the
cheques was not on financial reasons but on technical
grounds. Later he paid the amount and cleared the dues.
Out of the total amount of ` 48,000/- borrowed from Smt
K Radhamma and Shri P A Ashraff ` 45,500/- was repaid
and the balance amount of ` 2,500/- was also repaid
subsequently. He had submitted the statement of assets
and liabilities on 02.05.2006 and it was not verified by the
enquiry officer. There is no evidence in the enquiry to
prove that the calls received over phone were either from
borrowers or their representatives. The unauthorized
absence was due to the refusal of the branch Manager to
permit him to rejoin duty after his treatment in Chelsa
Hospital, Trivandrum from 17.04.2006 to 24.06.2006. When
he had approached with medical certificate to rejoin duty
he was directed to appear before the medical board of
Idukki District for medical examination but the medical
board did not conduct any medical examination. On
realizing it the Regional Office directed the branch
authorities to permit him to rejoin duty. There is no
unauthorized absence from duty and the absence from
duty was solely due to the unreasonable and unjustifiable
stand taken by the branch authorities in not allowing him
to join duty without report from the medical board. There
is no evidence to prove the allegations as to shouting
against colleagues and the non-remittance of amount given
by Smt Sujathamol. At the time of removal from service he
was at the age of fifty two years and was having twenty
six years of service. The management credited the
provident fund and gratuity amount towards the loan
amount availed by him for constructing a residential
building without a proper application and without
considering his request for selling the house and remitting
the dues to the bank. It is due to the personal interest of
the Manager of the Thodupuzha branch all the minor
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7293
issues were clubbed together to make a major charge
against him. The removal from service is illegal and hence
he is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service
and all other consequential benefits.
7.
Management filed written statement reiterating the
charges and the supporting allegations in the chargesheet
and contending that the enquiry was conducted in
accordance with law and in full compliance with the
principles of natural justice. All the charges except charge
Nos.7 & 8 were found to be proved by the enquiry officer
after having a proper appreciation of the evidence in
relation to the charges levelled against him. The
disciplinary authority imposed the punishment based on
the findings of the enquiry officer and after considering
all the aspects of the case and the submissions of the
workman. The appeal preferred by him before the
Appellate Authority was dismissed and it is not correct
to say that the punishment was modified by the Appellate
Authority. The punishment imposed on him is not
disproportionate to the gravity of the misconducts proved
against him and it is proper, legal and justified. He had
a previous history of being punished for issuing cheques
without having sufficient funds in his account and also
for other financial indiscipline. At the time of removal from
service an amount of ` 9,13,318/- was due to the management
bank and the same was adjusted from his terminal benefits
and the balance amount of ` 1,37,093/- was credited to his
housing loan account No.2. Those adjustments were made
as per his oral request. Management has also granted
permission to sell his house which was mortgaged with
the bank subject to certain conditions. Afterwards the
workman settled all the dues and the title deeds of his
properties were released. There is no need to interfere
with the punishment imposed on him and an award can be
passed holding that the removal of the workman from
service is proper and justified and hence he is not entitled
to any relief.
8.
Workman did not file any rejoinder.
9.
As the validity of the enquiry was under challenge
it was heard treating it as a preliminary issue. For the
purpose of deciding it management produced the enquiry
file and got it marked as Ext.M1 by examining the enquiry
officer as MW1. After hearing both sides the enquiry
was found to be invalid vide order dated 24.11.2011. After
that management was given opportunity to adduce
evidence to prove the charges levelled against the
workman in view of the request made in the written
statement. Four more witnesses were examined from the
side of the management as MWs 2 to 5 and some of the
documents in the enquiry file were got marked as
Exts.M1(a) to M1(z) and Exts.M1(aa) to M1(ai). No
oral evidence was adduced from the side of the workman.
He had produced one document and the same was marked
as Ext.W1. After closing the evidence the arguments for
both sides were heard.
10.
The points for determination are:
(i)
Whether the management has succeeded in
proving all or any of the charges levelled
against the workman?
(ii)
Whether the punishment imposed on the
workman calls for any interference by this
Tribunal?
(iii)
Whether the action of the management in
removing the workman from the service of
the bank was proper and justified?
(iv)
Whether he is entitled to any relief?
11.
Point No.(i):- The charges numbered as 1 to 7,
9 and 10 in the chargesheet are based on the allegations
serially numbered as 1 to 7 in it. The enquiry officer
found that most of the charges are proved based on the
admission of the allegations by the workman in the
enquiry. The findings on the remaining charges were
entered into after considering the evidence in the enquiry.
As the enquiry was found to be invalid by this tribunal as
per Preliminary Order dated 24.11.2011 it is necessary
to have a detailed consideration of the evidence adduced
before this tribunal to prove the charges. The charges
are based on allegations 1 to 7 in the chargesheet. First
of all it is to be considered whether the management has
succeeded in proving those allegations.
12.
The first allegation is relating to the issuance of
15 cheques from the Staff Over Draft (SOD) account of
the workman with Fort Branch, Trivandrum. After
closing the account he was asked to surrender the unused
cheque leaves and to furnish the details of the cheques
already issued by him. Those 15 cheques are from the
SOD account of the workman is proved through the
production of Ext.M1(ag). The issuance of the cheques
and the dishonor of those cheques for the reason “account
closed” is not disputed by the workman. In order to prove
that the cheques were dishonoured after closing the
account Ext.M1(af) was produced by the management.
It will go to show that all those cheques were dishonoured
after closing the account. He was asked to surrender the
unused cheque leaves in his overdraft account and also
to submit details of all the cheques issued and not
presented for payment as per letter dated 04.05.2005
marked as Ext.M1(ah). He had given reply to it on
11.08.2005 marked as Ext.M1(ai) stating that he has no
unused cheque leaves in his possession and without giving
details as to the cheques already issued by him.
13.
In the chargesheet marked as Ext.M1(aa) it is
specifically stated that those cheques were issued by him
after closing the account and hence the same were
dishonoured for the reason “account closed”. In his reply
to the chargesheet dated 21.08.2006 marked as
Ext.M1(ab) his explanation is that those cheques are from
the 36 and 28 cheques issued for payment of monthly
7294
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
instalments towards the payment of the two loans availed
from HDFC and CITI finance and that the same were
happened to be dishonoured since those were presented
after closing his SOD account with the Fort Branch. In
para 6 of the claim statement it is stated that those
cheques were issued by him favouring either HDFC,
HSBC Bank, SBI being credit card/personal loan
repayments in Fort Branch and were dishonoured for the
reason ‘account closed’ as those were presented after
closing the account with the Fort Branch pursuant to his
transfer to Thodupuzha branch. There is not even an
iota of evidence in this case to prove that those cheques
were issued by him for the repayment of loans prior to
the closing of the account as alleged by him. Even if
those cheques were issued before closing the account then
also it was his bounden duty to state it in Ext.M1(ai)
reply to M1(ah) letter asking him to give the details of
the cheques already issued by him. Since all those
cheques are seen dishonoured after closing the SOD
account in the Fort branch and those cheques are bearing
dates subsequent to the closing of the account it cannot
easily be found that those cheques were issued prior to
the closing of the account especially in the absence of
any evidence to prove the same. His failure to furnish
the details of the cheques already issued by him in
Ext.M1(ai) cannot be said to be without any malafide
intention. If the cheques were already issued by him
before the closing of the account with the Fort branch he
could have informed it to the concerned financial
institutions. The dishonor of the cheques for the reason
‘account closed’ can be treated as an act prejudicial to
the interest of the bank. Hence it can be held that that
the first allegation is duly proved by the management
bank.
14.
The second allegation in the chargesheet is with
regard to the complaints made by Smt Radhamma and
Shri P A Ashraff, copies of which were respectively
marked as Exts.M1(a) and M1(b). Ext.M1(a) was
received in the bank on 06.12.2005 about the non-
payment of an amount of ` 25,000/- received by way of
loan by the workman from Smt Radhamma. M1(b) is the
letter dated 25.04.2006 and it is about the non-payment of
` 23,000/- availed by him by way of loan from Shri P A
Ashraff. In Ext.M1(ab), his explanation is that he had
borrowed ` 5,000/- and ` 3,000/- by way of loan from Smt
Radhamma and that he had repaid ` 3,000/- and for the
remaining ` 5,000/- he had issued a cheque. As he was
unable to pay monthly interest for about six months, she
tried to contact him at Thodupuzha branch over telephone.
In the case of Shri Ashraff, he was only a guarantor for the
loan of ` 23,000/- availed by his friend. Since his friend
had absconded Mr.Ashraf came to the branch to get the
interest. It is because of the threat of the Manager of the
Thodupuzha branch Shri N V Ouseph they had made
written complaints and Smt Radhamma claimed ` 25,000/-
as per his instruction. There is no evidence in this case to
satisfy that the amount borrowed from Smt Radhamma
was stated to be ` 25,000/- as per the instruction of the
then Manager Shri N V Ouseph. He had denied it during
his cross examination when he was examined as MW2.
15.
In para 7 of the claim statement it is expressly admitted
that he had borrowed a total amount of ` 48,000/-
from Smt K Radhamma and Shri P A Ashraf. It is stated
that ` 45,500/- was repaid and the balance was only
` 2,500/- and the same was also subsequently paid by
him. Explanation in Ext.M1(ab) is totally inconsistent with
the allegation in the claim statement. So it can very well be
held that he had borrowed a total amount of ` 48,000/-
from Smt Radhamma and Shri P A Asharaff and his
explanation with regard to the same in Ext. M1(ab) is a
cooked up one. Such complaints from borrowers will
tarnish the image of the bank. Hence management has
succeeded in proving the second allegation as to the
complaints of Smt Radhamma and Shri Asharaff.
16.
Whether it was excessive borrowing is a matter to
be decided by the management bank as the management
is having the discretion to decide the question as to
excessive borrowal by an employee. In Ext.M1(ae) reply
to the notice issued by the disciplinary authority proposing
penalty there is admission of borrowal of amounts from
several persons and its subsequent discharge. It is clearly
proved in this case that he had availed loans from several
financial institutions and private parties.
17.
Failure to submit his assets and liabilities by the
workman pursuant to the letter dated 26.04.2006 marked
as Ext.M1(c) is the third allegation levelled against him. In
Ext.M1(ab) explanation it was submitted by him that he
had furnished the statement of assets and liabilities and
once again submitting the same. In the claim statement it
is stated by him that it was submitted on 02.05.2006. No
evidence was adduced by him to prove that it was
submitted on that day. In this connection it is to be pointed
out that the workman was on leave from 17.04.2006 and
when he came to join duty on 26.04.2006 Ext.M1(c) was
issued calling upon him to submit the statement of assets
and liabilities and another letter marked as M1(w) advising
him to undergo medical examination at District General
Hospital, Thodupuzha without permitting him to rejoin
duty. Thereafter he was not allowed to join duty till
26.06.2006. In Ext.M1(u), the copy of the letter dated
26.06.2006 addressed by the Branch Manager to the
Assistant General Manager for getting instructions on
the leave applications and medical certificate submitted
by the workman, it is seen pointed out that the statement
of assets and liabilities was not furnished by him till that
date. As he was served the original of Ext.M1(c) on
26.04.2006 the statement was to be filed within four days
after the receipt of the same. It is not seen that any request
was made by him for extension of time for filing it. There is
failure on his part to submit statement within the time
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7295
provided for it. There is also no evidence to prove that it
was filed at any time before 26.06.2006. Hence it can be
held that the workman had failed to furnish the statement
of assets and liabilities as required by the management
which amounts to a gross misconduct.
18.
The fourth allegation is about the calls received in
the Thodupuzha branch from different persons including
those who made demands for repayment of the amounts
due to them. In Ext.M1(ab) explanation nothing is stated
about it by him except as to the call made by Smt
Radhamma. In para 8 of the claim statement after admitting
that several calls were received over phone while he was
working in Thodupuzha branch it is contended that no
evidence was adduced in the enquiry to prove that those
calls were either from borrowers or their representatives.
There is no reliable evidence in this case to prove that all
those calls were with regard to the amounts borrowed or
the loans availed by him. For the reason that there is no
specific denial with regard to that allegation in the
chargesheet in Ext.M1(ab) it is not sufficient enough to
hold that the calls were from borrowers. Merely on the
basis of phone calls without ascertaining the identity of
the persons it is not possible to arrive at a just conclusion
that such calls were actually made by persons from whom
he had borrowed money. The allegation cannot be said to
be proved with the available evidence in this case.
19.
The fifth allegation in the chargesheet is as to
unauthorized absence from 17.04.2006 to 24.06.2006 and
about his absence on 08.11.2005, 9.11.2005, 18.11.2005,
5.12.2005 and 6.12.2005 and also with regard to the absence
on loss of pay for 181 days upto 25.06.2006. The allegation
as to unauthorized absence from 17.04.2006 to 24.04.2006
was due to illness and the same was substantiated by
producing medical certificates. MW2 has also stated
during his cross examination that leave was already
granted for that period. Hence it cannot be held that he
was unauthorisedly absenting himself from duties from
17.04.2006 to 24.04.2006. The absence on the dates
specified in the chargesheet on loss of pay is proved
through the production of Ext.M1(m). He was absent on
those days and was on loss of pay. It is not disputed that
he was on loss of pay for 181 days upto 25.06.2006. Hence
it can be held that it is a case of unpunctual and irregular
attendance. He was absenting himself without prior
intimation and also without submitting leave application
in time.
20.
The sixth allegation is regarding the shouting by
the workman against Ms.Smilu Babu on 30.01.2006 around
1:20 pm while she was in the banking hall and also against
Mr. V Krishnankutty at about 11:40 am on 06.04.2006. There
is absolutely no evidence in this case to prove the
allegation as to shouting against Ms. Smilu Babu.
Shouting against Mr. V Krishnankutty who was the then
cashier is admitted by the workman in Ext.M1(ab)
explanation. But it is stated that Mr. Krishnankutty
received cash before putting scroll number in the pay-in-
slip and infuriated him when he was asked about it. In
Ext.M1(ab) it is stated that he had shouted after the reply
of Mr Krishnankutty. MW2, during his cross examination,
has stated that there was exchange of words between the
workman and Mr Krishnankutty and it was at that time the
workman shouted and the same does not deserve any
serious consideration. No action is seen to have been
taken against Mr Krishnankutty about it. The nature of
the shouting or the words used by the workman at the
time of shouting are not stated or proved by the
management. Hence it cannot be held that there was
shouting by the workman which calls for any action
against him.
21.
The seventh allegation is as to the misappropriation
of an amount of ` 800/- received by him from the customer
Ms Sujathamol for remittance in her SB A/c No.3218
without accounting it after making entry in her pass book.
In Ext.M1(ab) he has admitted the receipt of ` 800/- from
her on 10.10.2005. His explanation is that since she was
in a hurry to go entry was made in her pass book as per
the request made by her and because of the heavy work
on that day he failed to remit the amount. But later it
was remitted in her account and thereby the issue was
settled. Regarding the non-remittance of the amount Ms
Sujathamol made Ext.M1(d) complaint on 22.06.2006
after getting knowledge about the non-remittance when
she came to withdraw the amount from her SB account
on that day. The receipt of the amount is admitted by the
workman in the claim statement. Ext.M1(e), the
photocopy of the relevant pages of her passbook, would
go to show that entry was made in her passbook in respect
of that amount on 10.10.2005. Ext.M1(f) is the copy of
statement of accounts and the same will go to show that
no entry was made with respect to receipt of that amount
on 10.10.2005. Workman remitted an amount of ` 800/
- on 01.07.2006 and the same is evidenced by Ext.M1(g),
the copy of the letter addressed by him to the branch
manager. Ext.M1(k), the copy of the statement of
accounts for the period from 01.09.2005 to 06.07.2006,
is produced to prove the remittance of ` 800/- on
01.07.2006 and ` 21/- on 04.07.2006 in the account of
Ms Sujathamol.
22.
Pointing out the discrepancy in the name in the
documents as Sujithamol it was argued by the learned
counsel for the workman that the same cannot be relied
on to prove the allegation. In the chargesheet the account
number is shown as 3218. In those documents also the
SB account number is given as 3218. Merely for the
reason that there is a typing error in the name given in
the chargesheet it cannot be held that those documents
cannot be relied on to prove that allegation. There is the
express admission in Ext.M1(ab) and in the claim
7296
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
statement as to the receipt of the amount of ` 800/- from
the customer and keeping it without remitting until the
receipt of the complaint from that customer about the non-
remittance.
23.
Exts.M1(h), M1(i) and M1(j) would go to show that
the workman remitted an amount of ` 800/- and
` 21/- as interest in the account of Ms. Sujathamol on
01.07.2006 and 04.07.2006 respectively. The explanation
submitted by the workman that the entry was made in
the passbook after the receipt of the amount because
Ms. Sujathamol was in a hurry and made request to make
entry is not supported by any evidence in this case. It
cannot also be accepted as a reasonable explanation for
the non-remittance of the amount received by way of cash
from a customer came to remit the amount in the bank.
If it was because of the cordial relationship or close
acquaintance with the customer there is the least chance
of making a complaint after getting knowledge of the
non-remittance. But it was illegal retention of the amount
entrusted with him by the customer amounting to
misappropriation.
24.
In view of the aspects discussed above it can be
held that the management has succeeded in proving
allegation Nos.1 to 3, 7 and second limb of allegation
No.5 in the chargesheet. Based on the above findings as
to the allegations in the chargesheet charge Nos.l to 3, 5
to 7 and 9 & 10 can be held to be proved as against the
workman.
25.
Point No.(ii):-Disciplinary Authority imposed
penalty of “removal from bank’s service with
superannuation benefits, i.e., pension/or PF gratuity as
would be due otherwise under the Rules and Regulations
prevailing at the relevant time” for the charges 1 and 3
in the chargesheet and warning for the other charges
found to have been proved by the enquiry officer. It was
confirmed by the Appellate Authority with the change of
wordings as to the penalty for charges 1 and 3 as “removal
from the service with superannuation benefits i.e., pension
and/or Provident Fund gratuity as would be due otherwise
under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant
time and without disqualification from future
employment”. Taking into consideration of the
embezzlement of money of a customer, the financial
indiscipline the previous instance of imposition of penalty
as well as the other facts and circumstances it cannot be
said that the punishment imposed on him is shockingly
disproportionate to the proved misconducts.
26.
In the decision reported in State Bank of India and
Another Vs. Bela Bagchi and Others (2005) 7 SCC 435
it was held by the Apex Court that the charge with regard
to receipt of money from an account holder for depositing
in his saving bank account and making fraudulent or
fictitious credit entry in the passbook by the employee of
the bank is serious in nature and the contention that no
loss was caused to the bank is no defence. It was also
held:
“A bank officer is required to exercise higher
standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with
money of the depositors and the customers. Every
officer/employee of the bank is required to take all
possible steps to protect the interests of the bank
and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity,
honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing
which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good
conduct and discipline are inseparable from the
functioning of every officer/employee of the bank.
Even acting beyond one’s authority is a misconduct.
The charges against the employee were not casual
in nature and were serious. That being so, the plea
about absence of loss is also without substance”.
27.
There was a futile attempt on the part of the
workman to prove that he was earlier imposed with
penalty for the very same misconducts by producing
Ext.W1. But on a perusal of Ext.W1 it can be seen that
it does not relate to the alleged misconducts in this case.
It can also be seen that he was imposed with penalty of
bringing down to lower stage in the scale of pay by
two stages in terms of clause 6(e) of the Memorandum
of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 on disciplinary action
procedure for similar misconducts. It is also to be borne
in mind that he was imposed with such a penalty for the
charge levelled against him as per order dated 15.02.2006.
It cannot be said that the imposition of penalty for charge
Nos.1 & 3 in the chargesheet in this case is too severe to
have any interference by this Tribunal. Hence it is held
that the penalties imposed on him for the various
misconducts do not call for any interference by this
Tribunal.
28.
Point No.(iii):-As it is already found that the penalty
imposed on the workman is not arbitrary or illegal it can
be held that the action of the management in removing
the workman from the service of the bank is proper and
justified.
29.
Point No.(iv):-In the result an award is passed
holding that the action of the management of removing
the workman from service is legal and justified. Hence
he is not entitled to any relief.
The award will come into force one month after its
publication in the Official Gazette.
D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witnesses for the workman
-
NIL
Witnesses for the management
MW1
11.08.2011
Shri M. C. Josekutty
MW2
01.11.2012
Shri N. V. Ouseph
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7297
MW3
15.04.2013
Shri Baven C Tharaken
MW4
10.06.2013
Shri Sriraman K A
MW5
31.07.2013
Shri K R Sivaramakrishna Iyer
Exhibits for the workman
W1
-
True copy of Order No. RO:KER: HRM:26/
318 dated 15.02.2006 issued by the
Assistant General Manager (Kerala
Region) & Disciplinary Authority, Bank
of Baroda
Exhibits for the Management :
M1
-
Enquiry File
M1(a)
-
Photocopy of letter dated Nil addressed to
the Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha branch by Smt. K Radhamma
M1(b)
-
Photocopy of letter dated 25.04.2006
addressed to the Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha branch by Shri P A Ashraff
M1(c)
-
Photocopy of letter No.BR:STF 13/281
dated 26.04.2006 addressed to the
workman by the Branch Manager, Bank
of Baroda, Thodupuzha branch
M1(d)
-
Photocopy of letter dated 22.06.2006
addressed to Bank of Baroda, Thodupuzha
branch by Smt. Sujithamol S
M1(e)
-
Photocopy of relevant pages of Savings
Bank Pass Book of Smt. Sujithamol S
M1(f)
-
Photocopy of statement of account for the
period from 01.09.2005 to 22.06.2006
M1(g)
-
Photocopy of letter dated 01.07.2006
addressed to the Branch Manager, Bank
of Baroda, Thodupuzha branch by the
workman
M1(h)
-
Photocopy of letter dated 06.07.2006
addressed to Smt Sujithamol S by the
Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha branch
M1(i)
-
Photocopy of letter No. TDPA: STF:14/
33 dated 07.07.2006 addressed to the
Assistant General Manager, Bank of
Baroda, Regional Office, Ernakulam by
the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha branch
M1(j)
-
Photocopy of letter No.RO:KER: HRM:26/
1551 dated 04.07.2006 addressed to Smt.
Sujithamol S by the Assistant General
Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional
Office, Ernakulam
M1(k)
-
Photocopy of statement of account for the
period from 01.09.2005 to 06.07.2006
M1(l)
-
Photocopy of letter No. BR: STF:13/283
dated 27.04.2006 addressed to the
Assistant General Manager, Bank of
Baroda, Regional Office, Ernakulam by
the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha branch
M1(m)
-
Photocopy of Register of Employment for
the period from 06.11.2005 to 10.12.2005
M1(n)
-
Copy of letter No.BR:STF:13/278 dated
26.04.2006 addressed to the workman by
the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha branch
M1(o)
-
Copy of letter No.BR:STF:13/280 dated
26.04.2006
addressed
to
the
Superintendent, Government General
Hospital, Thodupuzha by the Branch
Manager, Bank of Baroda, Thodupuzha
branch
M1(p)
-
Copy of letter No.BR:STF:13/271 dated
11.05.2006 addressed to the Assistant
General Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office, Ernakulam by the Branch
Manager, Bank of Baroda, Thodupuzha
branch
M1(q)
-
Copy of letter dated 26.06.2006 addressed
to the Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha branch by the workman
M1(r)
-
Copy of Medical Certificate dated
24.06.2006 issued by the Medical Officer,
General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram
M1(s)
-
Copy of the Fitness Certificate dated
26.06.2006 issued by the Medical Officer,
General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram
M1(t)
-
Copy of the Certificate dated 26.06.2006
issued by Dr. N Shunmukom, Chelsa
Hospital, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram
M1(u)
-
Copy of letter No.BR:STF:14/19 dated
26.06.2006 addressed to the Assistant
General Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office, Ernakulam by the Branch
Manager, Bank of Baroda, Thodupuzha
branch
M1(v)
-
Copy of the Medical Certificate dated
16.06.2006 issued by the Medical Officer,
General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram
M1(w)
-
Copy of letter No.BR:STF:13/278 dated
26.04.2006 addressed to the workman by
the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha branch
7298
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
M1(x)
-
Photocopy of Register of Leave particulars
for the period from 01.01.2006 to
31.03.2006
M1(y)
-
Letter dated 11.07.2006 addressed to the
Branch Manager Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha branch by the workman
M1(z)
-
Letter dated 11.05.2006 addressed to the
Manager, Bank of Baroda, Thodupuzha
branch by the workman
M1(aa)
-
Copy of Chargesheet dated 10.08.2006
issued to the workman by the Assistant
General Manager(Kerala Region) &
Disciplinary Authority, Bank of Baroda
M1(ab)
-
Copy of letter dated 21.08.2006 addressed
to the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha branch by the workman
M1(ac)
-
Copy of notice dated 23.04.2007 issued by
the Deputy General Manager (Kerala
Region) & Disciplinary Authority, Bank
of Baroda
M1(ad)
-
Copy of Order dated 10.05.2007 of the
Deputy General Manager(Kerala Region)
& Disciplinary Authority, Bank of Baroda
M1(ae)
-
Submission of the workman dated
30.04.2007 to the Disciplinary Authority
& the Deputy General Manager, Bank of
Baroda, Regional Office(Kerala),
Ernakulam
M1(af)
-
Copy of Cheque Returned Outward
Register for the period from 18.10.2005
to 04.09.2006
M1(ag)
-
Copy of Cheque Book Register for the
period from 31.05.2004 to 04.11.2004
M1(ah)
-
Copy of letter No.FORT/STF/2005/41
dated 04.05.2005 addressed to the
workman by the Sr.Branch Manager, Bank
of Baroda, Fort Branch, Thiruvananthapuram
M1(ai)
-
Copy of letter dated 11.08.2005 addressed
to the Senior Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Fort, Trivandrum by the workman.
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2953-—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
,oa Je U;k;ky;] v:ukdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22@2011)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@11@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@4@2011&vkbZvkj (ch-&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2014
S.O.
2953.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 22/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the Indian
Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 05/11/2014.
[No. L-12012/4/2011-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present:
Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer
(Monday the 29th day of September, 2014/7th Asvina, 1936)
ID 22/2011
Workman
:
Shri M K Unnikrishnan Kizhalethu
House West Hill PO Edakkad
Kozhikode – 5 Kerala
By M/s.. H.B.Shenoy Associates
Management :
The Chief Manager (HRM) Indian Bank,
Head Office H R Department 66 Rajaji
Salai CHENNAI - 600001
By Adv. Shri S.Easwaran
This case coming up for final hearing on 22.09.2014
and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 29.09.2014 passed
the following:
AWARD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government/Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-12012/
4/2011-IR(B-II) dated 13.06.2011 referred the industrial
dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this
tribunal.
2.
The dispute is:
"Whether the action of the management of Indian
Bank with Headquarters at Chennai in
superannuating Shri M. K. Unnikrishnan, Tiny
Deposit Collector of Kozhikode Branch
w.e.f.15.07.2007 is justified and legal? What relief
the workman is entitled to?"
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7299
3.
The workman joined the services of the management
bank as tiny deposit collector at its Kozhikode branch on
15.11.1980. He was terminated from service on 15.07.2007
for the reason that he had attained the age of
superannuation. The legality and justifiability of the
termination is challenged by the workman by raising this
industrial dispute.
4.
After appearance before this Tribunal workman filed
claim statement by making the allegations that he was in
continuous service of the management bank from
15.11.1980 and was orally terminated from service on
15.07.2007 by the management bank, on the premise of
having attained the age of superannuation unilaterally
fixed by the bank, without complying with the
requirements under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. There is no retirement age or age of
superannuation for the workman as per the conditions of
service and the contract of employment governing his
service in the management bank. Hence the termination
amounts to retrenchment and it was effected without
notice or payment of wages in lieu of notice and without
paying compensation as provided under Section 25F of
the ID Act. It is illegal and unjust and hence the workman
is entitled to the benefits under section 25F of the ID
Act.
5.
In the written statement management, after denying
the allegations in the claim statement, would contend
that after his engagement as tiny deposit collector on
15.11.1980 his service was discontinued from 31.03.1982
and he was again engaged from 21.07.1993 after the
reintroduction of the scheme w.e.f. 01.04.1993. One of
the primary conditions for reintroduction of the said
scheme was that those agents who were working at the
time of discontinuance of the scheme will be engaged
only if they have not attained the age of 60 years as on
01.04.1993. The service conditions of the tiny deposit
collectors is as per the terms of the award dated
22.12.1988 in ID 14/1980 passed by the Industrial
Tribunal, Hyderabad. They were found to be workman
coming within the purview of the definition of section
2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In WP No.9783/
1987 filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh the finding of the tribunal was upheld but it
was held that they cannot claim to be regular employees
of the bank and the same was upheld by the Apex Court
by its judgment dated 13.02.2001. The tiny deposit
collectors are only eligible for full back wages, incentive
commission, conveyance allowance and gratuity as per
the decision in that case. The service conditions are as
per the award and related to the Bipartite Settlement of
award staff. As per the Bipartite Settlement the age of
retirement is 60 years if his efficiency is found to be non-
impaired by the employer when he reaches the age of 57
years. It is not correct to say that the workman was
terminated from service without issuance of notice or
payment of wages. By letter dated 13.07.2007 he was
informed that he would be disengaged from service on
15.07.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation and
hence not to collect tiny deposits. As per the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the tiny deposit collectors
cannot be equated with the regular employees with regard
to the service conditions. As per the terms of the Bipartite
Settlement, the scheme introduced by the bank for
engagement of tiny deposit collectors and the letter of
undertaking given by the workman he is not entitled to
make any claim under section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
6.
Workman filed replication denying the contentions
in the written statement and reaffirming the allegations
in the claim statement.
7.
For the purpose of deciding this case no evidence,
either oral or documentary, was adduced by the workman.
From the side of the management one witness was
examined as MW1 and Exts.M1 to M5 were got marked.
8.
The points for determination are:-
(i)
Whether the termination of the service of the
workman is to be in accordance with Section
25F of the Industrial Disputes Act?
(ii)
Whether the action of the management in
superannuating the workman w.e.f.
15.07.2007 is justified?
(iii)
What relief, if any, he is entitled to?
9.
Point No. (i):—It is not in dispute that the workman
was employed as a tiny deposit collector by the
management bank on 15.11.1980. In the claim statement
it is alleged that he was in continuous service thereafter
until his termination on 15.07.2007. But it is contended
in the written statement that his service was discontinued
from 31.03.1982 and he was re-engaged from 21.07.1993
after the reintroduction of the Tiny Deposit Scheme w.e.f.
01.04.1993. It is proved that he was disengaged and
subsequently re-engaged with the re-introduction of the
scheme through the testimony of MW1 as well as Ext.M3
letter of undertaking dated 09.06.1993 given by the
workman for his re-engagement.
10.
Admittedly he was terminated from service on
15.11.2007. Even though it is alleged that his service
was terminated orally the same cannot be accepted as
true in view of Ext.M4 issued from the management bank
to the workman as to his disengagement on 15.07.2007.
11.
According to the workman his service was
terminated on the premise of attaining the age of
superannuation unilaterally fixed by the management and
it amounts to retrenchment which necessitates the
7300
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
compliance of the requirements under Section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the other hand it is
contended by the management bank that the age of
superannuation of a workman is 60 years as per the terms
of the Bipartite Settlement dated 17.09.1984 and it is
also evident from the instructions as to the reintroduction
of tiny deposit scheme dated 30.03.1993, copy of the
relevant portion of which is marked as Ext.M2.
12.
Clause XIII of the said Bipartite Settlement contains
provisions as to the age of retirement and the same reads
as follows:-
“XIII. Age of Retirement
In reiteration of Chapter XVIII of the First Bipartite
Settlement dated 19th October, 1966 and similar
provisions in the settlements of other member banks
who are parties to this Settlement, it is stated as
under:
(i)
For Banks other than State Bank of India:
“After a workmen has reached the age of 57
years, he may be retired after giving him two
month’s notice in writing in case his
efficiency is found by the employer to have
been impaired. Subject to this rule and also
subject to any rule under an existing pension
fund, a workman shall not be compelled to
retire before he is 60 years old nor will it be
necessary to give a workman a letter
extending his services till he is sixty years
old.”
(ii)
For State Bank of India:
“A workman shall normally retire on
reaching the age of 58 years. The Bank will,
however, grant to a workman who continues
to be physically fit and efficient an extension
of service upto 60 years of age, but service
beyond 58 years of age will not be counted
for any purpose with or in relation to
pension.”
13.
Clause XIII(i) of that Bipartite Settlement is
applicable to the management bank. As per that provision
the retirement age of the workman is 60 years and he
cannot continue in service thereafter. As per Clause XIII
of the Bipartite Settlement no workman can claim to be
in service after the age of 60 years.
14.
Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in
Indian Banks Association Vs. Workmen of Syndicate
Bank & Ors., copy of which is marked as Ext.M5, it was
submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that
though the tiny deposit collectors were found to be
workmen it was held that they cannot be equated with
regular employees with the same service conditions. It
was further submitted by him that since it was held that
the service conditions of the regular bank employees are
not applicable to the tiny deposit collectors the provision
contained in that Bipartite Settlement as to the
retirement age cannot be made applicable to them. The
matter came up for consideration in that case is whether
the tiny deposit collectors are workmen coming within
the purview of the definition under section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act and they are entitled to be
absorbed in regular service with the pay, allowances and
other benefits of the regular employees. The question as
to the age of retirement or superannuation of the tiny
deposit collectors was not considered while dealing with
that case. The said Bipartite Settlement or any of its
provisions was not at all considered while dealing with
that matter. Clause XIII of the said Bipartite Settlement
expressly provides that the age of retirement of the
workman cannot be above 60 years.
15. At the time of re-introduction of the scheme only
those who had not attained the age of 60 years as on
01.04.1993 was only re-engaged and it is evident from
Ext.M2. The conditions of service in Ext.M2 are admitted
to by the workman in Ext.M3. It is expressly clear from
Ext.M2 that the tiny deposit collectors can continue to
work only upto the age of 60 years. Workman has no
case with regard to the age of retirement. Since the tiny
deposit collectors are workmen coming within the
definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act
the retirement age is to be in accordance with the
provision contained in the said Bipartite Settlement. It
is also apparently clear from Ext.M2 that there cannot
be continuance of service as tiny deposit collectors after
the age of 60 years. It is a paradox if those who were re-
engaged will be allowed to continue to be in service after
60 years. The workman was terminated from service on
completion of the age of 60 years by issuing the original
of Ext. M4. In the case of superannuation it is not
necessary to have compliance with the requirements under
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It cannot in
any way be said that it is retrenchment and hence it is
necessary to comply with the requirements under Section
25F of the ID Act.
16.
Point No.(ii):—There is nothing illegal in
superannuating the workman w.e.f.15.07.2007 on
completion of the age of 60 years. Hence the action of
the management can be held to be legal and justified.
17.
Point No.(iii):—In the result an award is passed
holding that the action of the management in
superannuating the workman w.e.f.15.07.2007 is justified
and legal. Hence he is not entitled to any relief.
The award will come into force one month after its
publication in the Official Gazette.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7301
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and
typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the
29th day of September, 2014.
D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the workman : NIL
Witness for the management :
MW1
23.04.2014
Shri K. N. Murugappan
Exhibits for the workman : NIL
Exhibits for the management :
M1
-
Copy of relevant portion of the Fourth
Bipartite Settlement dated 17.09.1984.
M2
-
Copy of instructions as to reintroduction
of Tiny Deposit Scheme in Indian Bank
dated 30.03.1993.
M3
-
Copy of letter of irrevocable undertaking
dated 09.06.1993 given by the workman
to the Manager, Indian Bank, Kozhikode.
M4
-
Copy of letter dated 13.07.2007 issued by
the Senior Manager, Indian Bank,
Kozhikode to the workman.
M5
-
Copy of Judgment dated 13.02.2001 in
Civil Appeal No.3355 of 1998 of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2954-—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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
43@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@92@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2014
S.O.
2954.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 43/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court-1, Mumbai 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 05/11/2014.
[No. L-12011/92/2012-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,
MUMBAI
Present:
Justice S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer
Reference No. CGIT-1/43 of 2013
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Bank
of Maharashtra
And
Their workman
Appearances:
For the first party/
:
Mr. Mr. M. B. Anchan, Adv.
Management
For the second party
:
None present
workman
State
:
Maharashtra
Mumbai, dated the 13th day of October, 2014
AWARD
1.
The present reference has been made by the Central
Government by its order dated 27.6.2013 passed in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of reference as
per the Schedule to the said order are as under:
“Whether the action of the management of Bank
of Maharashtra, Pune Rural Regional Office, Pune
by not providing the employment to Shri S. W.
Satale as PTS inspite of working w.e.f. 25.5.1992
is legal and justified? What relief the workman Shri
Satale is entitled to?”
2.
By the order dated 23.12.2013 passed by the
Tribunal, notices were directed to be issued to the parties
fixing 14.2.2014. Notices were accordingly issued to the
parties by Registered Post AD.
3.
On 14.2.2014, Mr. M. B. Anchan, Advocate was
present on behalf of the first party/Management. It was
noted in the order dated 14.2.2014 that notice issued to
the second party/Workman by Registered Post AD had
been served, and the Acknowledgement Card had been
received back. However, none was present on behalf of
the second party/Workman on 14.2.2014. In the
circumstances, the case was adjourned to 2.4.2014 for
filing Statement of Claim.
4.
On 2.4.2014, Mr. M. B. Anchan, learned counsel for
the first party/Management was present. However, none
was present on behalf of the second party/Workman. In
7302
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the circumstances, by the order dated 2.4.2014, the case
was adjourned to 4.6.2014 for filing Statement of Claim.
5.
On 4.6.2014, none was present on behalf of the
second party/Workman. On mention being made on
behalf of Mr. M. B. Anchan, learned counsel for the first
party/Management, the case was adjourned on the said
date, and 30.6.2014 was fixed.
6.
On 30.6.2014, Mr. M. B. Anchan, learned counsel
for the first party/Management was present. However,
none was present on behalf of the second party/Workman.
In the circumstances, by the order dated 30.6.2014, the
case was adjourned to 2.9.2014 for filing Statement of
Claim on behalf of the second party/Workman.
7.
On 2.9.2014, Mr. M. B. Anchan, learned counsel
for the first party/Management was present. However,
none was present on behalf of the second party/Workman.
In the circumstances, by the order dated 2.9.2014, the
case was adjourned to 13.10.2014 (i.e. today) for filing
Statement of Claim on behalf of the second party/
Workman.
8.
Pursuant to the order dated 2.9.2014, the case has
been taken up today.
9.
Mr. M. B. Anchan, learned counsel for the first
party/Management is present. He has brought on record
formal Authority in his favour issued by the first party/
Management. However, today again, none is present
for the second party/Workman. No Statement of Claim
has been filed on behalf of the second party/Workman.
10.
From the above narration of facts, it is evident that
despite service of notice having been made on the second
party/Workman, none has appeared on behalf of the
second party/Workman on any of the dates fixed in the
case. No Statement of Claim has been filed on behalf of
the second party/Workman.
11.
In view of the above, it is evident that there is no
pleading or evidence on behalf of the second party/
Workman in support of his claim. No relief can therefore,
be granted to the second party/Workman in the present
Reference.
12.
The Reference is consequently answered by stating
that no relief can be granted to the second party/Workman.
Award is passed accordingly.
Justice S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2955-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaUVªy 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
44@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@18@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2014
S.O.
2955.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 44/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court-2, Mumbai 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 05/11/2014.
[No. L-12011/18/2011-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT :
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/44 of 2011
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT
OF
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
The Assistant General Manager
Central Bank of India,
Mumbai Metropolitan Zonal Office
346, Standard Building
Dr. D.N. Road, Fort
Mumbai-400 023.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
The General Secretary
Central Bank Karmachari Sena
Central Bank of India
Mumbai Main Office, 2nd floor
M.G.Road, Fort
Mumbai 400 023.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. L. L. D’Souza,
Representative
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
No appearance
Mumbai, dated the 26th September, 2014.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7303
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No.L-12011/18/2011/IR (B-II),
dated 18.08.2011 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 Assistant General
Manager, Central Bank of India, Mumbai in
imposing the punishment of bringing down to
one stage lower for one year in the time scale of
pay upon Shri Vijay S. Amin, Peon (Sub-Staff)
vide order No. SMRO/DAD 2009-10/1949 dated
21/10/2009 is legal, just and proper? What relief
the workman concerned is entitled to?”
2.
After receipt of the reference from Ministry of
Labour & Employment, notices were sent to both the
parties. Concerned workman appeared before this
Tribunal on 13/12/2011 and requested for adjournment.
Thereafter fresh notices were issued to second party vide
Ex-5, 7, 10, 12, & 13. Acknowledgement to that effect is
at Ex-11 & 14. The second party union has neither
approached this Tribunal nor filed statement of claim.
Since there is no statement of claim on record, therefore,
this reference cannot be decided on merits and the same
deserves to be rejected for want of prosecution. Thus I
proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
Reference stands rejected for want of prosecution.
Date: 26.09.2014
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2956-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaUVy 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
45@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@19@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2014
S.O.
2956.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 45/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the Central
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 05/11/2014.
[No. L-12011/19/2011-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2,
MUMBAI
PRESENT:
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/45 of 2011
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT
OF
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
The Assistant General Manager
Central Bank of India,
Mumbai Metropolitan Zonal Office
346, Standard Building
Dr. D. N. Road, Fort
Mumbai-400 023.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
The General Secretary
Central Bank Karmachari Sena
Central Bank of India
Mumbai Main Office,
2nd floor M. G. Road, Fort
Mumbai 400 023.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. L. L. D’Souza,
Representative.
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
No appearance.
Mumbai, dated the 26th September, 2014.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No.L-12011/19/2011-IR (B-II),
dated 18.08.2011 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 Assistant General
Manager, Central Bank of India, Mumbai in imposing
the punishment of bringing down to one stage lower
for one year in the time scale of pay upon Shri Dadu
H. Malusare, peon (Sub-Staff) vide order No. SMRO/
DAD 2009-10/1948 dated 21/10/2009 is legal, just
7304
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and proper? What relief the workman concerned is
entitled to?”
2.
After receipt of the reference from Ministry of Labour
& Employment, notices were sent to both the parties.
Concerned workman appeared before this Tribunal on 13/
12/2011 and requested for adjournment. Thereafter fresh
notices were issued to second party vide Ex-7, 10, 12 & 13.
Acknowledgement to that effect is at Ex-11 & 14. The
second party union has neither approached this Tribunal
nor filed statement of claim. Since there is no statement
of claim on record, therefore, this reference cannot be
decided on merits and the same deserves to be rejected
for want of prosecution. Thus, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
Reference stands rejected for want of prosecution.
Date: 26.09.2014
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2957-—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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 37@2013)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@11@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@94@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2014
S.O.
2957.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of the Union Bank of
India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 05/11/2014
[No. L-12012/94/2012-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 12th August, 2014
Present :
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 37/2013
(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 Union Bank of India and their
workman)
BETWEEN :
Sri M. K. Narayanan
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The General Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
(Personnel)
Union Bank of India,
Central Office
Union Bank Bhawan,
239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg,
Mumbai-400021
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
:
M/s.. Balan Haridas, Advocates
Petitioner
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-12012/94/2012-IR (B-
II) dated 01.03.2013 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the management of Union
Bank of India, Coimbatore regarding termination of
services of the petitioner, Sri M. K. Narayanan 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 37/2013 and issued notices to both
sides. Both parties have entered appearance through their
counsel and filed their claim and counter statement
respectively. The petitioner has filed Rejoinder after the
Counter Statement was filed.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner had joined service of the Respondent
Bank in the year 1961. By the year 1995 he had rendered 34
years unblemished record of service. On 28.11.1995 the
petitioner submitted a letter to voluntarily retire from
service, owing to personal reasons. Petitioner has two
sons, both of whom were having industries from the year
1985. The Sons had opened account with Gandhipuram
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7305
Branch of Respondent Bank and had availed cash credit
loans. The petitioner had been the guarantor for those
loans. The petitioner’s Sons have borrowed money from
private parties also, for their business. The industries run
by the Sons of the petitioner came to be on loss and it
was decided to close the factories and wind up the
business. The petitioner had decided to sell his property
and settle the dues of the bank and private lenders.
However, the private lender wanted the money
immediately and they threatened to take legal action
against the petitioner. It was in such circumstances the
petitioner submitted letter voluntarily retiring from
service. After submitting the letter the petitioner migrated
to Baroda alongwith his Sons. The petitioner did not
inform this new address to the Bank as it would reach
the private money lenders and they would start harassing
the petitioner. The petitioner could not know what was
happening to his application for voluntary retirement. In
the year 2004, the petitioner contacted the Coimbatore
Main Branch where he had worked last and claimed
Provident Fund, Gratuity and Pension. He was paid only
the contribution made by him to the Provident Fund.
Employer contribution was not paid. Gratuity payable
to him was adjusted towards the loan account of
petitioner’s Sons at Gandhipuram branch. Regarding
Pension, the Respondent took the stand that the petitioner
has been treated as abandoned the service. The petitioner
had properly tendered letter to retire from service
voluntarily. So treating the petitioner as a person who
has abandoned service is grossly illegal. This amounts
to termination of the petitioner from service without
notice, without hearing and without any enquiry. In the
circumstances, the petitioner has raised the dispute. The
delay in raising the dispute is due to the reasons earlier
stated. The case of the Respondent that the petitioner
has been unauthorizedly absent is without any basis. The
petitioner has already tendered letter for voluntarily
resigning from service. The petitioner is entitled to
terminal benefits on the basis of his voluntary retirement.
An award may be passed holding that the action of the
Management in treating the petitioner as voluntarily
abandoned the service and terminating the service of the
petitioner is grossly illegal and arbitrary and holding that
the petitioner had validly tendered letter for voluntary
retirement from service w.e.f. 28.11.1995 and direct the
Respondent to pay all the terminal benefits, Gratuity, PF,
Pension, Arrears of Pension, etc.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as follows:
The petitioner had joined the service of the
Respondent in the year 1961 and was last working in
Coimbatore Main Branch. His two Sons who had set up
business and availed loans from the branches of the
Respondent Bank in Coimbatore, the petitioner has stood
guarantor for the loans. The petitioner had also availed
housing loan, clean loan, etc. He seems to have issued
cheques without sufficient funds in the account. The
petitioner absented himself from work from 21.11.1995
on the ground that he was ill and he applied for leave.
After this, he made an application for voluntary
retirement on 28.11.1995. By letter dated 29.12.1995 the
Zonal Office at Chennai communicated to the Regional
Office that his request for voluntary retirement could not
be considered as he had loans outstanding with the bank.
The decision of the Zonal Office was communicated to
him only on 30.09.1996 since he remained absent without
any communication. On 25.03.1996, a notice was issued
to the petitioner pointing out his unauthorized absence
and informing him that if he failed to report for duty
within 30 days he will be treated as having left the service.
Since the petitioner did not respond to the
communication, he was treated as having left the service.
Nothing was heard from the petitioner for a very long
period. It was only on 03.06.2004 he sent a letter to the
Respondent giving his address in Gujarat. Since the
petitioner has abandoned his employment, he was not
entitled to Pension in terms of Banks Pension Regulation
Act. The dispute raised by the petitioner is bad on the
grounds of delay, latches and inaction on his part. It is
not a case of termination of employment of the petitioner
by the Bank. It was cessation of employment brought
about by the conduct of the petitioner in remaining absent
without leave for more than 90 days. So he is not entitled
to challenge the termination. The petitioner had passed
the age of superannuation in the year 2003. The petitioner
is interested to treat the cessation of the employment as
termination so that he could make a claim for Pension.
In any case, the petitioner who was not heard of more
than 8 years is not entitled to advance the case that his
removal from service in terms of the provisions of
Bipartite Settlement is unjust. The petitioner is not
entitled to any relief.
5.
The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the case
in the Counter Statement and also reiterating his case in
the Claim Statement.
6.
The evidence in the case of consists of oral evidence
of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to
Ext.W9 and Ext.M1 to Ext. M20.
7.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the management
regarding termination of services of the
petitioner is justified?
(ii)
What is the relief, if any to which the
petitioner is entitled?
The Points
8.
The petitioner had been working with the
Respondent Bank from the year 1961. He had worked
7306
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
with the Respondent until 21.11.1995 on which date he
had applied for leave. Even before the expiry of the period
for which he has applied for leave, on 28.11.1995, he
sent a letter to the Respondent for voluntary retirement
from service. Without waiting for the result the result of
his application for voluntary retirement from service, the
petitioner had stopped attending his duty at the Bank.
Even as stated by the petitioner in his Claim Statement
and by the Respondent in its Counter Statement also the
petitioner had stood guarantor for the loan availed by his
two Sons from different branches of the Respondent Bank
at Coimbatore. According to the petitioner apart from
bank loans, his Sons had raised private loans also. Since
the industries of the Sons started to run on loss, the lenders
began pressing for payment. The petitioner and his Sons
seemed to have taken up residence at Baroda in Gujarat
immediately after submitting letter for voluntary
retirement from service by the petitioner.
9.
The stand of the Respondent is that the request of
the petitioner for voluntary retirement was not allowed
since there were debts outstanding in the name of himself
and his Sons. According to the respondent, since the
petitioner absented himself from work unauthorizedly and
since there was no response to the notice issued by the
Bank the continuous absence of the petitioner was treated
as abandonment of service. According to the respondent,
the petitioner having abandoned the service, he was not
entitled to pensionery benefits.
10.
The initial question that is to be considered is
whether there was abandonment of service actually by
the petitioner. The counsel for the Respondent has
referred to different decisions of the Apex Court to make
out that there was actually abandonment of service on
the part of the petitioner. Reference was made to the
decision in SYNDICATE BANK VS. GENERAL
SECRETARY,
SYNDICATE
BANK
STAFF
ASSOCIATION reported in (2000) 5 SCC 65, PUNJAB
AND SIND BANK AND OTHERS VS. SAKATTAR
SINGH reported in 2001 1 SCC 214, VIVEK NAND
SETHI VS. CHAIRMAN, J&K BANK LIMITED AND
OTHERS reported in (2005) 5 SCC 337 and also
REGIONAL MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA VS.
ANITHA NANDRAJOG reported in 2009 9 SCC 462.
In the above decisions it was held that in the case of long
unauthorized absence no domestic enquiry is required
and the absence is to be treated as voluntary cessation of
service.
11.
If actually the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent
from service for a long time it would be a case of
abandonment of service, no doubt. However, the argument
that is advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that
the absence on the part of the petitioner is not
unauthorized absence he having submitted application
for voluntary retirement from service and the same having
not been rejected it is to be treated as acceptance of his
application for voluntary retirement. According to the
counsel inspite of the above application the Respondent
has treated the absence of the petitioner as abandonment
from service and under this guise had terminated his
service to deny pensioner benefits to him.
12.
It is not disputed by the Respondent that a letter
requesting for voluntary retirement has been submitted
by the petitioner. In fact the document is produced by the
Respondent and is marked as Ext.M3. At the stage of the
argument, the counsel for the Respondent has advanced
an argument that the application for Voluntary Retirement
is not in proper form. However, on going through the
documents produced by the Respondent it could be seen
that throughout until the stage of argument there was
never a case for the Respondent that the application for
Voluntary Retirement was not entertained, the same not
being in proper form. On the other hand, the stand of the
respondent is that the request of the petitioner for
Voluntary Retirement was rejected since dues were
outstanding in his name as well as in the name of his
Sons.
13.
Even though, the Respondent has got a case that
the application for Voluntary Retirement was rejected by
the Zonal Office by letter dated 29.12.1995, even as
admitted by the Respondent in its Counter Statement,
the communication of rejection was not given to the
petitioner until 30.09.1996 which according to the
Respondent was due to absence of the petitioner from
work. However this absence has not prevented the
Respondent from later issuing a notice to the petitioner
on 25.03.1996 stating that he was unauthorizedly absent
and that he is to report for duty within 30 days. This
notice marked as Ext.M7 is seen returned un-served since
the petitioner has stopped residing in this address at
Coimbatore and has already shifted to Baroda. Even as
admitted by the petitioner he has not furnished his Baroda
address to the Respondent. However nothing prevented
the Respondent from making its stand safe by giving a
communication of rejection of the application for
Voluntary Retirement by sending it in the last known
address of the petitioner.
14.
Ex.M3 letter dated 28.11.1995 from the petitioner
addressed to the Manager, Department of Personnel
Affairs states that the petitioner is suffering from ill-health
and therefore he is submitting his voluntary retirement
from service with immediate effect under the Voluntary
retirement Scheme on health grounds. The letter also
requests to accept the request and to relieve him from
service on receipt of the letter, at the earliest.
15.
The Respondent has produced the Pension
Regulations pertaining to the employees. Chapter-V
referring to Pension gives two classes of pension, one on
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7307
superannuation and the other second on voluntary
retirement. Clause-29.1 which refers to pension on
voluntary retirement states that on or after the first day of
November 1993, at any time after the employee has
completed 20 years of qualifying service he may, by giving
notice of not less than 3 months to the Appointing
Authority, retire from service. Sub-Regulation-2 of
Regulation-29 states that notice of voluntary retirement
given shall require acceptance by the Appointing
Authority. There is a proviso to this Sub-Regulation that
where the Appointing Authority does not refuse to grant
the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period
specified in the notice, the retirement shall become
effective from the date of expiry of the said period. Under
Sub-Reguation-3, an employee referred to in Sub-
Regulation-1 may make a request in writing to the
Appointing Authority to accept notice of voluntary
retirement of less than 3 months giving reasons. As per
Clause-B of Sub-Regulation-3 the Appointing Authority
may consider such request subject to the provisions of
Sub-Regulation-2 and if it is satisfied that curtailment of
the period of notice did not cause any administrative
inconvenience the authority may relax the requirement of
notice of three months on the condition that the employee
shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension
before expiry of the notice of three months. Under Sub-
Regulation-4 even restriction is placed on the employee
on withdrawing his notice for voluntary retirement.
16.
On a perusal of Ext.M3 it is clear that the request for
voluntary retirement by the petitioner was one under Sub-
Regulation-2 of Regulation-29 read with Sub-Regulation-
3. He has stated in his letter that he is suffering from ill-
health, that he is seeking voluntary retirement on health
grounds and he may be relieved from service at the earliest.
In spite of the fact that the petitioner wanted retirement
with immediate effect, his request was not considered by
the authorities immediately. It was not considered even
before the period of three months which is the period of
notice prescribed under Regulation-29(1). It was incumbent
on the authorities to consider the request immediately and
decide whether the petitioner is entitled to voluntary
retirement before the expiry of the period of three months.
The authorities did not take any decision on Sub-
Regulation-2, though this states that the notice of
voluntary retirement shall require acceptance by the
Appointing Authority. In the absence of any decision by
the authority and absence of communication regarding
any decision, the proviso under Sub-Regulation-2 of
Regulation-29 will necessarily come into play. As per this
proviso, if the authority is not granting any permission for
retirement before expiry of the period specified in the notice
retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry
of the period. So far as the petitioner was concerned his
request was to exempt him from any notice and grant his
request for voluntary retirement with immediate effect.
17.
It has been argued by the Counsel for the
Respondent that three months notice has not been given
by the petitioner while seeking voluntary retirement and
for this reason also the application is bad. However, even
this contention is not seen take by the Respondent in the
Counter Statement. The documents produced on behalf
of the Respondent does not state also that the petitioner’s
request could not have been entertained in the absence of
any specification regarding the period of notice. So far
as the petitioner is concerned he was asking for voluntary
retirement with immediate effect on health grounds and
so it was a request for exemption from giving any notice
at all. Even assuming that the application is one under
Regulation-29(1) and three months notice has not been
specified the Respondent could have treated period of
three months from the date of receipt of notice as the
period of notice and could have taken a decision within
this period. In the absence of any decision on the part of
the Respondent within the said three months, necessarily
the proviso to Sub-Regulation-2 should come into play
and the petitioner must be deemed to have retired from
service on expiry of the said period.
18.
There is of course the fact that the petitioner
did not attend his duty after he sent Ext.M3 to the
Respondent. It is on the basis of this it has been
argued by the Counsel for the Respondent that it is
a case of abandonment of service. If the wording in
Sub-Regulation-3 of the Pension Regulations is accepted
it cannot be treated as abandonment of service at all.
Even assuming that the petitioner was not expected to
stop attending duty before he received a communication
regarding acceptance of his request of retirement or until
expiry of three months period of notice, the action of
the petitioner need not be treated as abandonment of
service. It was a case where the petitioner under very
extra-ordinary circumstances had made a request for
voluntary retirement with immediate effect and there
was no reason for him to suppose that his request would
be rejected. The only restriction in accepting a voluntary
retirement application before the expiry of the three
months notice was whether it will cause any
administrative inconvenience. In other respects it is a
must that the same should be accepted. This is clear
from the fact that an employee is precluded from
withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval
of the authority.
19.
The counsel for the Respondent has been referring
to the decision in VIJAY S. SATHYE VS. INDIAN
AIRLINES LTD AND OTHERS reported in 2014 3 LLN
40 where the request for voluntary retirement was rejected
as the employee had not given three months notice as
provided and had failed to attend duty immediately after
7308
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
submitting the application. The Apex Court had considered
the case as one of abandonment from servie and had
refused to accede to the request of the employee in question
who was a Pilot for voluntary retirement. The above case
can be distinguished from the present case. The Pilot who
had sought retirement was informed in writing that he
should continue in service till the time decision is taken
on his application. Apart from this, as per the regulation
that was applicable, acceptance of resignation was subject
to approval of the competent authority. The Apex Court
has held that it is a settled legal proposition that if a statute
provides for approval of the higher authority, the order
cannot be given effect to unless it is approved and the
same remains inconsequential and unenforceable. The
Pension Regulations of the Respondent stand on a
different footing. As per Regulation-29(1) any person who
has completed 20 years of qualifying service was entitled
to voluntary retirement on his applying with three months
notice. In the absence of rejection of the application within
the prescribed time, it is to be deemed that the retirement
has come into effect after the period of notice.
20.
In this respect the decisions relied upon by the
counsel for the petitioner are relevant. In the decision in
DINESH CHANDRA SANGMA VS. STATE OF ASSAM
AND OTHERS reported in 1978 1 LLJ 17, a District Judge
had sought retirement on the basis of the concerned rule
and the same was allowed. Later, the order was cancelled
and the Judge was asked to join duty. As per Fundamental
Rule-56C which was applicable to the case, a Government
Servant may by giving notice of not less than 3 months in
writing to the appropriate authority retire from service after
he has obtained the age of 50 years or has completed 25
years of service whichever is earlier. The Apex Court held
that there was no question of acceptance of request for
voluntary retirement by the Govenrment when the
Government Servant had exercised his right under FR 56C.
There was automatic retirement in the case. In the present
case also the petitioner having exercised his option under
Regulation-29(1) and the competent authority having failed
to accept the same the proviso has come into effect and
the petitioner is to be deemed to have retired voluntarily
in view of the refusal.
21.
In the decision in SUNDARESHWARALU VS.
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in
CDJ 2003 MHC 1165, the Madras High Court has held that
the application seeking voluntary retirement having not
been rejected by the appropriate authority, on expiry of
three months period, it is to be deemed that the petitioner
has retired from service. The High Court had directed the
Central Bank to settle the terminal benefits of the petitioner.
The period of the absence of the petitioner was directed
to be treated as leave with or without pay.
22.
In the light of the above legal pronouncements also
it could be seen that the petitioner is to be deemed to
have retired from service at least on expiry of three months
after receipt of the request by the Respondent.
23.
It has been argued by the Counsel for the Petitioner
that even assuming that it was a case of unauthorized
absence from duty on the part of the petitioner, the
petitioner could not have been visited with a punishment
more grave than compulsory retirement. It has been
pointed out by the counsel that it was under very trying
circumstances that the petitioner had to absent himself
from duty. He had pointed out that the petitioner had
stood guarantor for the loans of his Sons and his Sons
were facing loss in their industry and the Respondent
Bank as well as Private Lenders were running after him
and his Sons for recovering the debt and he had taken
the extreme step of leaving his locality. The counsel has
referred to a decision of the Apex Court in
SHANKARDAS VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR
1985 SC 184 where it was held that family circumstances
can be taken into account in deciding the measure of
penalty to be imposed.
24.
By the time the petitioner had given his request for
voluntary retirement he had completed 34 years of service.
He had claimed in the Claim Statement that it was a
service of unblemished record. The Respondent has no
case that the petitioner was guilty of any misconduct at
any point of his career in the Bank. There is absolutely
no complaint against the petitioner regarding his previous
conduct. The only reason the Bank has given to reject
the application for voluntary retirement (which according
to it was communicated after expiry of the three months
period) is that the petitioner was having several loans
and he had made several borrowels outside the bank also.
So far as the loan granted to the petitioner’s Sons with
him as the guarantor was concerned there was no
necessity for the Bank to worry at all. It was not with the
salary of the petitioner as Security that a loan was given
to the Sons. On the other hand, the loan was well secured
by the property of the petitioner. Even on the basis of
assessment made by the bank as seen from Ext.M4 the
loan arrears was ` 8.00 lakhs only while the property of
the petitioner given as Security was worth ` 20.00 lakhs.
So the employment of the petitioner and the loan arrears
due to the bank should not have been connected.
25.
Of course the petitioner has come forward with a
dispute after several years. On this ground alone the claim
of the petitioner could not be rejected. The petitioner has
detailed and the Bank has also asserted the circumstances
under which the petitioner has left the job and these are
already referred to. In fact since the right of the petitioner
for pensionery benefits has already become crystallized
on account of the deemed acceptance of his application
for voluntary retirement, this should not matter also. Even
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7309
then considering the long delay in raising the dispute and
that also alomgwith the failure of the petitioner to give
any information to the Bank regarding his whereabouts
the relief can be moulded.
26.
Before concluding, a contention that has been raised
by the Counsel for the Respondent at the stage of
argument regarding the maintainability of the dispute is
also to be referred to. It has been argued by the Counsel
for the Respondent that it is not a case of termination of
the petitioner from service but a case of his abandonment
of service and therefore Section-11A of the Act is not
applicable, the petitioner having not been discharged or
dismissed from service. In answer to this, the counsel for
the Petitioner has argued that the contention regarding
maintainability of the dispute has not been taken by the
Respondent at all in the Counter Statement. On the other
hand, the Counsel for the Respondent argued that this
stand of the counsel for the petitioner is incorrect. He
also argued that in any case it is a question of law and
can be agitated at any stage of the case even if it is not
raised in the Counter Statement. Of course, the
Respondent has stated in the Counter Statement that this
is not a case of termination of employment but cessation
of employment brought about by the conduct of the
petitioner and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to
challenge the termination. Thus, though not expressly
stated that the dispute is not maintainable, there is
somewhat vague contention to this effect in the Counter
Statement. However, I do not think this contention on
behalf of the Respondent could be accepted. I have
already found that the petitioner must be deemed to have
retired from service. In such a situation the respondent
could not have treated the matter as cessation of service.
It is in effect termination of service of the petitioner under
the guise of cessation of service to deny terminal benefits
to the petitioner. In this respect the counsel for the
petitioner has referred to the decision in RAMASWAMY
VS. THE MANAGEMENT OF WARWICK ESTATE
reported in 2009 4 LLN 413 where the High Court has
held that once workman approach the Labour Court
challenging his non-employment it is incumbent on the
part of Labour Court to find out whether his plea is
justified or not. So in any case it was incumbent upon
the Tribunal to consider the question whether it was
abandonment of service or termination from service. As
stated it is a case of termination under the guise of
cessation of service. In fact it was not fair on the part of
Respondent Bank to deny terminal benefits to the
petitioner alleging cessation of service. The Respondent
is an establishment having hundreds of branches all over
India. The petitioner was a person who had served the
Respondent for long 34 years. He was certainly entitled
to the pensionery benefits which is a right he has accrued
by the service of the Respondent for years together. The
Respondent should have been more considerate in its
attitude towards the petitioner. I find that the Respondent
has denied benefit to the petitioner under the guise of
cessation from service.
27.
Considering that the petitioner had raised the
dispute with a lot of delay, the benefits payable to him
until the day of his raising the dispute will be limited to
50%.
28.
On the basis of my discussion above, an award is
passed as follows:
(i)
The petitioner is deemed to have retired after
three months of receipt of Ext.M3 by the
Respondent.
(ii)
the Respondent shall pay 50% of the
retirement benefits due to the petitioner from
the date of retirement to the date of raising
the dispute.
(iii)
the Respondent shall pay the entire retirement
benefits due to the petitioner from the date of
raising the dispute until the date of award.
(iv)
the amounts payable under heads (ii) and (iii)
shall ,be paid within one month of the award
in the absence of which interest will be
payable @ 9% per annum.
(v)
The Respondent shall continue to pay pension
to the petitioner from the date of the award.
The reference is answered accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/
:
WW1, Sri M. K. Narayanan
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/
:
MW1, Sri S. Balasubramanian
Management
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
08.06.2004
Letter issued by the Bank
Ex.W2
23.07.2004
Application for pension
Ex.W3
29.10.2004
Letter from the Bank
Ex.W4
16.12.2005
Letter from the petitioner
Ex.W5
16.07.2007
Certificate issued by the Bank
Ex.W6
07.09.2007
Letter from the petitioner
Ex.W7
15.12.2008
Letter from the petitioner
7310
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W8
04.06.2009
Letter issued by the Bank
Ex.W9
04.03.2010
Letter issued by the Bank
On the Management’s side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ex. M1
22.12.1995
Communication from Bank –
Coimbatore Main Branch to
the Petitioner.
Ex. M2
13.12.1995
Letter from Mr. R. Kasthuri
Ranga, Advocate, Coimbatore
to the petitioner with copy to
the Bank – Lr. Ref. No. LN/
656/95.
Ex. M3
28.11.1995
Letter from petitioner to the
Bank addressed to Central
Office, Bombay through
Coimbatore Main Branch
submitting application for
Voluntary Retirement on
health grounds.
Ex. M4
02.12.1995
Inter Office letter RO/PER/
980 from Regional Office,
Coimbatore to Zonal Office,
Madras
regarding
the
petitioner.
Ex. M5
29.12.1995
Inter Office letter bearing No.
ZO/SZ1/BP/8884–Zonal
Office, Madras to AGM, RO,
Coimbatore regarding the
petitioner.
Ex. M6
25.03.2006
Memo from R.O., Coimbatore
under reference RO/PER/
1481 addressed to the
petitioner.
Ex. M7
-
The above cover sent to the
petitioner to his residential
address returned undelivered
with endorsement “Party
Left”–returned
cover
unopened an filed with postal
Acknowledgement.
Ex. M8
13.09.1996
Letter from Chief Manager
under reference STF/595/96
addressed to the petitioner.
Ex. M9
25.05.2000
Letter from Chief Manager
addressed to the petitioner
regarding abandonment of
service, settlement of terminal
benefits etc. STF/315/2000.
Ex. M10
-
Petition under Provisional
Insolvency Act – IP No. 2 of
1996.
Ex. M11
-
Petition under Provisional
Insolvency Act under I.P. No.
3 of 1996.
Ex. M12
26.02.1998
Letter from Mr. MR Sankaran,
Manager, RO, Coimbatore
addressed to AGM, RO,
Coimbatore regarding the
petitioner.
Ex. M13
03.06.2004
Letter from petitioner to
Regional Manager, Coimbatore.
Ex. M14
19.03.2010
Letter from RO Coimbatore
under reference RO/HRM-
1155/2010 addressed to
petitioner with postal receipt
and postal acknowledgement
with the signature of the
petitioner enclosing copy of
petitioner’s letter dated
04.03.2010,
25.03.1996,
07.02.1996 and 12.01.1996.
Ex. M15
26.07.2000
Letter from Ministry of
Finance, Govt. of India under
reference F.No. 4/8/7/99/IR
addressed to Deputy Personnel
Adviser,
Indian
Bank
Association, Mumbai.
Ex. M16
14.12.2011
Notice from ALC(C), Madurai
addressed to Union Bank,
Mumbai, enclosing copy of 2A
petition dated 03.12.2011 of
petitioner.
Ex. M17
12.04.2012
Reply statement filed by
petitioner before ALC(C),
Chennai.
Ex. M18
23.08.2012
Conciliation Failure Report by
ALC(C), Madurai.
Ex. M19
15.02.2005
Letter from Coimbatore Main
Branch under reference
No. STF/654/05 addressed to
the Petitioner regarding
settlement of gratuity benefit
by cheque for ` 2,14,047/-
and crediting to his SB
Account Number.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7311
Ex. M20
03.08.2004
Inter Office letter from RO,
Coimbatore to Chief Manager,
Coimbatore Main Branch
under reference RO/HRM/
568/2004 – releasing terminal
benefits to the petitioner
` 1,49,318.02 towards his PF
with request to credit the
proceeds to petitioner’s SB
Account and copy cheque No.
“294557” dated 16.07.2003.
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2958-—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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
120@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@44@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2014
S.O.
2958.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 120/
2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the Bank
of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 05/11/2014.
[No. L-12012/44/2002-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT:
RAKESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 120/2002
Ref. No. L-12012/44/2002-IR(B-II) Dated: 07.07.2002
BETWEEN:
Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav
C.K. 63/48, Chhoti Piari
Varanasi (U.P.) – 221 001
AND
The Zonal Manager
Bank of India
Varanasi Zone Plaza Complex,
Bhelupura Varanasi (U.P.) – 221 001
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-12012/44/2002-IR(B-II) Dated:
07.07.2002 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by
clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of
1947) referred this industrial dispute between Shri
Santosh Kumar Yadav, C.K. 63/48, Chhoti Piari, Varanasi
(U.P.)and the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Varanasi
Zone Plaza Complex, Bhelupura, Varanasi (U.P.) to this
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow for adjudication.
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER
THE
ACTION
OF
THE
MANAGEMENT OF BANK OF INDIA IN
TERMINATING THEIR SERVICES OF SHRI
SANTOSH KUMAR YADAV W.E.F. 3.9.2001 IS
LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED. IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF
IS HE ENTITLED FOR?”
3.
The case of the workman, Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav,
in brief, is that he was engaged by the opposite party
bank in the year 1994 as sub-staff whose services have
been terminated by the Bank orally on 03.09.2001. It has
been submitted by the workman that he worked for more
than 240 days in a block of twelve months continuously
even then the Bank terminated his services without any
notice or notice pay in lieu thereof, thereby violating the
provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. Accordingly the workman has prayed that his
termination be set aside and the management of the Bank
be directed to reinstate the workman with all consequential
benefits including full back wages.
4.
Per contra, the management of the Bank of India has
disputed the claim of the workman through its written
statement wherein it has submitted that there is prescribed
procedure for appointment in the bank and the claimant
had never gone through the selection process, as such,
he was never appointed by the bank at any point of time.
It is submitted by the bank that whenever required, casual
labours are hired from open market on daily wage basis
and are paid accordingly; hence they could not be called
the employees of the bank. The bank has denied
continuous working of the said workman and has also
denied his termination or violation of the any of the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Accordingly, the management of the Bank has prayed
that the claim of the workman be rejected without any
relief to him.
7312
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
The workman has filed the rejoinder whereby he has
only reiterated his averments in the statement of claim and
has not introduced any new fact.
6.
After submission of documentary evidence in
support of their respective cases by the parties, the
workman examined himself and Shri Narayan Singh;
whereas the management adduced evidence of Shri Dudh
Lal Ram to corroborate their pleadings. The parties
availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each
other. After conclusion of parties’ evidence, the case was
fixed for arguments of the parties on merits, when the
workman moved an application W-57 regarding closure
of the case.
7.
The workman in the application W-57, mentioned
that the workmen’s Union has entered into a settlement
dated 25.06.2013 with the opposite party before the
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai;
whereby the opposite party has included him, in the
selection procedure and has declared him successful for
appointment in the Bank’s services. It was stated by the
workman that in view of the settlement, he is not willing
to contest the present industrial dispute anymore; and
prayed that the case may be disposed of accordingly. It
is also mentioned in the application stated by the
workman.
8.
Heard workman and perused the application W-
57, accompanied with the settlement dated 25.06.2013.
9.
The workman in its application W-57 has stated
that a settlement dated 25.06.2013 has been arrived
between the Union of the workmen and the Bank; and in
accordance thereto the workman has undergone regular
selection procedure and is declared successful for
appointment in the services of the Bank. The workman
has stated that in view of the settlement, there is no need
to proceed with the present industrial dispute and
accordingly, has expressed its willingness not to contest
the present dispute with prayer to dispose of the same
accordingly.
10.
It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality
of the action of the management and if no evidence is
produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must
fail. In the instant case the burden was on the workman
to prove that the action of the management of Bank of
India in terminating the services of the workman was
illegal and unjustified. The stand of the workman was
denied by the management of the bank and the parties
adduced oral evidence too in support of their rival
pleadings; but before submission of their final arguments
on merit, the workman has come forward with
application, W-57, stating therein that since his
grievances have got redressed by the opposite party
consequent to settlement dated 25.06.213, therefore, he
does not want to contest the present industrial dispute
and wants the closure of the same. Accordingly, there is
no need to proceed with the present industrial dispute, as
grievances of the workmen stand redressed. Thus, the
workman has prayed to pass suitable orders.
11.
Although provisions of withdrawal of suits under
Order 23 Rule 1 CPC are not applicable in the matter of
reference under Section 10 of ID Act but, in view of the
submission of the workman for withdrawal of the case,
there is no grievance left with the workman. Resultantly,
no relief is required to be given to the workman
concerned. The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly.
12.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW.
08th October, 2014.
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2959-—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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 114@11)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@11@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@56@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2014
S.O.
2959.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 114/11)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of the State Bank of
India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 10/11/2014.
[No. L-12011/56/2011-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT- II, KARKARDOOMA COURT
COMPLEX,
DELHI 110 032
Present:
Shri HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA
ID No. 114/11
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7313
Smt. Shashi Kakkar
The General Secy.
All India Bank Staff Association,
33-34, Bank Enclave , Ring Road
Versus
The Branch Manager
SBI, DMS, Shadipur Branch,
New Delhi-110008
NO DISPUTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide notification No L-12011/56/2011-IR(B-1)) dated
01.12.2011 referred the following industrial Dispute to
this tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of India, DMS Shadipur Branch, New Delhi
in denying payment of the lumpsum Ex-gratia
amount under the SBI Scheme of ‘Payment of Ex-
Gratia lumpsum Amount in lieu of Compassionate
Appointment to Smt. Shashi Kakkar W/o late
Sh. Ish Kumar Kakkar, Sr. Assistant , who died while
in service on 01.06.2005, only on the ground of
delayed application , is legal and justified? To what
relief the Union/Smt. Shashi Kakkar is entitled?”
On 19.12.2011 reference was received in this
tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 114/2011 and
claimant was called upon to file claim statement with in
fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was
required to be accompanied with relevant documents and
list of witnesses.
Several opportunities given to workman as well as
management but neither workman nor management filed
claim statement / Response to the reference.
In this background there is no option to this tribunal
except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not
interested to file their respective pleadings.
On the basis of which none of the parties can be
directed to adduce its evidence.
No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-18/09/2014
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2960-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
11@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@10@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41011@113@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2014
S.O.
2960.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of the Western Railway
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 21/10/2014.
[No. L-41011/113/2013-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 11 of 2014
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Western Railway
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: Railway.
Dated: 17th October, 2014.
AWARD
By Order No.L-41011/113/2013-IR(B-I) dated
12.02.2014 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 demand of the union to give the
benefits of finally pension, gratuity, leave
encashment, fund, workmen compensation and to
give service to the son of Shri Parvat Chandra in
Railway is legal proper and just? If so, to what relief
the concerned workman is entitled to?”
7314
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
When the case was taken up on 15.10.2014, none
appeared on behalf of either of the parties. It appears
from the record that none of the parties to the present
dispute ever appeared before this Tribunal nor they have
taken any step to proceed with this reference inspite of
service of notice and inspite of specific order of the
Tribunal on the last date viz. 14.08.2014.
3.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, it
appears that the parties to the present reference are not
at all interested to proceed with the case further. So, no
useful 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 17th October, 2014.
ubZ fnYyh] 14 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2961-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj y{eh foykl
cSad fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 60@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
10@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@09@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2014
S.O.
2961.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 60/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the Lakshmi
Vilas Bank Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 10/11/2014.
[No. L-12012/09/2013-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 29th October, 2014
Present :
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 60/2013
(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 Lakshmi Vilas Bank
and their workman)
BETWEEN:
Shri P. Ramachandran
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The General Manager/HR
:
2nd PartyRespondent
Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.
Administrative Office,
Salem Road, Kathaparai
Karur-639006
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/ :
M/s. K.M. Ramesh, Advocates
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/ :
M/s. T. R. Sathiyamohan, Advocates
Management
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/09/2013-IR(B-
I) dated 28.05.2013 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the management of Lakshmi
Vilas Bank in imposing the punishment of
dismissal without notice on Sri Ramachandran,
Clerk is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the concerned workman is entitled?”
2.
On receipt of Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID 60/2013 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides entered appearance through their
counsel and filed their Claim and Counter Statement
respectively. The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer
to the counter statement filed by the Respondent.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are as below:
The petitioner had joined the service of the
Respondent Bank as Clerk in 1980. During the year 2005
the petitioner was working in Kathamparai branch, Karur.
While working so, the petitioner was placed under
suspension by proceedings dated 19.06.2010. The
petitioner was issued with a charge sheet on 20.07.2010.
In the charge sheet it was alleged that the petitioner had
pre-closed a deposit of one Mangayarselvi and credited `
7500/- being government subsidy to the account of one
Manikandan, a Sub-Staff of Papanad branch of the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7315
Respondent Bank on 04.07.2009. The petitioner is said to
have done this by misusing the password of the Manager
who was on leave, without his knowledge. The petitioner
is said to have defrauded the bank by misappropriating
the govt. subsidy by his above act. Though the petitioner
has given reply to the charge sheet denying the allegation,
it was not accepted and an enquiry was conducted against
the petitioner. The enquiry which was commenced on
30.10.2010 was concluded on the same day. The petitioner
was not given opportunity to defend his case. The Enquiry
Officer gave a report finding the petitioner guilty of the
charges. On the basis of the report, the punishment of
dismissal without notice was imposed on the petitioner
by the Disciplinary Authority. The finding of the Enquiry
Officer is perverse and is bad in law. The punishment
imposed on the petitioner is illegal and unjustified. An
order may be passed holding that the action of the
Respondent in imposing the punishment of dismissal
without notice on the petitioner is illegal and unjustified
and directing the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in
service.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as follows :
The petitioner who was working as Clerk in
Kathamparai branch of the Respondent Bank was
suspended from service from 19.06.2010 consequent to
certain acts of misconduct on his part. A charge sheet was
issued to him subsequently, regarding the misconduct
committed by him. One Mangayarselvi had availed loan
of ` 1,50,000/- on 23.12.2003 with govt. subsidy of ` 75,00/
- and the same was kept in fixed deposit. The account
became non-performing asset and was closed on
21.04.2009 without adjusting the subsidy in deposit. On
04.07.2009, the petitioner had pre-closed the deposit which
was due on 04.06.2010 and had fraudulently credited it to
the account of Manikandan, Sub-Staff of Papanad branch.
The entries were originated using the Teller Id of the
petitioner and authorized using the password of the
Manager without his knowledge. In the explanation given
by the petitioner to the Charge Sheet, he had admitted
having committed the misconduct. The claim that he had
done so by mistake is an afterthought. The explanation
submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory and a
departmental enquiry was contemplated. The petitioner
was given full opportunity to defend himself. On
conclusion of the enquiry, Enquiry Officer has found the
petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him.
A show cause memo was issued to him affording a personal
hearing and the Disciplinary Authority had passed a final
order considering all the material factors, imposing the
punishment of removal from service, with immediate effect
on the petitioner. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to
the appellate authority has been rejected. The petitioner
is not entitled to any relief.
5.
The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the
allegations in the Counter Statement and also reiterating
the case in the Claim Statement.
6.
Though in the Claim Statement and in the Rejoinder,
the petitioner has raised a contention that Enquiry was
not conducted in a fair and proper manner, this contention
has been given up by him before the trial was started. The
counsel has made endorsement to this effect.
7.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
of WW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to W8 and
Ext.M1 to M18.
8.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the Respondent bank
in imposing the punishment of dismissal
without notice on the petitioner is legal and
justified?
(ii)
What if any is the relief to which the petitioner
is entitled?
The Points
9.
The petitioner who had started to work as a Clerk in
the Respondent Bank in the year 1980 was working in
Kathamparai Branch at the time of the alleged incident.
The incident relates to pre-closing the subsidy amount
due to an account holder kept in fixed deposit. The
allegation is that on 04.07.2009 the petitioner had pre-
closed this deposit fraudulently and credited it to the
account of one Manikandan who had been a Sub-Staff of
another branch of the Respondent Bank. The entries
regarding the transaction were allegedly made by the
petitioner using his teller id and misusing the password of
the Manager.
10.
In the explanation submitted by him to the Charge
Sheet and marked as Ext.M2 the petitioner has not denied
to have pre-closed the fixed deposit and credited to the
account of Manikandan. He has also not denied the
allegation that he has used the password of the Manager
who was on leave on the particular day. The petitioner
stated in his explanation that it was common at Kathamparai
Branch to use the password of the Manager by other
officials and staffs whenever the Manager was out for
any other work. According to the petitioner on 04.07.2009,
the day in question while he was very busy at the counter
Sub-Staff Manikandan of Papanad Branch had called him
over phone and had requested him to send ` 10,000/
- immediately. Having sufficient balance in his savings
account he had obliged Manikandan. However, when he
was about to pass entries for ` 7,500/- from his savings
7316
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
account by oversight he had made a wrong entry and
debited deposit amount related to the loan account.
According to him when he came to know of the
mistake he had telephoned Manikandan and Manikandan
had remitted the sum to the credit of Kathamparai Branch.
According to the petitioner, he had not committed the
act intentionally or deliberately. Immediately on realizing
the wrong entry he had made the beneficiary remit the
amount.
11.
In the enquiry proceedings, the officer who had
enquired into the irregularities committed by Sub-Staff
Manikandan, the then Manager of the Kathaparai Branch
and the subsequent Manager of the Branch were
examined. It could be seen from the evidence by MW1
that the incident which is the subject matter of the dispute
was revealed while enquiring into the misconduct of
Manikandan. The report given by MW1 regarding
Maniknadan has been marked in the enquiry proceedings.
The witness has stated that during enquiry the transaction
in respect of ` 7,500/- received at the account of
Manikandan from Kathaparai branch on 04.07.2009 was
noticed and it was also found that the transaction pertains
to closure of proceeds of PMRY Subsidy Deposit of one
Mangayarselvi.
12.
There is also the evidence given by MW2, the Branch
Manager. On 22.06.2010 the Manager has written to the
HRD Department regarding the closure of subsidy deposit
in the name of Mangayarselvi and transfer of the amount
to the account of Manikandan. MW2 has stated that the
entry was authorized with his own password while he was
on leave. He stated that he has not given his password to
the petitioner. He stated that he came to know of the
missing of the FD Receipt only after investigation by MW1.
13.
MW3 was examined to prove the related documents
pertaining to the incident. The document regarding the
fixed deposit, the loan ledger extract pertaining to the term
loan of Mangayarselvi and the statement of account of
Mangayarselvi were marked through this witness. The
Teller Transaction Report on the particular date and also
the copy of the letter given by the petitioner on 05.06.2010
are also proved through this witness. As already stated it
is not disputed by the petitioner that he is the one who
had pre-closed the deposit and credited the amount to the
account of Manikandan. The duty of the two Managers
through their evidence was only to assert this case. The
defence put forth by the petitioner is that it was by way of
mistake the transaction was made by him. What he has
stated is that Manikandan had asked him a loan of `
10,000/- and he had obliged since he has sufficient balance
in his account According to him inadvertently, rather than
debiting from his own account he had pre-closed the fixed
deposit and credited to the account of Manikandan. He
has stated that his innocence will be proved by the fact
that he has remitted back the amount immediately.
14.
Though it was claimed in the explanation given by
the petitioner to the Charge Sheet itself that he has
remitted back the amount, the petitioner has
conspicuously omitted to give the date on which the
remittance was made. During his argument, the counsel
for the petitioner has stated that the remittance was made
within two hours. However, I do not find from any of the
documents produced that the amount was remitted back
within two hours after the transaction was entered into by
the petitioner. In the written argument of defense submitted
on behalf of the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer the
case is that the amount was remitted back within 21 days.
But one does not know to which date this 21 days relates
to, whether from the date of the transaction or from the
date of enquiry report by MW1. In the written arguments
filed on behalf of the Respondent it is stated that only
after a year of the Investigating Officer detecting the illegal
transfer the amount has been remitted. This statement
certainly reveal that the amount has been remitted, but
only after the misconduct was detected by MW1 while
inquiring into the misconduct of Manikandan.
15.
Is it possible that the petitioner by inadvertence
committed the mistake of pre-closing the fixed deposit and
remitting the amount to the account of Manikandan rather
than debiting his own account and crediting to the account
of Manikandan? Even according to the petitioner the
demand by Manikandan was for ` 10,000/-. According to
him he had sufficient balance in his account also. If so, the
petitioner would have been crediting ` 10,000/- itself to
the account of Manikandan rather than a lesser amount. It
is difficult to accept the case given by the petitioner in his
explanation that it was by mistake he had pre-closed a
fixed deposit in the name of Mangayarselvi. The subsidy
was payable only on 04.06.2010 and that is why it was put
in fixed deposit. In the meanwhile the account of
Mangayarselvi had become non-performing asset and it
was closed. It was in such a situation the petitioner had
pre-closed the deposit on 04.07.2009 and credited it to the
account of Manikandan. Pre-closing of a fixed deposit is a
transaction quite different from debiting a subsisting
account and transferring the amount to another account.
This would not have happened by inadvertence. Again it
is unlikely that the petitioner would not have noticed the
mistake at least within a few days, if it was actually a
mistake. His case is that he was under the impression that
his own account was debited for crediting to the account
of Manikandan. If this is a case, during the next transaction
pertaining to his own account he would have noticed the
same. Manikandan who received the amount would have
informed him also. However, he had waited until the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7317
incident was disclosed through the enquiry report of MW1
to remit the amount. So it is difficult to believe the case of
the petitioner that it was a mistake on his part.
16.
There is also the fact that the petitioner had
admittedly used the password of the Manager to authorize
the entry. MW2, the Manager has stated that he has not
revealed the password to the petitioner. The case of the
petitioner himself is that the branch was in the habit of
using the password of the Manager in his absence. It is
not denied that the Manager was on leave on the particular
date. There is the evidence given by the Manager that
there are other Officers who are empowered to authorize
the entries. While the Manager was on leave no one could
be expected to use his password with or without his
permission. When on leave the Manager does not have
any power to authorize the transaction. There would have
been other Officers who were empowered to do so. So it is
clear that the petitioner was unauthorizedly using the
password of the Manager. The case of inadvertent mistake
advanced by the petitioner could not be accepted at all.
17.
The counsel for the petitioner has argued that except
on sufficient and reliable proof one should not be found
guilty especially when the misconduct alleged is criminal
in nature. The counsel has referred to the decision of the
Madras High Court in VINCENT VS. THE DIRECTOR OF
GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS AND ANOTHER in
Writ Appeal No. 320/79 in this respect. However, here it is
not a case where there is no reliable proof regarding the
guilt of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer had every
justification for finding the petitioner guilty.
18.
The punishment of dismissal without notice was
imposed on the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority. It
has been pointed out that the petitioner had been working
for more than 30 years and there was no allegation of
misconduct against him earlier. When this fact is taken
into account, I feel that the punishment is not in proportion
to the gravity of the offence committed. The punishment
of Compulsory Retirement from service would meet the
ends of justice.
19.
Based on the discussion above, an award is passed
as follows:
The punishment imposed on the petitioner is
modified to one of Compulsory Retirement from service.
20.
The reference is answered accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
WW1, Sri P.
Ramachandran
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
19.06.2010
Xerox copy of the proceedings of
the Disciplinary Authority
Ex.W2
09.08.2010
Xerox copy of the reply submitted
by the petitioner to the charge
sheet
Ex.W3
05.10.2010
Xerox copy of letter from
Disciplinary
Authority
appointing Enquiry Officer
Ex.W4
15.10.2010
Xerox copy of letter from Enquiry
Officer to the petitioner
Ex.W5
23.10.2010
Xerox copy of letter from Enquiry
Officer to the petitioner
Ex.W6
23.10.2010
Xerox copy of defence written
argument submitted by the
petitioner to the Enquiry Officer
Ex.W7
24.02.2011
Xerox copy of the proceedings of
the Disciplinary Authority
Ex.W8
02.03.2011
Xerox copy of the minutes of the
personal hearing before the
Disciplinary Authority
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.M1
20.07.2010
Charge Sheet filed by the
Respondent
Ex.M2
09.08.2010
Explanation to the Charge Sheet
Ex.M3
05.06.2010
Exhibit M.1 filed by the
Respondent in the domestic
Enquiry
Ex.M4
04.07.2009
Exhibit M.2 filed by the
Respondent in the domestic
Enquiry
Ex.M5
-
Exhibit M.3 filed by the
Respondent in the domestic
Enquiry
Ex.M6
-
Exhibit M.4 filed by the
Respondent in the domestic
Enquiry
Ex.M7
-
Exhibit M.5 filed by the
Respondent in the domestic
Enquiry
Ex.M8
23.10.2003
Exhibit M.6 filed by the
Respondent in the domestic
enquiry
7318
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.M9
05.06.2010
Exhibit M.7 filed by the
Respondent in the domestic
Enquiry
Ex.M10
-
Exhibit M.8 filed by the
Respondent in the domestic
Enquiry
Ex.M11
22.06.2010
Letter issued by the Manager to
the Deputy General Manager
Ex.M12 20.07.2010
Proceedings of the domestic
enquiry
Ex.M13
20.07.2010
Findings of the Enquiry Officer
Ex.M14
29.03.2011
Proceedings of the Disciplinary
Authority issued to the petitioner
Ex.M15 28.04.2011
Appeal petition filed by the
petitioner before the Appellate
Authority
Ex.M16 14.06.2012
Proceedings of the Appellate
Authority
Ex.M17 17.08.2012
Petition filed by the petitioner
before the Conciliation Officer
Ex.M18
12/2012
Counter filed by the Respondent
before the Conciliation Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2962-—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 4@2009) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-10-2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41011@40@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2014
S.O.
2962.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 4/2009)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Pune as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of the Central Railway
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 17.10.2014.
[No. L-41011/40/2007-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, AT PUNE.
Reference (IT) No. 04 of 2009
Between :
The Divisional Railway Manager
Central Railway,
PUNE
...First Party
And
The Secretary
Rail Kamgar Sena,
C/o Central Railway,
PUNE
...Second Party
CORAM : D. H. DESHMUKH, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
Shri S. D. Uplenchwar, Advocate for First Party.
Smt. Sheetal Lokhande, Advocate for Second Party.
AWARD
Date : 11-09-2014
This is a reference made by Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. The dispute/demand
referred is as follows :-
“Whether the action of management of Central
Railway, Pune in not giving promotion to Shri Babu
Ballappa w.e.f. 28-8-1989, is legal and correct ? If
not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled
to ?
Initially the reference was made to the Labour
Court, Pune. By subsequent order, it has been transferred
to this Tribunal.
2.
The second party union has contended that it is a
registered trade union, representing the employees of the
first party railway, and Shri Babu Balappa (concerned
employee) was employed on daily wage basis from
17-10-1972, and was regularized in service w.e.f. 21-7-1980.
He was granted status of a permanent employee on or
about 28-8-1980. The concerned workman was working
as a Khalasi under CIOW (M) Pune, but was redesignated
as a Gangman, and transferred to PWI (M) Talegaon in
public interest by order dt.15-9-1986 passed AEM (M),
Pune who is appointing authority. The said authority
maintains combined seniority list of the employees. The
concerned workman was then transferred to CDF,
Lonavala as a Khalasi for short period, and then
transferred again to IOW Pune w.e.f. 25-2-1995 on
administrative ground. The concerned workman
continued to hold the same position in the seniority list.
He passed trade test for skilled Artisan i.e. Fitter Grade
III in 1989. The claim of the concerned workman for
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7319
promotion, was neglected on a lame execuse that he
belongs to PWI. Juniors were promoted.
3.
The concerned workman approached the
administration of the first party for grant of seniority,
and promotion, and thereafter, approached the Assistant
Labour Commissioner through union. There, it was
agreed to grant seniority w.e.f. 16-4-1986. Therefore,
the case of seniority was closed on 19-9-2001. The benefit
of seniority was granted from 16-4-1986, but he was not
granted promotion to the next grade on par with his junior.
It is contended that the trade test is conducted, only if
there is a vacancy. The concerned workman was the
senior most, and was therefore,trade tested in which he
succeeded. The Labour Commissioner office directed the
first party to consider the case of the concerned workman
etc. The contention of the second party is that there was
vacancy. The concerned workman passed trade test, and
he was senior-most, and therefore, should have been
promoted as Fitter Grade III w.e.f. 28-8-1989, when he
passed the test. The concerned workman wants
promotion, and consequential benefits from that date.
4.
The first party was noticed. The first party
appeared, and filed say Exh.C-4, denying the adverse
allegations and the claim. According to the first party,
the union cannot make claim on behalf of the individual
employee. The claim is to be filed before Central
Administrative Tribunal. This Tribunal has no
jurisdiction. Then it is contended that the trade test was
conducted on 17-3-1998, and the result was declared on
24-8-1998, and therefore, the present reference is time
barred. It is contended that there is no ground to neglect
the promotion, and side track the concerned workman
without any reason. No juniors have been promoted. The
claim made is not legal and valid etc.
5.
The issues and my findings thereon, are as follows :-
ISSUES
FINDINGS
1. Whether the Tribunal has
got jurisdiction to adjudicate
the demand ?
...Yes.
2. Whether the action of not giving
promotion to the concerned
workman is legal & correct ?
...No.
3. What relief/award ?
...As per final award.
REASONS
6.
For last several days, the first party has been absent.
The second party has filed affidavit by way of evidence,
and also documents, which are totally unchallenged. The
affidavit of the concerned workman indicates that he
passed the trade test in 1989. There was common
seniority list maintained. His seniority was side tracked,
and his juniors Shri Chandrapal Kartar Singh and Shri
Bhimrao Dayanand Patole were promoted without
passing the trade test as required by the rules. The
concerned workman approached the railway authorities,
but no heed was paid. The first party agreed before
Assistant Commissioner of Labour to give proper
seniority, and therefore that, case was closed. Even after
that, the concerned workman was not considered for
promotion. The dispute was reheard by Regional Labour
Commissioner. The first party tried to evade the
responsibility by remaining absent etc. In the affidavit,
all the necessary details are stated. The concerned
workman has stated that his age of retirement is drawing
near. He passed Trade Test in 1989, and was therefore,
entitled to benefits at that time.
7.
The documents produced support the contentions
of the second party. The documents produced are not
disputed by the first party. The documents include letter
dt.4-9-2001 of the first party, in which it is conceded
that the concerned workman is entitled to the seniority
as a Khalasi w.e.f. 16-6-86. Internal correspondence like
letter dt.6-3-2003, indicates that even according to the
officer of the first party, immediate promotion was
required to be given to the concerned workman. Another
letter dt.2-11-2004 of Shri A. K. Jain of the first party
indicates that according to the City Officer, seniority of
the concerned workman will be with effect from the date
of appointment i.e. 28-8-1980, and further that he had
passed Trade Test in 1989. There is a letter dt.6-2-2006
from Regional Labour Commissioner of Pune to
Divisional Railway Manager, in which certain facts are
stated. The letter indicates that the Trade Test was passed
in the year 1989. Further with great efforts, and after
sufficient delay, the railway accepted the seniority w.e.f.
16-4-86. Further, part of the letter indicates that the
seniority list should be from 21-7-1980. The Labour
Commissioner also mentioned that the management of
the first party was not taking the matter seriously, but
was creating confusion against the concerned workman,
which is not healthy for good relationship with the
workers etc.
8.
The record of Trade Test is also produced. The
matter is more than 5 years old. There is no point in
adjourning the matter further. I have gone through the
record, and have heard the learned counsel for the second
party. The appropriate Government can refer the dispute
pertaining to promotion to this Tribunal, and therefore,
the question of want of jurisdiction does not arise. The
department of first party is industry, and the second party
is clearly a workman, and therefore, Tribunal has
jurisdiction. The existence of Central Administrative
Tribunal is no bar to raise the dispute. Industrial dispute
could be raised by a union also, and therefore, objection
in that regard is also not proper. From the unchallenged
material on record, I find that the concerned workman is
7320
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
entitled to be promoted w.e.f. 28-8-1989, since he was
senior-most and had passed the Trade Test. At least, two
juniors were promoted. The concerned workman is
entitled to be promoted as Fitter Grade III since 1989.
The demand is justified.
AWARD
The first party i.e. Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway, Pune, shall promote the concerned
workman Shri Babu Ballappa as Fitter Grade III w.e.f.
28-8-1989, and shall grant him all consequential benefits
arising out of promotion, including the monetary benefits.
D. H. DESHMUKH, Presiding Officer
Date : 11-09-2014.
ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2963-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] fiQjkstiqj 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 70@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 14@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@77@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th November, 2014
S.O.
2963.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 70/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Ferozepur and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 14/11/2014.
[No. L-40012/77/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 70 of 2012 . Reference No. L-40012/77/2012/
IR(DU)dated 7.01.2013
Shri Mohan Singh
son of Shri Makhan Singh,
resident of Village Lakhmire Uttar,
PO Mamdoot,
Tehsil & district Ferozepur.
...Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
Telecom BSNL,
Bharat Nagar Chowk,
Ferozepur.
...Respondent
Appearances:
For the Workman
:
None.
For the Management
:
Sh. Anish Babbar.
AWARD
Passed On:-07.11.2014
Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-40012/77/2012/IR(DU) dated
07.01.2013 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:
Term of Reference:
“Whether the demand of Shri Mohan Singh son of
Shri Makhan Singh against the General Manager/
DET/SDE,BSNL,Ferozepur for reinstatement in
service w.e.f 16.7.11 is just, valid and legal? If so,
what benefits the workman are entitled for and what
directions are necessary in the matter.?”
2.
Case repeated called. Despite repeated
opportunities, none appeared for the workman.
Representative of the respondent is present. It appears
that the workman is not interested to pursue the present
reference. In view of the above the present reference is
disposed off for want of prosecution.
3.
Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt.
be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
07.11.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2964-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] fiQjkstiqj 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 69@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 14@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@78@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th November, 2014
S.O.
2964.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7321
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 69/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Ferozepur and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 14/11/2014.
[No. L-40012/78/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Case No. ID 69 of 2012 . Reference No. L-40012/78/2012/
IR(DU)dated 7.01.2013
Shri Pritpal Singh
son of Shri Bakhshish Singh,
resident of Village Dilla Ram,
PO Jhok,
Tehsil & district Ferozepur.
...Workman
Versus
1.The General Manager,
Telecom BSNL,
Bharat Nagar Chowk,
Ferozepur.
...Respondent
Appearances:
For the Workman
:
None.
For the Management
:
Sh. Anish Babbar.
AWARD
Passed On:-07.11.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-40012/78/2012/IR(DU)dated
07.01.2013 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:
Term of Reference:
“Whether the demand of Shri Pritpal Singh son of
Shri Bakhshish Singh against the General
Manager/DET/SDE,BSNL,Ferozepur
for
reinstatement in service w.e.f 16.7.11 is just, valid
and legal? If so, what benefits the workman are
entitled for and what directions are necessary in
the matter.?”
2.
Case repeatedly called. Despite repeated
opportunities, none appeared for the workman.
Representative of the respondent is present. It appears
that the workman is not interested to pursue the present
reference. In view of the above, the present reference is
disposed off for want of prosecution.
3.
Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt.
be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
07.11.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2965-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;
HkwoSKkfud losZ{k.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;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 14@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 14@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@99@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th November, 2014
S.O.
2965.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 14/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Geological Survey of India and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 14/11/2014.
[No. L-42011/99/2012-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT:
SHRI RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. NO. 14/2013
Ref. No. L-42011/99/2012-IR( DU) dated: 22.02.2013
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
Geological Survey of India Employed
Nav-Nhetana Association, 466/202-201
Primerose House Peer Bukhara,
PO Chowk Lucknow - 226 001 .
AND
The Deputy - Director General & Head of Office
Geological Survey of India
Northern region, Sector - E
Aliganj Complex Lucknow.
7322
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-42011/99/2012-IR( DU) dated:
22.02.2013 the Central Government in the Ministry
of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred
by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A)
of Section 10 ot the Industrial disputes Act, 1947
(14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between
the General secretary, Geological Survey of India
Employed, Nav-Chetana Association, 466/202-201,
Primerose House Peer Bukhara, PO Chowk, Lucknow
and the Deputy-Director General & Head of Office,
Geological Survey of India, Northern region, Sector-E,
Aliganj Complex, Lucknow to this CGIT-cum-Labour
Court, Lucknow for adjudication
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
"WHETHER THE DEMAND OF GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES NAV-
CHETNA ASSOCIATION, LUCKNOW OVER
NON-IMPLEMENTATION OF DEMAND
POINTS
NO.
01,2,7,10,11,19 AND
22
METIONED IN THE' STRIKE NOTICE TO
THE MANAGEMENT OF GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY OF INDIA, NORTHERN REGION,
LUCKNOW IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? TO
WHAT RELIEF THE ASSOCIATION is
ENTITLED TO?"
3.
The order of reference was endorsed to the
General Secretary, Geological survey of India
Employed, Nav-Nhetana Association, 466/202-201,
Primerose House, Peer Bukhara, PO Chowk, Lucknow
with direction to the party raising the dispute to file
the statement of claim along with relevant documents,
list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within
fifteen days of the receipt of the order of reference
and also forward copy of such a statement to each
one of the opposite parties involved in this dispute
under rule 10 (B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central),
Rules, 1957.
4.
The order of reference was registered in the
Tribunal on 12.03.2013 by the Hon'ble Presiding Officer
and the office was directed to issue registered notice
to the workman' union for filing the statement of claim
with list of reliance & list of witnesses on 12.04.2013.
On the date fixed i.e. 12.04.2013 the General Secretary
of the union, Shri S.A.H. Rizvi was present; but no
statement of claim together with documents etc. was
filed; accordingly, next date 21.05.2013 was fixed for
filing of statement of claim. The Union remained absent
on 21.05.2013 as well as on subsequent dates i.e.
16.07.2013, 30.08.2013, 30.10.2013, 15.12.2013, 28.01.2014,
25.03.2014, 25.03.2014, 20.05.2014, 14.08.2014 and
02.10.2014. The union neither turned up on any of the
aforementioned dates nor moved any application or
adjournment seeking time to file the statement of claim.
More than a year's time has passed and the workman's
union has failed to file its statement of claim, therefore,
the case was reserved for award keeping in view the
reluctance of the workman's union to contest the case.
5.
In the above circumstances, it appears that the
workman's union does not want to pursue its claim on
the basis of which it has raised the present industrial
dispute; therefore, the present reference order is decided
as if there is no grievance left with the workmen's
union. Resultantly no relief is required to be given to
the workmen concerned. The reference under
adjudication is answered accordingly.
6.
Award as above.
Lucknow
30th October, 2014
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2966-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
fgaUnqLrku ,;jksukWfVDl fyfeVsM] y[kuÅ fMohtu vkSj nwljksa ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k
,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 70@2011) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@11@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th November, 2014
S.O.
2966.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 70/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the General Manager, Hindustan
Aeronautics Ltd., Lucknow Division & Others and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 14/11/2014.
[No. L-42025/03/2014-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7323
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT:
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No 70/2011
BETWEEN:
Sri Mansuri Singh
S/o Sh. Mahaveer Singh
R/o Ismailganj, Post Chinhat
Faizabad Road, Lucknow
AND
1.
General Manager,
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.,
Lucknow Division, Lucknow
2.
M/s. Shah Bandhu,
Sri Yogendra Prasad Shah,
Sanitation Contractor,
504 Viman Nagar,
GT Road,
Harendra Nagar,
Kanpur
3.
M/s. Group-4 Facilities Service
Sri Nawal Kapoor,
Director Personnel,
1/97, Vidyut Khand Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow
AWARD
1.
Applicant Sh. Mansuri Singh has submitted a
claim statement dated 28.02.2011 before this Tribunal,
stating therein that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,
Lucknow Division is an engineering industry and
factory as well registered under the provisions of the
Factories Act. The Governmcnt had issued a
notification dtd. 24.04.1990 under Section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
The applicant has stated in the claim statement that
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. employed the contract
labour for sanitation of the factory premises. The
sanitation work is perennial and regular nature of job.
It has been emphasized that the workman/applicant
was working in establishment right from the very
beginning i.e. from the date when the factory was
established and was continuously in job till the date of
illegal termination.
2.
It is asserted that during the said period the
sanitation work was assigned to several contractors
but the services of the applicant workman was
continuous and never interrupted. The applicant
continuously worked in establishment of the Hindustan
Aeronautics Ltd., Lucknow he was directly employed
by the HAL, Lucknow. He neither employed by any
contractor nor his services have been terminated by
the contractor. It has also been pointed out in the
claim statement that regular deductions viz Provident
Fund and Employees State Insurance were made from
salary of the applicant. Moreover the privileges of
the Earned Leave, Casual Leave, Medical Leave etc.
were also provided to him directly by the principal
employer viz. Hindustan Aeronauties Ltd., Lucknow.
The applicant states that although there was
prohibition to employ contract labour in pursuance
of the notification dated 24.04.1990 to contract labour
yet the employers awarded the contract of sanitation
work while it should have been entrusted to the
regular employees. The act of the HAL is totally
illegal and unjustified. The Government of India has
prohibited to employ contractors for sanitation work
of the building premises of the establishment.
3.
It has also been mentioned that applicant
workman was entitled to get same pay and allowances
as were given to other regular employees of the HAL,
Lucknow. HAL Karamchari Sabha (the Union) had
moved an application against the illegal and
unjustified act of the employer under Rule 25(2) (V)
(b) of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition)
Central Rules 1971 which was considered by the
RLC(C), Lucknow and he gave direction on
28.04.1989 to pay the similar pay and wages etc.
which were being paid to other regular employees.
Thereafter the employer had filed writ petition before
Hon'ble High Court challenging the directions given
by the RLC(C) Lucknow but the writ petition was
dismissed by Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated
28.01.1994 and order passed by RLC(C), Lucknow
was confirmed. The workman has stressed that being
aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 28.0l.1994 passed by
Hon'ble High Court, the employer preferred a Special
Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
which was also dismissed and thereafter the employer
filed a review petition and the same was also
dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter,
the employer started to pay the Basic Pay, D.A. and
CCA at par with the unskilled employees but HRA and
annual increments were not being provided. The
workman union preferred the case under the provisions
of the U. P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages)
Act, 1978, thereafter a recovery certificate was issued
against the employers.
4.
The applicant has further stated that in pursuance
of mutual settlement the employers enhanced the pay of
the directly employed unskilled workers from ` 1880/- to
` 3000/- but the workers who were shown to be
7324
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
employed through contractor were being paid ` 1880/-
per month and their wages were not enhanced.
Consequently the union filed another case under the
provisions of the U. P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment
of Wages) Act, 1978 which caused annoyance to
employer and they began to conspire for terminating the
services of the workmen including the workman/
applicant. Ultimately the services of applicant workman
were terminated w.e.f. 21.12.200l.
5.
The applicant has stated that the compliance of
Section 25N of the I.D. Act was necessary but the
employers before terminating the services of the
workman, did not follow the mandatory provisions of
I.D. Act.
6.
It has been emphasized in the claim statement
that services of the workman were never terminated by
the contractor but it had been terminated by the
principal employer and the work which was being
performed by the concerned workman is still existing
with the employers and the same is being carried
through new workmen on contract basis which is
unjustified and illegal. It has also been stressed that
earlier the said union had raised this dispute before
the State Government which referred for proper
adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal (II) U. P.,
Lucknow which is being proceeded before the Industrial
Tribunal (II) U. P., Lucknow as Adj. Case No. 126 of
2002. Since the applicant workman was not satisfied
with the efforts made by the union as such a authority
letter was filed alongwith an application by 20 workmen
to represent the said case but the union filed objections
that the applicant are not party in the said case as he
is not entitled to represent the case. The Hon'ble
Presiding Officer vide order dtd. 10.3.2010 directed if
the workman was not satisfied with proceedings of the
union they can raise separate dispute under the
provisions of Act. Thereafter 36 workmen including the
concerned workman moved an application dated
10.07.2010 before the Hon'ble Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal (II) U. P., Lucknow for deletion of the names
of the workmen from the reference order so that they
may be in position to raise fresh industrial dispute
before the competent Forum and the Hon'ble Presiding
Officer, Industrial Tribunal (II) U.P., Lucknow was
pleased to allow the said application except three whose
name were not mentioned in the reference order.
7.
The workman further stated that in pursuance of
the order dated 20.07.2010 the workman concerned along
with 32 other workmen filed an application before
Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Lucknow which was
registered case No. LKO-8(2-32)/2010. The RLC (C)
Lucknow called upon the parties for conciliation
proceedings but due to negative attitude of the
employers no settlement could be arrived between the
parties. Since the mandatory period of 45 days had
been expired as such the concerned workman sought
the permission from the Regional Labour Commissioner
(C) Lucknow to withdraw the case and to approach the
Hon'ble Court on 27.01.2011which was accepted by the
RLC (C) Lucknow and in pursuance thereof, the
applicant has approached this Tribunal for adjudication
of Industrial Dispute as prevalent between the workman
and HAL. The applicant has emphasized that so called
contract system was a mere camouflage, smoke and a
serene and disguised in almost a transparent veil which
could easily be pierced and the real contractual
relationship between the principal employer i.e. HAL in
the instant case. The termination 'of the services of the
workman has been termed as void-ab-initio by the
applicant. The mandatory provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act.1947 not followed filed by the HAL. Act
of the opposite party has been alleged as illegal and
void and the workman claims himself to be entitled to
get the reinstatement in service alongwith full back
wages. It has also been mentioned in the claim
statement since the date of termination upto the date
of filing claim statement applicant is unemployed and
despite of his best cfforts, he could not be gainfully
employed any where else.
8.
The photo copy of the order passed by RLC (C)
Lucknow dt. 10.02.2011 has been enclosed. The
Industrial Dispute was got registered as per the direction
of the then Hon'ble Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour
Court and registered notices were issued to the
management for filing written statement alongwith
relevant documents.
9.
Preliminary objections M-8 were filed on behalf
of opposite parties no., 1 & 2. Opposite Parties have
pointed out that Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal
(II) UP informed them that the said dispute have been
referred by appropriate government vide order dtd.
13.06.2002 and adjudication no.126/02 was registered.
The name of the concerned workman was included in
the list consisting of 89 persons. During the course of
adjudication before the said Tribunal a group of 36
persons moved an application dated 10.5.2010 for
withdrawal of their names so that they may file a
separate case before the competent authority but the
name of the applicant workman was not mentioned in
that list, thereafter the Industrial Tribunal (II) UP vide
order dated 20.8.2010 was pleased to delete the name
of the said workmen except at Sl. No. 32, 33, & 34 from
the list of reference order then a group of 33 persons
has filed an application dated August 2010 under
Section 10 of the I.D. Act., before the RLC (C), Lucknow
with the prayer to call upon the employer for proper
adjudication, the name of the applicant workman was
mentioned at Sl. No. 11 in the list of applicants moved
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7325
there. The establishment filed objection before RLC (C)
Lucknow and on 27.1.2011 during the conciliation
proceedings, the authorized representative of the
workmen has requested the learned conciliation officer
to withdraw the Industrial Dispute so as to raise the
same directly before the CGlT-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow.
10.
The opposite parties have also mentioned that
conciliation officer in its letter dated 10.2.2011 addressed
to the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour
and Employment, New Delhi informed that conciliation
file has been closed on the request of concerned
workman, thereafter the workman has filed a claim
statement before the Tribunal on the same issue which
has been registered at I.D. No. 70/2011.
11.
It has been emphasized by opposite parties No.
1 & 2 that workman can not raise industrial dispute for
adjudication by two different forum on the same matter
of dispute, the concerned workman is still a party in
the adjudication case No.126/2002 pending before
Industrial Tribunal (II) U. P. Lucknow. The opposite
parties No. 1 & 2 stressed that the present claim is
barred by limitation U/s 2A (3) of the ID Act., since the
workman has moved after lapse of about 10 years after
the date of termination of services. It has also been
alleged by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 that the
workman has not come before the Tribunal with clean
hands, and he has suppressed the fact. Accordingly,
opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have requested to reject the
claim filed by the workman.
12.
Several dates were given to the par Lies but no
rebuttal/reply/rejoinder was filed by the workman
regarding preliminary objections raised by the opposite
parties No. 1 & 2.
13.
On 13.08.2013 the learned AR of the applicant
workman made an endorsement in waiting on the claim
statement "I WANT TO NOT PRESS THIS CASE.".
Allegedly, the matter is already pending before the
Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal-II, U. P., Lucknow in
Pursuance of the reference madely the U. P.
Government under Section 4-K of UP Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
AWARD
14.
Under the circumstances and the facts mentioned
herein, no relief is legally required to be given to the
applicant/workman Sh. Mansuri Singh. The reference
under adjudication is answered as NO CLAIM AWARD.
15.
Award as above
LUCKNOW
28th October, 2014
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2967-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkWVkseksfVo
izkS|ksfxdh baVjus'kuy lsaVj ,oa nwljksa 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 92@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@19@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2014
S.O.
2967.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 92/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the M/s. Inter National Centre for
Automotive Technology & Others and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
14/11/2014.
[No. L-42011/19/2014-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No 92 of 2014. Reference No. L-42011/19/
2014-IR(DU) dated 05/05/ 2014
Shri Bhagat Singh,
Son of Shri Bishan Singh,
Ex-workman C/o Shri Hublala Yadav,
General Secretary,
Mercantile Employees Association,
House No. 530,
Near Prem Public School,
Dayal Nagar,
P.O. Amar Nagar, Faridabad-121003.
...Workman
VERSUS
1. The Director,
M/s. Rakshak Securities (Pvt.) Ltd.
T-5, Plot No. 12, Plaza III
Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi 110075.
7326
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. The General Manager,
M/s. International Centre for
Automotive Technology
Plot No. 26, Sector-3, HSIDC,
IMT Manesar, Gurgaon-122050
...Respondents
Appearances:
For the Workman
:
None.
For the Management
:
Sh. Ashutosh Verma and
Rajender Aneja for Res-
pondents
AWARD
Passed on : 03.11.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-42011/19/2014-IR(DU) dated
08/05/2014 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication :
Term of Reference:
“Whether the action of the management of General
Manager, M/s. International Cenre for Automotive
Technology (ICAT), IMT Manesar, Gurgoan for
giving appointment directly and later on deployed
through contractor and thereafter termination of
services of Shri Bhagat Singh son of Shri Bishan
Singh Ex-workman w.e.f. 28.05.2012 is just, fair and
legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
to and from which date."
2.
Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already sufficient opportunity has been allowed
to file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view
of the above the present reference is disposed off for
want of prosecution.
3.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be
sent to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
03.11.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2968-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkWVkseksfVo
izkS|ksfxdh baVjus'kuy lsaVj ,oa nwljksa 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 91@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@18@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2014
S.O.
2968.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 91/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the M/s. International Centre for
Automotive Technology & Other and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
14/11/2014.
[No. L-42011/18/2014-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No ID No. 91 of 2014. Reference No. L-42011/18/
2014-IR(DU) dated 06/05/ 2014
Shri Ajesh Sharma,
Son of Shri Ram Kumar Sharma,
Ex-workman C/o Shri Hublala Yadav.
General Secretary,
Mercantile Employees Association,
House No. 530,
Near Prem Public School,
Dayal Nagar,
P.O. Amar Nagar, Faridabad-121003.
...Workman
Versus
1. The Dtrector,
M/s. Rakshak Securities (Pvt.) Ltd.
T-5, Plot No. 12, Plaza-III
Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi 110075.
2. The General Manager,
M/s. International Centre for Automotive
Techaology Plot No. 26
Sector-3. HSIDC, IMT Manesar,
Gurgoan-122050
...Respondents
Appearances:
For the Workman
:
None.
For the Management
:
Sh. Ashutosh Verma and
Rajender Aneja Respondents
AWARD
Passed on:-03.11.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No L-42011/18/2014/IR(DU) dated
06/05/2014 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7327
“Whether the action of the management of General
Manager, M/s. International Centre for
Automotive Technology (ICAT), IMT Manesar,
Gurgoan for giving appointment directly and later
on deployed through contractor and thereafter
termination of services of Shri Ajesh Sharma son
of Shri Ram Kumar Sharma, Ex-workman w.e.f.
28.05.2012 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to and from which
date?"
2.
Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already sufficient opportunity has been allowed
to file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view
of the above the present reference is disposed off for
want of Prosecution.
3.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be
sent to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
03.11.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2969-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkWVkseksfVo
izkS|ksfxdh baVjus'kuy lsaVj ,oa nwljksa 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 90@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@17@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2014
S.O.
2969.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 90/2014)
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 the M/s. International Centre for
Automotive Technology & Others and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
14/11/2014.
[No. L-42011/17/2014-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 90 of 2014. Reference No. L-42011/17/
2014/1R(DU) dated 08/05/2014
Shri Surender Kumar Jogi,
Son of Shri Amar Singh,
Ex-workman C/o Shri Hublala Yadav,
General Secretary,
Mercantile Employees Association,
House No. 530,
Near Prem Public School,
Dayal Nagar,
P.O. Amar Nagar Faridabad-121003
...Workman
Versus
1. The Dtrector,
M/s. Rakshak Securities (Pvt.) Ltd.
T-5, Plot No. 12, Manish Plaza-III
Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi 110075.
2. The General Manager,
M/s. International Centre for Automotive
Technology, Plot No. 76
Sector-3, HSIDC, IMI Manesar,
Gurgaon-122050
...Respondents
Appearances:
For the Workman
:
None.
For the Management
:
Sh. Ashutosh Verma and
Rajender Aneja Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-03.11.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L.-42011/17/2014/IR(DU) dated 08/
05/2014 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of
General Manager, M/s. International Centre for
Automotive Technology (ICAT), IMT Manesar,
Gurgaon for giving appointment directly and later
on deployed through contractor and thereafter
termination of services of Shri Surender Kumar
Jogi son of Shri Amar Singh Jogi Ex-workman w.e.f.
28.05.2012 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to and from which
date?"
7328
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already sufficient opportunity has been allowed
to file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view
of the above the present reference is disposed off for
want of Prosecution.
3.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be
sent to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
03.11.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2970-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkWVkseksfVo
izkS|ksfxdh baVjus'kuy lsaVj ,oa nwljksa 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 89@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@16@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2014
S.O.
2970.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 89/2014)
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 the M/s. International Centre for
Automotive Technology & Others and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
14/11/2014.
[No. L-42011/16/2014-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 89 of 2014. Reference No. L-42011/16/
2014-IR(DU) dated 05/05/ 2014
Shri Samay Singh,
Son of Shri Dhan Singh,
Ex-workman, C/o Shri Hublala Yadav,
General Secretary,
Mercantile Employees Association,
House No. 530,
Near Prem Public School,
Dayal Nagar,
P.O. Amar Nagar, Faridabad-121003
...Workman
Versus
1. The Director,
M/s. Rakshak Securities (Pvt.) Ltd.
T-5, Plot No. 12, Manish Plaza III
Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075.
2. The General Manager,
M/s. International Centre for Automotive
Technology, Plot No. 76
Sector-3, HSIDC, IMT Manesar,
Gurgaon-122050
...Respondents
Appearances:
For the Workman
:
None
For the Management
:
Sh. Ashutosh Verma and
Rajender Aneja Respondents
AWARD
Passed On : 03.11.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No L.-42011/16/2014/IR(DU) dated
08/05/2014 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:
Term of Reference :
“Whether the action of the management of General
Manager, M/s. International Centre for
Automotive technology (ICAT), IMT Manesar,
Gurgoan for giving appointment directly and later
on deployed through contractor and thereafter
termination of services of Shri Samay Singh son
of Shri Dhan Singh Ex-workman, w.e.f. 28.05.2012
is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to and from which date?"
2.
Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already sufficient opportunity has been allowed
to file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view
of the above the present reference is disposed off for
want of Prosecution.
3.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be
sent to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
03.11.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7329
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2971-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mkd?kj] enqjS
ds lgk;d v/h{kd 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 01@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 17@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@261@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2014
S.O.
2971.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 01/2002)
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 Asstt. Superintendent of Post
Office, Madurai and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 17/11/2014.
[No. L-40012/261/2001-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Monday, the 10th November, 2014
Present :
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 1/2002
(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 Asstt. Superintendent
of Post Office, Postal Department, Madurai and their
workman).
BETWEEN:
Sri R. Pounraj
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Asstt. Superintendent of
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Post Office City South
Sub-Division Madurai-625005
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
M/s. R. Malaichamy,
Advocate
For the 2nd Party/Respondent : Mr.
M.
Liagatali,
Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-40012/261/2001-IR
(DU) dated 19.12.2001 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the Assistant Superintendent
of Post Office, Postal Department, Madurai in
dismissing the services of Sri R. Pounraj (Pavunraj)
from the post of Extra-Departmental Packer is
justified and legal? If not, to what relief the
concerned employee is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 1/2002 and issued notice to both
sides. Both parties have entered appearance through the
counsel and filed claim and counter statement
respectively.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed in the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner was working as ED Packer under
the Respondents. While he was working as such at the
postal training central sub-office an article of charge was
served on him alleging that on 30.09.1987 he had
defrauded the value of Pollachi HVMO No. 4787 dated
28.09.1987 for ` 1583/- with the forged signature of the
payee in the MO and in the intimation slip and thereby
failed to maintain integrity and devotion to duty in
contravention to Rule-17 of Posts & Telegraphs Extra-
Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rule, 1964.
Opportunity was denied to the petitioner to defend his
case. The enquiry authority and disciplinary authority
failed to apply their minds to the evidence introduced in
a just manner. The petitioner had discharged the work
allotted to him. He was made a scapegoat utilizing his
willingness to carry out the orders of the higher authority.
The Sub-Post Master who was the paying official was
responsible for the omission and commission, if any. The
concerned MO was paid under an acquittance. It being a
high value amount, only the Sub-Post Master was the
authority to make the payment. There was no receipt for
handing over the money order to the petitioner. The
defense of the petitioner was not taken into consideration
by the enquiring authority or the disciplinary authority.
The petitioner was punished by dismissing him from
service without any justification. The enquiry was
conducted in total violation of principles of natural
justice. An order may be passed directing the
Respondents to reinstate the petitioner as ED Agent with
all benefits including back wages and other attendant
benefits.
7330
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as follows:
The petitioner who was working as Extra-
Departmental Packer at Postal Training Centre Sub-Post
Office during the period from 12.12.1981 to 30.09.1991
was dismissed from service w.e.f 30.09.1991. The
petitioner was charged with a statement of the imputations
of misconduct and misbehavior and he was asked to
submit his representation. He had denied the charges and
an enquiry was ordered by appointing an Enquiry Officer
and a Presenting Officer on behalf of the Disciplinary
Authority. The petitioner was allowed to avail service of
a Defense Assistant which he availed. The enquiring
authority, on enquiry had recorded a finding that the
charges against the petitioner are proved. The
Disciplinary Authority who had agreed with the enquiring
authority had awarded the punishment. The petitioner
had filed an appeal with the appellate authority and the
same was dismissed. The petitioner had then approached
the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal had
quashed the order of dismissal and ordered the
Respondents to continue the disciplinary proceedings
after serving a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner.
The order was complied with and the petitioner was
reinstated in service and thereafter the proceedings were
continued. The petitioner was again dismissed from
service w.e.f. 30.09.1991. The enquiry against the
petitioner was conducted in compliance with the
principles of natural justice. The petitioner is not entitled
to any relief.
5.
The evidence in the case consists of documents
marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.14. No oral evidence was
adduced by either side. The counsels have endorsed that
they have no oral evidence. The Respondents have not
produced any documentary evidence also.
6.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
“Whether the action of the Respondent in
dismissing the petitioner from service is legal
and justified?
(ii)
What if any is the relief to which the
petitioner is entitled?”
The points
7.
The ID had a chequered career. The petitioner who
was working as Extra Departmental Packer was alleged
to have defrauded the value of an MO for ` 1583/- on
30.09.1987. After the incident was revealed article of
charges have been served on the petitioner and an enquiry
had been conducted. On the basis of the enquiry report,
the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed
on the petitioner w.e.f. 09.01.1989. However, on petitioner
challenging the order before the Central Administrative
Tribunal (CAT), the Tribunal quashed the order of
dismissal holding that a copy of the enquiry report had
not been served on the petitioner. The Tribunal directed
that the petitioner should be reinstated in service. The
Respondents were allowed to continue the enquiry
proceedings also. The Respondents proceeded further in
compliance with the direction of the CAT and again
entered a finding of guilt against the petitioner and
dismissed him from service again w.e.f,. 30.09.1991. It
is against this order of dismissal this dispute is raised.
This Tribunal had earlier passed an ex-parte order in
favour of the petitioner on 06.10.2003 The Respondents
have challenged this order before the High Court of
Madras in WP No. 8981/2004. By order dated 25.06.2014
the Hon’ble High Court has set aside the award and
remanded the matter for fresh disposal on merits and in
accordance with law within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of copy of the order, after giving
opportunity to both the parties. The documents on the
side of the petitioner were marked after this. The
Respondents have not adduced any oral or documentary
evidence.
8.
It has been argued by the counsel for the Respondent
that the ID is liable to be taken off the file for the very
latches on the part of the petitioner. The counsel has relied
upon the decision of the Apex Court in UTTARANCHAL
FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND
ANOTHER VS. JABAR SINGH AND OTHERS reported
in 2007 2 SCC 112 to advance his argument. It was a
case where there was a delay of 10 years in filing Writ
Petition challenging the order of retrenchment of the
workman. The Apex Court has held that the Writ Petition
is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay of 10
years. In the present case the order of dismissal was
made w.e.f. 30.09.1991. The petitioner has not lifted his
little finger until 2001 when he approached the Labour
Commissioner raising the dispute. Thus he has raised
the dispute only after a decade. He has not given any
explanation for the latches on the part in raising the
dispute. So far as the Respondent is concerned it was
treated as a concluded matter long ago. Such unexplained
latches on the part of the petitioner is something which
could not be justified. The ID is liable to be dismissed for
this reason itself.
9.
Earlier my predecessor had granted an order in favour
of the petitioner because the Respondents have failed to
represent the matter. The petitioner has not produced any
documents on his part at that time to help the Court in
adjudicating the case. It was because the matter was not
considered on merits, the Hon’ble High Court has restored
the matter to file with direction to dispose the case on
merits after giving opportunity to both sides to adduce
evidence. After the matter came back to this Tribunal, the
petitioner has produced documents marked as Ext.W1 to
Ext.W14. However, on going through the documents I find
that most of the documents which would be relevant for
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7331
adjudication are not produced by the petitioner even now.
The petitioner was dismissed from service after conducting
an enquiry. The Charge Memo served on the petitioner
has been produced. The Enquiry Report also is produced.
The Memorandum alongwith the Charge Memo has
directed the petitioner to submit his written statement of
defense for the same. However, the copy of the written
statement that was given by him is not seen produced. On
going through the enquiry report it is seen that an
investigation was carried before the enquiry and statement
of the relevant persons were recorded also. Those persons
whose statements were recorded were examined as
witnesses before the Enquiry Officer. It could be seen from
the enquiry report that these witnesses have given
evidence based on those statements. However, neither
those statements nor the depositions of the witnesses in
the enquiry proceedings which would be relevant for
adjudication are seen produced by the petitioner. So this
Tribunal is highly constrained in adjudicating the matter.
The Respondent could not be found fault with in not able
to produce the documents in respect of a matter which
has been closed 10 years ago.
10.
Even on considering the limited materials available,
it could be seen that there is no justification for the claim
of the petitioner that he was terminated from service
wrongly and he is entitled to reinstatement. On going
through the Charge Memo it could be seen that the charge
against him is that while working as ED Packer at Postal
Training Centre Sub Post Office, he had defrauded the
value of a money order for ` 1583/- on 030.09.1987 by
forging the signature of the payee in the money order
and the intimation slip. The petitioner was sufficiently
represented in the enquiry proceedings by his
representative. The enquiry report shows that the Officer
who investigated the matter has been examined as SW1
in the enquiry proceedings and the statements recorded
by him during investigation were marked as Ext.SE7 to
Ext.SE12. The one examined as SW2 was the Sub-
Postmaster of the concerned Post Office. The enquiry
report reveals that she has given evidence in accordance
with the statement given by him to SW1 who conducted
the investigation. She has stated during the examination
that the practice in the Post Office was to entrust Money
Orders to the petitioner who was the ED Packer and
Kumaraswamy who was the EDDA. She has stated
that this was the system prevailing in the Post Office
and she could not have changed it. She has further stated
that on 30.09.1987 also the MOs entrusted with Pavunraj
and Kumaraswamy were all paid by them and that MO
No. 4787 dated 28.09.1987 for ` 1583/- which is the
subject matter of the dispute also was paid by the
petitioner. SW3 who was the Postal Assistant has stated
that she has prepared the intimation slip and it is the
petitioner who has effected payment of the MOs.
According to her, EDDA who was available in the office
was giving intimation to the trainees. Kumaraswamy who
was the EDDA himself was examined as SW4. What he
has stated is that he was not present at the Post Office
when the MO payments were made on 30.09.1987. SW5
is Natarajan to whom the Money Order was entrusted.
He has disowned the signatures appearing in the MO
Voucher and Intimation Slip which are also seen produced
before the Enquiry officer.
11.
The argument that is advanced in the notes of
arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioner is that
normally it was the duty of Sub-Postmaster examined as
SW2 to make window payment of Money Orders and it
was not his duty at all. The argument seems to be that for
this reason itself guilt could not be fastened on the
petitioner. However, there is the specific evidence given
by SW2 that as per the practice in the branch the petitioner
who is the ED Packer and SW4 the EDDA used to make
MO payments. The Enquiry Officer has referred to the
statement of SW2 that she has handed over a total amount
of ` 30,000/- pertaining to various MOs including the
MO under dispute to the petitioner. It could also be seen
from the discussion by the Enquiry Officer that the
petitioner himself has admitted that he has received
` 30,000/- from SW2. According to SW2, every other MO
other than the disputed one was paid by the petitioner on
that day. The argument that is advanced on behalf of the
petitioner is that though he received the amount, he had
paid the amount to SW4 who was to make the payment.
The counsel has also referred to the contradictory
statement of SW3 and SW4 regarding the presence of
SW4 at the office on the particular day. However, on going
through the enquiry report I do not think there is much
of any contradiction. What SW3 has stated is that SW4
was giving intimation to the trainees. What SW4 himself
has stated is that he was not there at the time when MO
payment was made and not that he was not in the office
on the day at all. If it is the case of the petititioner that
SW2 herself was to make window payment, his version
that he has received ` 30,000/- fort payment to SW4
does not make any sense. If his case is correct there would
not have been any necessity for SW2 to pay the amount
to the petitioner for entrustment with SW4. In any case
if SW4 was to make the payment it is unlikely that it
would have been entrusted with the petitioner rather than
paying it directly to SW4. The enquiry report reveals that
SW4 has deposed that all the MOs were paid by the
petitioner himself. So it is unlikely that the MO under
dispute alone would have been retained by SW2 for
payment or that alone was entrusted with SW4. The
Enquiry Officer has stated in his report that the signatures
is appearing in the intimation slip and the MO forms are
different. He has stated that if it was SW2 who was
making payment she would have noticed this and would
not have made payment at all. The entire evidence as
could be deciphered from the enquiry report points to
7332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the petitioner as the person who has been responsible for
the incident. When SW5 the person who was to receive
the amount has denied receipt, the proof against the
petitioner is complete. Thus it could be seen that it was
with sufficient proof that the Enquiry Officer has come
to the conclusion that the petitioner is responsible for
the incident.
12.
Based on the decision of the Apex Court in UNION
OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. GYAN CHAND
CHATTAR reported in 2009 12 SCC 78 the counsel for
the petitioner has stated that no enquiry can be sustained
on vague charges. However, I do not find anything vague
in the Charge Memo served on the petitioner. The only
incident which is the subject matter of the charge has
been specifically described in the Charge Memo and the
petitioner has undergone the enquiry fully aware of the
charge against him. The finding of the Enquiry Officer
could not be termed as perverse or unreasonable nor based
on conjectures and surmises as is attempted to be made
out by the counsel for the petitioner. I find that even on
merits the petitioner has no case. The punishment also
could not be considered as disproportionate.
13.
In view of my discussion above, the petitioner is
not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered
against the petitioner.
The reference is answered accordingly.
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
04.06.1988 Charge Memo of 1st Respondent
Ex.W2
31.12.1988 IO’s report a/w typed copy
Ex.W3
05.03.1991 Order in O.A. No. 738 of 1990
Ex.W4
29.04.1991 Appeal to 1st Respondent
Ex.W5
30.09.1991 Order of 1st Respondent
Ex.W6
07.04.1999 Representation
Ex.W7
10.06.1999 Order of PMG, Madurai
Ex.W8
06.10.2003 Award in ID 1 of 2002
Ex.W9
12.12.2003 Order of Labour Commissioner
Ex.W10
26.04.2004 Notice issued by Hon’ble HC,
Madras
Ex.W11
16.06.2004 Cheque Xerox copy
Ex.W12
21.06.2014 Counter statement in WP No.
8981 of 2004
Ex.W13
25.06.2014 Order in WP No. 8981 of 2004
Ex.W14
20.08.2014 Notice of this Hon’ble Tribunal
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
N/A
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2972-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tSV ,vjost
fyfeVsM ,oe~ vU; pkj ,vjykbZUl 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 68] 70] 71] 74] 75] 76] 77] 78 & 79/
2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&11012@42@2010&vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)_
la- ,y&11012@44@2010&vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)_
la- ,y&11012@50@2010&vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)_
la- ,y&11012@43@2010&vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)_
la- ,y&11012@46@2010&vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)_
la- ,y&11012@47@2010&vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)_
la- ,y&11012@48@2010&vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)_
la- ,y&11012@49@2010&vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)_
la- ,y&11012@51@2010&vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2014
S.O. 2972.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 68, 70, 71,
74, 75, 76, 77, 78 & 79/2011 of the Cent.Govt.Indus.
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the
Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of M/s. Jet Airways Ltd & 4 other Airlines,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-11012/42/2010 - IR (CM-I);
No. L-l1012/44/2010 - IR (CM-I);
No. L-l1012/50/2010 - IR (CM-I);
No. L-l1012/43/2010 - IR (CM-I);
No. L-11012/46/2010 - IR (CM-I);
No. L-11012/47/2010-IR (CM-I);
No. L-l1012/48/2010- IR (CM-I);
No. L-l1012/49/2010- IR (CM-I;
No. L-l1012/51/2010- IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7333
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Monday, the 20th October, 2014
Present:
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute Nos. 68, 70, 71,74, 75, 76, 77, 78
and 79/2011
(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 M/s. Jet Airways and Four
Others and their workman)
BETWEEN:
1.
Sri T. Suresh
Petitioner in ID 68/2011
2.
Sri D. Daniel
Petitioner in ID 70/2011
3.
Sri V. Mahesh Kumar
Petitioner in ID 71/2011
4.
Sri D. Durai
Petitioner in ID 74/2011
5.
Sri V. Jayan
Petitioner in ID 75/2011
6.
Sri S. Suresh
Petitioner in ID 76/2011
7.
Sri K. Sridhar
Petitioner in ID 77/2011
8.
Sri P. Nithyanandam
Petitioner in ID 78/2011
9.
K. Babu
Petitioner in ID 79/2011
AND
1.
M/s. Jet Airways Ltd.
:
2nd Party/1st
SM Centre,
Respondent
Andheri-Kurla Road
Andheri East
Mumbai-400059
2.
M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd.
:
2nd Party/2nd
N.L.-70/329,
Respondent
Mahipalpur Extension
New Delhi
3.
M/s. Jet Lite (India) Ltd.
:
2nd Party/3rd
Anna International
Respondent
Terminal RM &D Department
Meenambakkam
Chennai-600027
4.
M/s. Decor Drapes
:
2nd Party/4th
Aviation Services
Respondent
Ashvin Manor Airport Road
HAL New Borewell
Bangalore -560017
5.
M/s. Sahara Parivar
:
2nd Party/5th
Sahara Information &
Respondent
Contact Point
PB No. 2, Gomathy Nagar
Lucknow-226010
In All Industrial Disputes
S.No.
I.D. No.
Reference No. & Date
1.
68/2011
L-11012/42/2010-IR(CM-I) dated
05.08.2011
2.
70/2011
L-11012/44/2010-IR(CM-I) dated
16.08.2011
3.
71/2011
L-11012/50/2010-IR(CM-I) dated
16.08.2011
4.
74/2011
L-11 012/43/2010-IR(CM-I) dated
16.08.2011
5.
75/2011
L-11 012/46/2010-IR(CM-I) dated
16.08.2011
6.
76/2011
L-11 012/47/2010-IR(CM-I) dated
16.08.2011
7.
7712011
L-11012/48/2010-IR(CM-I) dated
16.08.2011
8.
78/2011
L-11012/49/2010-IR(CM-I) dated
16.08.2011
9.
79/2011
L-11012/51/2010-IR(CMI) dated
16.08.2011
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
M/s.
M.
Muthu
Pandian, Advocate
For the 2nd Party/Respondent :
M/s. Gupta & Ravi,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondent :
Set Ex-parte
For the 2nd Party/Respondent :
M/s. Gupta & Ravi,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondent :
M/s.
Sai
Raaj
A s s o c i a t e s ,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondent :
Sri V. Devraj
(Authorized
Representative)
COMMON AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide the order of references detailed above
referred the IDs to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras for
adjudication. The IDs were numbered as ID 68, 70, 71 and
74 to 79/2011 respectively.
7334
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
The schedule mentioned in the orders of reference
in the above IDs are as under:
ID 68 of 2011
“Whether the action of the Management of the
erstwhile M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd., now
represented by Sahara India Parivar, its erstwhile
contractor viz. M/s. Decor-Drapes Aviation Ltd.,
and M/s. Jetlite (India) Ltd. in denying employment
to Sri T. Suresh, an Ex-Loader is legal and justified?
To what the concerned workman is entitled to?”
ID 70 of 2011
“Whether the action of the management of the
erstwhile M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. now represented
by Sahara India Pariwar, its erstwhile contractor
viz. M/s. Decor Drapes Aviation Ltd. and M/s. Jet
Lite (India) Ltd. in denying employment to Sri V.D.
Daniel, an Ex-Loader is legal and justified? To what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
ID 71 of 2011
“Whether the action of the management of the
erstwhile M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. now represented
by Sahara India Pariwar, its erstwhile contractor
viz. M/s. Decor Drapes Aviation Ltd. and M/s. Jet
Lite (India) Ltd. in denying employment to Sri V.
Mahesh Kumar, an Ex-Loader is legal and justified?
To what relief the workman is entitled to?”
ID 74 of 2011
“Whether the action of the management of the
erstwhile M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. now represented
by Sahara India Pariwar, its erstwhile contractor
viz. M/s. Decor Drapes Aviation Ltd. and M/s. Jet
Lite (India) Ltd. in denying employment to Sri D.
Durai, an Ex-Loader is legal and justified? To what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
ID 75 of 2011
“Whether the action of the management of the
erstwhile M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. now represented
by Sahara India Pariwar, its erstwhile contractor
viz. M/s. Decor Drapes Aviation Ltd. and M/s. Jet
Lite (India) Ltd. in denying employment to Sri V.
Jayan, an Ex-Loader is legal and justified? To what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
ID 76 of 2011
“Whether the action of the management of the
erstwhile M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. now represented
by Sahara India Pariwar, its erstwhile contractor
viz. M/s. Decor Drapes Aviation Ltd. and M/s. Jet
Lite (India) Ltd. in denying employment to Sri S.
Suresh, an Ex-Loader is legal and justified? To what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
ID 77 of 2011
“Whether the action of the management of the
erstwhile M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. now. represented
by Sahara India Pariwar, its erstwhile contractor viz.
M/s. Decor Drapes Aviation Ltd. and M/s. Jet Lite
(India) Ltd. in denying employment to Sri K. Sridhar,
an Ex-Loader is legal and justified? To what relief
the workman is entitled to?”
ID 78 of 2011
"Whether the action of the management of the
erstwhile M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. now represented
by Sahara India Pariwar, its erstwhile contractor viz.
M/s. Decor Drapes Aviation Ltd. and M/s. Jet Lite
(India) Ltd. in denying employment to Sri P.
Nityanandam, an Ex-Loader is legal and justified?
To what relief the workman is entitled to?”
ID 79 of 2011
"Whether the action of the management of the
erstwhile M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. now represented
by Sahara India Pariwar, its erstwhile contractor viz.
M/s. Decor Drapes Aviation Ltd. and M/s. Jet Lite
(India) Ltd. in denying employment to Sri K. Babu,
an Ex-Loader is legal and justified? To what relief
the workman is entitled to?”
3.
On receipt of notice, the petitioners and Respondents
1st, 3rd and 4th have appeared through their counsel and
the Fifth Respondent through Authorized Representative
and filed claim and counter statement respectively. The
2nd Respondent has remained ex-parte.
4.
The averments in the Claim Statement in ID 68/2011
are as below:
The petitioner has received a telegram asking to join
duty with Sahara Airlines Ltd., the Second Respondent
on 26.06.2003 and he has joined duty, He has started
working as Loader in the Cargo Division of the Second
Respondent in Chennai. The petitioner used to work for
12 hours daily. The petitioner was paid salary of ` 3.000/-.
During the last 3 months of his job he was getting salary
of ` 3.500/-. The petitioner was expecting to be made
permanent by the 2nd Respondent since he has worked for
4 years under the Respondent. During March 2007 there
was a merger with Jet Airways Ltd .. the First Respondent.
The Second Respondent promised that the interests of
the workers would be protected by obtaining job for them
in the merger company. Even after, four years of the
merger the petitioner has neither got the job nor the
settlement amount as promised. There may be an order
directing the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in
service with back wages and other consequential reliefs.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7335
5.
The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The First Respondent is not a necessary party to
the dispute. The First Respondent is not concerned with
the reference made by the appropriate government. The
petitioner was never an employee of the First Respondent.
There was no master-servant relationship between the
First Respondent and the petitioner. It is seen from the
pleadings filed before the Conciliation Officer that the
petitioner was under the employment of the Fourth
Respondent who was the Contractor of erstwhile Sahara
Airlines Ltd .. the Second Respondent. It is incorrect to
state that there was merger of the second Respondent
with the First Respondent. The petitioner is not entitled
to any relief against the First Respondent.
6.
The Second Respondent has remained ex-parte.
7.
The Third Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The reference before this Tribunal is incompetent
and cannot be adjudicated upon. The reference proceeds
on the basis that the petitioner was employed by
Respondents 2 to 5. There cannot be a situation wherein
Respondents 2 to 5 which are separate legal entities would
become employer of the petitioner. The petitioner was
never an employee of the third Respondent and there was
no master and servant relationship between them at any
time. The Fifth Respondent was originally carrying out
airline business in the name and style of Sahara Airlines
Ltd. which has been impleaded as Second Respondent.
The shares held by the Fifth Respondent in the Second
Respondent Company were subsequently acquired by the
First Respondent and consequently the name of the
Second Respondent was changed as Jetlite India Ltd.,
the third Respondent. The Third Respondent has no
connection with the other Respondents, but is a distinct
and separate legal entity. The only connection between
the First and Third Respondents is that the First
Respondent holds the entire shares of the Third
Respondent Company and has the status of shareholder.
The Second Respondent had awarded a contract to the
Fourth Respondent for carrying out ancillary ground
support services at the Chennai Airport by agreement
dated 26.10.2002. The agreement seems to have been
renewed from time to time. The Second respondent had
a certificate of registration for contract labour and the
Fourth Respondent had obtained license under the CLRA
Act. As seen from the counter filed in the conciliation
proceedings, the petitioner was in the employment of the
Fourth Respondent. The contract with the Fourth
Respondent was discontinued w.e.f. 05.09.2007.
Consequent to the termination of the contract the third
Respondent had no relationship with the Fourth
Respondent. The salary for the petitioner was paid only
by the Fourth Respondent. The question of protecting
the employment of the petitioner does not arise as he was
employed by the Fourth Respondent only. No assurance
was given that the job of the petitioner or others would be
protected. The contract of the Fourth Respondent was
terminated in September, 2007. The petitioner has raised
the dispute only in July, 2009. If at all the petitioner has
any claim it is to be made only against the Fourth
Respondent. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
8.
The Fourth Respondent has filed counter statement
contending as below:
There is no claim in the petition that the petitioner
was employed with the Fourth Respondent or that any
termination of service was brought by the Fourth
Respondent. Each of the Respondents are independent
entities. The petitioner has sought reinstatement with the
Respondents without specifying from which of the
Respondents relief is sought. The claim of the petitioner
is vague and is to be dismissed on this ground itself. The
Fourth Respondent provides various support services to
various Airlines in the form of ground handlings, cleaning
of aircrafts, baggage handling, providing passenger
facilitation for the airlines and also providing drivers for
vehicles. The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security has
approved the Fourth Respondent as a ground handling
agency. Depending upon the requirement of airlines, the
Fourth Respondent enters into contract or obtains order
in the form of a tender for providing various services to
the Airlines in the airport. A contract was entered into with
the Second Respondent and this was renewed each year
between 2003 to 2007 prior to the merger of the second
Respondent with the First Respondent. The Fourth
Respondent has the necessary license under the CLRA
Act for employing contract labour. The petitioner is one
such workman who was engaged by the Fourth
Respondent on casual basis as part of fulfillment of its
contractual obligations with the Second Respondent. By
or about March 2007 the contract with the second
Respondent ceased to exist consequent to the merger of
the Second Respondent with the First Respondent. Casual
loaders such as the petitioner ceased to be in the
employment of the Fourth Respondent consequently. It is
denied that the petitioner worked on a 12 hour basis. The
work of the loaders in the Airport is fluctuating and is
dependent on passenger traffic as well as number of flights.
The petitioner did not seek employment with the Fourth
Respondent at any time. Even as on this date the Fourth
Respondent has certain ongoing contract in the Chennai
Airport with other Airlines and is willing to provide casual
employment to the petitioner as was earlier provided. It is
open to the petitioner to report for work with the Fourth
Respondent.
7336
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9.
The Fifth Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The correct name of the Fifth Respondent is Sahara
India and not Sahara Parivar. The petitioner was not
working with any of the establishments of Sahara India
Group. There is no employer-employee relationship
between the petitioner and the Fifth Respondent. There
was no merger of Sahara Airlines Ltd. with Jet Airways
Ltd. The management and ownership of Sahara Airlines
Ltd. was taken over by Jet Airways Ltd. The claim of the
petitioner that he was asked to join duty with Air Sahara
is not true. The petitioner was deputed with the Fifth
Respondent by the Fourth Respondent. It is incorrect to
state that the petitioner was assured of a permanent job
with the Second Respondent. The petitioner is not entitled
to any relief.
10.
The petitioners in ID 70/2011,71/2011,74/2011,75/
2011,762011,77/2011, 78/2011 and 79/2011, all claim
to have been employed by the Second Respondent. The
averments in the Claim Statement filed by all these
petitioners are replicas of the Claim Statement filed by
the petitioner in ID 68 of 2011. All the petitioners have
claimed the relief of reinstatement with the Respondents.
In all these disputes the respondents have filed Counter
Statement repeating the contentions that are raised in
the Counter Statements filed by them in ID 68 of 2011.
11.
The Respondents in all the IDs being the same and
the issue to be decided in all the IDs also being similar,
the IDs were tried jointly.
12.
At the initial stage the petitioners were represented
by a lawyer and he was conducting the cases. Though
the lawyer is still on record, at the later stage he was not
available. The petitioner in ID 68/2011 was the one who
was mainly representing the other petitioners and
conducting their cases on behalf of other petitioners also.
However, during his examination he has stated that he is
not representing the petitioners in ID 70/2011, 74/2011
and 79/2011.
13.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
of WW1 and MWs 1 to 3 and documentary evidence
consisting of Exts.W1 to W7 and Exts.M1 to M27.
14.
The point for consideration is:
“Whether the petitioners in the above Industrial
Disputes are entitled to reinstatement as claimed?”
The Point
15.
All the petitioners are claiming the relief of
reinstatement by the Respondents. The case is that they
have started to work with the Second Respondent on the
basis of a telegram asking to join duty and they have
been working for 12 hours on daily basis. They are said
to have worked for almost 4 years as Loaders,
continuously. In the meanwhile, during March 2007, merger
between the Second Respondent and the First Respondent
is said to have taken place. It is stated in the Claim Statement
that though there was an assurance from the Second
Respondent’s council that the workers grievance will be
settled, they were not given any job nor paid any amount
as promised.
16.
On going through each of the Claim Statements it
could be seen that the very nature of these Claim
Statements is vagueness. No specific plea is raised by the
petitioner on any aspect. Though it is stated in the Claim
Statement that the petitioners have started to work on the
basis of a telegram with the Second Respondent, it is not
stated who has sent the telegram or who has engaged the
petitioners as Loaders. The date on which they have
started to work also is not specifically mentioned. It is not
clear from the Claim Statement if the date given is the date
on which the telegram was received or the date on which
the petitioners started to work. Though it could be
gathered from the Claim Statement that each of the
petitioners are without any work, it could not be gathered
on which date they were turned out from job and by whom.
It is stated that there was a merger of the First Respondent
and Second Respondent companies. However, it is not
clear whether the petitioners have continued to work after
the merger which is said to have taken place. The case of
respondents other than the Fourth Respondent is that it
was not a case of merger at all but the shares of the Fifth
Respondent in the Second Respondent were taken over
by the First Respondent and the name of the Second
Respondent was changed and the Third Respondent
Company was’ formed. It is the case of Respondents that
each of the Respondents are different entities. However,
there is no case in the Claim Statement who has employed
the petitioner or who had terminated them, if at all done.
Again, the petitioners do not specify against whom they
are claiming the relief of reinstatement. If the Respondents
are different entities, the petitioners could not have been
under the employment of all of them at the same time. It is
not clear from the Claim Statement who is to reinstate the
respective petitioners.
17.
All the Respondents other than the Fourth
Respondent have contended that there is no employer -
employee relationship between them and the respective
petitioners. The Fourth Respondent has pointed out in
the Counter Statement that there is no case for the
petitioners that they were employed by the Fourth
Respondent. At the same time the Fourth Respondent has
stated in the Counter Statement that the petitioners were
under its employment. According to this respondent it
has entered into an agreement with the Second
Respondent in the year 2002 for handling ground services.
This was renewed every year and continued until 2007
when the Second Respondent became nonest and the Third
Respondent Company was formed and had taken over the
business.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7337
18.
Even though there is no specific plea in the Claim
Statement, it is clear from the evidence of the petitioner in
ID 68/2011 who has given evidence on behalf of the other
contesting petitioners also as WW1 that all of them were
employed by the Fourth Respondent only. He has admitted
during his cross-examination that the Fourth Respondent
was the Contractor of the Second Respondent and he was
given employment by the Fourth Respondent, though he
would claim that he was interviewed by the Second
Respondent. He has stated that himself and all other
petitioners have joined in their job in the same month
and year. He has admitted that it was the Fourth
Respondent who was paying salary to him and all
others. He has admitted that they were covered under
ESI and PF by the Fourth Respondent. It is also admitted
that Rs 1, 2 and 3 did not issue any appointment order
to them. Then he stated that they were working with
the Fourth Respondent till 31.03.2007 and after that the
Fourth Respondent did not give any employment to
them. It could also be seen from the admission of WW1
that it was the Fourth Respondent who was supervising
the job of the petitioners at the Airport According to
WW1, while the petitioners were working in the Airport
the Manager of the Fourth Respondent used to come
to the Airport occasionally. However, there was a
supervisor of the Fourth Respondent who used to come
to the Airport daily. According to WW1, though
Supervisor of the Fourth Respondent was there, work
used to be allotted by the Supervisor of Sahara Airlines
Ltd. However this could not be an indicator of direct
employment of the petitioner by the 2nd Respondent. In
the decision in International Airport Authority Vs.
International Air Cargo Workers (dated 13.04.2009) the
Apex Court has held that loading, unloading, etc. in the
cargo complex of Airport will naturally be under the
supervision of Airport Officers and it cannot be taken
as evidence of direct employment. As is seen from the
evidence of WW1, the petitioners had asked the Fourth
Respondent for job after 31.03.2007 also. It has agreed
to provide job if it got another contract also. Thus it
could be seen from the evidence of WW1 itself that
himself and other petitioners were employed by the
Fourth Respondent and it was only with the Fourth
Respondent as Contractor the petitioners were doing
the job of Loader for the Second Respondent. MW1
examined on behalf of the Fifth Respondent and MW2
examined on behalf of Rs 1 and 3 have reiterated their
case in the Counter Statements. There is also the
evidence of MW3 on behalf of the Fourth Respondent
asserting the case that all the petitioners were employed
by it. The documents to show that the Fourth
Respondent had the necessary license to take up the
job and had entered into a contract with the Second
Respondent are produced by the 3rd respondent. These
are Exts.M1 to 6, M8 and M9. The petitioners did not
produce any document to show from which date they
have started to work with the Second Respondent as
claimed by them, what were the conditions of
engagement, etc. The documents produced and marked
as Ext.W1 to Ext.W5 are certificates issued by Air
Sahara stating that they have participated in Aviation
Security Awareness Programmer at Chennai. It is very
much clear from the evidence of WW1 itself that Fourth
Respondent was the employer of the petitioners and
they were working as contract labourers under the
Fourth Respondent.
19.
There is no case in the Claim statement that the
contract entered into between the Fourth and Second
Respondent is sham and nominal and actually the Second
Respondent is the employer. Even during evidence there
was no attempt on the part of the petitioners to put forth
the case that the contract is sham and nominal and was
not acted upon. As already stated, there is not even a
case in the Claim Statement that it is the Fourth
Respondent who has employed the petitioners on the basis
of a sham agreement. In spite of this, an attempt is seen
made in the written argument submitted on behalf of the
petitioners to show that the contract is a sham one. In.the
absence of any plea or any evidence this need not be
considered at all.
20.
The counsel for Respondents 2 and 3 has referred
to the decision in GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD
THERMAL POWER STATION, GUJARAT VS. HIND
MAZDOOR SABHA AND OTHERS reported in AIR
1995 SC 1893 which would has laid down that the
individual contract workmen could not even raise the
dispute in the absence of a plea that the contract is sham
and nominal. Only when such a dispute is raised with
such a contention by the concerned workmen the
Industrial Adjudicator has to decide whether the contract
is sham or genuine. It is only when the adjudicator comes
to the conclusion that the contract is sham he will get
jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. If the conclusion is
that the contract is genuine the reference is to be rejected,
the dispute being not an industrial dispute within the
meaning of Section-2K of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Again, in BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. VS.
ANIL AND OTHERS reported in JT 2006 (10) SC 297
also the Supreme Court has laid down the distinction
between an individual dispute which is deemed to be a
industrial dispute under Section-2A of the ID Act and an
ID espoused by the Union in terms of Section-2(i) of the
Act. It has been held that Section-2A does not cover every
type of dispute between an individual workman and his
employer, but it only enables the individual worker to
raise the dispute notwithstanding that no other workman
or union is party to the dispute and it applies only to
disputes relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment
or termination of service of an individual workman. When
7338
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the petitioners were not employed directly or terminated
by the Second Respondent they could not seek any
reinstatement with the Respondents 1 to 3 or 5 in the sense
that they never engaged the petitioners. As already stated,
there is no specific plea regarding this also.
21. Even in the Counter Statement the Fourth Respondent
has stated that it is willing to provide employment to the
petitioners since they have got another similar contract
with another Aviation Company for the same kind of
work. Even during the trial stage, some negotiation was
made and the Fourth Respondent has agreed to provide
work to the petitioners who are willing to work also.
However, the petitioners have insisted that they are
seeking a job with the First Respondent only by way of
reinstatement for which they are not entitled in the
circumstances discussed above. Therefore I find that
none of the petitioners are entitled to any relief.
However, I expect the 4th Respondent will extend a
helping hand to the willing petitioners at this stage when
their dreams. of a job with the 1st Respondent is
shattered by the disposal of this reference.
22.
In view of my discussion above, all the references
are answered against the petitioners. The awards are
passed accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1 st Party/Petitioners
:
Wl/W1, Sri T. Suresh
MW1, Sri V. Devraj
For the 2nd Party/Respondents :
MW2, Ms. A. Sadhana
MW3, Sri L. Pramod
Documents marked:
On the Petitioner’s side:
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
29.07.2005
Copy of Certificate
Ex.W2
29.07.2013
Copy of Certificate
Ex.W3
29.07.2005
Copy of Certificate
Ex.W4
29.07.2005
Copy of Certificate
Ex.W5
29.07.2005
Copy of Certificate
On the Management’s side:
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ex.M1
27.07.2009
Petition filed by T. Suresh
before
the
Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central)-II, Chennai
Ex.M2
27.07.2009
Petition filed by V. Mahesh
Kumar before the Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central)-II, Chennai
Ex.M3
27.07.2009
Petition filed by V. Jayan
before
the
Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central)-II, Chennai
Ex.M4
27.07.2009
Petition filed by S. Suresh
before
the
Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central)-II, Chennai
Ex.M5
27.07.2009
Petition filed by K. Sridhar
before
the
Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central)-II, Chennai
Ex.M6
27.07.2009
Petition filed by N.
Nithyanandam before the
Asstt. Commissioner of
Labour
(Central)-II,
Chennai
Ex.M7
01.10.2009
Counter filed by the 1st
Respondent M/s. Jet
Airways (India) Ltd. before
the Asstt. Commissioner of
Labour
(Central)-II,
Chennai
Ex.M8
Salary statement for
(Page 118a)
January 2007· (Air
(Page 119b)
Sahara Loaders at And
(Page 120c)
Chennai Airport) by Decor
Drapes Aviation Services
Ex.M9
26.10.2002
Agreement entered into
between 2nd Respondent
M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd.
and 4th Respondent M/s.
Decor Drapes Aviation
Services
Ex.M10
02.11.2002
Letter from 2nd Respondent
M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. to
the 4th Respondent M/s.
Decor Drapes Aviation
Services
Ex.M11
—
Form V Certificate by the 2nd
Respondent M/s. Sahara
Airlines Ltd.
Ex.M12
11.07.2003
Registration Certificate
under the Contract Labour
Central Rules issued to the
2nd Respondent M/s. Sahara
Airlines Ltd.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7339
Ex.M13
12.03.2004
License issued by the Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central), Chennai to the 4th
Respondent M/s. Sahara
Airlines Ltd.
Ex.M14
Various dates
License issued by the Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central), Chennai to the
4th Respondent M/s. Decor
Drapes Aviation Ltd.
Ex.M15
18.01.2006
Share Purchase Agreement
Ex.M16
30.12.2006
Agreement entered into
between 2nd Respondent
M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd.
and 4th Respondent M/s.
Decor Drapes Aviation
Services
Ex.M17
13.01.2007
Form-3A submitted by the
4th Respondent M/s. Decor
Drapes Aviation Services
with the Employees Provident
Fund Organization
Ex.M18
12.03.2007
Invoices raised for the month
of January 2007 along with
salary statement by the 4th
Respondent M/s. Decor
Drapes Aviation Services
Ex.M19
01.04.2007
Amended Share Purchase
Agreement
Ex.M20
06.08.2007
Letter of termination of
contract given by the 3rd
Respondent M/s. Jet Lite
(India) Ltd. to the 4th
Respondent M/s. Decor
Drapes Aviation Services
Ex.M21
13.02.2008
No due certificate given by
the 4th Respondent M/s.
Decor Drapes Aviation
Services to the 3rd Respondent
M/s. Jet Lite (India) Ltd.
Ex.M22
27.07.2009
Petition filed by VD Daniel
before
the
Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central)-II, Chennai
Ex.M23
27.07.2009
Petition filed by D. Durai
before
the
Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central)-II, Chennai
Ex.M24
27.07.2009
Petition filed by K. Babu
before
the
Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central)-II, Chennai
EX.M25
15.10.2009
Counter filed by the 3rd
Respondent M/s. Jet Lite
(India) Ltd. before the Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central)-II, Chennai
EX.M26
28.10.2009
Counter filed by the 4th
Respondent M/s. Decor
Drapes Aviation Services
before the Asstt. Commissioner
of Labour (Central)-II,
Chennai with Annexures
EX.M27
30.10.2009
Counter filed by the 5th
Respondent M/s. Sahara
India Pariwar before the
Asstt. Commissioner of
Labour
(Central)-II,
Chennai
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2973-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
xu dSfjt iQSDVªh] tcyiqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj 93@2000) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14011@05@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2973.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/93/2000) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the General
Manager, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-14011/05/2000-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
7340
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/93/00
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Rajendra Dagaur,
C/o Shri S.A. Khan,
Mahamantri GCF Mazdoor Union,
Sheetalamai, 743/3/East Ghamapur,
Jabalpur
...Workman
Versus
General Manager,
Gun Carriage Factory,
Jabalpur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 24th day of September, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 30-5-00 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-14011/5/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“ Whether the action of the management of Gun
Carriage Factory, Jabalpur in terminating the services
of Shri Rakesh Kumar Raikwar and 20 other ( as per
list) is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen
are entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
through Rajendra Dagaur at Pages 4/1 to 4/3. Case of Ist
party workman is that Shri Rajendra Dagaur and 32 others
were appointed for work of safety of cycle stand from 1-3-
91 by General Manager of IInd party No. 3. That as per
order, 50 % employees were to be taken from dependent
of retired employees and remaining 50 % dependent of
working employees. The rates of cycle stand were fixed
on 8-1-91. Those 33 employees were paid
` 450/- per month. They were to be paid bonus ` 380.
They had submitted grievance before ALC for not paying
minimum wages. IInd party got annoyed and discontinued
from services showing them as employees of contractor
Chourasia. That termination of their service without notice
is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. On such ground,
it is prayed that all 21 employees shown in the list with
reference order be reinstated.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Pages 14/1 to
14/2. IInd party denied employer- employee relationship.
Any of those workmen were not engaged by IInd party.
They were not appointed by management. Claim of
workman relates to the contractor. The contractor was
engaged to look after cycle stand. Management has
nothing to do with it. The services of workman are not
terminated by IInd party. They were engaged by
contractors for looking after cycle stand, gate pass was
issued for the purpose of security. On all such contentions,
IInd party prayed for rejection of claim.
4.
Additional Written Statement is filed after application
for better particulars. It is submitted that manpower in
factory is provided by Central Govt.. according to statutory
recruitment order, its appointments are made by General
Manager. The factory employees out of fear of safety of
cycle , scooter, moped etc. approached management for
safeguarding of their vehicles, Mukesh Trivedi Oursider
was allowed contract of cycle stand. The charges were
fixed per cycle- ` 2/-, moped- ` 3/-, Scooter- ` 4/- quarterly
and annual rates are also shown. IInd party submits that
workman were not engaged by management. There was
no employer employee relationship. That services of
workmen were not terminated by management. Workmen
are not entitled to any relief as prayed.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
“Whether the action of
Services of concerned
the management of Gun
workmen were not
Carriage Factory, Jabalpur
terminated by IInd
in terminating the services
party.
of Shri Rakesh Kumar
Raikwar and 20 other
(as per list) is justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workmen are not
workman is entitled to?”
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
6.
Workmen Ist party challenging termination of their
service for violation of Section 25-F. Management denied
employer-employee relationship. Workmen were not
engaged by management. They were employees of
contractor for safeguarding cycle stand. Identical affidavit
of witness of Shri Wilson, Jagdish Khare, Rakesh Kumar,
Badri Mishra are filed. In their affidavit, all those workmen
have stated that they were appointed for working at bicycle
stand. The charges of cycle stand were deducted from
salaries of the employees. Workmen were paid ` 250/-,
350/-, 450/- per month. Bonus of ` 380/- was paid to them.
Their services were terminated without notice. Affidavit
of all workmen as well pleading of Ist party are not clear
who had appointed them. Wilson was not cross-examined.
Jagdish Prasad in his cross-examination says his name
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7341
was registered in Employment Exchange. Post was not
advertised. He has not submitted application. Notice was
displayed on board. He was appointed as waterman. He
was paid ` 250/- per month. Bonus ` 380/- was paid to
him. His service book was not prepared. He was assured
to be regularized after 3 ½ years. Rakesh Kumar is not
cross-examined. Rajendra Dagaur died during pendency.
His LRs are brought on record. Badrivishial in his cross-
examination says he had not submitted application for
appointment, notice was displayed on notice board.
Appointment letter is produced on record which is not on
the record. his service book was not prepared. He was
paid ` 250/- per month, 350/- in the next year. Any of the
workmen have not produced appointment letters. Anand
Swami filed affidavit of his evidence similar to above
workman. In his cross-examination, he was unable to tell
who issued appointment letter to him, he could not tell
name of officer who issued appointment letter. He was
appointed in cycle stand, the vacancies were published.
He not submitted application in writing that he alongwith
Jagdish, Rajendra, Pappu was interviewed. His medical
examination was not conducted. Police has come for his
verification. In his further cross-examination, he claimed
ignorance whether Shri Mukesh was contractor of cycle
stand. The monthly, quarterly, annual charges for cycle
stand were fixed. He claims ignorance what claim is
submitted by Union. It is submitted orally by Rakesh in
individual capacity. The dispute is not raised by Union.
Dhanraj in his cross-examination says that he was
working for 8 ½ years on say of his father he reported on
duty. He was appointed by Shri Negi Labour Officer.
Appointment order was not received by him. The vehicles
kept at stand, the charges were recovered. Tokens used
to be deposited in the evening.
7.
Evidence of management’s witness Shri
N.Narendra is supporting contentions of management that
workmen were not appointed by IInd party. They were
engaged by contractor Mukesh Trivedi. The charges for
cycle stand were recovered from salary of the workmen.
Evidence in cross-examination shows cycle stand in GCF
is from 1991. Prior to it, the vehicles were kept in shed
and there was no security guard. He claims ignorance
who made appointments during 91 to 99 for employees
at cycle stand. That the employees at cycle stand were to
be appointed 50 % dependents of ex-employees and
remaining 50 % from outside. The evidence on record is
not clear that appointment of all the workmen was made
by management of IInd party. Employer employee
relationship is not established. There is no evidence that
services of those workmen were terminated by IInd party.
Though Ist party produced documents, no care is taken
to prove those documents by adducing evidence.
8.
Learned counsel for management Shri A.K.shashi
relies on bunch of citations on ratio held on the point of
burden of proof lies on the workman to prove continuous
working for more than 240 days.
In case of General manager (OSD) Bengal Nagpur
Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon versus Bharat Lal and another
reported in 2011-I-LLJ-321(SC). Their Lordship held
finding by Industrial Court that person concerned direct
employee of cotton mills and not of contractor with it.
Lord ship held not sustainable as twin tests for
determining question of direct employment or through
contractor held not satisfied.”
In present case, employees are claiming to be
directly appointed and not appointed by contractor.
However evidence on record shows the employer
employee relationship with IInd party is not established.
Therefore ratio in above case cannot be applied to this
case. Contractor is not impleaded as party in the present
case. The workmen are not entitled to relief claimed by
him. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.
9.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The workmen are neither engaged nor
terminated by IInd party.
(2)
Workmen are not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2974-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
xu dSfjt iQSDVªh] tcyiqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@49@1997) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14012@05@1996&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2974.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/49/1997) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown
in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the General
Manager, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur and their
workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-14012/05/1996-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
7342
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/49/97
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Ganesh Prasad Choudhary,
S/Shri R.Choudhary,
House No. 191,
Rajendr Nagar, Baba Tola,
Nai Basti, Jabalpur
...Workman
Versus
General Manager,
Gun Carriage Factory,
Jabalpur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 23rd day of September, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 4-3-97 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-14012/5/96-IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Gun
Carriage Factory, Jabalpur is justified in
terminating the services of Shri Ganesh Prasad
Chaudhary? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Pages 3/1 to 3/9. Case of workman is that he was
appointed as messenger on compassionate ground on
8-1-79 after death of his father. He was sincerely working
for 4 years in establishment of IInd party. His service
record was unblemished. Services of Ist party workman
were terminated on 14-10-83. Its legality is challenged
by workman on the ground that the enquiry conducted
against him is illegal. He was granted opportunity for
his defence. Principles of natural justice were violated.
Chargesheet was served on him on 7-1-83. The
allegations were false. Report was also submitted against
him to police with false allegations. That he had not
committed any misconduct alleged in chargesheet. That
one Dukodi was not employee of IInd party had succeeded
to enter factory premises with help of gate keeper.
Workman was falsely involved for helping him to enter
the factory premises. The allegations were also made
about misappropriation of amount. Workman had
requested management to supply relevant documents.
Workman was not supplied documents on his request.
Workman was prosecuted in criminal case. Workman had
requested to stay Enquiry Proceedings. He had challenged
order of rejecting documents filing appeal. Workman had
prayed for supplying enquiry report. His request was not
considered. Enquiry was proceeded exparte against him.
Workman has pleaded extensive reasons that enquiry
conducted against him was vitiated on various grounds.
As enquiry conducted against workman is found illegal
vide order dated 14-9-01 by my predecessor, the details
given by workman with this regard is not narrated.
3.
Workman submits that he was issued show-cause
notice without considering his contentions order of
dismissal was passed by Disciplinary Authority dated
14-10-83. The termination of his services on the basis of
illegal enquiry is liable to be set-aside. The appeal and
review filed by workman were rejected without proper
appreciation. The findings of Enquiry Officer are
perverse.
4.
Workman submits that he was prosecuted in
criminal case 989/85. He was released on probation for a
period of one year by Addnl.CGM, Jabalpur. That as per
circular dated 30-8-71, a person convicted by court of
law and released under the probation of offenders act are
not liable to be removed or dismissed. Workman further
submits that he is not gainfully employed. He could not
get job any where. His family is suffering from hardship
after his dismissal from service. On such ground,
workman prays for his reinstatement with back wages.
5.
IInd party filed Written Statement at pages 5/1 to 5/3.
Claim of workman is denied outright. Management submits
that workman was employed as messenger from 8-1-79 on
compassionate grounds. On 1-12-1982 at 8.15 AM, Shri
Dukodi Prasad resident of Nai basti, Jabalpur was caught
within factory premises. Identity Card No. 2882/NIE was
found in his possession. It was disclosed during
investigation that said Identity Card was given to Shri
Dukodi Prasad by workman after receiving ` 600/-. Workman
had commenced to secure job for him in the factory. Shri
Dukodi Prasad was entering factory premises alongwith
workman. On 30-11-82, workman paid amount ` 151.22 to
Dukodi Prasad and obtained his thumb impression in
attendance register in security office. Workman was
suspended from 2-12-1982. He was served with
chargesheet on 7-3-83. FIR was lodged in police. That
workman was informed about Enquiry proceedings but
he failed to appear. Consequently enquiry was proceeded
exparte. After receiving findings of Enquiry officer that
charges against workman were proved, workman was
removed from service. Appeal and review were rejected
on 7-11-84, 22-12-86 respectively.
6.
IInd party reiterates that enquiry was conducted
against workman as per rules following principles of
natural justice. If enquiry is found vitiated on any ground,
management be permitted to prove misconduct in Court.
The misconduct committed by workman is of serious
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7343
nature. Workman should not be allowed reinstatement.
On such grounds, IInd party prays for rejection of claim.
7.
Enquiry conducted against workman was found
illegal by my predecessor by order dated 14-9-01.
Management was permitted to prove misconduct in Court.
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 management
proves misconduct alleged
against workman?
In Negative
(ii)
whether punishment of
removal form service
imposed against workman
is proper and legal?
In Negative
(iii)
If so, to what relief the
As per final
workman is entitled to?”
order.
REASONS
8.
After enquiry was found illegal by my predecessor,
management was permitted to prove charges against
workman. Management filed affidavit of Shri Pillai.
However said witness wasnot made available for cross-
examination. Management filed affidavit of witness
Manmohan Singh, Asstt. Works Manager. He was cross-
examined on commission. To be precise, management’s
witness says on 1-12-82 when he came on duty at 8.30
AM, Mr. Dilip Singh, Chargeman/ Security officer
reported him that Dukodi Prasad was found in Security
office with tiffin career. When he was questioned about
his identity he had stated that he was working in Security
office since last few months. Shri Dukodi Prasad was not
in the strength of Security office nor he was seen working
in security office. Shri Dilip Singh felt that either he was
mentally unbalanced and belonged to some other section
or there was some thing fishy about Dukodi Prasad. When
he was produced before him on interrogation, Dukodi
prasad said he was working in Security office since 1 ½
months. On checking witness found identity card token
no. 2882/NIE tied at his button of his shirt. During
interrogation he had disclosed that he was transferred
along with Ganesh prasad in security office. When
Ganesh prasad workman on interrogation disclosed that
Shri Dukodi prasad was his brother in law, his sister was
married to him. He had first time came inside factory
brought his tiffin career. LDC Shri P.C.Jain had disclosed
that on 30-11-82, while he was disbursing monthly salary
Ganesh Prasad approached him for change of ` 100/-
for giving some money to Shri Dukodi Prasad. On
interrogation Shri Dukodi and Ganesh Prasad disclosed
that workman had received ` 600/- from Shri Dukodi
Prasad for securing employment. Since past two months,
workman had arranged Token No. 2882/NIE for Dukodi
Prasad etc. On 30-11-82, workman had paid amount of
` 151.20. that workman Shri Ganesh Prasad concluded
that he had to bring Shri Dukodi since past two months.
9.
Management witness in his cross-examination says
in 1982, he was working as foreman. He was dealing
with work of security foreman of factory. He was not
knowing employees assigned duties in the shift. In 1982,
employees assigned duties in shift were given token. He
was not maintaining record of token. It was maintained
by other office. He admits that the information about token
was not available with gate keeper. The employees given
token numbers were allowed entry for their shift duties.
When document No. ½, 3, 4 chargesheet were referred
to the witness, he admits that Shri Dukodi Prasad was
management’s witness. Witness of management was
unable to tell whether Token No. 2882 was given to
workman by Shri Dukodi Prasad. Management’s witness
admits that chargesheet was issued to workman on the
token number found with Dukodi Prasad. That witness
had not seen Shri Dukodi Prasad enter in the factory.
Witness said that he was acquainted with Shri Dukodi
Prasad. The token number is lost. Matter is report to
concerned section by the employee. Witness was unable
to tell to whom Token No. 2882/NIE was issued.
10.
As per evidence of management’s witness
Manmohan Singh, Dilip Singh had given information about
Shri Dukodi Prasad found in Security Office. Said Dilip
Singh is not examined Security Person who found Shri
Dukodi Prasad are not examined. Even token no. found
with Shri Dukodi Prasad is not produced. Shri Dukodi
Prasad is not examined as witness in the case. The
documents about recording confession or statement of
workman are not produced by witness of the management.
The evidence of management’s witness on affidavit is
submitted in 2011. The incident is of 1-12-1982 the
argument were advanced by learned counsel for
management Shri A.K.Shashi that age of witness is above
80 years minor infirmities are natural. However the material
witnesses are not examined. The documents regarding
interrogation of Shri Dukodi Prasad and confession of
workman are not produced. The evidence of management’s
witness is not cogent to place reliance.
11.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence denying
charges against him. In his cross-examination, workman
says he is not acquainted with shri Dukodi Prasad. He
denies that for more than one month before December
1982, he was taking Dukodi Prasad to the factory premises
but he has no enmity with management’s witness
Manmohan Singh. Workman denied to have paid ` 600/- to
Shri Dukodi Prasad.
12.
From evidence of management’s witness, the
misconduct alleged against workman cannot be proved.
He record of Enquiry proceedings was not produced,
7344
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
secondly enquiry was held illegal. For above reasons, I
record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
13.
Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.1,
charges against workman are not proved from evidence
of management’s witness punishment of dismissal
imposed against workman cannot be sustained. The
question arises whether workman is entitled for
reinstatement with backwages. In statement of claim,
workman has pleaded that in Criminal case, he was
released on probation of Offenders Act copy of judgment
by Criminal Court is produced Annexure B at Page 1/51.
Shri Dukodi Prasad and workman were accused No.1,2
in criminal case. Both were convicted under Section 448,
303 of IPC. However there being first offender were
released on probation.
14.
Learned counsel for workman Shri Puranik submits
that release on probation of Offenders act is not a bar for
continuance in service. Chargesheet is issued to workman
and disciplinary enquiry is conducted against him. The
charge proved in criminal case is based on same facts
and chargesheet issued to workman by Disciplinary
Authority. The conviction of accused for offence under
Section 448 of IPC is certainly a misconduct. Learned
counsel for workman submits that workman be reinstated
with back wages as charges are not proved by
management. In present case, though charges against
workman are not proved from evidence before this
Tribunal, workman was convicted by Criminal court for
offence.
15.
On the point of reinstatement, learned counsel for
management Shri A.K.Shashi submits that management
has lost confidence in workman and his reinstatement
may not be allowed. In support of above argument reliance
is placed in case of Shriram Refrigeration Industries
versus Industrial Tribunal cum Addl. Labour Court,
Hyderabad and others reported in 2002(9)SCC 708. Their
Lordship dealing with reinstatement/ compensation in
lieu thereof only 3 years of service left and he was
drawing ` 3045 per month, their Lordship in such
circumstances allowed compensation ` 2,25,000/- in lieu
of reinstatement. In present case, workman is convicted
for offence under Section 403, 448 IPC by Criminal Court
but he was released on probation. Said Offence was based
on identical facts. Considering workman was appointed
on compassionate ground in 8-1-79, very few year of
service of workman must be left. Considering above
aspects, instead of reinstatement compensation ` 3 Lakhs
to workman would be appropriate relief. 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 Gun Carriage
Factory, Jabalpur in terminating the services of
Shri Ganesh Prasad Chaudhary is not legal and proper.
Order of dismissal of workman dated 14-10-83 is set-
aside.
(2)
Instead of reinstatement, IInd party is directed to
pay compensation ` 3 Lakhs 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] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2975-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mkd?kj]
Mkd?kj] fcykliqj ds v/h{kd ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj 130@96) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@115@1995&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2975.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R 130/1996) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the
Superintendent of Post Office, Post Office, Bilaspur and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-40012/115/1995-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/130/96
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta,
R/o Village Sakari,
Mungeli Road,
Post Sakari,
Distt. Bilaspur (MP)
...Workman
Versus
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7345
Superintendent of Post Office,
Post Office,
Bilaspur.
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 24th day of September 2014
1.
As per letter dated 30-5-96 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
40012/115/95-IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“ Whether the action of the management of Post
Offices, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in terminating
the services of Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/5. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
engaged as casual workman on daily wages under IInd
party No.4 on 16-5-87. He was granted minimum of pay
scale of vehicle driver 950-1500 from 16-5-88. As per
memorandum dated 6-6-88, he was continuously working
from 16-5-87 to 23-1-90 he was eligible for regularization
under the scheme framed by department as per directions
given by Hon’ble Supreme Court. That his services were
terminated without notice on 23-1-90 in controversion of
Section 25-F of I.D. Act. Workman represented against
termination order on 30-1-90, 12-2-90. He was re-engaged
for different period from 8-3-90 to 8-2-94. Workman
reiterates that his services are terminated on 23-1-90 in
violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. He was not served
notice. Retrenchment compensation was not paid. On such
ground, he prayed for reinstatement.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to
7/3. IInd party submits that workman was engaged on
daily wages from 9-5-87 to 15-5-88. Again intermittently
from 16-5-88 to 28-1-90 on account of execution of Bharatlal
Driver. That the order engaging workman in daily wages
provided his appointment till appointment of regular
candidate. The discontinuation of workman is covered
under Section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D.Act. After regular Driver,
Shri B.K.Gaur was posted from Bilaspur Division, services
of workman were not required. Therefore his services were
dispensed with. Termination of service in violation of
Section 25-F is denied. On such ground, IInd party prays
for rejection of claim of workman.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Post Offices,
Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur
in terminating the services of
Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta
is legal and justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?”
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
5.
Workman is challenging termination of his service
from 23-1-90 for violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act.
Management had denied material contentions of
workman. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence.
Workman stated that he was engaged on daily wages on
minimum scale ` 950-1500 from 16-2-88. He was
continuously working till 23-1-90. Thereafter workman
was re-engaged intermittently on daily wages till 8-2-94.
In his cross-examination, workman has admitted his
reengagement after order of his discontinuation from
23-1-90. Period of his engagement is stated in para-9 of
his cross-examination. It is clear from his evidence that
workman was re-engaged after termination of his services.
He has given order of his discontinuation of his order
dated 23-1-90. Document Exhibit W-1 appointment letter
is clear that workman was appointed temporarily. His
services were liable to be terminated. Workman was given
understanding. Exhibit W-2 shows that documents of
workman were called, Exhibit W-3 shows Shri R. K. Gond
Driver was declared surplus in Jabalpur division and
allotted to Bilaspur division and posted as Driver to
Inspection Vehicle of Bilaspur Division. Thus Shri Gond
surplus was appointed as regular employee. It was reason
for termination of workman.
6.
Evidence of management witness Shri B.L.Patel
is on point that workman Jagdish was engaged as stop
gap arrangement as casual labour on resignation
submitted by Driver Bharatlal. His appointment was not
made as per statutory rules. Shri R.K.Gond surplus
employee was appointed therefore services of workmen
were dispensed. In his cross-examination, management
witness admits that before termination of service,
showcause notice was served on workman, retrenchment
compensation was not paid to him as he was working on
daily wages. As appointment of workman was temporary,
regular driver was appointed. His discontinuation is
covered by Section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D.Act. therefore
compliance of Section 25-F of I.D.Act is not required.
For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Affirmative.
7346
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Post Offices,
Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in terminating the services
of Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta is legal and proper.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2976-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMohtuy
bathfu;j] nwjlapkj ifj;kstuk] jk;iqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj 18@1999) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@46@1998&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2976.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R 18/1999) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Divisional
Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-40012/46/1998-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/18/99
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Indro S/o Mummaru Gada,
Vill Ghatkachhar, PO Signora,
Tehsil Saraipali, Raipur.
...Workman
Versus
Divisional Engineer,
Telecom Project,7,
Sahakari Marg II, Choubey Colony,
Raipur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of October 2014
1.
As per letter dated 30-11-98 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-40012/46/98/IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of
Divisional Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur (MP)
in terminating the services of Shri Indro S/o Shri
Mummaru Gada, Ex-Mazdoor is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim at Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is
that he was in service of IInd party. He was appointed as
employee by IInd party in 1986. He was discontinued
from 16-2-88. He had completed 240 days continuous
service. He was not served with notice, retrenchment
compensation was not paid to him. His services are
terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act which
amounts to victimization and unfair labour practice on
part of IInd party. Workman prays for his reinstatement
with back wages.
3.
Written statement is filed at page 6/1 to 6/2 by
IInd party. It is denied that workman was engaged by
IInd party management DE Telecom Project, Raipur.
According to IInd party workman was engaged by
erstwhile DE Coaxial cable project, Raipur. There was
no question of workman working more than 240 days in
any of the year. There was no employer employee
relationship. Workman was not terminated by IInd party.
The petitioners in original application 17/91 before CAT,
Jabalpur were different. Applicant cannot take advantage
of order passed in said proceedings. On such ground,
IInd party prays for rejection of claim.
4.
Workman filed rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/2
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of In Affirmative
the management of
Divisional Engineer,
Telecom Project,
Raipur (MP) in
terminating the services
of Shri Indro S/o
Shri Mummaru Gada,
Ex-Mazdoor is legal
and justified?
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7347
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled
entitled to any
to?”
relief.
REASONS
6.
Workman is challenging termination of his services
for violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. However he failed
to adduce evidence in support of his claim. Ordersheet
dated 25-5-06 shows that management was served with
notice. Case was fixed for cross-examination of workman
by management. The right to cross-examine workman
was closed. However order was passed on 2-2-06 that
case shall proceed exparte. Affidavit of evidence of
workman is not seen. Management filed affidavit of
evidence of witness Shri R.R.Yadav. In his cross-
examination, management’s witness says workman was
engaged as casual labour, he claims ignorance about
documents maintained about working of workman. That
workman had not completed 240 days continuous service.
In absence of evidence of workman, it is difficult to uphold
that workman had completed 240 days continuous service
and termination of his services without notice without
payment of retrenchment compensation cannot be
accepted. 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 Divisional
Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur (MP) in terminating
the services of Shri Indro S/o Shri Mummaru Gada, Ex-
Mazdoor is legal and proper.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2977-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
ljdkjh viQhe vkSj mi{kkj fuekZ.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;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@03@2000) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@168@1999&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2977.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/03/2000) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the General
Manager, Government Opium & Alkalold Works and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-42012/168/1999-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/3/00
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Prakash
S/o Bapulal Sanghvi,
107, Dhan Mandi, Ratlam (MP)
...Workman
Versus
General Manager,
Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Works,
Neemuch
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of October 2014
1.
As per letter dated 21-12-99 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
42012/168/99/IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“ Whether the action of the General Manager, Govt.
Opium and Alkaloid Works in terminating the
services of Shri Prakash Sanghavi is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at
page 3/1 to 3/8. Case of workman is that he was working
as time keeper with IInd party No.2 at Neemuch from
7-10-79 after due selection. IInd party had published
advertisement in newspaper dated 16-9-78 inviting
application for two post of time keeper in pay scale of
216-400. One post was reserved for ST, one for Open
Category. Workman had submitted application for post
of time keeper. He was selected. After his selection, he
was offered appointment by General Manager vide letter
dated 29-9-79. Workman accepted said offer and joined
service on 7-10-79. On 7-5-80, he was served with order
of termination w.e.f. 5-5-90 without assigning any reason.
He was not served showcause notice. The services were
terminated without notice. Retrenchment compensation
was not paid to him. Provisions of Section 25-F, N of
7348
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
I.D.Act were violated. The termination of his service is in
violation of Article 311 of the constitution.
3.
Workman has narrated detail litigation which he
resorted. He challenged termination before Labour Court
Mandsor, W.P in High Court MP bench, Indore. That
Industrial Court had granted stay to order of termination.
He again joined service on 29-10-81 to work till 18-12-
81. His stay was vacated. Workman has filed petition
before CAT, Jabalpur. As per directions passed by High
Court, CAT, Jabalpur conciliation proceedings were filed
before ALC, the dispute has been referred. Workman
submits that he was appointed after following selection
process, advertisement. The post was not reserved in the
advertisement. The post on which he was appointed was
of open category. There was one post. There cannot be
100 % reservation. The appointment of workman was on
vacant post. He was selected after competition. His
services were terminated by lower authority. He was
served notice under Section 25-F. Pay in lieu of notice
was not paid to him. He was also paid retrenchment
compensation. That principles of last come first go was
not followed. Termination of his service is violatory of
Article 16(1) of the constitution. Workman prays for his
reinstatement with back wages.
4.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to
6/11. Case of IInd party is that 2 post of time keeper were
sanctioned in IInd party. Those posts were filled on
temporary basis from candidates out of panel drawn by
selection board in 1979. After sometime one of the
candidates appointed Nand Kishore resigned from post
of time keeper on family ground. His resignation was
accepted by authorities. The vacancy caused was for SC.
Workman from open category was vailable. Name of
workman was at Sl. No.3 of panel. To fill up vacancies of
time keeper, workman was temporarily appointed on adhoc
basis as per order dated 29-9-79. Workman had accepted
conditions in appointment order and joined duties. The
vacancy arose on resignation submitted by Shri
Nandkishore was published in newspaper on 15-10-79
on completion of recruitment process and availability of
suitable candidate, the services of workman were
terminated.
5.
IInd party has also narrated details of the litigation
resorted by the workman, termination order was
challenged before Jabalpur. Review was filed in Industrial
Court. WP filed in High Court, matters were remanded
and again Labour Court decided the matter observing
that Labur court has no jurisdiction. Remedy under
Section 10 of I.D.Act was appropriate. IInd party submits
that dispute is raised after delay of 18 years. Workman
had chosen wrong forum including petition filed before
CAT. Orders were passed that remedy to workman could
be resorted under Section 10 of I.D.Act. workman was
temporarily appointed as per conditions in appointment
order, his services were terminated. Workman is not entitled
to protection under Section 25-F of I.D.Act. Action of the
management is legal.
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
In Affirmative
General Manager,
Govt. Opium and Alkaloid
Works in terminating the
services of Shri Prakash
Sanghavi legal and justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?”
entitled to any
reliefs.
REASONS
7.
Ist party workman approached courts for retention
against order of his termination. However the proceedings
were not filed before Competent Court. The disputes has
been raised after lapse of 18 years only for the reason that
workman was prosecuting proceedings before other
forums. Workman died during pendency on 11-1-2001. His
L Rs. are brought on record. Affidavit of evidence is filed
by his widow Raj Kumar Sanvi and other LRs in support
of application for substituting LRs. However no evidence
is adduced on behalf of deceased workman or his LRs.
The evidence of workman is closed on 1-6-2010.
Management also failed to adduce evidence. Evidence of
management is closed on 6-5-2014. The parties donot
participate in reference proceeding. It is matter of pain
that the deceased workman did not get any fruits during
his life time for the reasons that he prosecuted proceedings
before wrong forums. For absence of evidence in support
of claim of workman, I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Affirmative.
8.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the General Manager, Govt. Opium
and Alkaloid Works in terminating the services of Shri
Prakash Sanghavi is proper and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief claimed by him.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2978-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMohtuy
bathfu;j] nwjlapkj ifj;kstuk] jk;iqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7349
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@214@1998) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@19@1998&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2978.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/214/1998) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Divisional
Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-40012/19/1998-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/214/98
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Banshi Gopal,
S/o Shri Godno,
Village Ghatkachhar,
PO Sighora, Tehsil Saraipali,
Raipur
...Workman
Versus
Divisional Engineer,
Telecom Project,
7, Sahakari Marg-II,
Choubey Colony, Raipur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of October, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 10-9-98 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-40012/19/98-IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“ Whether the action of the management of
Divisional Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur (MP)
in terminating the service of Shri Banshi Gopal
son of Shri Godno Ex. Mazdoor is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page
3/1 to 3/4. Case of workman is that he was appointed as
mazdoor against permanent post in 1986 by IInd party.
His services were discontinued from 16-2-88. He completed
240 days continuous service in 1986-87. He raised dispute
before ALC. It is reiterated that he was not served notice
of termination, retrenchment compensation was not paid
to him. Termination of his service is in violation of Section
25. On such ground he prays for his reinstatement with
back wages.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement at page 6/1 to 6/
2 denying claim of Ist party workman. It is submitted that
workman was not appointed by management, he was not
engaged by DE Telecom Project, Raipur. Workman was
engaged by DE Coaxial Copper Project Raipur which was
wound up on 31-3-91. It is further submitted that workman
was engaged on muster roll on daily basis, retention
period of muster roll is 5 years therefore it is difficult to
comment about engagement and discontinuation of
workman. The dispute is raised after 12 months for
reinstatement by management. Workman was engaged
purely on temporary basis. There was no question of
termination of his service. Workman is not entitled to one
month’s notice or pay in lieu of notice. Violation of Section
25-F of I.D.Act is denied. It is further submitted that in
O.A.71/91, 96/90 CAT Jabalpur order pertains to the
applicants. Workman is not entitled to get any benefit.
4.
Ist party filed rejoinder at page 7/1 to 7/2 reiterating
its contentions in statement of claim.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
Workman is neither
management of Divisional
engaged or
Engineer, Telecom Project,
terminated by
Raipur (MP) in terminating
IInd party.
the service of Shri Banshi
Gopal Son of Shri Godno
Ex. Mazdoor is legal and
justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?”
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
6.
Workman is challenging termination of his service
for violation of section 25-F of I.D.Act. He filed affidavit in
support of his claim submitting that he was engaged in
1986 as mazdoor. He was continuously working till
31-12-90. He completed 240 days continuous service.
7350
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Workman in his cross-examination says he was working
in co-axial project of Telecom Department. Appointment
letter was not given to him. He denies suggestion that he
not completed 240 days continuous service. Management
filed affidavit of witness Shri R.R.Yadav. Witness of
management has covered contentions in Written
Statement that he was engaged by East DE Coaxial
Project. The witness of management was not cross-
examined. Workman in his cross-examination has
admitted that he was working in coaxial project. As such
employee employer relationship is not established
between parties. Termination of services of workman with
IInd party is not established. Accordingly I record my
finding in Point No.1.
7.
Point No.2— In view of my finding in Point No.1
employer employee relationship between parties is not
established. Termination of service of workman is also
established. Therefore workman is not entitled to any
relief. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.
8.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
Employer employee relationship and termination
of Ist party workman by management is not established.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2979-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj ftyk
vfHk;ark] VhMhb jktx<+ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@17@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@277@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2979.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/17/2002) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Telecom
District Engineer, TDE Rajgarh and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-40012/277/2001-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/17/2002
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Gopal,
S/o Shri Mansingh
R/o Vill: Moya,
Tehsil Biaora, Rajgarh
...Workman
Versus
Telecom District Engineer,
O/o TDE Rajgarh,
At Biaora, Rajgarh
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 24th day of September, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 3-1-02 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal
under Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-40012/277/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under
reference relates to:
“ Whether the action of the management of Telecom
District Engineer, Rajgarh in terminating the
services of Shri Gopal S/o Shri Mansingh w.e.f.
January, 97 is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled for?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 1 to ½. Case of workman is that he was working at
telephone Office , District Rajgarh from 1987 to 1992 as
Mazdoor Category I on muster roll. After muster roll were
discontinued, his wages were paid under vouchers. His
service were orally terminated without notice. On such
ground, he prays for reinstatement.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement. IInd party
submits that workman was individually engaged on
muster roll of management of IInd party. He not
completed 240 days continuous service. In June 1991,
workman worked for 30 days, July-31 days. The services
of workman were not required. Workman is not entitled
for reinstatement or regularization.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Telecom
District Engineer,
Rajgarh in terminating the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7351
services of Shri Gopal
S/o Shri Mansingh w.e.f.
January, 97 is justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?”
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
5.
Though workman raised dispute and filed statement
of claim, he failed to participate in reference proceeding.
Workman has not adduced evidence in support of his
claim. Reference is proceeded exparte on 30-1-2012.
6.
Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Ramjani
Khan. Management witness submits that workman has
not completed 240 days service. Workman worked for 30
days in June, 91 and 31 days in July 91. His evidence
remained unchallenged. I find no reason to disbelieve
evidence of management. There is no evidence of
workman to substantiate his claim. Therefore I record
my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
7.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Telecom
District Engineer, Rajgarh in terminating the services
of Shri Gopal S/o Shri Mansingh w.e.f. January, 97 is
legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2980-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eè; jsyos ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k
Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 213@1999) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41015@03@1998&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2980.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 213/
1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
the Central Railway and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-41015/03/1998-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/213/1999
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE
Shri Anil Kumar Sharma,
C/o Shri Tulsi Singh Thakur,
Behind SI Quarters,
Police Station Ghamapur,
Kanchghar, Jabalpur
...Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 13th day of September, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 19-5-1999 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-41015/03/1998-IR(B-I). The dispute under
reference relates to:
“ Whether the action of the management of Central
Railway Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Anil
Kumar Sharma, Khalasi S/o Shri Gopi Sharma
w.e.f. 19.01.1987 is justified? If not, to what relief
the said workman is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
monthly rated Khalasi in scale 250-940 working in IInd
party No.4. That IInd party No.2 merged in I/d party no.3
under control of IInd party No. 1. workman submits that
he was continuously working from 1985 to 1987. He had
acquired status of temporary employee. That he could
not be terminated without compliance of Rule-9 of
Discipline Appeal Rules 1968. That he was medically
examined and found fit for regular job. IInd party No.4
issued notice dated 3-1-87 . His services were terminated
from 19-1-87 in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act,
Rule-9 Discipline Appeal Rules l968. Workman submits
that termination of his service is illegal. Workman
approached ALC Bhopal for redressal. Workman submits
that termination of his service is also void for violation
of Article 311 of the constitution. That only after
directions issued by Hon'ble High Court in writ petition
4560/98, the reference has been made. On such ground,
workman is praying for reinstatement with back wages.
3.
IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page
8/1 to 8/3. It is submitted that workman had worked as
monthly rated casual labor. He fraudulently entered in
7352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Railway service producing casual labour service card in
1987. Notice in prescribed form was issued to workman
by Competent Authority. Workman did not reply to
the notice instead workman did not turn up for duties.
Rule-9 of Discipline Appeal Rules 1968 is not attracted
in the matter of workman. IInd party submits that at
relevant time, workman was working under PWI(B) at
Bhusawal division and not Bhopal Division. That notice
was served upon workman. He did not submit any
explanation to the notice. Workman had no defence to
submit. Workman kept silence for long time. Workman
was happy with his fraudulent act. Ist party workman
secured appointment on basis of fake casual labour
service card. He had absconded himself not giving reply
to the notice. On such ground, IInd party prayed for
rejection of the claim.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Central
Railway Bhopal in terminating
the services of Shri Anil Kumar
Sharma, Khalasi S/o Shri Gopi
Sharma w.e.f. 19-1-87 is legal
and justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the workman
As per final
is entitled to?"
order.
REASONS
5.
Workman has challenged termination of his service
for violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, Article 311 of
constitution of India. He submits that no enquiry was
conducted against him against Rule 9 of Discipline Rule
1968. Above contentions of workman are denied. IInd
party did not deny workman was working with IInd party
No. 4 as monthly rated Khalasi. IInd party has pleaded
that workman had secured employment producing bogus
casual labour service card. Notice was issued to him. No
reply was given instead workman remained absconding.
Affidavit of evidence is filed by workman reiterating his
contentions in statement of claim that he was working as
casual labour with IInd party from 1985 to 1987. The
services were terminated in violation of section 25-F,
Article 311 of constitution. No enquiry was conducted
against him. In his cross-examination, workman denies
that card submitted by him was bogus. He denies receipt
of notice during absconding period. That he had not eft
his job. Rather he was discontinued by IInd part. In his
further cross-examination, workman says he was working
as temporary employee. He was receiving wages for his
working days. Subsequently he received notice. He had
not given reply to the notice. Suggestion of IInd party
that card produced by him was bogus is denied. The
documents produced by workman Exhibit W-1 shows that
workman had approached for redressal before CAT
Jabalpur. Workman was given liberty to approach before
Tribunal. Exhibit W-2 is copy of order of reference. The
reference was directed only after direction issued by
Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition. IInd party filed
affidavit of evidence of Shri Bharat Bhushan Sharma.
The witness of management says that Service Card
submitted by workman was found bogus. Workman was
given notice. No reply is filed by workman, he had
absconded. In his cross-examination, management's
witness says in 1984, he was not working at Satna. He
brought original documents but any documents are not
produced. No notice was given to workman in that regard.
The documents about workman was absconding are not
available in the office. In his further cross-examination,
management's witness says service record of workman
was found bogus as name of workman was not found in
LHTI register. That showcause notice was not issued to
workman after receiving report. He was not Enquiry Officer.
When service card was issued to workman, he was not
posted at Satna, rather he never worked at Railway
Division, Satna.
6.
Management witness Shri Ashok Kashvi in his
affidavit of evidence says service card produced by
workman was bogus as per order dated 8-1-87. In his
cross-examination, management's witness says in 1987,
he was not posted in Railway Electrification Project. He
received attendance register from PWI Harda. Railway
Electrification Project had ended. The witness of
management was working in section. When service card
was issued to workman he was not in Railway Service.
Management's witness further says termination order was
issued to workman. Any other proceeding initiated against
workman is not available. Termination dated 3-1-87 was
issued by (PWI was not known to him. That had not seen
signature of PWI arher at any time. Document Exhibit M-
1 is letter dated 8-1-87 issued by PWI informing that service
cards of Ist party workman Anil Kumar Sharma and others
were not issued by his office. In Exhibit W-2 attendance
register workman is shown absent from duty and ultimately
terminated .
7.
Service card alleged to have been submitted by Ist
party workman is not produced on record, even
showcause notice issued to workman is not produced on
record. management of IInd party is alleging that service
card produced by workman was found fake/ bogus.
Absolutely no evidence is adduced by IInd party as to
who had found service card submitted by workman was
bogus. In absence of such evidence, contentions of
management cannot be accepted. Services of Ist party
workman are terminated on ground that service card
produced by him was bogus. In that regard, contentions
are not substantiated by evidence. Both witnesses of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7353
management were not working at relevant time. They have
not seen service card produced by workman. They have
not decided that the service card was bogus. Therefore
the action of termination of services of workman cannot
be said legal. For above reasons, I record my finding in
Point No.l in Negative.
8.
Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.l
termination of services of workman is not legal, question
arises whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with
full back wages. Workman was terminated from service
long back in 1988. His evidence is silent how he is
maintaining himself and his family. No evidence is also
adduced by IInd party about 1st party workman is in
gainful employment. Considering above aspects,
workman cannot be allowed reinstatement with full back
wages. In my considered view, reinstatement with 20 %
back wages would be appropriate. Accordingly I record
my finding in Point No.2.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Central
Railway Bhopal in terminating the services of
Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Khalasi S/o Shri Gopi
Sharma w.e.f. 19-1-87 is illegal.
(2)
IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with
continuity of service and 20 % back wages.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2981-—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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
198@98) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@345@(,)@1997&vkbZvkj (ch-&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2981.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 198/
98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the State
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-12012/345/(A)/1997-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/198/98
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. P ATLE
Dy. General Secretary,
State Bank of India workers Union,
Bhopal Circle, C/o SBI,
Jaistambh Chowk,
Raipur (MP)
...Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
Region-V, State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Shanka Nagar,
Raipur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 28th day of October 2014
1.
As per letter dated 20-8-98 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-12012/345(A)/97-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of India in removing Shri G. K. Gurdwan, Ex-
Cashier-cum-clerk from Bank's services with effect
from 25-6-96 vide order no. Area/5/C/111 dated
25-6-96 is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?"
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
parties. Statement of claim is submitted by General Secretary
of Bank employees Union. Case of 1st party Union is that
it is registered under Trade Union Act 1926. Shri G.K.
Gurdwan- employee was its member. Chargesheet was
issued by IInd party on 1-8-95 to above said employee.
Employee was its member. Chargesheet was issued by IInd
party on 1-8-95 to above said employee. Enquiry was
illegally conducted against him. Workman was not
supplied copies of documents. Employee was unable to
submit his clear reply. Enquiry was conducted illegally.
Finding of illegal enquiry based on contradictory evidence.
The punishment of dismissal was imposed. Order of
dismissal is illegal. The appeal preferred by workman
against order of dismissal was rejected. The dismissal
order is illegal. On such ground, Union prays for
reinstatement of workman with consequential benefits.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/16.
Case of IInd party is that employee Shri G. K. Gurdwan was
7354
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
posted as cashier cum clerk at Akaltara branch of SBI on
22-2-95. One Rajaram Sharma handed over amount of
` 43,200/- to workman for depositing the said amount in SB
Account No. 3240. That workman did not deposit said
amount. He made fictitious credit entries in SB Account of
Shri Rajaram Sharma. The entries were also made in ledger
book. Chargesheet was issued to workman. Workman had
admitted receipt of amount from Shri Rajaram Sharma. That
defence of the employee was that he forgot to deposit
amount in his account. Preliminary enquiry was conducted
by Manager, State Bank of India, Region-V, Nagpur. It was
found that entries were taken in Bank pass book of Shri
Rajaram by the employee, amount was not deposited in his
account. After issuing chargesheet, enquiry was
conducted. Full opportunity for defence of the delinquent
was given. The documents demanded by workman were
submitted to him. After receiving report of Enquiry Officer,
its copy was served on delinquent employee vide letter
dated 10-4-96, employee submitted his reply. Considering
gravity of the charge proved after fmding of Enquiry Officer,
punishment of dismissal from service was imposed. Appeal
preferred by employee was dismissed. IInd party submits
that punishment of dismissal against workman is proper
and legal. It is reiterated that the enquiry is conducted
against workman as per rules. order of dismissal doesnot
suffer from any kind of illegality. Claim of workman is not
tenable.
4.
As per order dated 2-8-2013, enquiry conducted
against workman is found legal and proper. Case was fixed
for evidence on other issues. 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 misconduct alleged In Affirmative
against workman is proved
from evidence In Enquiry
proceedings?
(ii)
whether punishment of
In Affirmative
removal from service imposed
against workman is legal and
proper?
(ii)
If so, to what relief the
1st party is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any
relief
REASONS
5.
As stated above, enquiry is found legal and proper.
The question remains for decision whether charges alleged
against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry
Proceedings? Workman has not adduced any evidence
on other issues. The statement of management's witness
Rajaram at Page 27 of the Enquiry Proceedings shows that
he had handed over amount of ` 42,450 to the employee
for depositing in SB Account 3240. Amount was not
deposited in his account. When he had gone to Bank on
27-3-95 for withdrawal of ` 46,300/-, he was told that
amount was not in his account. The amount of
` 42,450/- handed over to Shri G. K. Gurudwan was not
deposited in his account. The evidence of Shri Rajaram
Sharma is recorded in detail. In Enquiry proceedings,
his evidence on material points is not shattered by cross-
examination. The evidence of management's witness
Rajarm Shrama proves charge alleged against workman.
For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.l in
Affirmative.
6.
Point No.2 the punishment of removal from service
is imposed against workman. After receiving findings of
Enquiry officer, that charges against workman are proved
enquiry conducted against workman is found proper and
legal. Charges against workman relates to receiving
amount of ` 42,450/- for depositing in account of Shri
Rajaram Sharma. Workman did not deposit said amount.
However he had taken entry of said amount in pass book
and ledger. The proved miscondouct of workman is of
serious nature. Conduct of employee working as clerk
cum cashier receiving amount for depositing in SB
Account of Rajaram and not depositing it in his account
for taking entries of said amount in pass book and Bank
ledger is serious misconduct. The punishment of removal
from service imposed by IInd party doesnot call for
interference. At the same time, I am also mentioning that
the Union/workman has not adduced any evidence on
other issues. Therefore also there is no reason to interfere
with the order of removal from service. For above reasons,
I record my finding in Point No.2 in Affirmative.
7.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of State Bank of
India in removing Shri G.K.Gurdwan, Ex-
Cashier cum clerk from Bank's services with
effect from 25-6-96 vide order no. Area/5/C/111
dated 25-6-96 is legal and proper.
(2)
Union/workman is not entitled to any relief
claimed by him.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2982-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ
banksj etZM ,t 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 153@02) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@452@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7355
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2982.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 153/2002)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of the State Bank of Indore
Merged as State Bank of India and their workman, received
by the Central Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-12012/452/2001-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/153/02
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
General Secretary,
All India State Bank of Indore
Employees Congress,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager (Operations),
State Bank of Indore,
Merged as State Bank of India
Local Head Office
Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of October 2014
1.
As per letter dated 7-11-2002 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-12012/452/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under rererence
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Assistant
General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Mukesh Nathulal
Vatre S/o Nathulal Vatre w.e.f. 11-12-98 and not
regularizing him is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?"
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. orkman submitted statement of claim at page
2/1 to 2/7. Case of workman is that he was working as
messenger from 2-5-91 as per oral order of IInd party. He
was working with devotion. That on 17-11-87, settlement
was arrived between management of the Banks and all
India State Bank of India Staff Corporation. For absorption
of temporary messengers working for 30/70 days during
the period 1-7-75 to 18-8-95 , the applications of eligible
candidates were called. Workman submits that he had
worked for 84 days from 14-8-91 as per above settlement.
He is eligible for absorption. On his application, he was
called for interview on 19-2-97. He was continuously
working on the post of messenger. He was paid salary
from IInd party. On 11-12-98 Sr. Manager Shri S. K. Arya,
called him and served order of his termination regretting
that he was working since 1991. His services are terminated
without paying retrenchment compensation. Workman
submits that he raised dispute before ALC Bhopal and
dispute has been referred.
3.
Workman further submits that he was paid bonus
under Section 8 of Bonus Act for the period 2-5-91 to
11-12-90. Workman submits that for 1675 working days,
he was paid bonus of ` 4314/- on 8-8-01. That he worked
more than 300 days in every year and total for 2100 days.
Workman had worked for 84 days from 14-8-91. He
claims to be eligible for absorption as per settlement dated
17-11-87 Workman was paid wages ` 22 to 48 per day.
His services are terminated illegally. Instead of
regularization of services IInd party is punishable under
Section 29 of I.D.Act. Workman prays for his
reinstatement with back wages.
4.
IInd party filed Written Statement at page 9/1 to 9/13.
IInd party submits that Shri Ram Nagwanshi dismissed
employee of State Bank of Indore is not competent to
represent the workman. Workman had worked for 84 days
form May 91 to August 91. Thereafter workman was
engaged purely as daily rated contractual employee.
During 1992 to 1998, workman worked for 1684 days.
He was paid retrenchment compensation ` 6480/- in
compliance of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. it is reiterated
that workman was engaged purely on contract basis. His
duties were ending at end of the day. His discontinuation
is not covered as retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of
I.D. Act. it is squarely covered under Section 2(oo)(bb)
of I.D. Act.
5.
IInd party further submits that elaborate
conciliation proceeding is involved out of agreement
entered between Bank Staff Federation. It provides
opportunity for absorption of temporary casual workers
for permanent appointment. The agreements are entered
with staff association on 17-11-87, 16-7-88,28-10-88,
9-9-91 as per above agreement, employees were called
for interview. He was discontinued after 1-7-75 to 31-7-
80. In consultation with management and staff federation,
said period was extended till 14-8-91. He was daily wage
employees. They were given chance for appointment as
permanent employees. As per terms of bipartite settlement
management have only awarded temporary services from
7356
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
empanelled candidates. Ist party employee was continued
to casual vacancies as per the settlement. The panel was
kept alive till March 1997. It is reiterated that workman was
paid retrenchment compensation ` 6480/-. All adverse
contentions of workman have been denied . that workman
worked only for 89 days till cut off dated 14-8-91. Workman
was at low level of selected candidates. He could not be
absorbed in permanent service. IInd party had advertised
in newspaper calling applications in prescribed format as
per the settlements. Workman had submitted application
on 7-9-91 for permanent absorption. He was called for
interview on 19-4-97. Workman was not found suitable for
permanent employment. Therefore workman could not be
absorbed.
6.
IInd party further submits that as per settlement the
panel was required to be kept alive till March 1997 so that
opportunity for permanent employment can be given to
such candidates against available vacancies. The related
settlement dated 30-7-96, 20-2-97 between management
and staff federation 1st party workman discontinued in
retrenchment compensation. Violation of Section 25-F, G
of I.D.Act is denied. It is reiterated that workman was
discontinued paying retrenchment compensation.
Workman was found not suitable for absorption. On all
such contentions, IInd party prays for rejection of claim.
7.
Workman filed rejoinder at Page 10/1 to 10/3
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
8.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Assistant
General Manager, State Bank
of India, Bhopal in terminating
the services of Shri Mukesh
Nathulal Vatre S/o Nathulal
Vatre w.e.f. 11.12.1998 and not
regularizing him is justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the workman
As per final
is entitled to?"
order
REASONS
9.
The terms of reference includes legality of
termination of workman and denial of regularization. There
is no dispute between parties that workman had worked
for 84 days till cut off date i.e. 11-8-91. The pleadings of
parties shows that retrenchment compensation ` 6480/-
was paid to the workman. The agreement between Bank
management and staff federation are not disputed. The
copy of agreement dated 26.07.88 is produced at Exhibit
M-1. Relevant c1ause at Page 3 provides - temporary
employees should have worked in the bank on regular
scale wage part time or full time between 1-7-75 and 31-7-88
and put in the above stipulated period of temporary
service. The aggregate temporary service of 270, 240, 70
days or 30 days should have been put in by an employee
at any one or more offices. Clause VI of the agreement
regarding existing waiting list provides the waiting list
prepared after completion of interviews of the temporary
employees in subordinate cadre who have completed 90
days of service and above as on 31st October 1984 has
not yet been exhausted, it will be valid upto 31-7-88 and
vacancies arising up should be filled from this panel. Exhibit
M-2 Circular No. 32 was forwarded along with the letter.
Bipartite agreement dated 27-10-88, 9-1-99 guidelines
issued for implementation. Category "C" provides that
those who have completed minimum 30 days aggregate
after 1-7-75 or minimum of 78 days aggregate temporary
service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months
during 1-7-75 to 31-8-88 are eligible for chance for
permanent appointment in Bank service. Workman in
present case as per plea was not working in Bank till 1988.
Workman had worked 84 days prior to cut off date 11-8-91.
Exhibit M-4 settlement dated 9-1-91 provides that clause I
of settlement dated 17-11-87 was modified and substituted
in the year 1992 to 1994. Reading of Exhibit M-4 at Page 51
shows that looking to the enormity of the problem and in
view of the currency period of panels now being extended
upto 1994, clause (d) provides if the panels of temporary
employees in a circle are exhausted before December 1994,
the panels of daily wagers available there at will become
operative and will be used for filling up the remaining
vacancies and those arising upto December 1996. Exhibit
M-5 is copy of settlement dated 25-2-97. It clearly provide
that settlement dated 17-11-87,16-7-88,27-10-88,9-1-91 30-
6-96 be complied. The eligibility of working period during
1975 to 88 is not modified in any of the bipartite settlements.
Exhibit M-6 is copy of select list of 1997 name of workman
is not included. Keeping above aspects in view I proceed
to deal with evidence on record. workman in his affidavit
of evidence has stated that he was working as messenger
on daily wages from 2-5-91. He was paid wages ` 20/- per
day. He was working till 14-8-91. That as per settlement
employee working for 30-70 days are eligible for absorption.
He received interview call on 19-2-97. That he completed
more than 240 days continuous service from 2-5-91 to
11-12-98. His services were terminated without notice.
Retrenchment compensation was not paid. He was paid
bonus ` 4314/- on 8-8-01. After termination of his services,
he was not called for work. Workman in his cross-
examination says he was working in Bank from 2-5-91 to
December 98. He was doing work of depositing form
receipts. He was serving drinking water. He admits
retrenchment compensation was paid to him. He was called
for interview.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7357
10.
Management's witness Smt. Nirupa Joshi supported
contentions of management in Written Statement that
earlier employees working during the period 1-7-75 to 31-
7-88 were considered for absorption. Said period was
extended till 14-8-91. Workman was called for interview
on 19-2-97. He had worked for 84 days till 14-8-91. He
was not selected for absorption. Workman was paid
retrenchment compensation ` 6480 as per section 25-F
of I.D.Act. she says contract about engagement of
workman is not produced on record. she was unable to
tell what process was followed before engaging workman.
She claims ignorance whether his name was sponsored
through Employment Exchange. She claims ignorance
whether test or interview was taken before workman was
engaged. Workman was not given appointment letter.
Muster roll was not available. Workman was paid one
months retrenchment compensation before his
termination. List of retrenched employees was not
displayed on notice board.
Section 25-G of I.D.Act provides-
"Where any workman in an industrial
establishment, who is a citizen of India is to be
retrenched and he belongs to a particular category
of workmen in that establishment in the absence of
any agreement between the employer and the
workman in this behalf, the employer shall
ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last
person to be employed in hat category, unless for
reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any
other workman."
Rule 77 provide-
Employer shall prepare a list of all workmen in the
particular category from which retrenchment is
contemplated arranged according to the seniority of their
service in that category and cause a copy thereof to be
pasted on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the
premises of the industrial establishment atleast seven
days before the actual date of retrenchment."
11.
The evidence of management's witne.ss clearly
shows Section 25-G & Rule 77 are not followed. List of
dally wage employees were not displayed on notice board.
Therefore retrenchment of workman is illegal for
violation of above provisions.
12.
Learned counsel for IInd party Shri V.P . Khare
relied on ratio held in
Case of State of Karnataka and others versus M. L. Kesari
and others reported in 2010((SCC 247) . their Lordship
deals with appointment of qualified persons made against
sanctioned post without following process of open
competition are irregular appointments.
The ratio cannot be applied to present case as facts
are not comparable and there is violation of Section 25-G,
Rule 77 of I.D. Act.
Next reliance is placed in ratio held in
Case of Allahabad Bank versus Shri Prem Singh
reported in 11 (1996) BC 387 SC. Ratio held by their Lordship
that qualified to be appointment as a cash clerk status of
daily wager stood terminated at the end of each day, there
is no obligation to employ.
The facts of present case are not comparable and
ratio held in the case cannot be beneficially applied. The
workman was admittedly working for 1684 days during 2-
5-91 to termination of his service. IInd party has not
produced details of working days of workman. The
evidence of workman that he worked more than 240 days
in each of the year cannot be discarded. Therefore the
ratio cannot be applied beneficially. For same reasons ratio
held in case of Nand Kumar versus State of Bihar and
others reported in 2014(5) SCC 300 cannot be applied
beneficially in the present case.
In case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others
versus State of Bihar and others reported in Judgment
today 1997(4) SC 560. His Lordship held daily wager had
no right to the posts and their disengagement is not
arbitrary. If violation of Section 25-G, Rule 77 was not
involved for consideration of their Lordship, therefore ratio
cannot be applied beneficially.
13.
Shri Ram Nagwanshi Union representative submitted
copies of award in R/180100, 4/07, 105/02,27/04.
The facts of present case are not comparable. Each case
needs to be decided as per available evidence.
14.
The evidence clearly shows that workman was not
working prior to 31-7-88 rather he worked for 84 days
between 2-5-91 to 14-8-91. Said working period is not
covered as eligibility period as per settlement of 1987
discussed above. However for violation of Section 25-G,
Rule 77, retrenchment of workman is illegal. For above
reasons, I record my finding in Point No.l in Negative.
15.
Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.l,
retrenchment of workman is illegal for violation of Section
25-G, Rule 77, question arises whether workman is entitled
for reinstatementl regularization of his services. Workman
was not appointed following recruitment process. He is
not eligible for absorption as per settlement of 1987, 88, 91
etc. as he did not work during period of eligibility, therefore
workman is not entitled to benefit for absorption of his
service. However the retrenchment of workman is in
violation of Section 25-G , Rule 77. Workman was paid
retrenchment compensation ` 6480/-. One month's pay in
lieu of notice was paid to workman. Considering above
aspects as retrenchment of workman is found illegal for
violation of Rule- 77, appropriate compensation to
workman would meet the ends of justice. Considering
length of working of workman from May 91 to 11-12-98,
7358
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
compensation ` 2 Lakhs would be appropriate. 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 Assistant General
Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Mukesh Nathulal
Vatre S/o Nathulal Vatre w.e.f. 11-12-98 and not
regularizing him is not proper and legal.
(2)
IInd party is directed to pay compensation ` 2
Lakhs to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to
workman within two months 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] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2983-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 84@2002)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@480@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2983.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 84/2002)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-12012/480/2001-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/84/02
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE
General Secretary,
...Workman/Union
Daily wages Bank Employees
Association,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain (MP)
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India, Zonal Office,
Hamidia Road, Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 17th day of October 2014
1.
As per letter dated 28-5-02 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act,. 1947 as per Notification No.L-
12012/480/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Asstt.
General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Rajendra Mewati
w.e.f. December 1995 instead of regularizing him
is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?"
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Statement of claim is filed by workman at
Page 2/4 to 2/11. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
orally engaged by Branch Manager andelwal at Main
branch of SBI from 20-10-81 to 15-2-82 as messenger.
He worked with devotion. His name was included in panel
prepared for absorption. He was called for interview on
17-8-85. As per settlement dated 17-11-87 between
management and Union, he is entitled for absorption as
permanent employee. He had worked for 70 days during
1-7-75 to 31-7-88. On 11-8-91, he was called in Head
office of the Bank at Indore and informed that his name
was received from Bhopal. He further submits that since
12-8-91, he worked more than 240 days without any
grievance. He was sent on deputation with luggage by
General Manager on 3-8-96. Again he was sent with
luggage by Asstt. General Manager, Bhopal. He suffered
illness. He was treated by Dr. Subhash Sharma. Workman
reiterates that he worked more than 240 days every year
since 12-8-91 till May 1997, he was terminated without
notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him.
His representations were not responded. Junior employees
Mukesh and others were paid retrenchment
compensation. Workman was not paid retrenchment
compensation.
3.
Workman submits that he had submitted
representations for payment of bonus. He had worked
continuously till 31-5-97. He was paid bonus of ` 2665
assuming his working days were 1235. Infact he worked
1614 days. He was paid wages for all those working days.
Workman reiterates that his services were terminated
without notice without paying retrenchment
compensation. Principles of last come first go was not
followed. His termination is in violation of Section 25-F,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7359
G of I.D.Act. He was not re-employed. Bank employed
other persons after his termination. Thus IInd party
violated Section 25-F of ID.Act. On such ground he prays
for reinstatement/regularization.
4.
IInd party submitted Written Statement at page 6/1 to
6/11. Objection is raised that so called General Secretary
of Union Ram Nagwanshi dismissed employee is not
competent to represent workman. Workman was
employed purely on daily wages as messenger. He worked
for 83 days during 20-10-81 to 15-2-82. Dispute raised
by workman is referred for adjudication.
5.
IInd party submits that workman was casually
engaged on daily wages. His discontinuation is not
covered as retrenchment under Section 2(oo) rather is
engaged on daily wages. His service came to end at every
day at end of the day. His discontinuation is covered under
Section 2(oo) (bb) of I.D.Act. IInd party is given details
of working days of workman in Para-5. It is contented
that preceding discontinuation of workman he had not
completed 240 days service. He is not entitled to
protection under Section 25-F of I.D.Act. temporary
employees working during the period 1-7-75 to 31-7-88
were eligible for conciliation. IInd party had given
advertisement alling applications in prescribed proformas
from daily rated employees/ casual workers. Workman
had submitted his application claiming work for 83 days.
Workman could not be absorbed by the Bank as his
working days before cut off date 14-8-91 were at low
level.
6.
It is further submitted that Ist party employee was
appointed purely on daily wages as messenger. That
he was called for interview as per the settlement on
12-8-89. Workman had not completed 240 days
continuous service during any of the calendar year.
Workman was paid bonus ` 2665/- on 23-8-01. Workman
was engaged for work of hammal. He cannot be said
employee of the Bank. Violation of Section 25-F,G, H is
denied. All other adverse contentions of workman are
denied. IInd party prayed for rejection of claim.
7.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India,
Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Rajendra
Mewati w.e.f. December 1995
instead of regularizing him is
justified?
In Negative
(ii)
If not, what relief the workman
As per final
is entitled to?"
order.
REASONS
8.
Before dealing with evidence of parties, documentary
evidence needs to be considered. Exhibit W -1 is certificate
issued by Bank about 83 working days of workman during
20-10-81 to 15-2-80. Exhibit W -2 is letter calling workman
for interview for post of messenger. Exhibit W-3 is notice
calling explanations of temporary casual employees for
absorption as permanent employees as per settlement
dated 31-7-88. The said document is clear that employees
working 70 days during 36 calendar months between
1-7-75 to 31-7-88. Exhibit W-4 is letter for calling interview
dated 10-9-99. Exhibit W-5 is also letter for interview issued
in 1997. Exhibit W-6 is letter issued by Dy. General manager
referring that the workman was claiming 83 days working
during the cut off period. Exhibit W - 7 is copy of rejoinder
submitted before ALC. Exhibit W-8 is application
submitted by workman stating that he was working from
12-8-91 to 10-8-98. He was paid ` 48/- per day. Exhibit W-
9 is copy of cheque for payment of bonus amount
` 2665. Exhibit W-I0 is letter issued by Shri Ram Nagwanshi
Union representative requesting documents regarding
payment of bonus. Exhibit W-11 is letter given by
Dy.General Manager about claim of Ist party workman. He
was not paid retrenchment compensation. Exhibit W-2 is
copy of application submitted before ALC, Bhopal relating
to denial of bonus payment of ` 2665/- Exhibit W-13 is
letter issued by Asstt. General Manager to the branch
offices. Said letter finds reference that for the candidates
in select list, there was no specific period of their working.
Exhibit W-14 is letter issued by Asstt. General Manager
dated 12-12-02. The details of monthwise and year wise
temporary daily wages service in each case was called.
Exhibit W-15 is letter issed by Chief Manager shows
working days of workman as shown III Written Statement.
Exhibit W-17 to 29 shows details of working days and
payment of wages to workman.
9.
Workman has filed affidavit of his evidence that he
worked for 83 days during 12-10-81 to 15-2-82. On 17-8-85,
he was called for interview for absorption. Again he was
called for interview on 12-8-89. He was engaged as
messenger from 12-8-91. He was continuously working till
June 97. He worked more than 240 days during each of the
year. In his cross-examination, workman says he was called
for interview as per settlement between Union. He was
interviewed as per Exhibit W-4. He had asked payment of
bonus as per Exhibit W-4. He had asked payment of bonus
as per Exhibit W-4. Bonus was paid as per Exhibit W -9. He
was paid wages every day from petty cash. After interview
in 1989, his name was included in waiting list. He was
doing every kind of work. Evidence of workman about his
working is not shattered in his cross-examination.
10.
Management produced select list for 1997 Exhibit
M-6. Management witness Smt. Nirupa Joshi in her
7360
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
affidavit of evidence has stated that working days of
workman from 20-10-81 to 15-2-82 were 83 days. The details
of the working days of workman are also shown in para-5
of her affidavit. In para-6. Management's witness has stated
as per settlement with Union temporary employees working
during 1-7-75 to 31-7-88 were considered for absorption.
The period was extended till 14-8-91. Workman had not
completed 240 days continuous service during any of the
year from 12-8-91 to 31-5-97. Provisions of Section 25-F
was not violated. However management's witness in her
cross-examination says workman was paid wages from
petty cash. Said register is not produced. The chart of
working days of workman is not produced. Workman was
called for interview on 12-8- 79. Select list of said interview
is not produced. It is denied that name of workman was
included in select list. Management's witness denied select
list before the date of record. workman was paid bonus. in
1997, workman was not called for interview as he was found
unsuitable in 1989. Witness of management admitted that
workman was continuously working from 1991 to 97. Select
list is produced at Exhibit M-6. Name of workman is not
included in Exhibit M-6 as he had not completed 240 days
continuous service during any of the year 1975 to 1991.
She claims ignorance about any persons engaged by Bank
after termination of services of workman.
11.
Though management's witness says that after
interview in 1989, workman was not found suitable. The
select list of 1989 is not produced. Copy of settlements are
produced on record. settlement dated 17-11-87 is amended
time to time. Copy of amendment settlement at page 15
provides that the aggregate temporary service of 270, 240,
70 days or 30 days should have been put in by an employee
at anyone or more offices. The evidence of workman
that during 1981, 82, he worked for 83 days, is
unshattered rather it is also admitted by IInd party.
Workman is squarely covered by agreement dated 17-
11-87 modified time to time. Workman was called for
interview. List on basis of interview in 1989 is not produced.
Workman is fulfilling condition of working days during
relevant period as per Exhibit W-1 and advertisement
Exhibit W-3 . Evidence of management's witness is not
clear how the workman was not found suitable for
absorption. Evidence discussed above clearly shows that
workman was continuously working from 91 to 98 for more
than 240 days. I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of
workman. In absence of documentary evidence, the
contentions of workman cannot be accepted.
12.
Learned counsel for IInd party Shri V.P.Khare relied
on ratio held in
Case of State of Karnataka and others versus
M.L.Kesari and others reported in 201O((SCC 247) . their
Lordship deals with appointment of qualified persons made
against sanctioned post without following process of open
competition are irregular appointments.
The ratio cannot be applied to present case as
facts are not comparable and there is violation of Section
25-G, Rule 77 of I.D. Act.
Next reliance is placed in ratio held in
Case of Allahabad Bank versus Shri Prem Singh
reported in 11 (1996) BC 387 SC. Ratio held by their Lordship
that qualified to be appointment as a cash clerkstatus of
daily wager stood terminated at the end of each day, there
is no obligation to employ.
The facts of present case are not comparable and ratio
held in the case cannot be beneficially applied. The
workman was admittedly working for 1684 days during 2-
5-91 to termination of his service. IInd party has not
produced details of working days of workman. The
evidence of workman that he worked more than 240 days
in each of the year cannot be discarded. Therefore the
ratio cannot be applied beneficially. For same reasons ratio
held in case of Nand Kumar versus State of Bihar and
others reported in 2014(5) SCC 300 cannot be applied
beneficially in the present case.
In case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others
versus State of Bihar and others reported in Judgment
today 1997(4) SC 560. His Lordship held daily wager had
no right to the posts and their disengagement is not
arbitrary. If violation of Section 25-G, Rule 77 was not
involved for consideration of their Lordship, therefore ratio
cannot be applied beneficially.
13. The evidence shows that workman instead of
regularizing service as per settlement dated 17-11-87
extended time to time, workman was terminated without
notice, compensation was not paid to him. The act of
management therefore is clearly in violation of Section 25-
F of I.D.Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in
Point No. 1 in Negative.
14.
Point No.2- As per my finding in Point Nol,
termination of services of workman is illegal, workman is
denied regularization as per settlement dated 17-11-87.
Instead of regularizing, workman was dismissed from
service without paying retrenchment compensation or
issuing notice. Workman was working with IInd party
during 1981-82, the details given Supra. Thereafter from
91 to 97. Considering denial of absorption as per settlement
between management and Union, workman is terminated.
Workman is entitled for regularisation of his services as
per the settlement. The evidence adduced by workman
and IInd party is not cogent about gainful employment of
workman. Workman has not stated how he was surviving
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7361
after termination of his service since 1997. Considering
those aspects, reinstatement of workman would be
justified.
15.
Shri Ram Nagwanshi Union representative submitted
copies of award in R/180/00, 4/07, 105/02, 27/04. The facts
of present case are not comparable. Each case needs to be
decided as per available evidence. In my view, reinstatement
of workman with 50 % back wages would be appropriate.
Accordingly I record my finding in point No.2.
16.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(l)
The action of the management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Rajendra Mewati
w.e.f. December 1995 instead of regularizing him
is not legal.
(2)
IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with
continuity of service with 50 % back wages.
8.
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] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2984-—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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
75@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@30@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2984.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 75/2002)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
the State Bank of India and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-12012/30/2002-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/75/02
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
General Secretary,
All India State Bank of Indore
Employees Congress,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Region-III, Zonal office,
Hamidia Road, Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 17th day of October 2014
1.
As per letter dated 17-5-02 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
12012/30/2002-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Asstt
General Manager, State Bank of India, Region-III,
Bhopal in not giving the regular appointment to Shri
Madanlal Jakhad even after selection in the interview
is justified? If not, what relief the workman is
entitled?"
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim at Page 2/2 to 2/8. Case of workman is that he
worked for 90 days in State Bank of Indore on vacant
post of messenger in 1984. He sincerely worked without
any grievance from any corner. Branch Manager called
him in his cabin and proved that his name was included
for absorption as permanent employee. He was called for
interview in the year 85 to 89. He was included in the
select list. He was told that he would be called for regular
appointment. That agreements were settled between
management and Union dated 17-11-87 to consider
temporary employees working during 1-7-74 who worked
for 30-70 days during said period. That in 1997,
temporary employees were called for interview for
permanent appointments. Applicant has submitted the
documents. He was present on 19-2-97. However he was
told that the instructions were received from Regional
office Bhopal. That individuals who were interviewed in
1989 were not required to be interviewed.
7362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
Ist party workman further submits that he was
working as messenger in the Bank from 24-4-97. He was
working from 10 AM to 6 PM. He was performing his
service with devotion. On 12-5-97, he submitted
representations that the settlement donot provide for part
time appointments. That he could not maintain his family
as part time employee, he requested for appointment as
permanent employee. It is submitted that he was directed
to approach Regional Office, Bhopal. He was given
understanding to approach appointment as regular
employee to her office. The order for regular appointment
was received. However when he approached branch office
at Dhar, he was given understanding that the order for
regular appointment was wrongly issued. He was
appointed as part time messenger. He was not allowed to
join duty as regular employee. Workman reiterates that
he had worked for 90 days as per the bipartite settlement
during 27-10-88 to 9-1-91. His name was included in
select list. He had completed continuous service under
Section 25 B of I.D.Act. Workman submits that despite
he was selected after interview in 85 to 89, his services
are illegally terminated. He is not given benefit for
bipartite agreement. Instead of regularizing his. services,
he was illegally termmated. On such ground, workman
is praymg for regularisation on post of messenger.
4.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7.
Preliminary objection is raised for General Secretary Shri
Nagwanshi is a dismissed employee of the Bank and he
is not competent to represent workman. Bank has
elaborate selection procedure for permanent appointment.
It is necessary to call name from Employment Exchange.
The Bipartite agreements dated 17-11-87, 16-7-88,
28-10-88, 9-1-91 provides opportunity to be given to the
employees discontinued during 1-7-75 to 31-3-88. IInd
party had given advertisement in newspaper calling
applications in prescribed format of casual workers
working during stipulated period. Workman was called
for interview on 19-2-97. He was selected as part time
employee in March 97. He was given appointment letter
directing to report at Dhar branch. Workman remained
absent from 1-5-97 to 5-5-97. He reported on duty on
6-5-97. Thereafter workman remained unauthorized absent,
notice by RPAD was sent to him on 7-12-97 requesting to
report on duty. However workman reported on duty on
23-7-97 after long period of one year. Workman himself
abandoned job. Above contentions are reiterated by IInd
party while replying to contentions "raised in statement
of claim. It is emphasized that workman was appointed
as part time employee after he was selected in the
interview. He himself abandoned job. Workman was not
selected as permanent employee. On such ground IInd
party submits that workman was never given appointment
as full time messenger workman is not entitled to relief
claimed by them.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
"Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Asstt General
Manager, State Bank of India,
Region-III, Bhopal in not
giving the regular appointment to
Shri Madanlal Jakhad even
after selection in the interview
is justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the workman
As per final
is entitled to?"
order.
REASONS
6.
Terms of reference are clear that workman is
challenging denial of regular appointment evenafter his
selection by interview. IInd party had denied workman
was selected from post of permanent messenger. He
remained unauthorisely absent and abandoned job. The
documents produced by workman are admitted by IInd
party marked as Exhibit W-l to W-16. In Exhibit W-l
select list, name of workman is appearing. His educational
qualification is shown 8th standard, working days-90,
marks 30.1. said letter doesnot indicate that selection was
for part time post. Exhibit W-2 is advertisement notice
shows that the advertisement is given for absorption of
part time employee to full time post. Exhibit W-3 is letter
for interview issued in 1997. It clearly provide that
candidates called for interview in 1989 were not required
to be interviewed. Exhibit W-4 is 1etter given by Branch
Manager about unauthorized absence of workman. He
was called to join duty. W-5 is letter given by Branch
Manager about his unauthorized absence. Exhibit W-6
is letter dated 2-9-97 given to workman about his absence
on account of illness. Exhibit W-7 is receipt of payment
of ` 240/- paid for 9 days working. W-8 is letter given
by Branch Manager informing that he was under
consideration for appointment as regular employee.
Exhibit W-9 is reply given to ALC. It is stated by Ilnd
party that proposal for part time appointment of workman
was submitted. W-10 is notice given to parties by ALC.
Exhibit W-11 to 15 are receipts of payment of
retrenchment compensation to other employees. W-16 is
letter given by AGM of Bank calling information about
temporary daily wage employees completing 240 days
service in branches.
7.
Evidence is adduced by workman on affidavit
covering his contentions in statement of claim that he
worked for 90 days as per the settlement. He. was called
for interiew in 27-7-89, his name was included in the list
as he was interviewed in 1989, he was not interviewed
in 1997. He further submits that he was not given
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7363
appointment as permanent employee despite of his
selection after the interview. In his cross-examination,
workman says when he joined Bank service in 1984, the
post was not advertised. Appointment letter was not given
to him at that time, After he was called on interview on
19-2-97, appointment letter was given to him. He was
also interviewed in 1985. As per settlement between
Union and management, he was interviewed. He had
worked for 90 days. The appointment letter as required
employee on full scale was issued but he was not allowed
to join duty on ground that the order was wrongly issued.
Even after approaching zonal office, he was not allowed
to join duty as regular employee by the Branch manager.
The evidence of workman is supported by documents.
Exhibit W-1 to W-5 as well as W-7,8.
8.
Management adduced evidence of witness
Shri Sanjay Vijay Khole on affidavit supporting
contentions in Written Statement. Witness of management
says as per settlement of 87-88, 91, casual employees were
called and select list was prepared. The period of settlement
was extended till 14-8-91. When workman remained absent,
he was served with notices by RPAD. Management's
witness in his cross-examination says in 1984, he was not
posted at MG Road branch. In 1985, 89 workman was not
called for interview twice. He was called once for interview.
He was unable to tell its date. The witness of management
denied that workman was given appointment letter and
the same was called back. Management's witness admits
that as far as appointment letter given to workman, he had
gone to join at branch. Said appointment letter is not
produced. He admits that workman had submitted
application for appointment as permanent employee. That
contents of his application about resignation submitted
by workman was in the context that workman remained
absent on duty. That para-4 of his affidavit is silent about
workman abandoning job, no enquiry was conducted
against the workman.
9.
Documentary evidence discussed above is clear that
after his interview, name of workman was included in
select list W -1. Said document doesnot show that he was
selected for part time post. Notice W-2 also doesnot show
that part time post was advertised. However document
Exhibt W -8 shows that workman remained absent. As
per evidence of management's witness chargesheet was
not issued to workman, no enquiry is conducted against
him. Letter of appointment given to workman is not
produced on record. Thus management is suppressing
immaterial evidence. The evidence of management's
witness that workman had resigned from Job is not
corroborated by documents. Evidence on said point cannot
be accepted. The documents produced by management,
copies of agreements Exhibit M-3, M-4 are clear that the
employees completed minimum 30 days aggregate
temporary service in any calendar year after 1-7-75 or
7-0 days service in any continuous block of 36 calendar
months after 1-7-75 were eligible for absorption as
permanent employee. Workman had worked for 90 days in
1984. Thus workman fulfills eligibility for absorption as
regular employee. Evidence of management's witness is
not cogent why workman was given appointment as part
time employee of permanent employee. It appears that
name of workman is not included in said list as he was not
interviewed in 1997 and he was called for interview in 1989.
Considering those spects it is apparent that despite of his
selection for absorption as casual employee for regular
appointment, workman was absorpting on regular post.
10.
Learned counsel for IInd party Shri V. P. Khare relied
on ratio held in :
Case of State of Karnataka and others versus M. L.
Kesari and others reported in 2010 (SCC 247). their Lordship
deals with appointment of qualified persons made against
sanctioned post without following process of open
competition are irregular appointments.
The ratio cannot be applied to present case as facts
are not comparable and there is violation of Section 25-G,
Rule 77 of I. D. Act.
Next reliance is placed in ratio held in :
Case of Allahabad Bank versus Shri Prem Singh
reported in II (1996) BC 387 SC. Ratio held by their Lordship
that qualified to be appointment as a cash clerk status of
daily wager stood terminated at the end of each day, there
is no obligation to employ.
The facts of present case are not comparable and
ratio held in the case cannot be beneficially applied. The
workman was admittedly working for 1684 days during
2-5-91 to termination of his service. IInd party has not
produced details of working days of workman. The
evidence of workman that he worked more than 240 days
in each of the year cannot be discarded. Therefore the
ratio cannot be applied beneficially. For same reasons ratio
held in case of Nand Kumar versus State of Bihar and
others reported in 2014(5) SCC 300 cannot be applied
beneficially in the present case.
In case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others
versus State of Bihar and others reported in Judgment
today 1997(4) SC 560. His Lordship held daily wager had
no right to the posts and their disengagement is not
arbitrary. If violation of Section 25-G, Rule 77 was not
involved for consideration of their Lordship, therefore ratio
cannot be applied beneficially.
11.
Shri Ram Nagwanshi Union representative submitted
copies of award in R/180/00, 4/07, 105/02, 27/04. The facts
of present case are not comparable. Each case needs to be
decided as per available evidence.
7364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12.
Evidence clearly shows that workman was found
eligible for absorption on regular post as per the settlement
but he was not given its benefit. The ratio held in above
cases cannot be beneficially applied to present case. For
above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.l in
Negative.
13.
Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.l, the
denial of regularization as permanent employee is illegal.
Question arises whether he is entitled for reinstatement
with back wages. Workman was selected after interview
as per Bipartite Settlement. However he was denied regular
appointment. Evidence of workman is not cogent on the
point of what work he was doing after discontinuation
from service. Evidence of workman is silent how he was
maintaining his family for such long period. Evidence of
management's witness is also silent on this point, therefore
in my considered view, workman is entitled for
regularization/reinstatement with 50 % back wages.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.
14.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(l)
The action of the management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India, Region-III,
Bhopal in not giving the regular appointment
to Shri Madanlal Jakhad evenafter selection in
the interview is not legal.
(2)
IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with
continuity of service with 50 % back wages.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2985-—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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
35@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@220@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2985.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 35/2003)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the State Bank of India
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-12012/220/2002-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/35/03
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. P ATLE
General Secretary,
All India State Bank of Indore
Employees Association,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India, Zonal Office,
Hamidia Road,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 28th day of October, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 13-1-03 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-12012/220/2002-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference
relates to:
" Whether the action of the management of Asstt.
General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal m
terminating the services of Shri Umesh Thakur w.e.f.
6-4-95 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled for?"
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at
Page 5/1 to 5/5 through Secretary, Daily Wage Bank
Employees Union, Ujjain. Case of workman is that he
was engaged as peon/ messenger in May 1989 on daily
wages @ ` 20/- per day. His wages were increased to
` 20, 30, 40 per day. He was working in GPO Branch, Indore.
He was deputed to place of transfer of Manager. He was
cooking meals for them. He was also watching their
residential home. He was paid wages on petty cash. In
May 93, he was directed to work in Indore branch. He
worked under Branch Manager Shri Chatti. Srivastastava,
Sadavarte. He was discontinued from 6-4-95. He was not
paid retrenchment compensation. Notice was not served
on him. It is submitted that he worked continuously more
than 240 days. He was paid bonus for May 89 to 6-4-95.
That he is covered as employee under Section 25 B of
I.D.Act. Termination of his service is in violation of
Section 25-F, H of I.D.Act. On such ground, workman is
praying for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 8/
9. Preliminary objection is raised that Ram Nagwanshi
so called General Secretary of Union is a dismissed
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7365
employee of SBI is not competent to participate in the
reference proceeding. Workman was temporarily engaged
on daily wages as messenger at GPO branch Indore and
Godha Colony branch, Indore. He worked for 80 days in
1991, 126 days in 1992, 11 days in 1993 at GPO branch and
5 days in October 1994,14 days in November 94 and 19
days in December 94 at Godha colony branch. Workman
was paid bonus ` 262/- on 11-12-01. It is reiterated that
workman is not appointed by Bank. His engagement on
the day come to end at end of day. His discontinuation is
covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D.Act. As per
settlement with union, casual employees working during
1-7-75 to 31-7-88 were called for interview for absorption.
Workman did not submit application after advertisement,
Therefore there is no question of his consideration for
absorption. It is reiterated that workman had not completed
240 days contmuous service. He is not entitled to
retrenchment compensation, notice of pay, pay in lieu of
notice. On such ground, IInd party prays for rejection of
claim.
4.
Workman submitted rejoinder at 11/1 to 11/3
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. He submits
that he completed 240 days continuous service. His services
are terminated without paying retrenchment
compensation.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India,
Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Umesh Thakur
w.e.f. 6-4- 95 is justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
6.
Point No.1—terms of reference relates only to
legality of termination of service of workman from 6-
4-95. It doesnot include denial of regularization of workman
as per bipartite settlement. Workman has pleaded that he
completed 240 days continuous service with IInd party.
His services are terminated without notice, not paid
retrenchment compensation. Workman filed affidavit of
his evidence on 11-1-07. As per order sheet dated 2-6-
2010, representative of workman submitted that workman
is not produced for his cross-examination. Evidence of
workman was closed that note that his evidence will not
be looked into. Thus the contentions of workman are not
supported by evidence. The documents admitted by IInd
party W-1 shows attendance of workman in the month of
May 1992. W-2 shows attendance of workman in
December 91, January 92, those documents donot show
that workman was working with IInd party during 12
consecutive months prior to termination of workman in
April 1995. Exhibit W-3 is representation submitted to ALC,
Bhopal about illegal termination of workman for violating
Section 25-F of I.D. Act. W-4 is letter given by workman to
management for payment of bonus from May 89 to May
93. W-5 is letter reply given by IInd party to ALC, Bhopal.
The working days of workman are shown 80 days in 1991,
126 days in 1992, 11 days in 1993. That workman had not
completed 240 days. W -6 is reply submitted by IInd party
before ALC showing payment of bonus ` 162/- for 91-92,
` 100 for 92- 93. The working days of workman are shown
122 days in 91-92, 84 days in 92-93, 11 days in 93-94. In Ex
W-7 working days shown by management similar to earlier
documents. W-8 is letter given by Union Representative
before ALC stating that workman was terminated without
notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid. W-9 is
copy of failure report, W-10 is letter given by Asstt. General
Manager calling information about casual employees
working in branch. W -11 is also letter given by Asstt.
General Manager calling information of daily wage
employees completed 240 days till 30-9-02. All those
documents donot establish that workman was
continuously working for 240 days during preceding 12
months of his discontinuation on 6-4-95. Copies of bipartite
settlement are produced on record. however as per terms
of reference, donot include denial of regularization of
workman in violation of Bipartite Settlement therefore
detailed discussion of conditions in Bipartite Agreement
is not necessary.
7.
Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Mahesh
Kumar Maheshwari. He has supported contentions of
management that the workman was working for 80 days
in 91, 126 days in 1992, 11 days in 1993. He was engaged
on daily wages. Workman was working 5 days in October
94, 14 days in November 94 and 19 days in December 94
at Godha Colony branch, Indore. In his cross-
examination, witness says during 91 to 93, he was not
working in Godha branch. Presently he is working in
said branch. He did not discuss with earlier Branch
Managers about Ist party workman. He claims to have
received information from Administrative office. No
recruitment process was followed before engaging Ist
party workman on daily wages. Permission of Controlling
Authority was not obtained before engaging workman
on work. Bipartite Settlement are applicable to IInd
party.Attendance Register of workman was not
maintained. Workman was paid through petty cash. Petty
cash register was maintained. Workman was paid bonus
in 2001. The documents discussed earlier shows payment
7366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of bonus and working days of workman. The evidence in
cross-examination of management's witness is not
supporting claim of workman that he had worked for more
than 240 days preceding his discontinuation on 6-4-95.
Workman has not made available for his cross-examination
and his evidence cannot be looked into. As such there is
no evidence to support claim of workman that he was
ontinuously working more than 240 days preceding his
discontinuation. Therefore compliance of Section 25-F of
I.D.Act is not necessary. The termination of workman in
violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act is not established. For
above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Affirmative.
8.
Pont No. 2- in view of my finding in Point No.1,
termination of service of workman in violation of Section
25-F is not proved, workman is not entitled to any relief
as claimed. Accordingly I record my finding in Point
No. 2.
9.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Umesh Thakur
w.e.f. 6-4-95 is proper and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2986-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
5@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41012@159@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2986.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 05/2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the West
Central Railway and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-41012/159/2004-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/5/06
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE
Shri Narmada Prasad,
S/o Shri Hari Ram,
R/o Ganeshganj Ward No.9,
Shahpur Police Chouki Sahapur,
Post Magroan,
Distt. Sagar (MP)
Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
West Central Railway,
Jabalpur.
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 30th day of October, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 5-1-2006 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-
41012/159/2004-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Divisional
Railway Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur
(MP) in terminating the services of Shri Narmada
Prasad S/o Shri Hari Ram w.e.f. 15-3-88 is justified or
not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled to
and from which date?"
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim at Page 3/1 to 3/3. Case of workman is that he was
engaged in Railway service from 18-10-78 under Loco
Foreman, Sagar. He worked till 14-3-88 for 10 years.
That he was continuously working for more than 240
days. He gained status of temporary employee. That his
services were not regularized rather he was arbitrarily
terminated without giving any opportunity. Any show-
cause notice was not issued to him. Termination of his
service is illegal. Workman further submits that the
management given assurance in writing that in next
recruitment, he will get his job in recruitment of old card
holders in 2003. That IInd party employed 350 card
holders back on duty. Workman was not recruited along
with them. Workman raised dispute before ALC. Labour
Ministry refused to make reference. He filed Writ Petition
No. 11821/05 only after direction of Hon'ble High Court,
the reference has- been made. Workman prays for
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7367
3.
Ilnd party management filed Written Statement.
Objection is raised after 17 years is not tenable. Ilnd party
referred to ratio held in various cases. That the dispute
raised after 7 years is not tenable. IInd party further
submits that Hon' ble High Court directed to decide issue
as to whether workman had opportunity for re-
employment while 358 Co-workers were re-employed in
2003. Claim of workman is restricted from 2003 as per
orders passed by Hon'ble High Court. Workman was
offered opportunity for re-employment with 350 ex-
casuals. Workman claimed that he was engaged from 78
to 88. It is submitted that Railway has recruitment policy
for appointment of regular employees. Procedure has to
be followed for regular appointments. That in March
2003, IInd party invited applications of ex-casuals
publishing in daily newspaper. Workman had not
submitted application at that time. Workman first time
claimed employment in 2005. It is submitted that
workman had not completed 120 days, he has not
produced record, he has not acquired status of temporary
employee. The details of working days of workman are
given Para-10. All other adverse contentions of workman
have been denied. That workman was engaged as casual
labour in broken period from May 1981 to June 1984. He
has not completed 240 days service. On such ground,
Ilnd 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 rcorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Divisional
Rail Manager, West Central
Railway, Jabalpur (MP) in
terminating the services of
Shri Narmada Prasad
S/o Shri Hari Ram w.e.f.
15-3-88 is justified or not?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
5.
The terms of reference relates to legality of
termination of his service from 15-3-88. However
workman in his statement of claim in Para-4 has pleaded
that he was assured job in recruitment of card holders.
The contention of workman on above point and his
evidence on point is beyond the terms of reference.
Though the Hon'ble High Court set aside order of Govt.
refusing to make reference on ground of delay on 17 years
observing that other casual card holders were appointed
in 2003, claim of workman cannot be said belated.
However the terms of reference donot relate to the claim
of workman for appointment as casual card holders rather
terms of reference relates to the legality of his termination
in 1988.
6.
Workman in his affidavit of evidence has stated
that he was in Railway Service, Loco Foreman Sagar as
casual labour from 18-10-78, he was working till 14-3-88.
He acquired status of monthly rated employees. He
acquired status of 240 days service. Service certificate
was issued to him. His casual card no. is 188095.
Workman in his cross-examination says casual card was
issued by Foreman in 1978 but attendance card is not
produced. On 14-3-88, he was terminated. That he raised
dispute in Labour Court but unable to tell its date. He
claims ignorance whether any settlement was arrived for
employing casual card holders. He was unable to tell
whether the documents M-3 produced by management
was correct or not. He denies that the management had
published notice in 2003. That he had not submitted
application in 2003.
7.
Management's witness Shri Chandan Singh in his
affidavit of evidence has stated that management had
decided to offer opportunity to call casual labours for
appointment against regular vacancies. Said decision was
published in Dainik Bhaskar in March 2003 Exhibit M-1
inviting applications from casuals. The copy of list
Annexure M-2 is produced. That workman did not tender
any application at relevant time. He did not approach
management claiming employment as casual labours.
Workman did not complete 120 days service. The details
of working days of workman are given in para-14 of his
affidavit. Management's witness in his cross-examination
says the casual service card used to be issued by Loco
Foreman. When casual service card was issued, he was
not working at Loco Sagar. He claims ignorance when
working of Loco Sagar was closed, working of steam loco
stopped long back. He never worked in steam loco.
Workman was working as casual labour during 1981 to
1984. He has stated delay of 17 years on basis of
documents. Workman has produced zerox copies of
documents but no care is taken to prove same by valid
evidence. The documents produced by management M-I
shows workman had worked for 474 days during May 81
to June 84. The dispute is raised in the year 2006 whereas
as per pleadings he was terminated in 1988. The dispu~e
relating to legality of his termination raised after almost
17 years is belated. Management has produced Exhibit
M-1 relating to regularization of 308 Railway Casual
labours. The careful reading of said publication doesnot
show that applications were invited for regularization of
casual labours but said publication clearly shows that
General Manager of Central Railway had decided to
regularize 308 casual labors whose signatures were in
the register. The names of such are given only for
convenience of the casual labours regularized by said
publication. Ist party workman was also working as casual
labour. The evidence of management's witness is also clear
7368
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
about his working. Certainly the workman as a casual
labour would have been entitled for regularization.
However the terms of reference are related to legality of
his termination form service in 1988. The terms of
reference donot include claim of workman for
regularization as casual card holders therefore the relief
claimed by orkman for regularization being beyond terms
of reference could not be upheld. The legality of
termination of services raised after 17 years is highly
belated and cannot be interfered. For above reasons, I
record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
8.
In the result, award is passed as under.-
(l)
The termination of services of workman is not
established.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2987-—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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
11@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@307@1999&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2987.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2000)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the State
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-12012/307/1999-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/11/2000
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R .B. PATLE
General Secretary,
All India State Bank of Indore
Employees Congress,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Region-V, Zonal office,
Hamidia Road, Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 17th day of October 2014
1.
As per letter dated 23-24/12/99 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.
L-12012/307/99/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether Shri Madanlal Malviya was a workman
under ID Act 1947 of State Bank of India, Ujjain
branch. If so, whether the action of the,
management of State Bank of India, Ujjain Branch
in terminating his services w.e.f. 20-9-93 instead
of regularizing is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to?"
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim at Page 6/1 to 6/5. Case of Ist party workman is
that he was engaged by Branch Manager as peon on
monthly salary ` 250/- from 10-5-90. On 20-3-91,
Branch Manager SBI called him for interview. He was
told that he cannot continue him for more than 240 days
continuous service. That his name was sent to Regional
Office. Whenever vacancy will be available, he will be
called . that Branch Manager had engaged him as peon.
He was paid ` 32/- per day. Till 20-9-93, he was engaged
on daily wages, then his services were discontinued. As
per settlement dated 27-10-88, 14-8-91, casual temporary
employees working during 1-7-75 to 31-7-88 for 30, 70,
240, 270 days were eligible for appointment as regular
employees. That as per those settlements, he had worked
for 300 days during 10-5-90 to 14-8-91. That on 12-2-97,
he was called for interview. At the time of interview he
told that he completed 240 days continuous service. It is
alleged that after interview of 1997, some malpractices
were committed of giving amounts. Committee members
were suspended. Workman says that he worked for 314
days during 10-5-90 to 20-3-91. He was not continued
by IInd party. He raised dispute. IInd party had sought
adjournments for filing reply. After failure report
submitted to Govt reference is made. Workman submits
that he completed 240 days continuous service as provided
under Section 25 of I.D.Act. he is not regularized by IInd
party as per settlement dated 27-10-88, workman further
submits that IInd party has committed offence under
Section 29 of the I.D.Act. IInd party also violated the
Section 25-G, H, N of I.D.Act. other employees
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7369
Satyanarayan and 5 others were engaged by management,
workman was not called for re-employment. IInd party
violated Section 25-F of I.D.Act. on such grounds,
workman prays for reinstatement/regularization.
3.
IInd party filed Written statement at Page 8/1 to 8/
12. IInd party raised objection that Union secretary Ram
Nagwanshi is a dismissed employee of Bank and as such
he cannot represent workman. IInd party in Para-2 admits
that workman had worked for 240 days during 11-5-90
to 20-4-91. He had also worked for 36 days during
9-2-94 to 23-5-94 after he raised dispute before ALC. On
failure report submitted to Govt, reference is made to this
Tribunal. Workman reiterates that IInd party engaged
workman on casual basis. The engagement of workman
ended at end of day. The discontinuation is covered under
Section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D.Act. His discontinuation doesnot
amount to retrenchment. It is further pleaded that Bank
has elaborate selection procedure. The provisions of
Bipartite settlement dated 17-11-87, 16-7-88, 27-10-88,
9-2-91, 30-7-96 provides eligibility criteria for selection
procedure for permanent post in sub cadre. Workman was
given chance as per bipartite agreements. Workman failed
to appear on 20-9-91. However interview committee
permitted him to appear for interview since application
was submitted by workman. As per settlement, panel was
required to be kept alive till March 97. Workman was
engaged for only two hours a day as per casual basis.
Workman was not engaged for whole day as pleaded by
workman. All adverse contentions of workman are denied.
It is not disputed that workman was paid wages at ` 250/
- per month. Ist party workman was paid wages at ` 250/
- per month. Ist party workman had not worked 240 days
in any calendar year. The engagement of workman was
purely on part time basis. It is denied that IInd party
violated provisions of Section 25-G, H of I.D.Act. The
allegations of workman are vague. Workman has not
worked for statutory period of 240 days provided under
Section 25 B of I.D.Act. on such contentions, IInd party
prays for rejection of claim.
4.
Workman has filed rejoinder at Page 10/1 to 10/3
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether Shri Madanlal
In Affirmative
Malviya was a workman
under ID Act 1947 of State
Bank of India,
Ujjain branch
(ii)
whether the action of the
management of State Bank
of India, Ujjain Branch in
terminating his services
In Affirmative
w.e.f. 20-9-93 instead of
regularizing is legal and
justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
6.
As per terms of reference, Ist issue deals with
whether Ist party is covered as workman under I.D.Act?
In para-2 of Written Statement, llnd party has contented
that Ist party had worked 240 days during period
11-5-90 to 20-4-91. Workman was again engaged at Ujjain
Branch of State Bank of India as daily rated casual
employee. He had also worked for 26 days during 9-4-90
to 23-5-94.
7.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence stating that
he was working at SBI branch Ujjain from 10-5-90. As
per order ·sheet dated 2-6-2010, workman remained
absent and it is ordered that his evidence will not be
looked into. Though the evidence cannot be looked into,
the pleadings in Written Statement is clear that workman
is covered under Section 2(s) of I.D.Act. he was working
in branch Ujjain. Therefore I record my finding in Point
No.l in Affirmative.
8.
Point No.2- workman is claiming regularization/
reinstatement alleging that though he was working with
the Bank as per bipartite settlement, absorption of casual/
temporary employees , he was nor appointed/absorbed
on permanent post. Workman filed affidavit of his
evidence but he filed to appear for his cross-examination,
his evidence cannot be considered. The documents
produced by workman Exhibit W -1 shows workman was
engaged on supplying drinking water, document Exhibit
W-2 shows that workman was engaged to ` 250/- per
month from 10-5-90 to 20-3-91. Exhibit W-3 is interview
call given to workman, Exhibit W-4 is public notice given
by Bank for regular appointments of casual employees
working during 95 to 98. Exhibit W -5 is application
submitted to ALC by Shri Ram Nagwanshi, W-6 is letter
issued by ALC, W-7,8 are letter given by Secretary to
ALC, W -9 is certificate issued by Branch Manager about
workman engaged during the period 10-5-90 to
20-3-91.W-ll is copy of public notice advertising post,
W-12 is copy of interview call. W-13 is letter given by
Asstt. General Manager calling information about casual
employees working more than 240 days. Copies of bipartite
settlement amended from time to time are produced on
record. Clause III at Page 10 provide The aggregate
temporary service of 270, 240, 70 days or 30 days should
have been put in by an employee at any one or more offices.
Clause VI of the agreement regarding existing waiting list
provides the waiting list prepared after completion of
interviews of the temporary employees in subordinate cadre
who have completed 90 days of service and above as on
7370
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
31st October 1984 has not yet been exhausted, it will be
valid upto 31-7-88. Copy of select list of 1997 is produced
at Exhibit M-6.
9.
Management filed affidavit of Shri Sajeev Nema. He
has admitted 240 days working of workman during period
11-5-90 to 20-4-9l. Management's witness says that after
23-5-94, workman was not engaged. He had worked for 36
days during 9-2-94 to 23-5-94. That after interview, select
list of the candidates was prepared. The period of
settlement was extended till 14-8-91. Selected candidates
were appointed against availing vacancies time to time. In
his cross-examination, management's witness says his
affidavit of evidence is filed on basis of available record.
He did not enquire with respective Branch Managers. The
documents referred by him are not produced. Workman
was initially engaged at ` 10/- per day. Appointment letter
was not given to him. His attendance register was not
maintained. The witness of management claimed that
candidates working less than workman is selected were
appointed. The evidence discussed above shows workman
worked for 240 days during 11-5-90 to 20-4-91. Bipartite
agreement dated 17-11-87 contemplates 240 days working
during the period 1-7-75 to 27-10-88. Workman was not
working during said period. The period of said agreement
was extended till 14-8-91. As per pleadings in Written
Statement para-2, workman was working for 240 days prior
to cut off date 14-8-91. However workman had not submitted
application for regular appointment. Though he was
permitted by IInd party to participate in selection process,
he was not considered in the select list. Considering above
aspects of evidence on record, the management has not
committed illegality not regularizing his services as per
agreement. For above reasons, I record my finding in
Point No. 2 in Affirmattve.
10.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(l)
The action of the management of State Bank of
India, Ujjain Branch in terminating his services
w.e.f. 20-9-93 instead of regularizing is legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2988-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ
banksj etZM ,t 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 27@1998) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@133@1997&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2988.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/
1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
the State Bank of Indore Merged as State Bank of India and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
18/11/2014.
[No. L-12012/133/1997-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/27/98
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE
General Secretary,
All India State Bank of Indore
Employees Congress,
Hardev Niwas,
9 Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager (Operations),
State Bank of Indore,
Merged as State Bank of India
Local Head Office,
Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 14th day of October 2014
1.
As per letter dated 13/17-2-98 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-12012/133/97-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of Indore in not regularizing Shri Saroj
Kumar S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal is Justified? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled for?"
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
parties. Statement of claim is submitted by General
Secretary of Union on behalf of workman at page 3/1 to
3/4. Case of 1st party refers to Article 39, 41, 43 rights
given to the citizen of India for employment, payment of
minimum wages etc. Union further submit that 1st party
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7371
workman was engaged by Branch Manager for cleaning,
dusting etc. work. From 4-10-91, workman was carrying
various duties of peon-distribution of letters, taking
registers to different tables, supplying drinking water. He
was working between 8 to 10 AM and 10.30 to evening
when Bank was closed. He was continuously working till
termination of his services on 15-8-97. That he completed
240 days continuous service. He was working 6 days in a
week. He was not paid wages for holidays. Despite he
completed 240 days continuous service as provided under
Section 25 (B) of I.D.Act. His services were not regularized.
His services were terminated without notice in violation
of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, Para 507, 554 of Sastry Award.
That after termination of his service, other persons are
engaged. Principles of last come first go was not followed.
He was not provided re-employment. As such IInd party
violated provisions of Section 25 G, H of I.D.Act. on such
ground, workman prays for regularization in service.
Statement of claim is signed by Ramnagwanshi, General
Secretary claiming to the General Secretary of Union.
3.
Management filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to
7/7 denying claim of 1st party Union. Preliminary objection
is raised by IInd party without authority. That workman
Saroj Kumar was not member of Union. Claim is not
tenable. The daily wages Bank Employees Union has no
territorial jurisdiction to represent claim of workman. That
Director of Bank is not necessary party. Claim is bad for
misjoinder of parties. IInd party further submitted objection
that statement of claim is not filed in prescribed proforma.
Claim is not tenable. It is denied that Union is registered
and General Secretary is authorized to prosecute claim of
workman. It is denied that workman was carrying various
duties claimed in statement of claim. It is denied that
workman was working for more than 8 hours per day and
he was not paid wages for the same. It is denied that
workman had completed 240 days continuous service in
any of the year. Violation of Section 25-F, Para 507, 534 of
Sastry Award is denied by IInd party. IInd party has not
terminated services of workman. Retrenchment is
challenged in his statement of claim. Workman is not entitled
to any relief. Violation of Section 25-G, H of I.D.Act is
denied. It is denied that workman has crossed the age for
service and his family member are affected.
4.
Ilnd party submits in its special pleading that
workman was engaged for some time temporarily for
supplying drinking water. He was paid wages for said work.
Workman was not appointed following selection process.
Workman was not appointed by the Bank as per rules. He
is not entitled to regularization. Ist party Union submitted
rejoinder at page 8/1 to 8/5 reiterating its contentions in
statement of claim. In para-5 of rejoinder, Ist party Union
has pleaded that IInd party had committed acts of issuing
false certificate, tampering the evidence, work against law
punishable under various sections of IPC. Ist party further
submits that workman was paid wages in name of Shri
Kanhaiyalal from February 92 to April 92, Shri Ranchod
from April 92 to July 92, Shri Radhesham from July 92 to
January 93, Pradeep Jaiswal from February 93 onwards.
All other contentions in Written Statement filed by
management are denied.
5.
Ilnd party also filed reply to the rejoinder at page l0/
l to 10/2. It is submitted that Bank doesnot pay wages in
name of other persons. Bogus vouchers are not prepared
by the Bank. The contentions of Ist party in the rejoinder
are false.
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
In Affirmative
the management of
State Bank of Indore
in not regularizing
Shri Saroj Kumar
S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal
is iustified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not entitled
workman is entitled to?" to any relief claimed.
REASONS
7.
The terms of reference are clear whether not
regularizing Shri Saroj Kumar S/o Kanhaiyalal is
justified. However the pleadings in statement of claim
by Ist party relates to termination of services of Ist party
workman was discontinued from 15-8-97 in violation of
Section 25-F, 25-G, H of I.D.Act. The same are beyond
the terms of reference. All material contentions of Ist
party have been denied by IInd party management.
8.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence at page
19/1 to 19/2. That he was engaged by Branch Manager
from 4-10-91 for working of cleaning, sweeping, dusting
etc. he was paid wages ` 25/- per day. He was also paid
wages in name of Shri Kanhaiyalal from February 92 to
April 92, Shri Ranchod from April 92 to July 92, Shri
Radhesham from July 92 to January 93, Pradeep Jaiswal
from February 93 onwards. Workman could not be cross-
examined by IInd party. Right to cross-examine workman
was closed on 25-9-08. The evidence of workman
remained unchallenged. Management submitted affidavit
of evidence of witness Shri Harinath Srivas. Witness of
management was not present for his cross-examination.
Affidavit of witness Shri Bhupendra Jain was submitted
by management. Witness of management has stated that
workman was engaged as per exigencies for cleaning,
dusting etc work for one hour morning, one hour evening.
Workman was paid wages for it. Other contentions of
7372
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman about continuously working from 4-1-91 to
15-8-97 are denied. It is denied that workman was
continuously working during above said period. In his
cross-examination, management's witness says any
selection process was not followed before engaging
workman. He claims ignorance whether permission from
Controlling Authority was obtained for engaging workman.
Appointment letter was given to him. Witness of the
management had admitted documents Exhibit
W-1 to W -6.
9.
Exhibit W-l doesnot give working days of workman.
Documents W-2 to W-4 shows payment of wages ` 125/-,
75/-,400/- and 750/-. In 1992, payment of ` 75/- is shown in
name of Shri Radhesham Parihar, payment of ` 400/- is
shown in name of Shjri Anil Jaiswal, payment of ` 750/- is
shown for cleaning charges in August 1996. Exhibit W-5 is
application submitted to General Manager, State Bank of
Indore. Workman was paid ` 501/- per month for work of
supplying drinking water. ` 25/- per day for cleaning work.
Working days are not shown in Exhibit W-5, W-6. The
evidence in cross-examination of management's witness
discussed above is clear that workman was not appointed
following recruitment rules. Ist party has submitted copy
of settlement dated 13-7-93 which provides one time
opportunity for appointment as peon/farash to the
employees who have worked more than 240 days in 12
consecutive months. The pleadings anssd evidence of
workman on above point is silent. Clause 2 of said circular
provides for interview of eligible candidates, the pleadings
and evidence of workmen's silent whether workman had
applied for absorption or he was called for interview and
selected. In absence of such evidence, workman cannot
be given benefit of regularization. He was not appointed
following selection process. Representative of workman
Ram Nagwanshi in support of his argument produced
copies of award passed in 180/00, 4/07, 105/03, 27/04. The
facts of present case are not comparable with the facts of
those references. Each case needs to be decided as per
evidence on record, the award passed by this Tribunal in
other cases cannot be treated as binding precedent.
Considering evidence on record, workman was not
appointed following selection process. He has not
complied requirements of circular dated 13-7-93. Workman
cannot be given benefit of regularization. Claim of workman
for reinstatement with back wages on ground of
termination of his service in violation of Section 25-F, G, H
of I.D.Act is beyond the terms of reference therefore
workman cannot be allowed in service. For above reasons,
I record my finding in Point No.l in Negative.
10.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of State Bank of
Indore in not regularizing Shri Saroj Kumar S/o
Shri Kanhaiyalal is legal and proper.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
4413 GI/2014
(7255)
foÙk ea=kky;
(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2937-—Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad vf/fu;e]
1981 (1981 dj 28) dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM (Ä)
ds mi&[kaM (i) ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh
vjfoUn lqczef.k;u] eq[; vkfFkZd lykgdkj] foÙk ea=kky;] ubZ
fnYyh dks rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'kksa rd] MkW- j?kqjke
th] jktu ds LFkku ij Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad ds funs'kd
e.My esa funs'kd ukfer djrh gSA
¹iQk- la- 9@16@2012&vkbZ,iQ&Iº
xksfoUn jke] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 12th November, 2014
S.O. 2937.—In pursuance of sub-clause (i) of clause
(e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Export Import
Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981), Central Government
hereby nominates Shri Arvind Subramanian, Chief
Economic Advisor, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi as
Director on the Board of Directors of Export Import Bank of
India vice Dr. Raghuram G. Rajan with immediate effect and
till further orders.
[F. No. 9/16/2012-IF-I]
GOVIND RAM, Under Secy.
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 47]
ubZ fnYyh] uoEcj 16—uoEcj 22] 2014] 'kfuokj@dkfrZd 25—vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
No. 47]
NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 16—NOVEMBER 22, 2014, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 25—AGRAHAYANA 1, 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)
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
7256
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky;
(mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx)
(jktHkk"kk ;wfuV)
ubZ fnYyh] 10 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2938-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e 4
ds vuqlj.k esa] ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky; (Ldwy f'k{kk ,oa
lk{kjrk foHkkx) ds varxZr dsUnzh; fo|ky; laxBu (eq[;ky;)]
ubZ fnYyh ds fuEufyf[kr 20 dsUnzh; fo|ky;ksa dks] ,sls dk;kZy;ksa
ds :i esa] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkjh&o`Un us fgUnh dk
dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/lwfpr djrh gS%
1-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] ua- 1] /uckn] fcuksn uxj] /uckn&826001
(>kj[k.M)
2-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] >kjlqxqMk] jsyos dkWyksuh] >kjlqxqMk&768201
(vksfM'kk)
3-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] ftyk&xksMMk&814133 (>kj[k.M)
4-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] flaxkjlh] ,-,iQ-,l- 507] ,l-;w-,-,iQ-
99 ,] ih-vks- (>kj[k.M)
5-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] fguw (izFke ikyh)] Mksj.Mk] jkaph&834002
(>kj[k.M)
6-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] tkerkMk] ckfydk mPp fo|ky; ifjlj]
U;w Vkmu] tkerkMk&815351 (>kj[k.M)
7-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] dq=kk] lsaVj izkbejh Ldwy] ftyk
lqanjx<+&770018 (vksfM'kk)
8-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] lkfgcxat] gchciqj] ftyk lkfgcxat&816109
(>kj[k.M)
9-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] lkfgcxat] fleMsxk] vkfnoklh ckfydk
Nk=kkokl] lkeVksyh] xksrjk] ftyk&fleMsxk&835235
(>kj[k.M)
10-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] iks- cjdkdkuk] ftyk jkex<+&829102
(>kj[k.M)
11-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] irjkrw] Mhty dkWyksuh] ftyk
jkex<+&829120 (>kj[k.M)
12-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] e/qiqj] ftyk nso?kj&815353 (>kj[k.M)
13-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] ua- 2] /uckn] txthou uxj Fkkuk ds
ihNs] iksLV&txthou uxj] /uckn&826002 (>kj[k.M)
14-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] xqeyk] Vªsfuax Ldwy dSEil] djeVksyh
jksM] xqeyk&835207 (>kj[k.M)
15-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] t'kiqj] Mksjdk pkSjk] xEgfj;k]
t'kiqj&496331 (NÙkhlx<+)
16-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] ukeqdqe] jkaph&834010 (>kj[k.M)
17-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] fguw] (f}Ùkh; ikyh)] Mksj.Mk]
jkaph&834002 (>kj[k.M)
18-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] x<ok] fiijk dyka] xk;=kh uxj]
ftyk&x<ok&822114 (>kj[k.M)
19-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] ftyk&ykrsgkj&829206 (>kj[k.M)
20-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] lh-vkj-ih-,iQ-] /qokZ] jkaph&834004
(>kj[k.M)
¹la- &11011&3@2014&jk-Hkk-,-º
lq[kchj flag la/w] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT
(Department of Higher Education)
(O.L. Unit)
New Delhi, the 10th November, 2014
S.O. 2938.—In pursuance of sub. rule (4) of rule 10
of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies
the following 20 Kendriya Vidyalayas of Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan (HQ), New Delhi under the Ministry
of Human Resource Development, (Department of School
Education & Literacy) as offices, whose more than 80%
members of the staff have acquired working knowledge of
Hindi:
1.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, No. 1, Dhanbad, Binod Nagar,
Dhanbad-826001 (Jharkhand)
2.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Jharsuguda, Railway Colony,
Jharsuguda-768201 (Odisha)
3.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Distt.-Godda-814133
(Jharkhand)
4.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Singharsi, AFS, 507, SAUF C/o
99 APO (Jharkhand)
5.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Hinoo (1st Shift) Doranda,
Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand)
6.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Jamtara, Girls High School
Campus, New Town, Jamtara-815351 (Jharkhand)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7257
7.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kutra, At Centre Primary School,
Distt.-Sundargarh-770018 (Odisha)
8.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sahibganj, Habibpur, Distt.
Sahibganj-816109 (Jharkhand)
9.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sahibganj, Simdegaa, At Adiwasi
Balika Chhaatravas, Samtoli, Gotra, Distt. Simdega-
8835235 (Jharkhand)
10.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Post-Barekakana, Distt-
Ramgarh-829102 (Jharkhand)
11.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Patratu, Diesel Colony, Distt.
Ramgadh-829120 (Jharkhand)
12.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Madhupur, Distt.-Deoghar-
815353 (Jharkhand)
13.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, No. 2, Dhanbad, Behind Jagjivan
Nagar Police Station, Post-Jagjivan Nagar, Distt-
Dhanbad-826002 (Jharkhand)
14.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gumla, Training School Campus,
Karam Toli Road, Gumla-835207 (Jharkhand)
15.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Jashpur, Dorka Chora, Gamharia,
Jashpur-496331 (Chhattisgarh)
16.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Namkum, Ranchi-834010
(Jharkhand)
17.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Hinoo (2nd Shift), Doranda,
Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand)
18.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Garhwa, Pipara Kalan, Gayatri
Nagar, Distt. Garhwa-829206 (Jharkhand)
19.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Distt.-Latehar-829206
(Jharkhand)
20.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, CRPF, Dhurva, Distt. Ranchi-
834004 (Jharkhand)
[No. 11011-3/2014-O.L.U]
SUKHBIR SINGH SANDHU, Jt. Secy.
dks;yk ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2939-&dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd blls mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa dks;yk vfHkizkIr gksus
dh laHkkouk gS(
vkSj Hkkjrh; losZ{k.k Vksiks'khV la[;k 64 bZ@7 ¼vkj-,Q- 1%50000½ dk ftlesa mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe {ks= ds C;kSjs
vUrfoZ"V gS] dk fujh{k.k egkizca/kd ¼xos’k.k izHkkx½] lsaVªy ekbu Iykfuax ,.M fMtkbu bULVhV~;wV fyfeVsM] xksanokuk Iysl] dkads
jksM] jkaph ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkÅl LVªhV] dksydkrk & 700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k ftyk dyDVj]
ftyk 'kgMksy] e/; izns'k ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gS A
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~
mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] iwoksZDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe
esa dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS(
mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) dksbZ O;fDr &
¼i½
mDr vf/klwpuk dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds v/khu dh xbZ fdlh dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ ;k lEHkor% gksus okyh fdlh
{kfr ds fy;s mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk( ;k
¼ii½
mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds izHkkoghu gksus dh ckcr ;k mDr
vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ ds v/khu [kuu iV~Vs izHkkoghu gksus ds fy;s izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk
vkSj mls mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼i½ ls [kaM ¼iv½ esa fofufnZ"V enksa dh Ckkcr mixr
O;; dks minf'kZr djus ds fy;s iwoksZDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr lHkh ekufp=ksa] pkVksZa vkSj vU; nLrkostksa dks ifjnRr dj
ldsxkA
jkti= esa bl vf/klwpuk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu dh vof/k ds Hkhrj egkizca/kd ¼xos’k.k izHkkx½] lsaVªy ekbu
Iykfuax ,.M fMtkbu bULVhV~;wV fyfeVsM] xksanokuk Iysl] dkads jksM] jkaph&834031¼>kj[kaM½ ds dk;kZy; dks HkstsaxsA
7258
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqlwph
fcpkjiqj iwoZ CykWd] lksgkxiqj dks;yk {ks=
ftyk&'kgMksy] e/; izns'k
[ Vksiks'khV la[;k 64 bZ@7 ¼vkj-,Q- 1%50000½ ]
Ø
ekStk@
rglhy
iVokjh
cUnkscLr
ftyk
{ks=
{ks=
fVIif.k;ka
la-
xzke
gYdk
la[;k
,dM+ esa
gsDVj esa
la[;k
¼yxHkx½
¼yxHkx½
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1-
ckflu
flagiqj
88
707
“kgMksy
642-09
259-84
Hkkx
2-
Qrsgiqj
flagiqj
92
624
“kgMksy
439-83
177-99
Hkkx
3-
xkSjrjk
lksgkxiqj
71
234
“kgMksy
67-46
27-30
Hkkx
4-
ujljgk
lksgkxiqj
78
510
“kgMksy
52-78
21-36
Hkkx
5-
fcpkjiqj
lksgkxiqj
79
728
“kgMksy
291-39
117-92
Hkkx
6-
ipxkao
flagiqj
88
551
“kgMksy
23-67
9-58
Hkkx
7-
nq/kh
flagiqj
89
445
“kgMksy
26-14
10-58
Hkkx
dqy {ks= % 1543-36 ,dM+¼yxHkx½ ;k 624-57 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½
lhek o.kZu%
d&[k
;g js[kk] fcpkjiqj xzke ds fcUnq *d* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj Qrsgiqj vkSj ujljgk xzke ls gksdj xqtjrh gqbZ xkSjrjk
xzke ds fcUnq ^[k^ ij feyrh gS A js[kk ^d^&[k^ bl CykWd dh mRrjh lhek dk Hkkx gSA
[k&x
;g js[kk xzke xkSjrjk ds fcUnq *[k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj Qrsgiqj xzke ls gksdj xqtjrh gqbZ nq/kh xzke ds fcUnq
*x* ij feyrh gSA js[kk ^[k^&x^ bl CykWd ds iwohZ lhek dk Hkkx gSA
x&?k
;g js[kk xzke nq/kh xzke ds fcUnq *x* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke ckflu ls gksdj xqtjrh gqbZ ipxkao xzke ds fcUnq
*?k* ij feyrh gSA js[kk ^x^&^?k^ bl CykWd ds nf{k.kh lhek dk Hkkx gSA
?k&d
;g js[kk xzke ipxkao ds fcUnq *?k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj ckflu xzke ls gksdj xqtjrh gqbZ fcpkjiqj xzke ds fcUnq
*d* ij tkdj feyrh gSA js[kk ^?k^&d^ bl CykWd dh if'peh lhek dk Hkkx gSA
[Qk- la- 43015@12@2013&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]
nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 17th November, 2014
S.O. 2939.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land in the
locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
And, whereas, the Survey of India Toposheet number 64E/7 (R.F. 1:50000) containing the details of the areas of
land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the General Manager (Exploration Division), Central
Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi or at the office of the Coal Controller,
1, Council House Street, Kolkata - 700001 or at the Office of the District Collector, District of Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh;
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7259
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government
hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule;
Any person interested in the land described in the above mentioned Schedule may—
(i)
claim compensation under sub-section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by
any action taken under sub-section (3) of section 4 of the said Act; or
(ii)
claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting license
ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to
have effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the
expenditure incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the
said Act,
to the Office of the General Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited,
Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi-834031 (Jharkhand) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of
this notification.
SCHEDULE
Bicharpur East Block, Sohagpur Coalfield
District – Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh
[ Toposheet number 64E/7 (R.F. 1:50000) ]
Sl.
Mouja/
Tahsil
Patwari
Bandobast
District
Area in acres
Area in hectares
Remarks
No.
Village
halkanumber
number
(approximately)
(approximately)
1.
Basin
Singhpur
88
707
Shahdol
642.09
259.84
Part
2.
Fatehpur
Singhpur
92
624
Shahdol
439.83
177.99
Part
3.
Gourtara
Sohagpur
71
234
Shahdol
67.46
27.30
Part
4.
Narsarha
Sohagpur
78
510
Shahdol
52.78
21.36
Part
5.
Bicharpur
Sohagpur
79
728
Shahdol
291.39
117.92
Part
6.
Pachgaon
Singhpur
88
551
Shahdol
23.67
9.58
Part
7.
Dudhi
Singhpur
89
445
Shasdol
26.14
10.58
Part
Total area : 1543.36 acres (approximately) 624.57 hectares (approximately)
Boundary description:
A-B
The line starts from point ‘A’ in Bicharpur village and meets at point ‘B’ in Gourtara village passing
through the Fatehpur and Narsarha villages. ‘A-B’ line forms the northern boundary of the block.
B-C
The line starts from point ‘B’ in Gourtara village and meets at point ‘C’ in Dudhi village passing through
the Fatehpur village. ‘B-C’ line forms the eastern boundary of the block.
C-D
The line starts from point ‘C’ in Dudhi village and meets at point ‘D’ in Pachgaon village passing
through the Basin village. ‘C-D’ line forms the southern boundary of the block.
D-A
The line starts from point ‘D’ in Pachgaon village and meets at point ‘A’ in Bicharpur village passing
through the Basin village. ‘D-E’ line forms the western boundary of the block.
[F. No. 43015/ 12 /2013-PRIW-I]
DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.
7260
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2940-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk&1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 fnlEcj] 2014 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds vè;k;&4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok;
tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS) vè;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk&76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh
gSº ds micaèk rsayxkuk jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—
^^rsyaxkuk jkT; ds uyxksaMk ftys ds f=kiqjkje eaMy esa vkus okys jktLo xk¡o dh lhek ds varxZr {ks=k&isíknsoqyiYyh vkSj
oseqykiYyh eaMy esa vkus okys jktLo xkao dh lhek ds varxZr {ks=k&xktqykiqje**A
¹la- ,l&38013@67@2014&,l-,l- 1º
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 17th November, 2014
S.O. 2940.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st December, 2014 as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and
VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force]
of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Talangana namely :—
"The Revenue Village of Peddadevulapally of Tripuraram Mandal and Gajulapuram of Vemulapally Mandal
in Nalgonda District of Telangana State."
[No. S-38013/67/2014-SS.I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2941-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk&1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 fnlEcj] 2014 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds vè;k;&4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok;
tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS) vè;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk&76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh
gSº ds micaèk tEew ,oa dk'ehj jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—
Øa- la-
jktLo xzke dk uke@{ks=k*
gnoLr la[;k@gkscyh*
rglhy@rkyqd*
ftyk
1
2
3
4
5
1-
tEew fodkl izkf/dj.k ds varxZr vkus okys os lHkh {ks=k] tks mu {ks=kksa ds lehiorhZ gSa tgkWa igys ls gh ;kstuk ykxw gS] vkSj tgkWa
le;≤ ij izkf/dj.k ds {ks=k dk foLrkj gksxkA
2-
xk¡o xkMh x<] ftyk tEew
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
tEew
tEew
3-
xk¡o xqjgk czkgE.kk] ftyk tEew
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
tEew
tEew
4-
xk¡o nksekuk] ftyk tEew
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
tEew
tEew
5-
xk¡o ukxcuh] ftyk tEew
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
tEew
tEew
6-
xk¡o iVksyh czkgE.kk] ftyk tEew
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
tEew
tEew
7-
xk¡o ujoky ckyk] ftyk tEew
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
tEew
tEew
8-
xk¡o Fkaxj] ftyk tEew
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
tEew
tEew
9-
xk¡o j[kjktiqjk] ftyk lkack
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
lkack
lkack
10-
xk¡o ljksj] ftyk lkack
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
lkack
lkack
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7261
11-
xk¡o jk;k eksM+] ftyk lkack
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
lkack
lkack
12-
xk¡o ethu] ftyk tEew
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
tEew
tEew
13-
xk¡o ccfy;kuk] ftyk tEew
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
tEew
tEew
14-
xk¡o cjuksbZ] ftyk tEew
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
tEew
tEew
15-
uxj lfefr@fuxe] dBqvk ds varxZr vkus okys lHkh {ks=kA
16-
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o pd jktw] ftyk dBqvk
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
dBqvk
dBqvk
17-
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o pd jke flag] ftyk dBqvk
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
dBqvk
dBqvk
18-
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o jke flag txriqj] ftyk dBqvk
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
dBqvk
dBqvk
19-
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o pd [kwuh] ftyk dBqvk
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o
dBqvk
dBqvk
20-
laiw.kZ SICOP vkS|ksfxd dEIysDl] dBqvk ftyk dBqvk
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o {ks=k
dBqvk
dBqvk
21-
IID dsUnz dBqvk] ftyk dBqvk
laiw.kZ jktLo xk¡o@dsUnz
dBqvk
dBqvk
¹la- ,l&38013@68@2014&,l-,l- Iº
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 17th November, 2014
S.O. 2941.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st December, 2014 as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and
VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force]
of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Jammu and Kashmir namely :—
Sl. No.
Name of the village Area*
Had Bast No./Hobli*
Tehsil/Taluk*
District
1
2
3
4
5
1.
All the area under jurisdiction of Jammu Development Authority (JDA), which are contiguous to the already
implemented zones and extended from time to time.
2.
Village Gadi Gardh Distt. Jammu
Entire Revenue Village
Jammu
Jammu
3.
Village Guraha Brahmana Distt. Jammu
Entire Revenue Village
Jammu
Jammu
4.
Village Domana Distt. Jammu
Entire Revenue Village
Jammu
Jammu
5.
Village Nagbani Distt. Jammu
Entire Revenue Village
Jammu
Jammu
6.
Village Patoli Brahmana Distt. Jammu
Entire Revenue Village
Jammu
Jammu
7.
Village Narwal Bala Distt. Jammu
Entire Revenue Village
Jammu
Jammu
8.
Village Thangar Distt. Jammu
Entire Revenue Village
Jammu
Jammu
9.
Village Rakhrajpura Distt. Samba
Entire Revenue Village
Samba
Samba
10.
Village Sarore Distt. Samba
Entire Revenue Village
Samba
Samba
11.
Village Raya Morh Distt. Samba
Entire Revenue Village
Samba
Samba
12.
Village Majeen Distt. Jammu
Entire Revenue Village
Jammu
Jammu
13.
Village Babliana Distt. Jammu
Entire Revenue Village
Jammu
Jammu
14.
Village Barnai Distt. Jammu
Entire Revenue Village
Jammu
Jammu
1
2
3
4
5
7262
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
15.All the area falling within limits of Municipal Committee/Corporation Kathua :
16.Entire Revenue Village Chak Raju, Distt. Kathua
Entire Revenue Village
Kathua
Kathua
17.Entire Revenue Village Chak Ram Singh,
Entire Revenue Village
Kathua
Kathua
Distt. Kathua
18.Entire Revenue Village Chak Ram Singh,
Entire Revenue Village
Kathua
Kathua
Distt. Kathua
19.Entire Revenue Village Chak Khuni,
Entire Revenue Village
Kathua
Kathua
Distt. Kathua
20.Entire SICOP Industrial Complex Kathua,
Entire Revenue Village/
Kathua
Kathua
Distt. Kathua
Complex
21.IID Centre Kathua, Distt. Kathua
Entire Revenue Village/
Kathua
Kathua
Centre
[No. S-38013/68/2014-SS.I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYYkh] 18 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2942-—tcfd eSllZ dksdk&dksyk bafM;k bud]
(dksM la[;k ,pvkj@thth,u@10374 ds varxZr xqMxkao {ks=kh;
dk;kZy; esa) (,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :i esa lan£Hkr) us deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fufèk ,oa izdh.kZ micaèk vfèkfu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19)
(,rnqijkar vfèkfu;e ds :i esa lan£Hkr) dh èkkjk 17 dh mi&èkkjk
(1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gS A
2-
vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds
lacaèk esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;e mDr vfèkfu;e dh
èkkjk 6 eas fofu£n"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de
mi;qDr ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèkfu;e vFkok deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 (,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr)
ds varxZr ln`'; Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds
laca/ esa nh tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufèk izlqfoèkkvksa dk Hkh ykHk
mBk jgs gSaA
3-
vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 17 dh
mi&èkkjk (1) ds [k.M (d) n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] bl vfèklwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;èkhu mDr izfr"Bku
dks 19&10&2007 ls vxyh vfèklwpuk rd mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh
micaèkksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A
[la- ,l&35015@105@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqcaèk
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 ds micaèkksa ls NwV
iznku djus lacaèkh 'krs±
1-
fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh; Hkfo";
fufèk vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls funs'kksa
ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds izcaèku gsrq viuh vè;{krk esa ,d
U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fufèk U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr gksxh tks
vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu ds izfr
Hkfo"; fufèk esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj
mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ]
¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—
(i)
fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds lacaèk esa] dkj[kkus
dk Lokeh vFkok vfèk"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj
(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds lacaèk esa] og O;fDr] vFkok izkfèkdkjh
vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt ij vafre
fu;a=k.k gksA
2-
U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd djsxk
vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr (lhih,iQlh)
vFkok mlds n~okjk izkfèkÑr fdlh vfèkdkjh n~okjk le; le; ij
tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z djsxk A
3-
vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks HkfOk"; fufèk ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgs gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks
NwV iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k
tk,xkA
4-
tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr izfr"Bku
ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vFkok Hkfo"; fufèk dk lnL; gks]
mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks fu;ksDrk mls
rRdky fufèk ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA fu;ksDrk ,sls
deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk ls lap;
jkf'k;ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A
5-
fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds
n~okjk le;≤ ij vfèkfu;e ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr nj ls ns;
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7263
va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg
dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh
cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vfèkfu;e
dh èkkjk 7 ds micaèkksa ds vuqlkj lkèkkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h
gksxk A
6-
fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk
vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls
Hkfo"; fufèk dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A
7-
U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk
n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfofèkd lhek rd ykuk
gksxk A
8-
fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksfèkr fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkfèkdkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fufèk ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vfèkla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku
ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A
9-
izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;eksa ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk
?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vfèkfu;e
vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fuèkkZfjr fofHkUu micaèkksa ds
varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A
10-
;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kksèku] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku fu;eksa dh
rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vfèkd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl ds
fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kksèku ds yafcr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw
fd;k tk,xk A
11-
fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kksèku {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;
Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks
viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A
12-
fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh Hkfo";
fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr vfèkdre le; lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk
ls fuiVk, tk,axs A
13-
U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds lacaèk esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk
j[k&j[kko djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vfèkekur%
bYkSDVªkWfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkofèkd :i ls tc
dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr
n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls
lEizsf"kr djsaxs A
14-
U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus
ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk ok£"kd
fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr
fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyCèk djk, tk ldrs gSaA
iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd,
tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkofèkd :i ls vn~;ru fd;k tk,xk A
15-
fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus
ds fy, vko';d izkoèkku djsaxs A
16-
U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk
;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds Hkhrj
ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk
tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md
dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A
17-
U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fufèk ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj
la;qDr :i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfufèk
n~okjk ;Fkk vfèkjksfir vfèk'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A
18-(d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl izdkj
izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) :i eas gksuh
pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa visf{kr
lqfoèkk ds miyCèk u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ
lacafèkr {ks=kh; HkfOk"; fufèk vk;qDr dks bldh lwpuk
nsaxs A
([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A
(x) MhesV [kkrk bl lacaèk esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh
vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh;
ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e
ls [kksyk tk, A
(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn
dh nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh
U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;;
ekuk tk,xk A
19-
izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A
LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk] 1952 ls
NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds
vuqjksèk ij lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks lhèks varfjr
djsxk A
20-
LFkkiuk lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks mu fu{ksikxkj
izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr)
7264
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk
esa U;kl ds eku ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~ izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn
esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml
èkujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj
vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL;
ds Hkfo"; fufèk lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk
vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ
vuqeksnu ds 'krkZèkhu fufèk ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls ckè;dkjh
O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr gksa A
21-
U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k
vU; laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu]
cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A
22-
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus dh
lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSfèkd :i ls fu;ksDrk
vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkfèkdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij muds
lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A
23-
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa
lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds
Hkhrj rRdky fufèk;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu
ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fufèk;ksa ds varj.k esa
dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xk A
24-(d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrk fdlh
;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls
ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds 'krkZèkhu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d
le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu dks vfèkdkj
gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd n~okjk
[kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq, [kpZ
fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A
([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls
31 ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj
ys[kk&ijh{khr rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ
dh izfr lhèks bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k
dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh tkus okyh tkudkjh
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr dh tk,xh
RkFkk lacfèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyCèk
djkbZ tk,xh A
(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vfèkd
ds fy, fu;qDr u fd;k tk, A
25-
yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vkèkkj esa
dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA
26-
fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{k.k
gsrq ,slh lqfoèkkvksa dk izkoèkku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k izHkkjksa dk
Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vfèkfu;e dh
èkkjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤
ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A
27-
U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh
mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacafèkr O;fDr dks bl lacaèk esa
dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xh A
28-
fdlh Hkh èkks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds iQyLo:i
VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk uqdlku iwjk
djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A
29-
fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k] lgk;d
daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;kfn ds
iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko gksrk
gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds
fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A
30-
,d gh Hkfo"; fufèk VªLV esa ,d ls vfèkd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkb;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls
vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";
fufèk VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ
djsxk A
31-
dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks± dks
c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku
bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè; gksaxs A
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2014
S.O.
2942.—Whereas M/s. Coca-Cola India Inc.
[under Code No. HR/GGN/10374 in Regional Office,
Gurgaon] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment)
has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section
(1) of Section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952)
(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2.
And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees
are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees’
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7265
of the said Scheme with effect from 19-10-2007 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/105/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1.
The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to
time. The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from
the Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For
this purpose, the “employer” shall mean :—
(i)
In relation to an establishment, which is a
factory, the owner or occupier of the factory:
and .
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the
person who, or the authority, that has the
ultimate control over the affairs of the
establishment.
2.
The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
Central
Government/Central
Provident
Fund
Commissioner (CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3.
All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the act,
who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted
exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4.
Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5.
The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees
the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from
time to time by the 15th of each month following the month
for which the contributions are payable. The employer
shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the
provisions of Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in
payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6.
The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7.
Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board
of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8.
The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9.
The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central Government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme
framed thereunder.
10.
Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11.
No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give
a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12.
All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organisation.
13.
The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner.
14.
The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject
to nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall
remain in custody of employee to be updated periodically
by the Trustees when presented to them.
7266
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15.
The employer shall make necessary provisions to
enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16.
The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file
such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by
the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within the
specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
17.
The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of
the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per
directions of the Government shall make the Board of
Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may
be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner
or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of
Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the
required facility is not available in the areas where
the trust operates the Board of Trustees shall
inform the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise
register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank
of India and Central Government in accordance
with the instructions issued by the Central
Government in this regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the
Trust. Also all types of cost of investments like
brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be
treated as incidental cost of investment by the
Trust.
19.
All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that
effect.
20.
The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules
and transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event
of his/her leaving service of the employer and any other
receipts by sale of the securities or other investments
standing in the name of the Fund subject to the prior
approval of the Regional PF Commissioner.
21.
Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22.
The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23.
The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also
give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within
the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the
event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit
by a qualified independent Chartered Accountant
annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO
shall have the right to have the accounts re-audited
by any other qualified auditor and the expenses
so incurred shall be borne by the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this
office by the Auditors directly within six months
after the closing of the financial year from
1st April to 31st March. The format of the balance
sheet and the information to be furnished in the
report shall be prescribed by the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation and made available
with the RPFC office in electronic format as well
as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the
relaxation withdrawn from the first day of the
next succeeding financial year.
25.
Any loss for the three consecutive financial years
or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
26.
The employer shall provide for such facilities for
inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7267
Government may from time to time direct under clause (a)
of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27.
In the event of any violation of the conditions for
grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28.
In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any
fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29.
In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger,
acquisition, sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary,
whether wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted
shall stand revoked and the establishment should promptly
report the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30.
In case there are more than one unit/establishment
participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all
the trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/
responsible for any default committed by any of the
trustees/employer of any of the participating units and
the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the
trustees of the common Provident Fund Trust.
31.
The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
ubZ fnYYkh] 18 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2943-—tcfd eSllZ fgUnqLrku psfjVh VªLV] (dksM
la[;k MCY;wch@42498 ds varxZr mi&{ks=kh; dk;kZy;] ikdZ LVªhV
esa) (,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :i esa lan£Hkr) us deZpkjh Hkfo";
fufèk ,oa izdh.kZ micaèk vfèkfu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19) (,rnqijkar
vfèkfu;e ds :i esa lan£Hkr) dh èkkjk 17 dh mi&èkkjk (1) ds
[k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gS A
2-
vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds
lacaèk esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;e mDr vfèkfu;e dh
èkkjk 6 eas fofu£n"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de
mi;qDr ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèkfu;e vFkok deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 (,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr)
ds varxZr ln`'; Lo:i ds fdlh izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/
esa nh tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufèk izlqfoèkkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs
gSaA
3-
vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 17 dh
mi&èkkjk (1) ds [k.M (d) n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] bl vfèklwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;kèkhu mDr izfr"Bku
dks 01&01&2008 ls vxyh vfèklwpuk rd mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh
micaèkksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A
[la- ,l&35015@83@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqcaèk
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 ds micaèkksa ls NwV
iznku djus lacaèkh 'krs±
1-
fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh; Hkfo";
fufèk vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls funs'kksa
ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds izcaèku gsrq viuh vè;{krk esa ,d
U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fufèk U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr gksxh tks
vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu ds izfr
Hkfo"; fufèk esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj
mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ]
¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—
(i)
fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds lacaèk esa] dkj[kkus
dk Lokeh vFkok vfèk"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj
(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds lacaèk esa] og O;fDr] vFkok izkfèkdkjh
vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt ij vafre
fu;a=k.k gksA
2-
U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd djsxk
vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr (lhih,iQlh)
vFkok mlds n~okjk izkfèkÑr fdlh vfèkdkjh n~okjk le; le; ij
tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z djsxk A
3-
vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks HkfOk"; fufèk ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgs gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks
NwV iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k
tk,xkA
4-
tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr izfr"Bku
ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vFkok Hkfo"; fufèk dk lnL; gks]
mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks fu;ksDrk mls
rRdky fufèk ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA fu;ksDrk ,sls
deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk ls lap;
jkf'k;ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A
5-
fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds
n~okjk le;≤ ij vfèkfu;e ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr nj ls ns;
va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg
dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh
cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vfèkfu;e
dh èkkjk 7 ds micaèkksa ds vuqlkj lkèkkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h
gksxk A
6-
fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk
vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls
Hkfo"; fufèk dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A
7268
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7-
U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk
n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfofèkd lhek rd ykuk
gksxk A
8-
fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksfèkr fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkfèkdkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fufèk ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vfèkla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku
ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A
9-
izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;eksa ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk
?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vfèkfu;e
vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fuèkkZfjr fofHkUu micaèkksa ds
varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A
10-
;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kksèku] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku fu;eksa dh
rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vfèkd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl ds
fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kksèku ds yafcr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw
fd;k tk,xk A
11-
fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kksèku {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;
Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks
viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A
12-
fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh Hkfo";
fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr vfèkdre le; lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk
ls fuiVk, tk,axs A
13-
U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds lacaèk esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk
j[k&j[kko djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vfèkekur%
bYkSDVªkWfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkofèkd :i ls tc
dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr
n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls
lEizsf"kr djsaxs A
14-
U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus
ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk ok£"kd
fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr
fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyCèk djk, tk ldrs gSaA
iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd,
tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkofèkd :i ls vn~;ru fd;k tk,xk A
15-
fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus
ds fy, vko';d izkoèkku djsaxs A
16-
U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk
;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds Hkhrj
ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk
tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md
dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A
17-
U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fufèk ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj
la;qDr #i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfufèk
n~okjk ;Fkk vfèkjksfir vfèk'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A
18-(d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl izdkj
izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) :i eas gksuh
pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa visf{kr
lqfoèkk ds miyCèk u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ
lacafèkr {ks=kh; HkfOk"; fufèk vk;qDr dks bldh lwpuk
nsaxs A
([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A
(x) MhesV [kkrk bl lacaèk esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh
vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj
n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e ls
[kksyk tk, A
(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn
dh nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh
U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;;
ekuk tk,xk A
19-
izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A
LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk] 1952 ls
NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds
vuqjksèk ij lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks lhèks varfjr
djsxk A
20-
LFkkiuk lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks mu fu{ksikxkj
izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr)
ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk
esa U;kl ds eku ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~ izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn
esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml
èkujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj
vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL;
ds Hkfo"; fufèk lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk
vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ
vuqeksnu ds 'krkZèkhu fufèk ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls ckè;dkjh
O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr gksa A
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7269
21-
U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k
vU; laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu]
cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A
22-
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus dh
lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSfèkd :i ls fu;ksDrk
vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkfèkdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij muds
lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A
23-
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa
lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds
Hkhrj rRdky fufèk;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu
ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fufèk;ksa ds varj.k esa
dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xk A
24-(d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrk fdlh
;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls
ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds 'krkZèkhu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d
le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu dks vfèkdkj
gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd n~okjk
[kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq, [kpZ
fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A
([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls
31 ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj
ys[kk&ijh{khr rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ
dh izfr lhèks bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k
dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh tkus okyh tkudkjh
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr dh tk,xh
RkFkk lacfèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyCèk
djkbZ tk,xh A
(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vfèkd
ds fy, fu;qDr u fd;k tk, A
25-
yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vkèkkj esa
dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA
26-
fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{k.k
gsrq ,slh lqfoèkkvksa dk izkoèkku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k izHkkjksa dk
Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vfèkfu;e dh
èkkjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤
ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A
27-
U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh
mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacafèkr O;fDr dks bl lacaèk esa
dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xh A
28-
fdlh Hkh èkks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds iQyLo:i
VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk uqdlku iwjk
djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A
29-
fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k] lgk;d
daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;kfn ds
iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko gksrk
gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds
fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A
30-
,d gh Hkfo"; fufèk VªLV esa ,d ls vfèkd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkb;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls
vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";
fufèk VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ
djsxk A
31-
dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks± dks
c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku
bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè; gksaxs A
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2014
S.O.
2943.—Whereas M/s. Hindustan Charity
Trust [under Code No. WB/42498 in Sub-Regional Office,
Park Street] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment)
has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section
(1) of Section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952)
(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2.
And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees
are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees’
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 01-01-2008 until
further notification.
[No. S-35015/83/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION
FROM THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME, 1952
1.
The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
7270
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to
time. The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from
the Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For
this purpose, the “employer” shall mean :—
(i)
In relation to an establishment, which is a
factory, the owner or occupier of the factory:
and.
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the
person who, or the authority, that has the
ultimate control over the affairs of the
establishment.
2.
The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
Central
Government/Central
Provident
Fund
Commissioner (CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3.
All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the act,
who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted
exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4.
Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5.
The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees
the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from
time to time by the 15th of each month following the month
for which the contributions are payable. The employer
shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the
provisions of Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in
payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6.
The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7.
Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board
of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8.
The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9.
The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central Government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme
framed thereunder.
10.
Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11.
No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give
a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12.
All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organisation.
13.
The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner.
14.
The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject
to nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall
remain in custody of employee to be updated periodically
by the Trustees when presented to them.
15.
The employer shall make necessary provisions to
enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16.
The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file
such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by
the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within the
specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
17.
The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of
the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7271
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per
directions of the Government shall make the Board of
Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may
be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner
or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of
Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the
required facility is not available in the areas where
the trust operates the Board of Trustees shall
inform the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise
register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank
of India and Central Government in accordance
with the instructions issued by the Central
Government in this regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the
Trust. Also all types of cost of investments like
brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be
treated as incidental cost of investment by the
Trust.
19.
All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that
effect.
20.
The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules
and transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event
of his/her leaving service of the employer and any other
receipts by sale of the securities or other investments
standing in the name of the Fund subject to the prior
approval of the Regional PF Commissioner.
21.
Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22.
The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23.
The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also
give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within
the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the
event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit
by a qualified independent Chartered Accountant
annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO
shall have the right to have the accounts re-audited
by any other qualified auditor and the expenses
so incurred shall be borne by the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this
office by the Auditors directly within six months
after the closing of the financial year from 1st
April to 31st March. The format of the balance
sheet and the information to be furnished in the
report shall be prescribed by the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation and made available
with the RPFC office in electronic format as well
as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the
relaxation withdrawn from the first day of the
next succeeding financial year.
25.
Any loss for the three consecutive financial years
or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
26.
The employer shall provide for such facilities for
inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause
(a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15
days from the close of every month.
27.
In the event of any violation of the conditions for
grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28.
In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any
fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
7272
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
29.
In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger,
acquisition, sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary,
whether wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted
shall stand revoked and the establishment should promptly
report the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30.
In case there are more than one unit/establishment
participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all
the trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/
responsible for any default committed by any of the
trustees/employer of any of the participating units and
the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the
trustees of the common Provident Fund Trust.
31.
The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
ubZ fnYYkh] 18 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2944-—tcfd eSllZ ,fDll cSad fyfeVsM (dksM
la[;k ,e,p@45239 ds varxZr ckanzk {ks=kh; dk;kZy; esa) (,rnqijkar
izfr"Bku ds :i esa lan£Hkr) us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ,oa izdh.kZ
micaèk vfèkfu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19) (,rnqijkar vfèkfu;e
ds :i esa lan£Hkr) dh èkkjk 17 dh mi&èkkjk (1) ds [k.M (d)
ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gS A
2-
vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds
lacaèk esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;e mDr vfèkfu;e dh
èkkjk 6 eas fofu£n"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de
mi;qDr ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèkfu;e vFkok deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 (,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr)
ds varxZr ln`'k; Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds
laca/ esa nh tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufèk izlqfoèkkvksa dk Hkh ykHk
mBk jgs gSaA
3-
vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj] mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 17 dh
mi&èkkjk (1) ds [k.M (d) n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] bl vfèklwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;kèkhu] mDr izfr"Bku
dks 01&09&2013 ls vxyh vfèklwpuk rd mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh
micaèkksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A
[la- ,l&35015@94@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqcaèk
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 ds micaèkksa ls NwV
iznku djus lacaèkh 'krs±
1-
fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh; Hkfo";
fufèk vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls funs'kksa
ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds izcaèku gsrq viuh vè;{krk esa ,d
U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fufèk U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr gksxh tks
vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu ds izfr
Hkfo"; fufèk esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj
mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ]
¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—
(i)
fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds lacaèk esa] dkj[kkus
dk Lokeh vFkok vfèk"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj
(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds lacaèk esa] og O;fDr] vFkok izkfèkdkjh
vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt ij vafre
fu;a=k.k gksA
2-
U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd djsxk
vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr (lhih,iQlh)
vFkok mlds n~okjk izkfèkÑr fdlh vfèkdkjh n~okjk le; le; ij
tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z djsxk A
3-
vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks HkfOk"; fufèk ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgs gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks
NwV iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k
tk,xkA
4-
tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr izfr"Bku
ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vFkok Hkfo"; fufèk dk lnL; gks]
mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks fu;ksDrk mls
rRdky fufèk ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA fu;ksDrk ,sls
deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk ls lap;
jkf'k;ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A
5-
fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds
n~okjk le;≤ ij vfèkfu;e ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr nj ls ns;
va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg
dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh
cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vfèkfu;e
dh èkkjk 7 Fk ds micaèkksa ds vuqlkj lkèkkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk
nk;h gksxk A
6-
fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk
vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls
Hkfo"; fufèk dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A
7-
U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk
n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfofèkd lhek rd ykuk
gksxk A
8-
fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksfèkr fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkfèkdkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fufèk ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vfèkla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku
ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A
9-
izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;eksa ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7273
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk
?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vfèkfu;e
vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fuèkkZfjr fofHkUu micaèkksa ds
varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A
10-
;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kksèku] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku fu;eksa dh
rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vfèkd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl ds
fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kksèku ds yafcr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw
fd;k tk,xk A
11-
fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kksèku {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;
Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks
viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A
12-
fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh Hkfo";
fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr vfèkdre le; lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk
ls fuiVk, tk,axs A
13-
U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds lacaèk esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk
j[k&j[kko djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vfèkekur%
bYkSDVªkWfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkofèkd :i ls tc
dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr
n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls
lEizsf"kr djsaxs A
14-
U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus
ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk ok£"kd
fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr
fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyCèk djk, tk ldrs gSaA
iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd,
tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkofèkd :i ls vn~;ru fd;k tk,xk A
15-
fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus
ds fy, vko';d izkoèkku djsaxs A
16-
U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk
;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds Hkhrj
ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk
tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md
dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A
17-
U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fufèk ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj
la;qDr #i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfufèk
n~okjk ;Fkk vfèkjksfir vfèk'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A
18-(d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl izdkj
izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) :i eas gksuh
pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa
visf{kr lqfoèkk ds miyCèk u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh
cksMZ lacafèkr {ks=kh; HkfOk"; fufèk vk;qDr dks bldh
lwpuk nsaxs A
([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A
(x) MhesV [kkrk bl lacaèk esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh
vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj
n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e ls
[kksyk tk, A
(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn
dh nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh
U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;;
ekuk tk,xk A
19-
izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A
LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk] 1952 ls
NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds
vuqjksèk ij lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks lhèks varfjr
djsxk A
20-
LFkkiuk lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks mu fu{ksikxkj
izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr)
ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk
esa U;kl ds uke ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~ izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn
esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml
èkujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj
vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL;
ds Hkfo"; fufèk lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk
vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ
vuqeksnu ds 'krkZèkhu fufèk ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls ckè;dkjh
O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr gksa A
21-
U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k
vU; laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu]
cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A
22-
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus dh
lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSfèkd :i ls fu;ksDrk
vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkfèkdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij muds
lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A
23-
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa
lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds
Hkhrj rRdky fufèk;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu
7274
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fufèk;ksa ds varj.k esa
dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xk A
24-(d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrk fdlh
;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls
ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds 'krkZèkhu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d
le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu dks vfèkdkj
gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd n~okjk
[kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq, [kpZ
fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A
([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls
31 ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj
ys[kk&ijh{khr rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ
dh izfr lhèks bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k
dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh tkus okyh tkudkjh
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr dh tk,xh
RkFkk lacfèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyCèk
djkbZ tk,xh A
(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vfèkd
ds fy, fu;qDr u fd;k tk, A
25-
yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vkèkkj esa
dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA
26-
fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{k.k
gsrq ,slh lqfoèkkvksa dk izkoèkku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k izHkkjksa dk
Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vfèkfu;e dh
èkkjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤
ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A
27-
U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh
mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacafèkr O;fDr dks bl lacaèk esa
dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xh A
28-
fdlh Hkh èkks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds iQyLo:i
VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk uqdlku iwjk
djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A
29-
fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k] lgk;d
daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;knh ds
iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko gksrk
gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds
fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A
30-
,d gh Hkfo"; fuèkh VªLV esa ,d ls vfèkd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkb;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls
vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";
fufèk VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ
djsxk A
31-
dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks± dks
c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku
bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè; gksaxs A
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2014
S.O.
2944.—Whereas M/s. Axis Bank Limited
[under Code No. MH/45239 in Regional Office, Bandra]
(hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied
for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section
17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to
as the Act).
2.
And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees
are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees’
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 01-09-2013 until
further notification.
[No. S-35015/94/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION
FROM THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME, 1952
1.
The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to
time. The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from
the Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For
this purpose, the “employer” shall mean :—
(i)
In relation to an establishment, which is a
factory, the owner or occupier of the factory:
and
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7275
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the person
who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control
over the affairs of the establishment.
2.
The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
Central Government/Central Provident Fund Commissioner
(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3.
All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the Act,
who have been eligible to become members of the Provident
Fund’ had the establishment not been granted exemption,
shall be enrolled as members.
4.
Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5.
The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees
the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from
time to time by the 15th of each month following the month
for which the contributions are payable. The employer shall
be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of
Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues
towards the Board of Trustees.
6.
The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7.
Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board
of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8.
The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9.
The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central Government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme framed
thereunder.
10.
Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11.
No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give
a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12.
All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organisation.
13.
The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner.
14.
The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject
to nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall
remain in custody of employee to be updated periodically
by the Trustees when presented to them.
15.
The employer shall make necessary provisions to
enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16.
The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file
such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by
the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within the
specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
17.
The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of
the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per
directions of the Government shall make the Board of
Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may
be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner
or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of
Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the
required facility is not available in the areas where
the trust operates the Board of Trustees shall
7276
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
inform the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise
register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank
of India and Central Government in accordance
with the instructions issued by the Central
Government in this regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the
Trust. Also all types of cost of investments like
brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be
treated as incidental cost of investment by the
Trust.
19.
All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that
effect.
20.
The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules
and transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event
of his/her leaving service of the employer and any other
receipts by sale of the securities or other investments
standing in the name of the Fund subject to the prior
approval of the Regional PF Commissioner.
21.
Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22.
The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23.
The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also
give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within
the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the
event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by
the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by
a qualified independent Chartered Accountant
annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO
shall have the right to have the accounts re-audited
by any other qualified auditor and the expenses
so incurred shall be borne by the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this
office by the Auditors directly within six months
after the closing of the financial year from 1st
April to 31st March. The format of the balance
sheet and the information to be furnished in the
report shall be prescribed by the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation and made available
with the RPFC office in electronic format as well
as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the
relaxation withdrawn from the first day of the
next succeeding financial year.
25.
Any loss for the three consecutive financial years or
erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial
year.
26.
The employer shall provide for such facilities for
inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause (a)
of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27.
In the event of any violation of the conditions for
grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28.
In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any
fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29.
In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition,
sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether
wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand
revoked and the establishment should promptly report the
matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30.
In case there are more than one unit/establishment
participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the
trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible
for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7277
of any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take
suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common
Provident Fund Trust.
31.
The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
ubZ fnYYkh] 18 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2945-—tcfd eSllZ VkVk gkmflax MsoyiesaV
daiuh fyfeVsM (dksM la[;k ,e,p@35195 ds varxZr ckanzk {ks=kh;
dk;kZy; esa) (,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :i esa lan£Hkr) us deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fufèk ,oa izdh.kZ micaèk vfèkfu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19)
(,rnqijkar vfèkfu;e ds :i esa lan£Hkr) dh èkkjk 17 dh mi&èkkjk
(1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gS A
2-
vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds
lacaèk esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;e mDr vfèkfu;e dh
èkkjk 6 eas fofu£n"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de
mi;qDr ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèkfu;e vFkok deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 (,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr)
ds varxZr ln`'; Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds
laca/ esa nh tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufèk izlqfoèkkvksa dk Hkh ykHk
mBk jgs gSaA
3-
vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 17 dh
mi&èkkjk (1) ds [k.M (d) n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] bl vfèklwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;èkhu mDr izfr"Bku
dks 01&01&1991 ls vxyh vfèklwpuk rd mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh
micaèkksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A
[la- ,l&35015@110@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqcaèk
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 ds micaèkksa ls NwV
iznku djus lacaèkh 'krs±
1-
fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh; Hkfo";
fufèk vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls funs'kksa
ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds izcaèku gsrq viuh vè;{krk esa ,d
U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fufèk U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr gksxh tks
vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu ds izfr
Hkfo"; fufèk esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj
mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ]
¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—
(i)
fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds lacaèk esa] dkj[kkus
dk Lokeh vFkok vfèk"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj
(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds lacaèk esa] og O;fDr] vFkok izkfèkdkjh
vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt ij vafre
fu;a=k.k gksA
2-
U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd djsxk
vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr (lhih,iQlh)
vFkok mlds n~okjk izkfèkÑr fdlh vfèkdkjh n~okjk le;≤
ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z djsxk A
3-
vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks HkfOk"; fufèk ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgs gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks
NwV iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k
tk,xkA
4-
tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr izfr"Bku
ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vFkok Hkfo"; fufèk dk lnL; gks]
mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks fu;ksDrk mls
rRdky fufèk ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA fu;ksDrk ,sls
deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk ls lap;
jkf'k;ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A
5-
fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds
n~okjk le;≤ ij vfèkfu;e ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr nj ls ns;
va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg
dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh
cksMZ dks fdUgha ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vfèkfu;e
dh èkkjk 7 ds micaèkksa ds vuqlkj lkèkkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h
gksxk A
6-
fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk
vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls
Hkfo"; fufèk dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A
7-
U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk
n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfofèkd lhek rd ykuk
gksxk A
8-
fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksfèkr fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkfèkdkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fufèk ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vfèkla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku
ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A
9-
izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;eksa ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk
?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vfèkfu;e
vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fuèkkZfjr fofHkUu micaèkksa ds
varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A
10-
;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kksèku] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku fu;eksa dh
rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vfèkd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl ds
fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kksèku ds yafcr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw
fd;k tk,xk A
7278
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11-
fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kksèku {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;
Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks
viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A
12-
fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh Hkfo";
fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr vfèkdre le; lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk
ls fuiVk, tk,axs A
13-
U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds lacaèk esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk
j[k&j[kko djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vfèkekur%
bYkSDVªkWfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkofèkd :i ls tc
dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr
n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls
lEizsf"kr djsaxs A
14-
U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus
ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk ok£"kd
fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr
fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyCèk djk, tk ldrs gSaA
iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd,
tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkofèkd :i ls vn~;ru fd;k tk,xk A
15-
fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus
ds fy, vko';d izkoèkku djsaxs A
16-
U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk
;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds Hkhrj
ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk
tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md
dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A
17-
U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fufèk ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj
la;qDr #i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfufèk
n~okjk ;Fkk vfèkjksfir vfèk'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A
18-(d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl izdkj
izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) :i eas gksuh
pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa visf{kr
lqfoèkk ds miyCèk u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ
lacafèkr {ks=kh; HkfOk"; fufèk vk;qDr dks bldh lwpuk
nsaxs A
([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A
(x) MhesV [kkrk bl lacaèk esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh
vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj
n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e ls
[kksyk tk, A
(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn
dh nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh
U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;;
ekuk tk,xk A
19-
izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A
LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk] 1952 ls
NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds
vuqjksèk ij lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks lhèks varfjr
djsxk A
20-
LFkkiuk lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks mu fu{ksikxkj
izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr)
ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk
esa U;kl ds eku ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~ izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn
esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml
èkujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj
vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL;
ds Hkfo"; fufèk lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk
vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ
vuqeksnu ds 'krkZèkhu fufèk ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls ckè;dkjh
O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr gksa A
21-
U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k
vU; laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu]
cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A
22-
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus dh
lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSfèkd :i ls fu;ksDrk
vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkfèkdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij muds
lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A
23-
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa
lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds
Hkhrj rRdky fufèk;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu
ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fufèk;ksa ds varj.k esa
dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xk A
24-(d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrk fdlh
;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls
ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds 'krkZèkhu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d
le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu dks vfèkdkj
gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd n~okjk
[kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq, [kpZ
fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7279
([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls
31 ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj
ys[kk&ijh{khr rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ
dh izfr lhèks bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k
dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh tkus okyh tkudkjh
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr dh tk,xh
RkFkk lacfèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyCèk
djkbZ tk,xh A
(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vfèkd
ds fy, fu;qDr u fd;k tk, A
25-
yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vkèkkj esa
dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA
26-
fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{k.k
gsrq ,slh lqfoèkkvksa dk izkoèkku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k izHkkjksa dk
Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vfèkfu;e dh
èkkjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤
ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A
27-
U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh
mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacafèkr O;fDr dks bl lacaèk esa
dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xh A
28-
fdlh Hkh èkks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds iQyLo:i
VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk uqdlku iwjk
djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A
29-
fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k] lgk;d
daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;knh ds
iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko gksrk
gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds
fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A
30-
,d gh Hkfo"; fuèkh VªLV esa ,d ls vfèkd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkb;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls
vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";
fufèk VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ
djsxk A
31-
dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks± dks
c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku
bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè; gksaxs A
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2014
S.O.
2945.—Whereas M/s. Tata Housing
Development Company Limited [under Code No. MH/
35195 in Regional Office, Bandra] (hereinafter referred
to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under
clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Employees’
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
(19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2.
And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees
are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees’
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 01-01-1991 until
further notification.
[No. S-35015/110/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION
FROM THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME, 1952
1.
The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to
time. The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from
the Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For
this purpose, the “employer” shall mean :—
(i)
In relation to an establishment, which is a
factory, the owner or occupier of the factory:
and .
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the
person who, or the authority, that has the
ultimate control over the affairs of the
establishment.
2.
The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
Central
Government/Central
Provident
Fund
Commissioner (CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3.
All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the act,
who have been eligible to become members of the
7280
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted
exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4.
Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5.
The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees
the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from
time to time by the 15th of each month following the month
for which the contributions are payable. The employer
shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the
provisions of Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in
payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6.
The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7.
Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board
of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8.
The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9.
The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central Government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme
framed thereunder.
10.
Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11.
No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give
a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12.
All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organisation.
13.
The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner.
14.
The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject
to nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall
remain in custody of employee to be updated periodically
by the Trustees when presented to them.
15.
The employer shall make necessary provisions to
enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16.
The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file
such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by
the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within the
specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
17.
The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of
the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per
directions of the Government shall make the Board of
Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may
be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner
or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of
Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the
required facility is not available in the areas where
the trust operates the Board of Trustees shall
inform the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise
register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank
of India and Central Government in accordance
with the instructions issued by the Central
Government in this regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7281
Trust. Also all types of cost of investments like
brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be
treated as incidental cost of investment by the
Trust.
19.
All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that
effect.
20.
The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules
and transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event
of his/her leaving service of the employer and any other
receipts by sale of the securities or other investments
standing in the name of the Fund subject to the prior
approval of the Regional PF Commissioner.
21.
Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22.
The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23.
The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also
give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within
the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the
event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit
by a qualified independent Chartered Accountant
annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO
shall have the right to have the accounts re-audited
by any other qualified auditor and the expenses
so incurred shall be borne by the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this
office by the Auditors directly within six months
after the closing of the financial year from 1st
April to 31st March. The format of the balance
sheet and the information to be furnished in the
report shall be prescribed by the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation and made available
with the RPFC office in electronic format as well
as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the
relaxation withdrawn from the first day of the
next succeeding financial year.
25.
Any loss for the three consecutive financial years
or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
26.
The employer shall provide for such facilities for
inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause
(a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15
days from the close of every month.
27.
In the event of any violation of the conditions for
grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28.
In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any
fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29.
In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger,
acquisition, sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary,
whether wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted
shall stand revoked and the establishment should promptly
report the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30.
In case there are more than one unit/establishment
participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all
the trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/
responsible for any default committed by any of the
trustees/employer of any of the participating units and
the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the
trustees of the common Provident Fund Trust.
31.
The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
ubZ fnYyh] 7 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2946-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
7282
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fuxe fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 54@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
05@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th November, 2014
S.O.
2946.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 54/2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Bharat sanchar Nigam Limited and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 05/11/2014.
[No. L-42025/03/2014-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present:Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 8th day of October, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.54/2006
Between:
Sri K.V.V. Prasad,
S/o Ramaiah,
C/o Pala Venkat Rao,
Gaddalagunta Palem,
Ongole,
Prakasam District.
...Petitioner
AND
1.
The Chief General Manager
(Telecom), B.S.N.L.,
A.P. Circle,
Door Sanchar Bhawan,
Nampally Station Road,
Hyderabad.
2.
The General Manager
(Telecom), B.S.N.L.,
Ongole,
Prakasam district.
...Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. V. Govinda Rajulu & A.V.
Rama Rao, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
Sri MC. Jacob, Advocate
AWARD
This petition filed invoking Sec.2 A (2) of the I.D.
Act, 1947 by Sri K.V.V. Prasad, the workman seeking
for declaring the action of the Respondents in disengaging
the Petitioner as illegal, void, arbitrary and contrary to
the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the
Indian Constitution and consequently direct the
Respondents to reengage the Petitioner and regularize
his services with all consequential benefits.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are
as follows:
Petitioner was appointed as casual mazdoor in the
Respondent organization and worked without any
complaint till September, 1999 and further upto
31.12.2000 on ACG-17, on voucher payment under
SDOT, Ongole as and when the work exists. From
1.6.1984 to 31.8.1992 he worked for 1818 days under
the Assistant Engineer, Railway Electrification (P&T)
Madras; from 1.8.1993 to 31.1.1994 he worked for 152
days; from 31.3.1996 to 31.12.1996 worked for 282 days;
from 31.1.1997 to 31.12.1997 for 231 days; from 1.1.1998
to 31.8.1998 for 225 days – he worked under SDOT,
Ongole and from 1.9.1998 to 30.9.1999 he worked under
SDE (F-10B) New Telephone, Ongole for 273 days. Thus,
the Petitioner worked for 2981 days in total in the
Respondent organization as casual mazdoor. Thereafter
he was engaged on ACG -17 basis till 31.12.2000. Since
1.10.2001 he was not reengaged and he was not
regularized as in the case of other casual mazdoors who
were regularized though they are juniors to the Petitioner
in all aspects. Since the year 2001 the officials of the 2nd
Respondent office informing the Petitioners that they
will reengage him whenever there is work and
subsequently regularization shall be made. But for the
reasons not known to the Petitioner he was never reengage
till date in any kind of work. He worked for more than
240 days in the year 1996 and 1998-99. He did not stop
away from work at any point of time on his volition.
Disengagement of the Petitioner is illegal, dishonest and
enforceable. Respondent reengaged number of his juniors
as mazdoors and they were regularized by granting
temporary status in Group-D posts. Petitioner possesses
the requisite qualification for reengagement and
conferment of temporary status and for regularization of
his service. Despite making representations to the
Respondents his case was not considered. The last
representation is made on 19.5.2005. The action of the
management is in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the
Indian Constitution and violation of Sections 25(F), 25(H)
and 25(G) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the
Petitioner has been working since the year 1984 and
disengaged from 1.1.2001, the case of the Petitioner for
regularization is very much prior to the year 1998, thus,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7283
the imposition of ban in recruitment in Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd., is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner.
Hence, the petition.
2.
Respondents filed a counter with the averments
in brief as follows:
Petitioner never worked under SDOT, Ongole. The
working days certificate submittd by the Petitioner in the
Railway Electrification Project was found bogus and as
such he was given one month notice by proceedings dated
7.12.1993 and his engagement was terminated w.e.f.
1.4.1994 by proceedings dated 28.3.1994. Since his
services were terminated for producing bogus certificates
after giving 30 days of notice of termination, the entire
contentions made by the Petitioner are liable to be
rejected. The question of seniority etc claimed by the
Petitioner does not arise. Petitioner’s contention that
authorities told him that he will be reengaged
subsequently etc are brought in only for the purpose of
this proceedings and is liable to be rejected. His
contention that he worked till September, 1999 and
worked upto 31.12.2001 on ACG-17 is specifically
denied. The list of casual mazdoors engaged by the
Respondents during the said period does not bear
Petitioner’s name. The contentions raised basing on the
working days is also liable to be rejected. The Petitioner's
contentions regarding the period of work is denied and
the certificate produced by the Petitioner in this regard
was found bogus and he was disengaged by the authorities
on 1.1.1994. since he was never engaged, question of
regularization on completion of 240 days etc., will not
arise as per rules. No one by name the Petitioner worked
with the Department during the period upto 31.12.2000.
Contentions of the Petitioner that the Respondent
authorities violated proceedings of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and Constitution of India is untenable and liable
to be rejected. Petitioner never challenged the
proceedings issued as early as 17.12.1993 and 28.3.1994
wherein he was directed to produce the original
documents for verification of work days before
30.11.1993 and he could not produce the certificates. The
present proceedings attract delay, latches on the part of
the Petitioner. Petitioner is not entitled for any of the
reliefs sought for and the petition is liable to be dismissed
with costs.
3.
To substantiate the contentions of the Petitioner he
examined himself as WW1 and marked Ex.W1 to W7.
On behalf of the Respondent management, chief
examination affidavit of MW1 was filed. But MW1 was
not cross examined for the Petitioner though the said
witness was present again and again before the court and
ample opportunity was given to the Petitioner to cross
examine him. Through MW1, Ex.M1 to Ex.M3 marked.
4.
Heard the arguments.
5.
The points that arise for determination are:-
I.
Whether the action of the Respondent management
in disengaging the Petitioner is illegal, void,
arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and Indian Constitution and if
so on what grounds?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for the reliefs
sought for?
6.
Point No.I:
It is the contention of the Petitioner that he worked
as casual mazdoor with the Respondent organization for
about 2981 days, but his services were not regularized
and temporary status in Group-D category was never
confirmed on him though he was entitled for the same
and on the other hand he was disengaged by the
Respondent organization since 1.1.2001, which is
neither legal nor justified. He is relying upon his own
evidence as WW1 and Ex.W1 to W7 in this regard.
7.
Ex.W1 is the Photostat copy of representation dated
19.5.2002 said to have been given by the Petitioner to
the Respondent organization. This documents does not
bear signature of the Petitioner or any other person. It
does not bear any acknowledgement of the Respondent
authorities to show that this representation was actually
submitted to the Respondent organization by the
Petitioner. Ex.W2 is said to have been a certificate issued
by Asst. Engineer, Railway Electrification, which is a
copy of the document but not original. The signatory of
this document is not examined to prove the same. Same
is the case with Ex.W3 to W7, the copies of mazdoor
days certificates. The person who issued these documents
is not examined before the court by the Petitioner. This
lapse assumes importance in this case since it is the
contention of the Respondent that Petitioner’s services
were terminated by the Respondent since it was found
that the service certificates produced by him were not
genuine documents and when he was asked to produce
original service certificates in the year 1994, he failed to
produce the same his services were terminated by virtue
of order dated 28.3.1994 after giving due notice to him.
The fact remains that even in the present petition
proceedings, Petitioner never produced any original
certificates.
8.
To substantiate the contentions of the Respondent
that the services of the Petitioner were terminated by
virtue of orders dated 28.3.1994, Respondent produced
the attested copies of proceedings dated 28.3.1994 and
also 17.12.1993. They also produced attested copy of
mazdoor list from 1993 to 1998 to show that Petitioner
never worked as mazdoor with the said organization
during this period. The evidence of MW1 remains
unchallenged, as the Petitioner never chosen to cross
examine MW1 inspite of giving ample opportunity to
7284
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
him. MW1 categorically stated in his deposition that the
working days certificate submitted by the Petitioner in the
Railway Electrification Project was found to be bogus and
as such he was given one month notice vide proceedings
dated 17.12.1993 and his engagement was terminated w.e.f.
1.4.1994 by proceedings dated 28.3.1994, for submission
of bogus certificates. He categorically contended that the
contention of the Petitioner that he worked with
Respondent organization upto 31.12.2001 is totally
incorrect ant that the mazdoor list maintained by the
Respondent organization clearly show that Petitioner
never worked with the said organization as being claimed
by him.
9.
In view of the above discussion, evidence on record,
it is very much clear that the contentions put forth by the
Petitioner are far from truth and that his services were
disengaged by the Respondent organization by virtue of
proceedings dated 28.3.1994 for the reason that he
produced bogus service certificates, and that there is no
truth in the contentions of the Petitioner that he was
disengaged by the Respondent corporation from 1.1.2001.
This point is answered accordingly.
10.
Point No. II:
In view of the finding given in Point No.I, Petitioner
is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for.
This point is answered accordingly.
Result:
In the result, petition is dismissed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for
Petitioner
the Respondent
WW1: Sri K.V.V. Prasad
MW1: Sri I. Srinivasa Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photostat copy of representation by WW1 to
Respondent dt.19.5.2005
Ex.W2:
Photostat copy of service certificate for the
period from 1.6.1984 to 31.1.1992
Ex.W3:
Photostat copy of mazdoor days certificate for
the period from 1.8.1993 to 31.1.1994
Ex.W4:
Photostat copy of mazdoor days certificate for
the period from 21.3.1996 to 31.12.1996
Ex.W5:
Photostat copy of mazdoor days certificate for
the period from 31.1.1997 to 31.12.1997
Ex.W6:
Photostat copy of mazdoor days certificate for
the period from 1.1.1998 to 31.8.1998
Ex.W7:
Photostat copy of mazdoor days certificate for
the period from 1.9.1998 to 31.5.1999
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photostat copy of mazdoor list from 1993 to
1998
Ex.M2:
Photostat copy of proceedings dated
17.12.1993
Ex.M3:
Photostat copy of proceedings dated 28.3.1994
ubZ fnYyh] 7 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2947-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jktLFkku
ijek.kq fo|qr ?kj ;wfuV 1&6 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;] t;iqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 66@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 05@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@05@2006&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th November, 2014
S.O.
2947.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 66/2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Rajasthan Parmanu Vidyut Ghar
Unit 1 to 6 and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 05/11/2014.
[No. L-42012/05/2006-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D.66/2006
Reference No.L-42012/5/2006-IR(DU)
dated: 28.9.2006
The Gen. Secretary
Rajasthan Anushakti Pariyojna
Karamchari Sangh, (INTUC)
Pratap Circle, Rawatbhata Via Kota
Rawatbhata (Kota)-323307.
V/s
The Station Director
Rajasthan Parmanu Vidyut Ghar
Unit 1 to 6, Rawatbhata (Kota).
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7285
Present:
For the Applicant Union :
None.
For the Non-applicant
:
Sh. Dharmendra Jain, Adv.
AWARD
30.9.2014
1.
The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of sub-section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:-
“Whether the demand of the Rajasthan Anushakti
Pariyojna Karamchari Sangh for grant of Promotion
to Shri Deepak Anjana as skilled ‘D’ w.e.f. 1.11.2001
is legal & justified? If yes, to what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to and from which date?”
2.
Pursuant to the reference order dated 28.9.2006 a
case was registered as CGIT case no,66/2006. Registered
notices were sent to both the parties on 21.11.2006 fixing
20.12.2006 for filing of claim. The court became vacant on
4.7.2006 due to retirement of the then Presiding Officer Sh.
R.C.Sharma. Regional Labour Commissioner Sh.
M.C.Sharma was in-charge of the court & the case was
registered under his seal & signature. Notices sent vide
order dated 16.11.2006 were treated not served because of
non receipt of the acknowledgement back to the court.
3.
The next presiding officer took charge on 3.9.2009 &
judicial working started taking place in the file for
advancement of the case. As per order dated 27.11.2009
notices were sent to both the parties fixing 6.1.2010 for
filing statement of claim. Acknowledgement concerned
with applicant as well as opposite party is available on
record which indicates that notices have been served upon
the parties. On 21.5.2010 learned counsel for opposite party
appeared & filed his vakalatnama on behalf of Station
Director. Vakalatnama has been filed by learned counsel
for the applicant on 23.12.2010 & opportunity has been
given for filing statement of claim by 3.3.2011. Prior to
3.3.2011 on 28.10.2010 opportunity was given to applicant
to file statement of claim & authority letter by 23.12.2010
& further this opportunity of filing statement of claim was
extended till 3.3.2011.
4.
Orders sheet dated 3.3.2011 indicates that time was
taken by applicant to get the statement of claim signed so
that the same may be filed by next date hence, till 11.4.2011
opportunity was given to file statement of claim. On
11.4.2011 also statement of claim was not filed & it was
alleged that after securing the signature statement of claim
will be filed hence, 27.6.2011 date fixed for filing statement
of claim. On 27.6.2011 claim was not filed. After 27.6.2011
eighteen dates have been given but till now statement of
claim has not been filed. On 1.4.2014 representative of the
union Sh. P.B. Sharma (Retired) appeared & moved
adjournment for time to file statement of claim which was
granted with last opportunity & 1.5.2014 was fixed for filing
statement of claim yet claim was not filed. On 1.5.2014
none appeared from both sides & 3.6.2014 was fixed for
further order. On 3.6.2014 Presiding Officer was on leave,
applicant was absent & opposite party was present. Next
date 7.7.2014 was fixed on 3.6.2014. From 7.7.2014 till
15.9.2014 learned counsels were on strike hence no adverse
order was passed for not filing statement of claim. On
25.8.2014 date was fixed for filing statement of claim by
15.9.2014 but after the end of the strike by the learned
counsels also statement of claim has not been filed till
date fixed on 29.9.2014.
5.
Looking into above facts & circumstances & the
lack of the interest in applicant to continue proceeding of
the case & non-appearance, the case was reserved for
award.
6.
It is evident from the entire proceeding taken up by
the tribunal to adjudicate the reference that the applicant
is not interested in bringing the claim for adjudication
before the tribunal. Long interval between the date of
service of notice & date of reservation of award has failed
to peruse the applicant to file the claim although at one
occasion on 3.3.2011. It has been alleged that only
signature of applicant is required before filing the
statement of claim. It is pertinent to note that applicant
has been served in person & acknowledgement is available
on record. Beside this it is also important to note that the
Hon’ble Ministry vide reference order dated 28.9.2006 has
mandated the applicant to file the case before the tribunal
within 15 days from the date of receipt of the reference
forwarding the copy of such statement of claim to opposite
parties involved in the dispute. Failure on the part of
applicant to comply of the order of the Ministry & direction
of the court to file statement of claim is indicative of the
fact that applicant is not having any interest to pursue the
case further. Under above circumstances, no material could
be brought on record for adjudication of the reference
order under consideration on merits, therefore, “No Claim
Award” is passed in this matter. The reference under
adjudication is answered accordingly.
7.
Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2948-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr gSoh
bysfDVªdYl fyfeVsM] jkuhisV ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
7286
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 64@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 05@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@55@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th November, 2014
S.O.
2948.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 64/2014)
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 Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,
Ranipet and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 05/11/2014
[No. L-42011/55/2014-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 21st October, 2014
Present:
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 64/2014
(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 Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and
their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
Anaithu Oppandha
Thozhilalar Sangam
BAP/BHEL/Ranipet
Chennai-632406
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Senior Manager/HR-IR
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
Boiler Auxilaries Plant,
Indira Gandhi
Industrial Complex
Ranipet
Chennai-632406
2nd Party/Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
:
Sri S. Parthasarathi, Advocate
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/
:
Sri F.B. Benjamin George,
Management
Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-42011/55/2014-IR
(DU) dated 05.08.2014 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the management of BHEL,
Ranipet in not considering the charter of demands
of the representative of the Petitioner Union is
justified or not? If not, to what relief the employees
are entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID No. 64/2014 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides entered appearance through their
counsel.
3.
Though Vakalat was filed on behalf of the petitioner,
the petitioner has failed to file Claim Statement in spite
of repeating postings. The petitioner as well as the counsel
were continuously absent also. The petitioner seems to
be not interested in pursuing the case. No material of
any kind has been tendered to justify an award. So the
reference is answered against the petitioner.
4.
An award is passed accordingly.
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
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 7 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2949-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jk"Vªh; oL=k
fuxe fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa 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 69@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 05@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@18@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7287
New Delhi, the 7th November, 2014
S.O.
2949.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 69/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the National Textiles Corporation Ltd.
and Others and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 05/11/2014.
[No. L-42011/18/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 15th October, 2014
Present :
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 69/2013
(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 National Textiles Corporation Ltd.,
Coimbatore and Another and their workmen)
Between :
1. The Secretary
:
1st Party/1st Petitioner
Anna Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam
Union
(ATP)
M/s. Pioneer Spinners,
Kamudhakudi, Paramakudi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram Distt.
2. The Secretary
:
1st Party/2nd Petitioner
Dr. Ambedkar Thozhilalar Sangam
Union
M/s. Pioneer Spinners,
Kamudhakudi, Paramakudi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram Distt.
3. The Secretary
:
1st Party/3rd Petitioner
Mill Thozhilalar Sangam (AITUC)
Union
M/s. Pioneer Spinners,
Kamudhakudi,
Paramakudi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram Distt.
AND
1. The General Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
National Textiles Corporation Ltd.
SRO, NTC House, PO Box No. 2409
25-B, Somasundaram Mills Road
Coimbatore-641009
2. The General Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
M/s. Pioneer Spinners
Kamudhakudi, Paramakudi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram-623719
Appearances:
For the 1st Party/
:
M/s. Ramapriya
Petitioner Unions
Gopalakrishnan, Advocate
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-42011/18/2013-IR(DU)
dated 24.05.2013 referred th following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the NTC Management
Southern Region/Coimbatore and M/s. Pioneer
Spinners Mill, Kamudakudi in respect of not
allowing the Petitioner Unions to raise Industrial
Dispute for common/general issues which fall under
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is justified or not? To
what relief the unions ae entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID No. 69/2013 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
counsel and have filed chaim and counter statement
respectively.
3.
The case has been repeatedly posted for enquiry.
However, the petitioner as well as the counsel are absent.
The petitioner has not taken steps to proceed with the
trial in spite of repeated postings and directions. So, it is
to be presumed that the petitioner is not interested in
proceeding with the case. Therefore the ID is closed.
The reference is answered accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Unions
:
None
For the 2nd Party/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] 7 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2950-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jk"Vªh; oL=k
fuxe fyfeVsM] ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
7288
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 70@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
05@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@19@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th November, 2014
S.O.
2950.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 70/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the National Textiles Corporation Ltd.
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 05/11/2014.
[No. L-42011/19/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 15th October, 2014
Present :
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 70/2013
(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 National Textile Corporation Ltd.,
Coimbatore and their workmen)
BETWEEN
The Secretary
: 1st Party/Petitioner
Sivagangai District Workers
Union
Union (AITUC)
1/87, Thondi Road
Kalayarkoil
And Three Others
AND
The Sr. Manager (HR)-L
: 2nd Party/
National Textile Corporation Ltd.
Respondent
NTC House, P.O. Box No. 2409
35-B, Somasundaram Mills Road
Coimbatore - 641009
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
:
M/s. Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan,
Petitioner Union
Advocate
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-42011/19/2013-
IR(DU) dated 24.05.2013 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the management of NTC
Ltd., Kalayarkoil in respect of not considering the
demands of the non-recognized Union is justified
or not? To what relief the representatives of the
Petitioner Unions are entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID No. 70/2013 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
counsel and have filed claim and counter statement
respectively.
3.
The case has been repeatedly posted for enquiry.
However, the petitioner as well as the counsel are absent.
The petitioner has not taken steps to proceed with the
trial in spite of repeated postings and directions. So, it is
to be presumed that the petitioner is not interested in
proceeding with the case. Therefore the ID is closed.
The reference is answered accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/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] 7 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2951-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d] Jh
jaxkfoykl vksVkbZ fLifuax ,aM ohfoax feYl] dks;EcVwj] 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 50@2013) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@212@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7289
New Delhi, the 7th November, 2014
S.O.
2951.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 50/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the General Manager, Sri Rangavilas
Ginning Spinning & Weaving Mills, Coimbatore and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 05/11/2014.
[No. L-42011/212/2012-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 15th October, 2014
Present :
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 50/2013
(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 Rangavilas Ginning, Spinning and
Weaving Mills and their workmen)
BETWEEN
The Secretary
:
1st Party/
Coimbatore Erode District
Petitioner
Dravida Panchalai
Union
Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam (MLF)
VKK Menon Road,
Sidhdhapudur
Coimbatore-641044
AND
The General Manager
:
2nd Party/
Sri Rangavilas Ginning Spinning
Respondent
and Weaving Mills,
333, Avinashi Road,
PO Box No. 1604, Peelamedu Post)
Coimbatore
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
:
M/s. Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan,
Petitioner Union
Advocate
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-42011/212/2012-
IR(DU) dated 15.04.2013 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the management of
Sri Rangavilas Ginning, Spinning and Weaving
Mills, Coimbatore in respect of not holding
discussions with Petitioner Unions viz. MLF, AITUC,
ATP, HMS and BMS for engaging woman workers
during third shift and introducing Contract Labour
system in the permanent vacancies is justified or
not? To what relief the petitioners are entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID No. 50/2013 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
counsel and have filed claim and counter statement
respectively.
3.
The case has been repeatedly posted for enquiry.
However, the petitioner as well as the counsel are absent.
The petitioner has not taken steps to proceed with the
trial in spite of repeated postings and directions. So, it is
to be presumed that the petitioner is not interested in
proceeding with the case. Therefore the ID is closed.
The reference is answered accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/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] 13 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2952-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkiQ
cSMksnk 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; v:ukdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
4@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@78@2009&vkbZvkj (ch-&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
7290
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2014
S.O.
2952.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 4/2010)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the Bank
of Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 05/11/2014.
[No. L-12011/78/2009-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present:
Shri.D.Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding Officer
(Wednesday the 27th day of July, 2014/5th Bhadrapada, 1936)
ID 4/2010
Workman
: Shri K Vijayakumaran Nair T.C.41/1171,
Lalitha Bhawan ARWA-2, Kuriathi
Manacaud P O Thiruvananthapuram
By Adv. Shri M S Vijayachandra Babu
Management : The General Manager(SZ) Bank of Baroda
Zonal Office 90, CP Ramaswamy Road,
Alwar Pet Chennai
By M/s. B. S. Krishnan Associates
This case coming up for final hearing on 13.08.2014
and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 27.08.2014 passed
the following:
AWARD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government
of India/Ministry of Labour vide its Order No-L-12011/78/
2009-IR(B-II) dated 23.11.2009 has referred the industrial
dispute Scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this
tribunal.
2.
The dispute is:
‘‘Whether the action of the management of Bank of
Baroda in removing Shri K Vijayakumaran Nair, ex-
Computer Operator working at its Thodupuzha
Branch from the service of the bank was proper and
justified? To what relief he is entitled to?’’
3.
The workman had joined as Stenographer in the
service of the management bank in 1981. While he was
working as Computer Operator at the Fort Branch,
Trivandrum he was transferred to Thodupuzha Branch on
11.08.2005. He had joined there on 19.08.2005. While he
was working there disciplinary action was initiated against
him by issuing chargesheet dated 10.08.2006. The charges
levelled against him are as under:-
“1.
Willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the
property of the Bank or any of its customer under
clause 5(d) of the Bipartite Settlement.
2.
Willful insubordination or disobedience of any
lawful and reasonable order of the management
or of a superior- under clause 5(e) of Bipartite
Settlement.
3.
Doing act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank
or gross negligence or negligence involving or
likely to involve the bank in serious loss- under
clause 5(j) of Bipartite Settlement.
4.
Remaining unauthorisedly absent without
intimation continuously for a period exceeding 30
days under clause 5(p).
5.
Failure to submit details of your assets and
liabilities – under clause 37(ii) of the Bipartite
Settlement dated 2.6.2006.
6.
Incurring debts to an extent considered by the
management as excessive – under clause 7(1) of
Bipartite Settlement.
7.
Absence without leave – under clause 7(a) of the
Bipartite Settlement.
8.
Unpunctual or irregular attendance – under clause
7(b) of the Bipartite Settlement.
9.
Neglect of work or negligence in performing duties
– clause 7(c) of the Bipartite Settlement.”
4.
The charges levelled against him are on the basis
of the allegations in the charge sheet which reads as
follows:
“1.
You were relieved from Fort Branch, Trivandrum
on 11.08.2005 on your transfer to Thodupuzha
branch and consequently, your SOD account with
Fort Branch, Trivandrum was closed. Although the
account was closed, you did not surrender the
remaining/unused cheque leaves nor you informed
details of the cheques in your possession/cheques
already issued by you in respect of the said account.
The following cheques of your closed SOD account
presented at Fort branch,Trivandrum, were to be
returned unpaid:
(i)
Cheque No.24934 dated 7.11.2005 for
` 1910/- favouring HDFC Bank presented
at Fort branch, Trivandrum & returned on
7.11.2005.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7291
(ii)
Cheque No.211614 dated 8.11.2005 for
` 1371/- favouring HSBC Bank presented
at Fort branch, Trivandrum & returned on
8.11.2005.
(iii)
Cheque No.211615 dated 05.12.2005 for
` 1371/- favouring HSBC Bank presented
at Fort branch, Trivandrum & returned on
6.12.2005.
(iv)
Cheque No.24935 dated 7.12.2005 for
` 1910/- favouring HDFC Bank presented
at Fort branch, Trivandrum & returned on
07.12.2005.
(v)
Cheque No.211616 dated 05.01.2006 for
` 1371/- favouring HSBC Bank presented
at Fort branch, Trivandrum & returned on
6.01.2006.
(vi)
Cheque No.24936 dated 09.01.2006 for
` 1910/- favouring HDFC Bank presented
at Fort branch, Trivandrum & returned on
09.01.2006.
(vii)
Cheque No.211617 dated 05.02.2006 for
` 1371/- favouring HSBC Bank presented
at Forth branch, Trivandrum & returned on
7.02.2006.
(viii)
Cheque No.24937 dated 08.02.2006 for
` 1910/- favouring HDFC Bank presented
at Fort branch, Trivandrum & returned on
08.02.2006.
(ix)
Cheque No.211617 dated 05.02.2006 for
` 1371/- favouring HSBC Bank re-
presented at Fort branch, Trivandrum &
returned on 14.02.2006.
(x)
Cheque No.24938 dated 07.03.2006 for
` 1910/- favouring HDFC Bank presented
at Fort branch, Trivandrum & returned on
08.03.2006.
(xi)
Cheque No.24939 dated 07.04.2006 for
` 1910/- favouring HDFC Bank returned
on 08.04.2006.
(xii)
Cheque No.24940 dated 07.05.2006 for
` 1910/- favouring HDFC Bank returned
on 08.05.2006.
(xiii)
Cheque No.24941 dated 7-6-06 for
` 1910/- fvg. HDFC Bank returned on
8-6-06.
(xiv)
Cheque No.24942 dated 7-7-06 for ` 1910/- fvg.
HDFC Bank returned on 8-7-06.
(xv)
Cheque No.24943 dated 7-8-06 for ` 1910/- fvg.
HDFC Bank returned on 8-8-06.
2.
Our Thodupuzha branch has received the following
written complaints regarding your conduct of financial
matters:
(i)
Complaint received on 6.12.2005 from one
Ms.K Radhamma from Trivandrum stating that
you borrowed ` 25,000/- from her in July,
2004, (while you were posted at Fort,
Trivandrum branch), which is not repaid.
(ii)
Complaint dated 25.04.2006 from one Mr.
P.A.Ashraff, Thodupuzha, stating that you
have borrowed ` 23,000/- from him which is
not repaid.
3.
You were issued letter No.BR:STF:13/281 dated
26.4.2006 by Thodupuzha branch to submit statement of
your assets and liabilities within 4 days. However you
failed to comply with the instructions.
4.
Thodupuzha branch has also reported about
complaints/calls over phone received from the following
persons:
20.09.2005
-
Call from SBI Card Manager Mr. Ajit.
29.10.2005
-
One Mr.Suresh from HDFC Bank Credit
Card Dvn, Trivandrum called at 10 a.m.
14.11.2005
– Call from Trivandrum at 5.30 pm
revealing that the call is from Police
Commissioner, Trivandrum. Identifying
Mr. Abdullah Ahmed, talked regarding
loan of ` 40,000/- from HDFC Bank.
Again there was a call for you at around
6.20 pm
13.12.2005
– One Ms.Radhamma called from
Trivandrum for ` 25,000/- plus interest
for one and half years. Her complaint in
writing was received on 6.12.2005.
13.12.2005
– call from HSBC Bank around 2 pm.
13.03.2006
– One Mr. Jibu came and told that you
borrowed ` 15,000/- from Mangattukavala
area and ` 3,000/- & ` 2,000/- from
different persons.
20.04.2006
– Call from Mr.Arun, HDFC Bank,
Trivandrum regarding ` 70,000/-
overdues.
21.04.2006
– Call from Mr.Biju John, HDFC Bank,
Cochin regarding ` 70,000/- overdues.
24.04.2006
– One Chandra from Kizhakkekotta called
regarding dues of ` 10,000+
` 13,000/-.
5.
You had remained unauthroisedly absent from
17.04.2006 to 24.06.2006. In the recent past, you were
absent on the following dates
7292
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8.11.2005, 9.11.2005, 18.11.2005, 5.12.2005 &
6.12.2005.
Your loss of pay as on 25.6.2006 stands at 181 days.
6.
On 30.1.2006 around 1.20 pm you shouted at Ms.
Smilu Babu, Agrl. Officer, in the Banking Hall as under:
“Why you are telling that I am pretending to be
sick, when I am actually sick”
On 6.4.2006 around 11.40 am, Mr. P B Sasi, a
customer tendered cash along with paying in slip
to the cashier Mr. V. Krishnankutty. He (Cashier)
asked you to put the receipts serial number. You
then shouted at the cashier why he has accepted
the cash before scrolling.
It is also reported that there are occasional outbursts
from you in the Banking Hall which adversely affect
the Bank’s image/business.
7.
It is reported that while you were working as
Computer Operator at Thodupuzha Branch, one
Ms.Sujathamol, holder of SB a/c No.3218 had handed
over to you ` 800/- in cash along with pay-in-slip for
crediting the amount in her SB a/c. You had accepted
the cash from her on that day and entered the amount in
passbook and initialed for having received and credited
the amount for ` 800/- in her SB account. However, on
her next visit to the branch on 22-6-06 for withdrawing,
she noticed that the balance in her SB account was only
` 100/- and ` 800/- handed over to you on 10-10-05 has
not been accounted for, although necessary entry of
depositing ` 800/- was made by you in the passbook. It
has resulted in complaint made by her vide letter dated
22-6-06 to Branch Manager with regard to non-credit of
` 800/- in her account. You have not deposited ` 800/-
in the above account and also made false entry in SB
passbook given to Sujathamol. Further you had admitted
the same vide your letter dated 11-7-2006".
5.
Mr. M C George, Senior Branch Manager, Aluva
Branch was appointed as the enquiry officer to enquire
into the charges levelled against him. After conducting
enquiry the enquiry officer submitted enquiry report after
finding that all the charges except charge Nos.7 and 8
levelled against him were proved in the enquiry. The
disciplinary authority accepted the findings and imposed
the penalty of “Removal from Bank’s service with
superannuation benefits, i.e. Pension and/or PF Gratuity
as would be due otherwise under the rules or regulations
prevailing at the relevant time”. The workman filed an
appeal challenging the imposition of penalty before the
Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority did not
interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority but
as the wording of punishment was not in conformity with
the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action
Procedure dated 10.04.2002 it was changed as “Removal
from the service with superannuation benefits i.e., pension
and/or provident fund and gratuity as would be due
otherwise under the rules or regulations prevailing at the
relevant time and without disqualification from future
employment”.
6.
After appearance before this Tribunal workman filed
claim statement challenging the validity of the enquiry on
the grounds that there is violation of the principles of
natural justice in conducting the enquiry and that the
findings of the enquiry officer are perverse as the same
were entered into without having proper appreciation of
the evidence. The legality of the punishment imposed on
him is challenged on the ground that it is grossly
disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled
against him. The allegations in the chargesheet are
disputed by stating that the 15 cheques, each one not
exceeding ` 1,910/-, were issued for loan repayment to
HDFC, HSBC Bank and SBI from his staff overdraft account
maintained in the Fort branch before his transfer to
Thodupuzha branch and that those cheques were
happened to be bounced since his account in the Fort
branch was closed after his transfer. The bouncing of the
cheques was not on financial reasons but on technical
grounds. Later he paid the amount and cleared the dues.
Out of the total amount of ` 48,000/- borrowed from Smt
K Radhamma and Shri P A Ashraff ` 45,500/- was repaid
and the balance amount of ` 2,500/- was also repaid
subsequently. He had submitted the statement of assets
and liabilities on 02.05.2006 and it was not verified by the
enquiry officer. There is no evidence in the enquiry to
prove that the calls received over phone were either from
borrowers or their representatives. The unauthorized
absence was due to the refusal of the branch Manager to
permit him to rejoin duty after his treatment in Chelsa
Hospital, Trivandrum from 17.04.2006 to 24.06.2006. When
he had approached with medical certificate to rejoin duty
he was directed to appear before the medical board of
Idukki District for medical examination but the medical
board did not conduct any medical examination. On
realizing it the Regional Office directed the branch
authorities to permit him to rejoin duty. There is no
unauthorized absence from duty and the absence from
duty was solely due to the unreasonable and unjustifiable
stand taken by the branch authorities in not allowing him
to join duty without report from the medical board. There
is no evidence to prove the allegations as to shouting
against colleagues and the non-remittance of amount given
by Smt Sujathamol. At the time of removal from service he
was at the age of fifty two years and was having twenty
six years of service. The management credited the
provident fund and gratuity amount towards the loan
amount availed by him for constructing a residential
building without a proper application and without
considering his request for selling the house and remitting
the dues to the bank. It is due to the personal interest of
the Manager of the Thodupuzha branch all the minor
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7293
issues were clubbed together to make a major charge
against him. The removal from service is illegal and hence
he is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service
and all other consequential benefits.
7.
Management filed written statement reiterating the
charges and the supporting allegations in the chargesheet
and contending that the enquiry was conducted in
accordance with law and in full compliance with the
principles of natural justice. All the charges except charge
Nos.7 & 8 were found to be proved by the enquiry officer
after having a proper appreciation of the evidence in
relation to the charges levelled against him. The
disciplinary authority imposed the punishment based on
the findings of the enquiry officer and after considering
all the aspects of the case and the submissions of the
workman. The appeal preferred by him before the
Appellate Authority was dismissed and it is not correct
to say that the punishment was modified by the Appellate
Authority. The punishment imposed on him is not
disproportionate to the gravity of the misconducts proved
against him and it is proper, legal and justified. He had
a previous history of being punished for issuing cheques
without having sufficient funds in his account and also
for other financial indiscipline. At the time of removal from
service an amount of ` 9,13,318/- was due to the management
bank and the same was adjusted from his terminal benefits
and the balance amount of ` 1,37,093/- was credited to his
housing loan account No.2. Those adjustments were made
as per his oral request. Management has also granted
permission to sell his house which was mortgaged with
the bank subject to certain conditions. Afterwards the
workman settled all the dues and the title deeds of his
properties were released. There is no need to interfere
with the punishment imposed on him and an award can be
passed holding that the removal of the workman from
service is proper and justified and hence he is not entitled
to any relief.
8.
Workman did not file any rejoinder.
9.
As the validity of the enquiry was under challenge
it was heard treating it as a preliminary issue. For the
purpose of deciding it management produced the enquiry
file and got it marked as Ext.M1 by examining the enquiry
officer as MW1. After hearing both sides the enquiry
was found to be invalid vide order dated 24.11.2011. After
that management was given opportunity to adduce
evidence to prove the charges levelled against the
workman in view of the request made in the written
statement. Four more witnesses were examined from the
side of the management as MWs 2 to 5 and some of the
documents in the enquiry file were got marked as
Exts.M1(a) to M1(z) and Exts.M1(aa) to M1(ai). No
oral evidence was adduced from the side of the workman.
He had produced one document and the same was marked
as Ext.W1. After closing the evidence the arguments for
both sides were heard.
10.
The points for determination are:
(i)
Whether the management has succeeded in
proving all or any of the charges levelled
against the workman?
(ii)
Whether the punishment imposed on the
workman calls for any interference by this
Tribunal?
(iii)
Whether the action of the management in
removing the workman from the service of
the bank was proper and justified?
(iv)
Whether he is entitled to any relief?
11.
Point No.(i):- The charges numbered as 1 to 7,
9 and 10 in the chargesheet are based on the allegations
serially numbered as 1 to 7 in it. The enquiry officer
found that most of the charges are proved based on the
admission of the allegations by the workman in the
enquiry. The findings on the remaining charges were
entered into after considering the evidence in the enquiry.
As the enquiry was found to be invalid by this tribunal as
per Preliminary Order dated 24.11.2011 it is necessary
to have a detailed consideration of the evidence adduced
before this tribunal to prove the charges. The charges
are based on allegations 1 to 7 in the chargesheet. First
of all it is to be considered whether the management has
succeeded in proving those allegations.
12.
The first allegation is relating to the issuance of
15 cheques from the Staff Over Draft (SOD) account of
the workman with Fort Branch, Trivandrum. After
closing the account he was asked to surrender the unused
cheque leaves and to furnish the details of the cheques
already issued by him. Those 15 cheques are from the
SOD account of the workman is proved through the
production of Ext.M1(ag). The issuance of the cheques
and the dishonor of those cheques for the reason “account
closed” is not disputed by the workman. In order to prove
that the cheques were dishonoured after closing the
account Ext.M1(af) was produced by the management.
It will go to show that all those cheques were dishonoured
after closing the account. He was asked to surrender the
unused cheque leaves in his overdraft account and also
to submit details of all the cheques issued and not
presented for payment as per letter dated 04.05.2005
marked as Ext.M1(ah). He had given reply to it on
11.08.2005 marked as Ext.M1(ai) stating that he has no
unused cheque leaves in his possession and without giving
details as to the cheques already issued by him.
13.
In the chargesheet marked as Ext.M1(aa) it is
specifically stated that those cheques were issued by him
after closing the account and hence the same were
dishonoured for the reason “account closed”. In his reply
to the chargesheet dated 21.08.2006 marked as
Ext.M1(ab) his explanation is that those cheques are from
the 36 and 28 cheques issued for payment of monthly
7294
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
instalments towards the payment of the two loans availed
from HDFC and CITI finance and that the same were
happened to be dishonoured since those were presented
after closing his SOD account with the Fort Branch. In
para 6 of the claim statement it is stated that those
cheques were issued by him favouring either HDFC,
HSBC Bank, SBI being credit card/personal loan
repayments in Fort Branch and were dishonoured for the
reason ‘account closed’ as those were presented after
closing the account with the Fort Branch pursuant to his
transfer to Thodupuzha branch. There is not even an
iota of evidence in this case to prove that those cheques
were issued by him for the repayment of loans prior to
the closing of the account as alleged by him. Even if
those cheques were issued before closing the account then
also it was his bounden duty to state it in Ext.M1(ai)
reply to M1(ah) letter asking him to give the details of
the cheques already issued by him. Since all those
cheques are seen dishonoured after closing the SOD
account in the Fort branch and those cheques are bearing
dates subsequent to the closing of the account it cannot
easily be found that those cheques were issued prior to
the closing of the account especially in the absence of
any evidence to prove the same. His failure to furnish
the details of the cheques already issued by him in
Ext.M1(ai) cannot be said to be without any malafide
intention. If the cheques were already issued by him
before the closing of the account with the Fort branch he
could have informed it to the concerned financial
institutions. The dishonor of the cheques for the reason
‘account closed’ can be treated as an act prejudicial to
the interest of the bank. Hence it can be held that that
the first allegation is duly proved by the management
bank.
14.
The second allegation in the chargesheet is with
regard to the complaints made by Smt Radhamma and
Shri P A Ashraff, copies of which were respectively
marked as Exts.M1(a) and M1(b). Ext.M1(a) was
received in the bank on 06.12.2005 about the non-
payment of an amount of ` 25,000/- received by way of
loan by the workman from Smt Radhamma. M1(b) is the
letter dated 25.04.2006 and it is about the non-payment of
` 23,000/- availed by him by way of loan from Shri P A
Ashraff. In Ext.M1(ab), his explanation is that he had
borrowed ` 5,000/- and ` 3,000/- by way of loan from Smt
Radhamma and that he had repaid ` 3,000/- and for the
remaining ` 5,000/- he had issued a cheque. As he was
unable to pay monthly interest for about six months, she
tried to contact him at Thodupuzha branch over telephone.
In the case of Shri Ashraff, he was only a guarantor for the
loan of ` 23,000/- availed by his friend. Since his friend
had absconded Mr.Ashraf came to the branch to get the
interest. It is because of the threat of the Manager of the
Thodupuzha branch Shri N V Ouseph they had made
written complaints and Smt Radhamma claimed ` 25,000/-
as per his instruction. There is no evidence in this case to
satisfy that the amount borrowed from Smt Radhamma
was stated to be ` 25,000/- as per the instruction of the
then Manager Shri N V Ouseph. He had denied it during
his cross examination when he was examined as MW2.
15.
In para 7 of the claim statement it is expressly admitted
that he had borrowed a total amount of ` 48,000/-
from Smt K Radhamma and Shri P A Ashraf. It is stated
that ` 45,500/- was repaid and the balance was only
` 2,500/- and the same was also subsequently paid by
him. Explanation in Ext.M1(ab) is totally inconsistent with
the allegation in the claim statement. So it can very well be
held that he had borrowed a total amount of ` 48,000/-
from Smt Radhamma and Shri P A Asharaff and his
explanation with regard to the same in Ext. M1(ab) is a
cooked up one. Such complaints from borrowers will
tarnish the image of the bank. Hence management has
succeeded in proving the second allegation as to the
complaints of Smt Radhamma and Shri Asharaff.
16.
Whether it was excessive borrowing is a matter to
be decided by the management bank as the management
is having the discretion to decide the question as to
excessive borrowal by an employee. In Ext.M1(ae) reply
to the notice issued by the disciplinary authority proposing
penalty there is admission of borrowal of amounts from
several persons and its subsequent discharge. It is clearly
proved in this case that he had availed loans from several
financial institutions and private parties.
17.
Failure to submit his assets and liabilities by the
workman pursuant to the letter dated 26.04.2006 marked
as Ext.M1(c) is the third allegation levelled against him. In
Ext.M1(ab) explanation it was submitted by him that he
had furnished the statement of assets and liabilities and
once again submitting the same. In the claim statement it
is stated by him that it was submitted on 02.05.2006. No
evidence was adduced by him to prove that it was
submitted on that day. In this connection it is to be pointed
out that the workman was on leave from 17.04.2006 and
when he came to join duty on 26.04.2006 Ext.M1(c) was
issued calling upon him to submit the statement of assets
and liabilities and another letter marked as M1(w) advising
him to undergo medical examination at District General
Hospital, Thodupuzha without permitting him to rejoin
duty. Thereafter he was not allowed to join duty till
26.06.2006. In Ext.M1(u), the copy of the letter dated
26.06.2006 addressed by the Branch Manager to the
Assistant General Manager for getting instructions on
the leave applications and medical certificate submitted
by the workman, it is seen pointed out that the statement
of assets and liabilities was not furnished by him till that
date. As he was served the original of Ext.M1(c) on
26.04.2006 the statement was to be filed within four days
after the receipt of the same. It is not seen that any request
was made by him for extension of time for filing it. There is
failure on his part to submit statement within the time
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7295
provided for it. There is also no evidence to prove that it
was filed at any time before 26.06.2006. Hence it can be
held that the workman had failed to furnish the statement
of assets and liabilities as required by the management
which amounts to a gross misconduct.
18.
The fourth allegation is about the calls received in
the Thodupuzha branch from different persons including
those who made demands for repayment of the amounts
due to them. In Ext.M1(ab) explanation nothing is stated
about it by him except as to the call made by Smt
Radhamma. In para 8 of the claim statement after admitting
that several calls were received over phone while he was
working in Thodupuzha branch it is contended that no
evidence was adduced in the enquiry to prove that those
calls were either from borrowers or their representatives.
There is no reliable evidence in this case to prove that all
those calls were with regard to the amounts borrowed or
the loans availed by him. For the reason that there is no
specific denial with regard to that allegation in the
chargesheet in Ext.M1(ab) it is not sufficient enough to
hold that the calls were from borrowers. Merely on the
basis of phone calls without ascertaining the identity of
the persons it is not possible to arrive at a just conclusion
that such calls were actually made by persons from whom
he had borrowed money. The allegation cannot be said to
be proved with the available evidence in this case.
19.
The fifth allegation in the chargesheet is as to
unauthorized absence from 17.04.2006 to 24.06.2006 and
about his absence on 08.11.2005, 9.11.2005, 18.11.2005,
5.12.2005 and 6.12.2005 and also with regard to the absence
on loss of pay for 181 days upto 25.06.2006. The allegation
as to unauthorized absence from 17.04.2006 to 24.04.2006
was due to illness and the same was substantiated by
producing medical certificates. MW2 has also stated
during his cross examination that leave was already
granted for that period. Hence it cannot be held that he
was unauthorisedly absenting himself from duties from
17.04.2006 to 24.04.2006. The absence on the dates
specified in the chargesheet on loss of pay is proved
through the production of Ext.M1(m). He was absent on
those days and was on loss of pay. It is not disputed that
he was on loss of pay for 181 days upto 25.06.2006. Hence
it can be held that it is a case of unpunctual and irregular
attendance. He was absenting himself without prior
intimation and also without submitting leave application
in time.
20.
The sixth allegation is regarding the shouting by
the workman against Ms.Smilu Babu on 30.01.2006 around
1:20 pm while she was in the banking hall and also against
Mr. V Krishnankutty at about 11:40 am on 06.04.2006. There
is absolutely no evidence in this case to prove the
allegation as to shouting against Ms. Smilu Babu.
Shouting against Mr. V Krishnankutty who was the then
cashier is admitted by the workman in Ext.M1(ab)
explanation. But it is stated that Mr. Krishnankutty
received cash before putting scroll number in the pay-in-
slip and infuriated him when he was asked about it. In
Ext.M1(ab) it is stated that he had shouted after the reply
of Mr Krishnankutty. MW2, during his cross examination,
has stated that there was exchange of words between the
workman and Mr Krishnankutty and it was at that time the
workman shouted and the same does not deserve any
serious consideration. No action is seen to have been
taken against Mr Krishnankutty about it. The nature of
the shouting or the words used by the workman at the
time of shouting are not stated or proved by the
management. Hence it cannot be held that there was
shouting by the workman which calls for any action
against him.
21.
The seventh allegation is as to the misappropriation
of an amount of ` 800/- received by him from the customer
Ms Sujathamol for remittance in her SB A/c No.3218
without accounting it after making entry in her pass book.
In Ext.M1(ab) he has admitted the receipt of ` 800/- from
her on 10.10.2005. His explanation is that since she was
in a hurry to go entry was made in her pass book as per
the request made by her and because of the heavy work
on that day he failed to remit the amount. But later it
was remitted in her account and thereby the issue was
settled. Regarding the non-remittance of the amount Ms
Sujathamol made Ext.M1(d) complaint on 22.06.2006
after getting knowledge about the non-remittance when
she came to withdraw the amount from her SB account
on that day. The receipt of the amount is admitted by the
workman in the claim statement. Ext.M1(e), the
photocopy of the relevant pages of her passbook, would
go to show that entry was made in her passbook in respect
of that amount on 10.10.2005. Ext.M1(f) is the copy of
statement of accounts and the same will go to show that
no entry was made with respect to receipt of that amount
on 10.10.2005. Workman remitted an amount of ` 800/
- on 01.07.2006 and the same is evidenced by Ext.M1(g),
the copy of the letter addressed by him to the branch
manager. Ext.M1(k), the copy of the statement of
accounts for the period from 01.09.2005 to 06.07.2006,
is produced to prove the remittance of ` 800/- on
01.07.2006 and ` 21/- on 04.07.2006 in the account of
Ms Sujathamol.
22.
Pointing out the discrepancy in the name in the
documents as Sujithamol it was argued by the learned
counsel for the workman that the same cannot be relied
on to prove the allegation. In the chargesheet the account
number is shown as 3218. In those documents also the
SB account number is given as 3218. Merely for the
reason that there is a typing error in the name given in
the chargesheet it cannot be held that those documents
cannot be relied on to prove that allegation. There is the
express admission in Ext.M1(ab) and in the claim
7296
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
statement as to the receipt of the amount of ` 800/- from
the customer and keeping it without remitting until the
receipt of the complaint from that customer about the non-
remittance.
23.
Exts.M1(h), M1(i) and M1(j) would go to show that
the workman remitted an amount of ` 800/- and
` 21/- as interest in the account of Ms. Sujathamol on
01.07.2006 and 04.07.2006 respectively. The explanation
submitted by the workman that the entry was made in
the passbook after the receipt of the amount because
Ms. Sujathamol was in a hurry and made request to make
entry is not supported by any evidence in this case. It
cannot also be accepted as a reasonable explanation for
the non-remittance of the amount received by way of cash
from a customer came to remit the amount in the bank.
If it was because of the cordial relationship or close
acquaintance with the customer there is the least chance
of making a complaint after getting knowledge of the
non-remittance. But it was illegal retention of the amount
entrusted with him by the customer amounting to
misappropriation.
24.
In view of the aspects discussed above it can be
held that the management has succeeded in proving
allegation Nos.1 to 3, 7 and second limb of allegation
No.5 in the chargesheet. Based on the above findings as
to the allegations in the chargesheet charge Nos.l to 3, 5
to 7 and 9 & 10 can be held to be proved as against the
workman.
25.
Point No.(ii):-Disciplinary Authority imposed
penalty of “removal from bank’s service with
superannuation benefits, i.e., pension/or PF gratuity as
would be due otherwise under the Rules and Regulations
prevailing at the relevant time” for the charges 1 and 3
in the chargesheet and warning for the other charges
found to have been proved by the enquiry officer. It was
confirmed by the Appellate Authority with the change of
wordings as to the penalty for charges 1 and 3 as “removal
from the service with superannuation benefits i.e., pension
and/or Provident Fund gratuity as would be due otherwise
under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant
time and without disqualification from future
employment”. Taking into consideration of the
embezzlement of money of a customer, the financial
indiscipline the previous instance of imposition of penalty
as well as the other facts and circumstances it cannot be
said that the punishment imposed on him is shockingly
disproportionate to the proved misconducts.
26.
In the decision reported in State Bank of India and
Another Vs. Bela Bagchi and Others (2005) 7 SCC 435
it was held by the Apex Court that the charge with regard
to receipt of money from an account holder for depositing
in his saving bank account and making fraudulent or
fictitious credit entry in the passbook by the employee of
the bank is serious in nature and the contention that no
loss was caused to the bank is no defence. It was also
held:
“A bank officer is required to exercise higher
standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with
money of the depositors and the customers. Every
officer/employee of the bank is required to take all
possible steps to protect the interests of the bank
and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity,
honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing
which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good
conduct and discipline are inseparable from the
functioning of every officer/employee of the bank.
Even acting beyond one’s authority is a misconduct.
The charges against the employee were not casual
in nature and were serious. That being so, the plea
about absence of loss is also without substance”.
27.
There was a futile attempt on the part of the
workman to prove that he was earlier imposed with
penalty for the very same misconducts by producing
Ext.W1. But on a perusal of Ext.W1 it can be seen that
it does not relate to the alleged misconducts in this case.
It can also be seen that he was imposed with penalty of
bringing down to lower stage in the scale of pay by
two stages in terms of clause 6(e) of the Memorandum
of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 on disciplinary action
procedure for similar misconducts. It is also to be borne
in mind that he was imposed with such a penalty for the
charge levelled against him as per order dated 15.02.2006.
It cannot be said that the imposition of penalty for charge
Nos.1 & 3 in the chargesheet in this case is too severe to
have any interference by this Tribunal. Hence it is held
that the penalties imposed on him for the various
misconducts do not call for any interference by this
Tribunal.
28.
Point No.(iii):-As it is already found that the penalty
imposed on the workman is not arbitrary or illegal it can
be held that the action of the management in removing
the workman from the service of the bank is proper and
justified.
29.
Point No.(iv):-In the result an award is passed
holding that the action of the management of removing
the workman from service is legal and justified. Hence
he is not entitled to any relief.
The award will come into force one month after its
publication in the Official Gazette.
D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witnesses for the workman
-
NIL
Witnesses for the management
MW1
11.08.2011
Shri M. C. Josekutty
MW2
01.11.2012
Shri N. V. Ouseph
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7297
MW3
15.04.2013
Shri Baven C Tharaken
MW4
10.06.2013
Shri Sriraman K A
MW5
31.07.2013
Shri K R Sivaramakrishna Iyer
Exhibits for the workman
W1
-
True copy of Order No. RO:KER: HRM:26/
318 dated 15.02.2006 issued by the
Assistant General Manager (Kerala
Region) & Disciplinary Authority, Bank
of Baroda
Exhibits for the Management :
M1
-
Enquiry File
M1(a)
-
Photocopy of letter dated Nil addressed to
the Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha branch by Smt. K Radhamma
M1(b)
-
Photocopy of letter dated 25.04.2006
addressed to the Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha branch by Shri P A Ashraff
M1(c)
-
Photocopy of letter No.BR:STF 13/281
dated 26.04.2006 addressed to the
workman by the Branch Manager, Bank
of Baroda, Thodupuzha branch
M1(d)
-
Photocopy of letter dated 22.06.2006
addressed to Bank of Baroda, Thodupuzha
branch by Smt. Sujithamol S
M1(e)
-
Photocopy of relevant pages of Savings
Bank Pass Book of Smt. Sujithamol S
M1(f)
-
Photocopy of statement of account for the
period from 01.09.2005 to 22.06.2006
M1(g)
-
Photocopy of letter dated 01.07.2006
addressed to the Branch Manager, Bank
of Baroda, Thodupuzha branch by the
workman
M1(h)
-
Photocopy of letter dated 06.07.2006
addressed to Smt Sujithamol S by the
Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha branch
M1(i)
-
Photocopy of letter No. TDPA: STF:14/
33 dated 07.07.2006 addressed to the
Assistant General Manager, Bank of
Baroda, Regional Office, Ernakulam by
the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha branch
M1(j)
-
Photocopy of letter No.RO:KER: HRM:26/
1551 dated 04.07.2006 addressed to Smt.
Sujithamol S by the Assistant General
Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional
Office, Ernakulam
M1(k)
-
Photocopy of statement of account for the
period from 01.09.2005 to 06.07.2006
M1(l)
-
Photocopy of letter No. BR: STF:13/283
dated 27.04.2006 addressed to the
Assistant General Manager, Bank of
Baroda, Regional Office, Ernakulam by
the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha branch
M1(m)
-
Photocopy of Register of Employment for
the period from 06.11.2005 to 10.12.2005
M1(n)
-
Copy of letter No.BR:STF:13/278 dated
26.04.2006 addressed to the workman by
the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha branch
M1(o)
-
Copy of letter No.BR:STF:13/280 dated
26.04.2006
addressed
to
the
Superintendent, Government General
Hospital, Thodupuzha by the Branch
Manager, Bank of Baroda, Thodupuzha
branch
M1(p)
-
Copy of letter No.BR:STF:13/271 dated
11.05.2006 addressed to the Assistant
General Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office, Ernakulam by the Branch
Manager, Bank of Baroda, Thodupuzha
branch
M1(q)
-
Copy of letter dated 26.06.2006 addressed
to the Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha branch by the workman
M1(r)
-
Copy of Medical Certificate dated
24.06.2006 issued by the Medical Officer,
General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram
M1(s)
-
Copy of the Fitness Certificate dated
26.06.2006 issued by the Medical Officer,
General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram
M1(t)
-
Copy of the Certificate dated 26.06.2006
issued by Dr. N Shunmukom, Chelsa
Hospital, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram
M1(u)
-
Copy of letter No.BR:STF:14/19 dated
26.06.2006 addressed to the Assistant
General Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office, Ernakulam by the Branch
Manager, Bank of Baroda, Thodupuzha
branch
M1(v)
-
Copy of the Medical Certificate dated
16.06.2006 issued by the Medical Officer,
General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram
M1(w)
-
Copy of letter No.BR:STF:13/278 dated
26.04.2006 addressed to the workman by
the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha branch
7298
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
M1(x)
-
Photocopy of Register of Leave particulars
for the period from 01.01.2006 to
31.03.2006
M1(y)
-
Letter dated 11.07.2006 addressed to the
Branch Manager Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha branch by the workman
M1(z)
-
Letter dated 11.05.2006 addressed to the
Manager, Bank of Baroda, Thodupuzha
branch by the workman
M1(aa)
-
Copy of Chargesheet dated 10.08.2006
issued to the workman by the Assistant
General Manager(Kerala Region) &
Disciplinary Authority, Bank of Baroda
M1(ab)
-
Copy of letter dated 21.08.2006 addressed
to the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha branch by the workman
M1(ac)
-
Copy of notice dated 23.04.2007 issued by
the Deputy General Manager (Kerala
Region) & Disciplinary Authority, Bank
of Baroda
M1(ad)
-
Copy of Order dated 10.05.2007 of the
Deputy General Manager(Kerala Region)
& Disciplinary Authority, Bank of Baroda
M1(ae)
-
Submission of the workman dated
30.04.2007 to the Disciplinary Authority
& the Deputy General Manager, Bank of
Baroda, Regional Office(Kerala),
Ernakulam
M1(af)
-
Copy of Cheque Returned Outward
Register for the period from 18.10.2005
to 04.09.2006
M1(ag)
-
Copy of Cheque Book Register for the
period from 31.05.2004 to 04.11.2004
M1(ah)
-
Copy of letter No.FORT/STF/2005/41
dated 04.05.2005 addressed to the
workman by the Sr.Branch Manager, Bank
of Baroda, Fort Branch, Thiruvananthapuram
M1(ai)
-
Copy of letter dated 11.08.2005 addressed
to the Senior Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Fort, Trivandrum by the workman.
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2953-—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
,oa Je U;k;ky;] v:ukdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22@2011)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@11@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@4@2011&vkbZvkj (ch-&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2014
S.O.
2953.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 22/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the Indian
Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 05/11/2014.
[No. L-12012/4/2011-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present:
Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer
(Monday the 29th day of September, 2014/7th Asvina, 1936)
ID 22/2011
Workman
:
Shri M K Unnikrishnan Kizhalethu
House West Hill PO Edakkad
Kozhikode – 5 Kerala
By M/s.. H.B.Shenoy Associates
Management :
The Chief Manager (HRM) Indian Bank,
Head Office H R Department 66 Rajaji
Salai CHENNAI - 600001
By Adv. Shri S.Easwaran
This case coming up for final hearing on 22.09.2014
and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 29.09.2014 passed
the following:
AWARD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government/Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-12012/
4/2011-IR(B-II) dated 13.06.2011 referred the industrial
dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this
tribunal.
2.
The dispute is:
"Whether the action of the management of Indian
Bank with Headquarters at Chennai in
superannuating Shri M. K. Unnikrishnan, Tiny
Deposit Collector of Kozhikode Branch
w.e.f.15.07.2007 is justified and legal? What relief
the workman is entitled to?"
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7299
3.
The workman joined the services of the management
bank as tiny deposit collector at its Kozhikode branch on
15.11.1980. He was terminated from service on 15.07.2007
for the reason that he had attained the age of
superannuation. The legality and justifiability of the
termination is challenged by the workman by raising this
industrial dispute.
4.
After appearance before this Tribunal workman filed
claim statement by making the allegations that he was in
continuous service of the management bank from
15.11.1980 and was orally terminated from service on
15.07.2007 by the management bank, on the premise of
having attained the age of superannuation unilaterally
fixed by the bank, without complying with the
requirements under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. There is no retirement age or age of
superannuation for the workman as per the conditions of
service and the contract of employment governing his
service in the management bank. Hence the termination
amounts to retrenchment and it was effected without
notice or payment of wages in lieu of notice and without
paying compensation as provided under Section 25F of
the ID Act. It is illegal and unjust and hence the workman
is entitled to the benefits under section 25F of the ID
Act.
5.
In the written statement management, after denying
the allegations in the claim statement, would contend
that after his engagement as tiny deposit collector on
15.11.1980 his service was discontinued from 31.03.1982
and he was again engaged from 21.07.1993 after the
reintroduction of the scheme w.e.f. 01.04.1993. One of
the primary conditions for reintroduction of the said
scheme was that those agents who were working at the
time of discontinuance of the scheme will be engaged
only if they have not attained the age of 60 years as on
01.04.1993. The service conditions of the tiny deposit
collectors is as per the terms of the award dated
22.12.1988 in ID 14/1980 passed by the Industrial
Tribunal, Hyderabad. They were found to be workman
coming within the purview of the definition of section
2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In WP No.9783/
1987 filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh the finding of the tribunal was upheld but it
was held that they cannot claim to be regular employees
of the bank and the same was upheld by the Apex Court
by its judgment dated 13.02.2001. The tiny deposit
collectors are only eligible for full back wages, incentive
commission, conveyance allowance and gratuity as per
the decision in that case. The service conditions are as
per the award and related to the Bipartite Settlement of
award staff. As per the Bipartite Settlement the age of
retirement is 60 years if his efficiency is found to be non-
impaired by the employer when he reaches the age of 57
years. It is not correct to say that the workman was
terminated from service without issuance of notice or
payment of wages. By letter dated 13.07.2007 he was
informed that he would be disengaged from service on
15.07.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation and
hence not to collect tiny deposits. As per the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the tiny deposit collectors
cannot be equated with the regular employees with regard
to the service conditions. As per the terms of the Bipartite
Settlement, the scheme introduced by the bank for
engagement of tiny deposit collectors and the letter of
undertaking given by the workman he is not entitled to
make any claim under section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
6.
Workman filed replication denying the contentions
in the written statement and reaffirming the allegations
in the claim statement.
7.
For the purpose of deciding this case no evidence,
either oral or documentary, was adduced by the workman.
From the side of the management one witness was
examined as MW1 and Exts.M1 to M5 were got marked.
8.
The points for determination are:-
(i)
Whether the termination of the service of the
workman is to be in accordance with Section
25F of the Industrial Disputes Act?
(ii)
Whether the action of the management in
superannuating the workman w.e.f.
15.07.2007 is justified?
(iii)
What relief, if any, he is entitled to?
9.
Point No. (i):—It is not in dispute that the workman
was employed as a tiny deposit collector by the
management bank on 15.11.1980. In the claim statement
it is alleged that he was in continuous service thereafter
until his termination on 15.07.2007. But it is contended
in the written statement that his service was discontinued
from 31.03.1982 and he was re-engaged from 21.07.1993
after the reintroduction of the Tiny Deposit Scheme w.e.f.
01.04.1993. It is proved that he was disengaged and
subsequently re-engaged with the re-introduction of the
scheme through the testimony of MW1 as well as Ext.M3
letter of undertaking dated 09.06.1993 given by the
workman for his re-engagement.
10.
Admittedly he was terminated from service on
15.11.2007. Even though it is alleged that his service
was terminated orally the same cannot be accepted as
true in view of Ext.M4 issued from the management bank
to the workman as to his disengagement on 15.07.2007.
11.
According to the workman his service was
terminated on the premise of attaining the age of
superannuation unilaterally fixed by the management and
it amounts to retrenchment which necessitates the
7300
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
compliance of the requirements under Section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the other hand it is
contended by the management bank that the age of
superannuation of a workman is 60 years as per the terms
of the Bipartite Settlement dated 17.09.1984 and it is
also evident from the instructions as to the reintroduction
of tiny deposit scheme dated 30.03.1993, copy of the
relevant portion of which is marked as Ext.M2.
12.
Clause XIII of the said Bipartite Settlement contains
provisions as to the age of retirement and the same reads
as follows:-
“XIII. Age of Retirement
In reiteration of Chapter XVIII of the First Bipartite
Settlement dated 19th October, 1966 and similar
provisions in the settlements of other member banks
who are parties to this Settlement, it is stated as
under:
(i)
For Banks other than State Bank of India:
“After a workmen has reached the age of 57
years, he may be retired after giving him two
month’s notice in writing in case his
efficiency is found by the employer to have
been impaired. Subject to this rule and also
subject to any rule under an existing pension
fund, a workman shall not be compelled to
retire before he is 60 years old nor will it be
necessary to give a workman a letter
extending his services till he is sixty years
old.”
(ii)
For State Bank of India:
“A workman shall normally retire on
reaching the age of 58 years. The Bank will,
however, grant to a workman who continues
to be physically fit and efficient an extension
of service upto 60 years of age, but service
beyond 58 years of age will not be counted
for any purpose with or in relation to
pension.”
13.
Clause XIII(i) of that Bipartite Settlement is
applicable to the management bank. As per that provision
the retirement age of the workman is 60 years and he
cannot continue in service thereafter. As per Clause XIII
of the Bipartite Settlement no workman can claim to be
in service after the age of 60 years.
14.
Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in
Indian Banks Association Vs. Workmen of Syndicate
Bank & Ors., copy of which is marked as Ext.M5, it was
submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that
though the tiny deposit collectors were found to be
workmen it was held that they cannot be equated with
regular employees with the same service conditions. It
was further submitted by him that since it was held that
the service conditions of the regular bank employees are
not applicable to the tiny deposit collectors the provision
contained in that Bipartite Settlement as to the
retirement age cannot be made applicable to them. The
matter came up for consideration in that case is whether
the tiny deposit collectors are workmen coming within
the purview of the definition under section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act and they are entitled to be
absorbed in regular service with the pay, allowances and
other benefits of the regular employees. The question as
to the age of retirement or superannuation of the tiny
deposit collectors was not considered while dealing with
that case. The said Bipartite Settlement or any of its
provisions was not at all considered while dealing with
that matter. Clause XIII of the said Bipartite Settlement
expressly provides that the age of retirement of the
workman cannot be above 60 years.
15. At the time of re-introduction of the scheme only
those who had not attained the age of 60 years as on
01.04.1993 was only re-engaged and it is evident from
Ext.M2. The conditions of service in Ext.M2 are admitted
to by the workman in Ext.M3. It is expressly clear from
Ext.M2 that the tiny deposit collectors can continue to
work only upto the age of 60 years. Workman has no
case with regard to the age of retirement. Since the tiny
deposit collectors are workmen coming within the
definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act
the retirement age is to be in accordance with the
provision contained in the said Bipartite Settlement. It
is also apparently clear from Ext.M2 that there cannot
be continuance of service as tiny deposit collectors after
the age of 60 years. It is a paradox if those who were re-
engaged will be allowed to continue to be in service after
60 years. The workman was terminated from service on
completion of the age of 60 years by issuing the original
of Ext. M4. In the case of superannuation it is not
necessary to have compliance with the requirements under
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It cannot in
any way be said that it is retrenchment and hence it is
necessary to comply with the requirements under Section
25F of the ID Act.
16.
Point No.(ii):—There is nothing illegal in
superannuating the workman w.e.f.15.07.2007 on
completion of the age of 60 years. Hence the action of
the management can be held to be legal and justified.
17.
Point No.(iii):—In the result an award is passed
holding that the action of the management in
superannuating the workman w.e.f.15.07.2007 is justified
and legal. Hence he is not entitled to any relief.
The award will come into force one month after its
publication in the Official Gazette.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7301
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and
typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the
29th day of September, 2014.
D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the workman : NIL
Witness for the management :
MW1
23.04.2014
Shri K. N. Murugappan
Exhibits for the workman : NIL
Exhibits for the management :
M1
-
Copy of relevant portion of the Fourth
Bipartite Settlement dated 17.09.1984.
M2
-
Copy of instructions as to reintroduction
of Tiny Deposit Scheme in Indian Bank
dated 30.03.1993.
M3
-
Copy of letter of irrevocable undertaking
dated 09.06.1993 given by the workman
to the Manager, Indian Bank, Kozhikode.
M4
-
Copy of letter dated 13.07.2007 issued by
the Senior Manager, Indian Bank,
Kozhikode to the workman.
M5
-
Copy of Judgment dated 13.02.2001 in
Civil Appeal No.3355 of 1998 of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2954-—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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
43@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@92@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2014
S.O.
2954.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 43/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court-1, Mumbai 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 05/11/2014.
[No. L-12011/92/2012-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,
MUMBAI
Present:
Justice S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer
Reference No. CGIT-1/43 of 2013
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Bank
of Maharashtra
And
Their workman
Appearances:
For the first party/
:
Mr. Mr. M. B. Anchan, Adv.
Management
For the second party
:
None present
workman
State
:
Maharashtra
Mumbai, dated the 13th day of October, 2014
AWARD
1.
The present reference has been made by the Central
Government by its order dated 27.6.2013 passed in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of reference as
per the Schedule to the said order are as under:
“Whether the action of the management of Bank
of Maharashtra, Pune Rural Regional Office, Pune
by not providing the employment to Shri S. W.
Satale as PTS inspite of working w.e.f. 25.5.1992
is legal and justified? What relief the workman Shri
Satale is entitled to?”
2.
By the order dated 23.12.2013 passed by the
Tribunal, notices were directed to be issued to the parties
fixing 14.2.2014. Notices were accordingly issued to the
parties by Registered Post AD.
3.
On 14.2.2014, Mr. M. B. Anchan, Advocate was
present on behalf of the first party/Management. It was
noted in the order dated 14.2.2014 that notice issued to
the second party/Workman by Registered Post AD had
been served, and the Acknowledgement Card had been
received back. However, none was present on behalf of
the second party/Workman on 14.2.2014. In the
circumstances, the case was adjourned to 2.4.2014 for
filing Statement of Claim.
4.
On 2.4.2014, Mr. M. B. Anchan, learned counsel for
the first party/Management was present. However, none
was present on behalf of the second party/Workman. In
7302
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the circumstances, by the order dated 2.4.2014, the case
was adjourned to 4.6.2014 for filing Statement of Claim.
5.
On 4.6.2014, none was present on behalf of the
second party/Workman. On mention being made on
behalf of Mr. M. B. Anchan, learned counsel for the first
party/Management, the case was adjourned on the said
date, and 30.6.2014 was fixed.
6.
On 30.6.2014, Mr. M. B. Anchan, learned counsel
for the first party/Management was present. However,
none was present on behalf of the second party/Workman.
In the circumstances, by the order dated 30.6.2014, the
case was adjourned to 2.9.2014 for filing Statement of
Claim on behalf of the second party/Workman.
7.
On 2.9.2014, Mr. M. B. Anchan, learned counsel
for the first party/Management was present. However,
none was present on behalf of the second party/Workman.
In the circumstances, by the order dated 2.9.2014, the
case was adjourned to 13.10.2014 (i.e. today) for filing
Statement of Claim on behalf of the second party/
Workman.
8.
Pursuant to the order dated 2.9.2014, the case has
been taken up today.
9.
Mr. M. B. Anchan, learned counsel for the first
party/Management is present. He has brought on record
formal Authority in his favour issued by the first party/
Management. However, today again, none is present
for the second party/Workman. No Statement of Claim
has been filed on behalf of the second party/Workman.
10.
From the above narration of facts, it is evident that
despite service of notice having been made on the second
party/Workman, none has appeared on behalf of the
second party/Workman on any of the dates fixed in the
case. No Statement of Claim has been filed on behalf of
the second party/Workman.
11.
In view of the above, it is evident that there is no
pleading or evidence on behalf of the second party/
Workman in support of his claim. No relief can therefore,
be granted to the second party/Workman in the present
Reference.
12.
The Reference is consequently answered by stating
that no relief can be granted to the second party/Workman.
Award is passed accordingly.
Justice S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2955-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaUVªy 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
44@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@18@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2014
S.O.
2955.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 44/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court-2, Mumbai 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 05/11/2014.
[No. L-12011/18/2011-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT :
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/44 of 2011
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT
OF
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
The Assistant General Manager
Central Bank of India,
Mumbai Metropolitan Zonal Office
346, Standard Building
Dr. D.N. Road, Fort
Mumbai-400 023.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
The General Secretary
Central Bank Karmachari Sena
Central Bank of India
Mumbai Main Office, 2nd floor
M.G.Road, Fort
Mumbai 400 023.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. L. L. D’Souza,
Representative
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
No appearance
Mumbai, dated the 26th September, 2014.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7303
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No.L-12011/18/2011/IR (B-II),
dated 18.08.2011 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 Assistant General
Manager, Central Bank of India, Mumbai in
imposing the punishment of bringing down to
one stage lower for one year in the time scale of
pay upon Shri Vijay S. Amin, Peon (Sub-Staff)
vide order No. SMRO/DAD 2009-10/1949 dated
21/10/2009 is legal, just and proper? What relief
the workman concerned is entitled to?”
2.
After receipt of the reference from Ministry of
Labour & Employment, notices were sent to both the
parties. Concerned workman appeared before this
Tribunal on 13/12/2011 and requested for adjournment.
Thereafter fresh notices were issued to second party vide
Ex-5, 7, 10, 12, & 13. Acknowledgement to that effect is
at Ex-11 & 14. The second party union has neither
approached this Tribunal nor filed statement of claim.
Since there is no statement of claim on record, therefore,
this reference cannot be decided on merits and the same
deserves to be rejected for want of prosecution. Thus I
proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
Reference stands rejected for want of prosecution.
Date: 26.09.2014
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2956-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaUVy 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
45@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@19@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2014
S.O.
2956.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 45/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the Central
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 05/11/2014.
[No. L-12011/19/2011-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2,
MUMBAI
PRESENT:
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/45 of 2011
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT
OF
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
The Assistant General Manager
Central Bank of India,
Mumbai Metropolitan Zonal Office
346, Standard Building
Dr. D. N. Road, Fort
Mumbai-400 023.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
The General Secretary
Central Bank Karmachari Sena
Central Bank of India
Mumbai Main Office,
2nd floor M. G. Road, Fort
Mumbai 400 023.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. L. L. D’Souza,
Representative.
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
No appearance.
Mumbai, dated the 26th September, 2014.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No.L-12011/19/2011-IR (B-II),
dated 18.08.2011 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 Assistant General
Manager, Central Bank of India, Mumbai in imposing
the punishment of bringing down to one stage lower
for one year in the time scale of pay upon Shri Dadu
H. Malusare, peon (Sub-Staff) vide order No. SMRO/
DAD 2009-10/1948 dated 21/10/2009 is legal, just
7304
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and proper? What relief the workman concerned is
entitled to?”
2.
After receipt of the reference from Ministry of Labour
& Employment, notices were sent to both the parties.
Concerned workman appeared before this Tribunal on 13/
12/2011 and requested for adjournment. Thereafter fresh
notices were issued to second party vide Ex-7, 10, 12 & 13.
Acknowledgement to that effect is at Ex-11 & 14. The
second party union has neither approached this Tribunal
nor filed statement of claim. Since there is no statement
of claim on record, therefore, this reference cannot be
decided on merits and the same deserves to be rejected
for want of prosecution. Thus, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
Reference stands rejected for want of prosecution.
Date: 26.09.2014
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2957-—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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 37@2013)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@11@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@94@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2014
S.O.
2957.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of the Union Bank of
India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 05/11/2014
[No. L-12012/94/2012-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 12th August, 2014
Present :
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 37/2013
(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 Union Bank of India and their
workman)
BETWEEN :
Sri M. K. Narayanan
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The General Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
(Personnel)
Union Bank of India,
Central Office
Union Bank Bhawan,
239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg,
Mumbai-400021
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
:
M/s.. Balan Haridas, Advocates
Petitioner
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-12012/94/2012-IR (B-
II) dated 01.03.2013 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the management of Union
Bank of India, Coimbatore regarding termination of
services of the petitioner, Sri M. K. Narayanan 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 37/2013 and issued notices to both
sides. Both parties have entered appearance through their
counsel and filed their claim and counter statement
respectively. The petitioner has filed Rejoinder after the
Counter Statement was filed.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner had joined service of the Respondent
Bank in the year 1961. By the year 1995 he had rendered 34
years unblemished record of service. On 28.11.1995 the
petitioner submitted a letter to voluntarily retire from
service, owing to personal reasons. Petitioner has two
sons, both of whom were having industries from the year
1985. The Sons had opened account with Gandhipuram
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7305
Branch of Respondent Bank and had availed cash credit
loans. The petitioner had been the guarantor for those
loans. The petitioner’s Sons have borrowed money from
private parties also, for their business. The industries run
by the Sons of the petitioner came to be on loss and it
was decided to close the factories and wind up the
business. The petitioner had decided to sell his property
and settle the dues of the bank and private lenders.
However, the private lender wanted the money
immediately and they threatened to take legal action
against the petitioner. It was in such circumstances the
petitioner submitted letter voluntarily retiring from
service. After submitting the letter the petitioner migrated
to Baroda alongwith his Sons. The petitioner did not
inform this new address to the Bank as it would reach
the private money lenders and they would start harassing
the petitioner. The petitioner could not know what was
happening to his application for voluntary retirement. In
the year 2004, the petitioner contacted the Coimbatore
Main Branch where he had worked last and claimed
Provident Fund, Gratuity and Pension. He was paid only
the contribution made by him to the Provident Fund.
Employer contribution was not paid. Gratuity payable
to him was adjusted towards the loan account of
petitioner’s Sons at Gandhipuram branch. Regarding
Pension, the Respondent took the stand that the petitioner
has been treated as abandoned the service. The petitioner
had properly tendered letter to retire from service
voluntarily. So treating the petitioner as a person who
has abandoned service is grossly illegal. This amounts
to termination of the petitioner from service without
notice, without hearing and without any enquiry. In the
circumstances, the petitioner has raised the dispute. The
delay in raising the dispute is due to the reasons earlier
stated. The case of the Respondent that the petitioner
has been unauthorizedly absent is without any basis. The
petitioner has already tendered letter for voluntarily
resigning from service. The petitioner is entitled to
terminal benefits on the basis of his voluntary retirement.
An award may be passed holding that the action of the
Management in treating the petitioner as voluntarily
abandoned the service and terminating the service of the
petitioner is grossly illegal and arbitrary and holding that
the petitioner had validly tendered letter for voluntary
retirement from service w.e.f. 28.11.1995 and direct the
Respondent to pay all the terminal benefits, Gratuity, PF,
Pension, Arrears of Pension, etc.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as follows:
The petitioner had joined the service of the
Respondent in the year 1961 and was last working in
Coimbatore Main Branch. His two Sons who had set up
business and availed loans from the branches of the
Respondent Bank in Coimbatore, the petitioner has stood
guarantor for the loans. The petitioner had also availed
housing loan, clean loan, etc. He seems to have issued
cheques without sufficient funds in the account. The
petitioner absented himself from work from 21.11.1995
on the ground that he was ill and he applied for leave.
After this, he made an application for voluntary
retirement on 28.11.1995. By letter dated 29.12.1995 the
Zonal Office at Chennai communicated to the Regional
Office that his request for voluntary retirement could not
be considered as he had loans outstanding with the bank.
The decision of the Zonal Office was communicated to
him only on 30.09.1996 since he remained absent without
any communication. On 25.03.1996, a notice was issued
to the petitioner pointing out his unauthorized absence
and informing him that if he failed to report for duty
within 30 days he will be treated as having left the service.
Since the petitioner did not respond to the
communication, he was treated as having left the service.
Nothing was heard from the petitioner for a very long
period. It was only on 03.06.2004 he sent a letter to the
Respondent giving his address in Gujarat. Since the
petitioner has abandoned his employment, he was not
entitled to Pension in terms of Banks Pension Regulation
Act. The dispute raised by the petitioner is bad on the
grounds of delay, latches and inaction on his part. It is
not a case of termination of employment of the petitioner
by the Bank. It was cessation of employment brought
about by the conduct of the petitioner in remaining absent
without leave for more than 90 days. So he is not entitled
to challenge the termination. The petitioner had passed
the age of superannuation in the year 2003. The petitioner
is interested to treat the cessation of the employment as
termination so that he could make a claim for Pension.
In any case, the petitioner who was not heard of more
than 8 years is not entitled to advance the case that his
removal from service in terms of the provisions of
Bipartite Settlement is unjust. The petitioner is not
entitled to any relief.
5.
The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the case
in the Counter Statement and also reiterating his case in
the Claim Statement.
6.
The evidence in the case of consists of oral evidence
of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to
Ext.W9 and Ext.M1 to Ext. M20.
7.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the management
regarding termination of services of the
petitioner is justified?
(ii)
What is the relief, if any to which the
petitioner is entitled?
The Points
8.
The petitioner had been working with the
Respondent Bank from the year 1961. He had worked
7306
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
with the Respondent until 21.11.1995 on which date he
had applied for leave. Even before the expiry of the period
for which he has applied for leave, on 28.11.1995, he
sent a letter to the Respondent for voluntary retirement
from service. Without waiting for the result the result of
his application for voluntary retirement from service, the
petitioner had stopped attending his duty at the Bank.
Even as stated by the petitioner in his Claim Statement
and by the Respondent in its Counter Statement also the
petitioner had stood guarantor for the loan availed by his
two Sons from different branches of the Respondent Bank
at Coimbatore. According to the petitioner apart from
bank loans, his Sons had raised private loans also. Since
the industries of the Sons started to run on loss, the lenders
began pressing for payment. The petitioner and his Sons
seemed to have taken up residence at Baroda in Gujarat
immediately after submitting letter for voluntary
retirement from service by the petitioner.
9.
The stand of the Respondent is that the request of
the petitioner for voluntary retirement was not allowed
since there were debts outstanding in the name of himself
and his Sons. According to the respondent, since the
petitioner absented himself from work unauthorizedly and
since there was no response to the notice issued by the
Bank the continuous absence of the petitioner was treated
as abandonment of service. According to the respondent,
the petitioner having abandoned the service, he was not
entitled to pensionery benefits.
10.
The initial question that is to be considered is
whether there was abandonment of service actually by
the petitioner. The counsel for the Respondent has
referred to different decisions of the Apex Court to make
out that there was actually abandonment of service on
the part of the petitioner. Reference was made to the
decision in SYNDICATE BANK VS. GENERAL
SECRETARY,
SYNDICATE
BANK
STAFF
ASSOCIATION reported in (2000) 5 SCC 65, PUNJAB
AND SIND BANK AND OTHERS VS. SAKATTAR
SINGH reported in 2001 1 SCC 214, VIVEK NAND
SETHI VS. CHAIRMAN, J&K BANK LIMITED AND
OTHERS reported in (2005) 5 SCC 337 and also
REGIONAL MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA VS.
ANITHA NANDRAJOG reported in 2009 9 SCC 462.
In the above decisions it was held that in the case of long
unauthorized absence no domestic enquiry is required
and the absence is to be treated as voluntary cessation of
service.
11.
If actually the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent
from service for a long time it would be a case of
abandonment of service, no doubt. However, the argument
that is advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that
the absence on the part of the petitioner is not
unauthorized absence he having submitted application
for voluntary retirement from service and the same having
not been rejected it is to be treated as acceptance of his
application for voluntary retirement. According to the
counsel inspite of the above application the Respondent
has treated the absence of the petitioner as abandonment
from service and under this guise had terminated his
service to deny pensioner benefits to him.
12.
It is not disputed by the Respondent that a letter
requesting for voluntary retirement has been submitted
by the petitioner. In fact the document is produced by the
Respondent and is marked as Ext.M3. At the stage of the
argument, the counsel for the Respondent has advanced
an argument that the application for Voluntary Retirement
is not in proper form. However, on going through the
documents produced by the Respondent it could be seen
that throughout until the stage of argument there was
never a case for the Respondent that the application for
Voluntary Retirement was not entertained, the same not
being in proper form. On the other hand, the stand of the
respondent is that the request of the petitioner for
Voluntary Retirement was rejected since dues were
outstanding in his name as well as in the name of his
Sons.
13.
Even though, the Respondent has got a case that
the application for Voluntary Retirement was rejected by
the Zonal Office by letter dated 29.12.1995, even as
admitted by the Respondent in its Counter Statement,
the communication of rejection was not given to the
petitioner until 30.09.1996 which according to the
Respondent was due to absence of the petitioner from
work. However this absence has not prevented the
Respondent from later issuing a notice to the petitioner
on 25.03.1996 stating that he was unauthorizedly absent
and that he is to report for duty within 30 days. This
notice marked as Ext.M7 is seen returned un-served since
the petitioner has stopped residing in this address at
Coimbatore and has already shifted to Baroda. Even as
admitted by the petitioner he has not furnished his Baroda
address to the Respondent. However nothing prevented
the Respondent from making its stand safe by giving a
communication of rejection of the application for
Voluntary Retirement by sending it in the last known
address of the petitioner.
14.
Ex.M3 letter dated 28.11.1995 from the petitioner
addressed to the Manager, Department of Personnel
Affairs states that the petitioner is suffering from ill-health
and therefore he is submitting his voluntary retirement
from service with immediate effect under the Voluntary
retirement Scheme on health grounds. The letter also
requests to accept the request and to relieve him from
service on receipt of the letter, at the earliest.
15.
The Respondent has produced the Pension
Regulations pertaining to the employees. Chapter-V
referring to Pension gives two classes of pension, one on
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7307
superannuation and the other second on voluntary
retirement. Clause-29.1 which refers to pension on
voluntary retirement states that on or after the first day of
November 1993, at any time after the employee has
completed 20 years of qualifying service he may, by giving
notice of not less than 3 months to the Appointing
Authority, retire from service. Sub-Regulation-2 of
Regulation-29 states that notice of voluntary retirement
given shall require acceptance by the Appointing
Authority. There is a proviso to this Sub-Regulation that
where the Appointing Authority does not refuse to grant
the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period
specified in the notice, the retirement shall become
effective from the date of expiry of the said period. Under
Sub-Reguation-3, an employee referred to in Sub-
Regulation-1 may make a request in writing to the
Appointing Authority to accept notice of voluntary
retirement of less than 3 months giving reasons. As per
Clause-B of Sub-Regulation-3 the Appointing Authority
may consider such request subject to the provisions of
Sub-Regulation-2 and if it is satisfied that curtailment of
the period of notice did not cause any administrative
inconvenience the authority may relax the requirement of
notice of three months on the condition that the employee
shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension
before expiry of the notice of three months. Under Sub-
Regulation-4 even restriction is placed on the employee
on withdrawing his notice for voluntary retirement.
16.
On a perusal of Ext.M3 it is clear that the request for
voluntary retirement by the petitioner was one under Sub-
Regulation-2 of Regulation-29 read with Sub-Regulation-
3. He has stated in his letter that he is suffering from ill-
health, that he is seeking voluntary retirement on health
grounds and he may be relieved from service at the earliest.
In spite of the fact that the petitioner wanted retirement
with immediate effect, his request was not considered by
the authorities immediately. It was not considered even
before the period of three months which is the period of
notice prescribed under Regulation-29(1). It was incumbent
on the authorities to consider the request immediately and
decide whether the petitioner is entitled to voluntary
retirement before the expiry of the period of three months.
The authorities did not take any decision on Sub-
Regulation-2, though this states that the notice of
voluntary retirement shall require acceptance by the
Appointing Authority. In the absence of any decision by
the authority and absence of communication regarding
any decision, the proviso under Sub-Regulation-2 of
Regulation-29 will necessarily come into play. As per this
proviso, if the authority is not granting any permission for
retirement before expiry of the period specified in the notice
retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry
of the period. So far as the petitioner was concerned his
request was to exempt him from any notice and grant his
request for voluntary retirement with immediate effect.
17.
It has been argued by the Counsel for the
Respondent that three months notice has not been given
by the petitioner while seeking voluntary retirement and
for this reason also the application is bad. However, even
this contention is not seen take by the Respondent in the
Counter Statement. The documents produced on behalf
of the Respondent does not state also that the petitioner’s
request could not have been entertained in the absence of
any specification regarding the period of notice. So far
as the petitioner is concerned he was asking for voluntary
retirement with immediate effect on health grounds and
so it was a request for exemption from giving any notice
at all. Even assuming that the application is one under
Regulation-29(1) and three months notice has not been
specified the Respondent could have treated period of
three months from the date of receipt of notice as the
period of notice and could have taken a decision within
this period. In the absence of any decision on the part of
the Respondent within the said three months, necessarily
the proviso to Sub-Regulation-2 should come into play
and the petitioner must be deemed to have retired from
service on expiry of the said period.
18.
There is of course the fact that the petitioner
did not attend his duty after he sent Ext.M3 to the
Respondent. It is on the basis of this it has been
argued by the Counsel for the Respondent that it is
a case of abandonment of service. If the wording in
Sub-Regulation-3 of the Pension Regulations is accepted
it cannot be treated as abandonment of service at all.
Even assuming that the petitioner was not expected to
stop attending duty before he received a communication
regarding acceptance of his request of retirement or until
expiry of three months period of notice, the action of
the petitioner need not be treated as abandonment of
service. It was a case where the petitioner under very
extra-ordinary circumstances had made a request for
voluntary retirement with immediate effect and there
was no reason for him to suppose that his request would
be rejected. The only restriction in accepting a voluntary
retirement application before the expiry of the three
months notice was whether it will cause any
administrative inconvenience. In other respects it is a
must that the same should be accepted. This is clear
from the fact that an employee is precluded from
withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval
of the authority.
19.
The counsel for the Respondent has been referring
to the decision in VIJAY S. SATHYE VS. INDIAN
AIRLINES LTD AND OTHERS reported in 2014 3 LLN
40 where the request for voluntary retirement was rejected
as the employee had not given three months notice as
provided and had failed to attend duty immediately after
7308
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
submitting the application. The Apex Court had considered
the case as one of abandonment from servie and had
refused to accede to the request of the employee in question
who was a Pilot for voluntary retirement. The above case
can be distinguished from the present case. The Pilot who
had sought retirement was informed in writing that he
should continue in service till the time decision is taken
on his application. Apart from this, as per the regulation
that was applicable, acceptance of resignation was subject
to approval of the competent authority. The Apex Court
has held that it is a settled legal proposition that if a statute
provides for approval of the higher authority, the order
cannot be given effect to unless it is approved and the
same remains inconsequential and unenforceable. The
Pension Regulations of the Respondent stand on a
different footing. As per Regulation-29(1) any person who
has completed 20 years of qualifying service was entitled
to voluntary retirement on his applying with three months
notice. In the absence of rejection of the application within
the prescribed time, it is to be deemed that the retirement
has come into effect after the period of notice.
20.
In this respect the decisions relied upon by the
counsel for the petitioner are relevant. In the decision in
DINESH CHANDRA SANGMA VS. STATE OF ASSAM
AND OTHERS reported in 1978 1 LLJ 17, a District Judge
had sought retirement on the basis of the concerned rule
and the same was allowed. Later, the order was cancelled
and the Judge was asked to join duty. As per Fundamental
Rule-56C which was applicable to the case, a Government
Servant may by giving notice of not less than 3 months in
writing to the appropriate authority retire from service after
he has obtained the age of 50 years or has completed 25
years of service whichever is earlier. The Apex Court held
that there was no question of acceptance of request for
voluntary retirement by the Govenrment when the
Government Servant had exercised his right under FR 56C.
There was automatic retirement in the case. In the present
case also the petitioner having exercised his option under
Regulation-29(1) and the competent authority having failed
to accept the same the proviso has come into effect and
the petitioner is to be deemed to have retired voluntarily
in view of the refusal.
21.
In the decision in SUNDARESHWARALU VS.
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in
CDJ 2003 MHC 1165, the Madras High Court has held that
the application seeking voluntary retirement having not
been rejected by the appropriate authority, on expiry of
three months period, it is to be deemed that the petitioner
has retired from service. The High Court had directed the
Central Bank to settle the terminal benefits of the petitioner.
The period of the absence of the petitioner was directed
to be treated as leave with or without pay.
22.
In the light of the above legal pronouncements also
it could be seen that the petitioner is to be deemed to
have retired from service at least on expiry of three months
after receipt of the request by the Respondent.
23.
It has been argued by the Counsel for the Petitioner
that even assuming that it was a case of unauthorized
absence from duty on the part of the petitioner, the
petitioner could not have been visited with a punishment
more grave than compulsory retirement. It has been
pointed out by the counsel that it was under very trying
circumstances that the petitioner had to absent himself
from duty. He had pointed out that the petitioner had
stood guarantor for the loans of his Sons and his Sons
were facing loss in their industry and the Respondent
Bank as well as Private Lenders were running after him
and his Sons for recovering the debt and he had taken
the extreme step of leaving his locality. The counsel has
referred to a decision of the Apex Court in
SHANKARDAS VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR
1985 SC 184 where it was held that family circumstances
can be taken into account in deciding the measure of
penalty to be imposed.
24.
By the time the petitioner had given his request for
voluntary retirement he had completed 34 years of service.
He had claimed in the Claim Statement that it was a
service of unblemished record. The Respondent has no
case that the petitioner was guilty of any misconduct at
any point of his career in the Bank. There is absolutely
no complaint against the petitioner regarding his previous
conduct. The only reason the Bank has given to reject
the application for voluntary retirement (which according
to it was communicated after expiry of the three months
period) is that the petitioner was having several loans
and he had made several borrowels outside the bank also.
So far as the loan granted to the petitioner’s Sons with
him as the guarantor was concerned there was no
necessity for the Bank to worry at all. It was not with the
salary of the petitioner as Security that a loan was given
to the Sons. On the other hand, the loan was well secured
by the property of the petitioner. Even on the basis of
assessment made by the bank as seen from Ext.M4 the
loan arrears was ` 8.00 lakhs only while the property of
the petitioner given as Security was worth ` 20.00 lakhs.
So the employment of the petitioner and the loan arrears
due to the bank should not have been connected.
25.
Of course the petitioner has come forward with a
dispute after several years. On this ground alone the claim
of the petitioner could not be rejected. The petitioner has
detailed and the Bank has also asserted the circumstances
under which the petitioner has left the job and these are
already referred to. In fact since the right of the petitioner
for pensionery benefits has already become crystallized
on account of the deemed acceptance of his application
for voluntary retirement, this should not matter also. Even
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7309
then considering the long delay in raising the dispute and
that also alomgwith the failure of the petitioner to give
any information to the Bank regarding his whereabouts
the relief can be moulded.
26.
Before concluding, a contention that has been raised
by the Counsel for the Respondent at the stage of
argument regarding the maintainability of the dispute is
also to be referred to. It has been argued by the Counsel
for the Respondent that it is not a case of termination of
the petitioner from service but a case of his abandonment
of service and therefore Section-11A of the Act is not
applicable, the petitioner having not been discharged or
dismissed from service. In answer to this, the counsel for
the Petitioner has argued that the contention regarding
maintainability of the dispute has not been taken by the
Respondent at all in the Counter Statement. On the other
hand, the Counsel for the Respondent argued that this
stand of the counsel for the petitioner is incorrect. He
also argued that in any case it is a question of law and
can be agitated at any stage of the case even if it is not
raised in the Counter Statement. Of course, the
Respondent has stated in the Counter Statement that this
is not a case of termination of employment but cessation
of employment brought about by the conduct of the
petitioner and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to
challenge the termination. Thus, though not expressly
stated that the dispute is not maintainable, there is
somewhat vague contention to this effect in the Counter
Statement. However, I do not think this contention on
behalf of the Respondent could be accepted. I have
already found that the petitioner must be deemed to have
retired from service. In such a situation the respondent
could not have treated the matter as cessation of service.
It is in effect termination of service of the petitioner under
the guise of cessation of service to deny terminal benefits
to the petitioner. In this respect the counsel for the
petitioner has referred to the decision in RAMASWAMY
VS. THE MANAGEMENT OF WARWICK ESTATE
reported in 2009 4 LLN 413 where the High Court has
held that once workman approach the Labour Court
challenging his non-employment it is incumbent on the
part of Labour Court to find out whether his plea is
justified or not. So in any case it was incumbent upon
the Tribunal to consider the question whether it was
abandonment of service or termination from service. As
stated it is a case of termination under the guise of
cessation of service. In fact it was not fair on the part of
Respondent Bank to deny terminal benefits to the
petitioner alleging cessation of service. The Respondent
is an establishment having hundreds of branches all over
India. The petitioner was a person who had served the
Respondent for long 34 years. He was certainly entitled
to the pensionery benefits which is a right he has accrued
by the service of the Respondent for years together. The
Respondent should have been more considerate in its
attitude towards the petitioner. I find that the Respondent
has denied benefit to the petitioner under the guise of
cessation from service.
27.
Considering that the petitioner had raised the
dispute with a lot of delay, the benefits payable to him
until the day of his raising the dispute will be limited to
50%.
28.
On the basis of my discussion above, an award is
passed as follows:
(i)
The petitioner is deemed to have retired after
three months of receipt of Ext.M3 by the
Respondent.
(ii)
the Respondent shall pay 50% of the
retirement benefits due to the petitioner from
the date of retirement to the date of raising
the dispute.
(iii)
the Respondent shall pay the entire retirement
benefits due to the petitioner from the date of
raising the dispute until the date of award.
(iv)
the amounts payable under heads (ii) and (iii)
shall ,be paid within one month of the award
in the absence of which interest will be
payable @ 9% per annum.
(v)
The Respondent shall continue to pay pension
to the petitioner from the date of the award.
The reference is answered accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/
:
WW1, Sri M. K. Narayanan
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/
:
MW1, Sri S. Balasubramanian
Management
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
08.06.2004
Letter issued by the Bank
Ex.W2
23.07.2004
Application for pension
Ex.W3
29.10.2004
Letter from the Bank
Ex.W4
16.12.2005
Letter from the petitioner
Ex.W5
16.07.2007
Certificate issued by the Bank
Ex.W6
07.09.2007
Letter from the petitioner
Ex.W7
15.12.2008
Letter from the petitioner
7310
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W8
04.06.2009
Letter issued by the Bank
Ex.W9
04.03.2010
Letter issued by the Bank
On the Management’s side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ex. M1
22.12.1995
Communication from Bank –
Coimbatore Main Branch to
the Petitioner.
Ex. M2
13.12.1995
Letter from Mr. R. Kasthuri
Ranga, Advocate, Coimbatore
to the petitioner with copy to
the Bank – Lr. Ref. No. LN/
656/95.
Ex. M3
28.11.1995
Letter from petitioner to the
Bank addressed to Central
Office, Bombay through
Coimbatore Main Branch
submitting application for
Voluntary Retirement on
health grounds.
Ex. M4
02.12.1995
Inter Office letter RO/PER/
980 from Regional Office,
Coimbatore to Zonal Office,
Madras
regarding
the
petitioner.
Ex. M5
29.12.1995
Inter Office letter bearing No.
ZO/SZ1/BP/8884–Zonal
Office, Madras to AGM, RO,
Coimbatore regarding the
petitioner.
Ex. M6
25.03.2006
Memo from R.O., Coimbatore
under reference RO/PER/
1481 addressed to the
petitioner.
Ex. M7
-
The above cover sent to the
petitioner to his residential
address returned undelivered
with endorsement “Party
Left”–returned
cover
unopened an filed with postal
Acknowledgement.
Ex. M8
13.09.1996
Letter from Chief Manager
under reference STF/595/96
addressed to the petitioner.
Ex. M9
25.05.2000
Letter from Chief Manager
addressed to the petitioner
regarding abandonment of
service, settlement of terminal
benefits etc. STF/315/2000.
Ex. M10
-
Petition under Provisional
Insolvency Act – IP No. 2 of
1996.
Ex. M11
-
Petition under Provisional
Insolvency Act under I.P. No.
3 of 1996.
Ex. M12
26.02.1998
Letter from Mr. MR Sankaran,
Manager, RO, Coimbatore
addressed to AGM, RO,
Coimbatore regarding the
petitioner.
Ex. M13
03.06.2004
Letter from petitioner to
Regional Manager, Coimbatore.
Ex. M14
19.03.2010
Letter from RO Coimbatore
under reference RO/HRM-
1155/2010 addressed to
petitioner with postal receipt
and postal acknowledgement
with the signature of the
petitioner enclosing copy of
petitioner’s letter dated
04.03.2010,
25.03.1996,
07.02.1996 and 12.01.1996.
Ex. M15
26.07.2000
Letter from Ministry of
Finance, Govt. of India under
reference F.No. 4/8/7/99/IR
addressed to Deputy Personnel
Adviser,
Indian
Bank
Association, Mumbai.
Ex. M16
14.12.2011
Notice from ALC(C), Madurai
addressed to Union Bank,
Mumbai, enclosing copy of 2A
petition dated 03.12.2011 of
petitioner.
Ex. M17
12.04.2012
Reply statement filed by
petitioner before ALC(C),
Chennai.
Ex. M18
23.08.2012
Conciliation Failure Report by
ALC(C), Madurai.
Ex. M19
15.02.2005
Letter from Coimbatore Main
Branch under reference
No. STF/654/05 addressed to
the Petitioner regarding
settlement of gratuity benefit
by cheque for ` 2,14,047/-
and crediting to his SB
Account Number.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7311
Ex. M20
03.08.2004
Inter Office letter from RO,
Coimbatore to Chief Manager,
Coimbatore Main Branch
under reference RO/HRM/
568/2004 – releasing terminal
benefits to the petitioner
` 1,49,318.02 towards his PF
with request to credit the
proceeds to petitioner’s SB
Account and copy cheque No.
“294557” dated 16.07.2003.
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2958-—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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
120@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@44@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2014
S.O.
2958.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 120/
2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the Bank
of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 05/11/2014.
[No. L-12012/44/2002-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT:
RAKESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 120/2002
Ref. No. L-12012/44/2002-IR(B-II) Dated: 07.07.2002
BETWEEN:
Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav
C.K. 63/48, Chhoti Piari
Varanasi (U.P.) – 221 001
AND
The Zonal Manager
Bank of India
Varanasi Zone Plaza Complex,
Bhelupura Varanasi (U.P.) – 221 001
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-12012/44/2002-IR(B-II) Dated:
07.07.2002 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by
clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of
1947) referred this industrial dispute between Shri
Santosh Kumar Yadav, C.K. 63/48, Chhoti Piari, Varanasi
(U.P.)and the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Varanasi
Zone Plaza Complex, Bhelupura, Varanasi (U.P.) to this
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow for adjudication.
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER
THE
ACTION
OF
THE
MANAGEMENT OF BANK OF INDIA IN
TERMINATING THEIR SERVICES OF SHRI
SANTOSH KUMAR YADAV W.E.F. 3.9.2001 IS
LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED. IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF
IS HE ENTITLED FOR?”
3.
The case of the workman, Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav,
in brief, is that he was engaged by the opposite party
bank in the year 1994 as sub-staff whose services have
been terminated by the Bank orally on 03.09.2001. It has
been submitted by the workman that he worked for more
than 240 days in a block of twelve months continuously
even then the Bank terminated his services without any
notice or notice pay in lieu thereof, thereby violating the
provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. Accordingly the workman has prayed that his
termination be set aside and the management of the Bank
be directed to reinstate the workman with all consequential
benefits including full back wages.
4.
Per contra, the management of the Bank of India has
disputed the claim of the workman through its written
statement wherein it has submitted that there is prescribed
procedure for appointment in the bank and the claimant
had never gone through the selection process, as such,
he was never appointed by the bank at any point of time.
It is submitted by the bank that whenever required, casual
labours are hired from open market on daily wage basis
and are paid accordingly; hence they could not be called
the employees of the bank. The bank has denied
continuous working of the said workman and has also
denied his termination or violation of the any of the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Accordingly, the management of the Bank has prayed
that the claim of the workman be rejected without any
relief to him.
7312
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
The workman has filed the rejoinder whereby he has
only reiterated his averments in the statement of claim and
has not introduced any new fact.
6.
After submission of documentary evidence in
support of their respective cases by the parties, the
workman examined himself and Shri Narayan Singh;
whereas the management adduced evidence of Shri Dudh
Lal Ram to corroborate their pleadings. The parties
availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each
other. After conclusion of parties’ evidence, the case was
fixed for arguments of the parties on merits, when the
workman moved an application W-57 regarding closure
of the case.
7.
The workman in the application W-57, mentioned
that the workmen’s Union has entered into a settlement
dated 25.06.2013 with the opposite party before the
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai;
whereby the opposite party has included him, in the
selection procedure and has declared him successful for
appointment in the Bank’s services. It was stated by the
workman that in view of the settlement, he is not willing
to contest the present industrial dispute anymore; and
prayed that the case may be disposed of accordingly. It
is also mentioned in the application stated by the
workman.
8.
Heard workman and perused the application W-
57, accompanied with the settlement dated 25.06.2013.
9.
The workman in its application W-57 has stated
that a settlement dated 25.06.2013 has been arrived
between the Union of the workmen and the Bank; and in
accordance thereto the workman has undergone regular
selection procedure and is declared successful for
appointment in the services of the Bank. The workman
has stated that in view of the settlement, there is no need
to proceed with the present industrial dispute and
accordingly, has expressed its willingness not to contest
the present dispute with prayer to dispose of the same
accordingly.
10.
It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality
of the action of the management and if no evidence is
produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must
fail. In the instant case the burden was on the workman
to prove that the action of the management of Bank of
India in terminating the services of the workman was
illegal and unjustified. The stand of the workman was
denied by the management of the bank and the parties
adduced oral evidence too in support of their rival
pleadings; but before submission of their final arguments
on merit, the workman has come forward with
application, W-57, stating therein that since his
grievances have got redressed by the opposite party
consequent to settlement dated 25.06.213, therefore, he
does not want to contest the present industrial dispute
and wants the closure of the same. Accordingly, there is
no need to proceed with the present industrial dispute, as
grievances of the workmen stand redressed. Thus, the
workman has prayed to pass suitable orders.
11.
Although provisions of withdrawal of suits under
Order 23 Rule 1 CPC are not applicable in the matter of
reference under Section 10 of ID Act but, in view of the
submission of the workman for withdrawal of the case,
there is no grievance left with the workman. Resultantly,
no relief is required to be given to the workman
concerned. The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly.
12.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW.
08th October, 2014.
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2959-—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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 114@11)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@11@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@56@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2014
S.O.
2959.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 114/11)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of the State Bank of
India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 10/11/2014.
[No. L-12011/56/2011-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT- II, KARKARDOOMA COURT
COMPLEX,
DELHI 110 032
Present:
Shri HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA
ID No. 114/11
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7313
Smt. Shashi Kakkar
The General Secy.
All India Bank Staff Association,
33-34, Bank Enclave , Ring Road
Versus
The Branch Manager
SBI, DMS, Shadipur Branch,
New Delhi-110008
NO DISPUTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide notification No L-12011/56/2011-IR(B-1)) dated
01.12.2011 referred the following industrial Dispute to
this tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of India, DMS Shadipur Branch, New Delhi
in denying payment of the lumpsum Ex-gratia
amount under the SBI Scheme of ‘Payment of Ex-
Gratia lumpsum Amount in lieu of Compassionate
Appointment to Smt. Shashi Kakkar W/o late
Sh. Ish Kumar Kakkar, Sr. Assistant , who died while
in service on 01.06.2005, only on the ground of
delayed application , is legal and justified? To what
relief the Union/Smt. Shashi Kakkar is entitled?”
On 19.12.2011 reference was received in this
tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 114/2011 and
claimant was called upon to file claim statement with in
fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was
required to be accompanied with relevant documents and
list of witnesses.
Several opportunities given to workman as well as
management but neither workman nor management filed
claim statement / Response to the reference.
In this background there is no option to this tribunal
except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not
interested to file their respective pleadings.
On the basis of which none of the parties can be
directed to adduce its evidence.
No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-18/09/2014
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2960-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
11@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@10@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41011@113@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2014
S.O.
2960.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of the Western Railway
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 21/10/2014.
[No. L-41011/113/2013-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 11 of 2014
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Western Railway
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: Railway.
Dated: 17th October, 2014.
AWARD
By Order No.L-41011/113/2013-IR(B-I) dated
12.02.2014 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 demand of the union to give the
benefits of finally pension, gratuity, leave
encashment, fund, workmen compensation and to
give service to the son of Shri Parvat Chandra in
Railway is legal proper and just? If so, to what relief
the concerned workman is entitled to?”
7314
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
When the case was taken up on 15.10.2014, none
appeared on behalf of either of the parties. It appears
from the record that none of the parties to the present
dispute ever appeared before this Tribunal nor they have
taken any step to proceed with this reference inspite of
service of notice and inspite of specific order of the
Tribunal on the last date viz. 14.08.2014.
3.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, it
appears that the parties to the present reference are not
at all interested to proceed with the case further. So, no
useful 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 17th October, 2014.
ubZ fnYyh] 14 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2961-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj y{eh foykl
cSad fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 60@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
10@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@09@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2014
S.O.
2961.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 60/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the Lakshmi
Vilas Bank Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 10/11/2014.
[No. L-12012/09/2013-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 29th October, 2014
Present :
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 60/2013
(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 Lakshmi Vilas Bank
and their workman)
BETWEEN:
Shri P. Ramachandran
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The General Manager/HR
:
2nd PartyRespondent
Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.
Administrative Office,
Salem Road, Kathaparai
Karur-639006
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/ :
M/s. K.M. Ramesh, Advocates
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/ :
M/s. T. R. Sathiyamohan, Advocates
Management
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/09/2013-IR(B-
I) dated 28.05.2013 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the management of Lakshmi
Vilas Bank in imposing the punishment of
dismissal without notice on Sri Ramachandran,
Clerk is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the concerned workman is entitled?”
2.
On receipt of Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID 60/2013 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides entered appearance through their
counsel and filed their Claim and Counter Statement
respectively. The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer
to the counter statement filed by the Respondent.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are as below:
The petitioner had joined the service of the
Respondent Bank as Clerk in 1980. During the year 2005
the petitioner was working in Kathamparai branch, Karur.
While working so, the petitioner was placed under
suspension by proceedings dated 19.06.2010. The
petitioner was issued with a charge sheet on 20.07.2010.
In the charge sheet it was alleged that the petitioner had
pre-closed a deposit of one Mangayarselvi and credited `
7500/- being government subsidy to the account of one
Manikandan, a Sub-Staff of Papanad branch of the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7315
Respondent Bank on 04.07.2009. The petitioner is said to
have done this by misusing the password of the Manager
who was on leave, without his knowledge. The petitioner
is said to have defrauded the bank by misappropriating
the govt. subsidy by his above act. Though the petitioner
has given reply to the charge sheet denying the allegation,
it was not accepted and an enquiry was conducted against
the petitioner. The enquiry which was commenced on
30.10.2010 was concluded on the same day. The petitioner
was not given opportunity to defend his case. The Enquiry
Officer gave a report finding the petitioner guilty of the
charges. On the basis of the report, the punishment of
dismissal without notice was imposed on the petitioner
by the Disciplinary Authority. The finding of the Enquiry
Officer is perverse and is bad in law. The punishment
imposed on the petitioner is illegal and unjustified. An
order may be passed holding that the action of the
Respondent in imposing the punishment of dismissal
without notice on the petitioner is illegal and unjustified
and directing the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in
service.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as follows :
The petitioner who was working as Clerk in
Kathamparai branch of the Respondent Bank was
suspended from service from 19.06.2010 consequent to
certain acts of misconduct on his part. A charge sheet was
issued to him subsequently, regarding the misconduct
committed by him. One Mangayarselvi had availed loan
of ` 1,50,000/- on 23.12.2003 with govt. subsidy of ` 75,00/
- and the same was kept in fixed deposit. The account
became non-performing asset and was closed on
21.04.2009 without adjusting the subsidy in deposit. On
04.07.2009, the petitioner had pre-closed the deposit which
was due on 04.06.2010 and had fraudulently credited it to
the account of Manikandan, Sub-Staff of Papanad branch.
The entries were originated using the Teller Id of the
petitioner and authorized using the password of the
Manager without his knowledge. In the explanation given
by the petitioner to the Charge Sheet, he had admitted
having committed the misconduct. The claim that he had
done so by mistake is an afterthought. The explanation
submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory and a
departmental enquiry was contemplated. The petitioner
was given full opportunity to defend himself. On
conclusion of the enquiry, Enquiry Officer has found the
petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him.
A show cause memo was issued to him affording a personal
hearing and the Disciplinary Authority had passed a final
order considering all the material factors, imposing the
punishment of removal from service, with immediate effect
on the petitioner. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to
the appellate authority has been rejected. The petitioner
is not entitled to any relief.
5.
The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the
allegations in the Counter Statement and also reiterating
the case in the Claim Statement.
6.
Though in the Claim Statement and in the Rejoinder,
the petitioner has raised a contention that Enquiry was
not conducted in a fair and proper manner, this contention
has been given up by him before the trial was started. The
counsel has made endorsement to this effect.
7.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
of WW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to W8 and
Ext.M1 to M18.
8.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the Respondent bank
in imposing the punishment of dismissal
without notice on the petitioner is legal and
justified?
(ii)
What if any is the relief to which the petitioner
is entitled?
The Points
9.
The petitioner who had started to work as a Clerk in
the Respondent Bank in the year 1980 was working in
Kathamparai Branch at the time of the alleged incident.
The incident relates to pre-closing the subsidy amount
due to an account holder kept in fixed deposit. The
allegation is that on 04.07.2009 the petitioner had pre-
closed this deposit fraudulently and credited it to the
account of one Manikandan who had been a Sub-Staff of
another branch of the Respondent Bank. The entries
regarding the transaction were allegedly made by the
petitioner using his teller id and misusing the password of
the Manager.
10.
In the explanation submitted by him to the Charge
Sheet and marked as Ext.M2 the petitioner has not denied
to have pre-closed the fixed deposit and credited to the
account of Manikandan. He has also not denied the
allegation that he has used the password of the Manager
who was on leave on the particular day. The petitioner
stated in his explanation that it was common at Kathamparai
Branch to use the password of the Manager by other
officials and staffs whenever the Manager was out for
any other work. According to the petitioner on 04.07.2009,
the day in question while he was very busy at the counter
Sub-Staff Manikandan of Papanad Branch had called him
over phone and had requested him to send ` 10,000/
- immediately. Having sufficient balance in his savings
account he had obliged Manikandan. However, when he
was about to pass entries for ` 7,500/- from his savings
7316
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
account by oversight he had made a wrong entry and
debited deposit amount related to the loan account.
According to him when he came to know of the
mistake he had telephoned Manikandan and Manikandan
had remitted the sum to the credit of Kathamparai Branch.
According to the petitioner, he had not committed the
act intentionally or deliberately. Immediately on realizing
the wrong entry he had made the beneficiary remit the
amount.
11.
In the enquiry proceedings, the officer who had
enquired into the irregularities committed by Sub-Staff
Manikandan, the then Manager of the Kathaparai Branch
and the subsequent Manager of the Branch were
examined. It could be seen from the evidence by MW1
that the incident which is the subject matter of the dispute
was revealed while enquiring into the misconduct of
Manikandan. The report given by MW1 regarding
Maniknadan has been marked in the enquiry proceedings.
The witness has stated that during enquiry the transaction
in respect of ` 7,500/- received at the account of
Manikandan from Kathaparai branch on 04.07.2009 was
noticed and it was also found that the transaction pertains
to closure of proceeds of PMRY Subsidy Deposit of one
Mangayarselvi.
12.
There is also the evidence given by MW2, the Branch
Manager. On 22.06.2010 the Manager has written to the
HRD Department regarding the closure of subsidy deposit
in the name of Mangayarselvi and transfer of the amount
to the account of Manikandan. MW2 has stated that the
entry was authorized with his own password while he was
on leave. He stated that he has not given his password to
the petitioner. He stated that he came to know of the
missing of the FD Receipt only after investigation by MW1.
13.
MW3 was examined to prove the related documents
pertaining to the incident. The document regarding the
fixed deposit, the loan ledger extract pertaining to the term
loan of Mangayarselvi and the statement of account of
Mangayarselvi were marked through this witness. The
Teller Transaction Report on the particular date and also
the copy of the letter given by the petitioner on 05.06.2010
are also proved through this witness. As already stated it
is not disputed by the petitioner that he is the one who
had pre-closed the deposit and credited the amount to the
account of Manikandan. The duty of the two Managers
through their evidence was only to assert this case. The
defence put forth by the petitioner is that it was by way of
mistake the transaction was made by him. What he has
stated is that Manikandan had asked him a loan of `
10,000/- and he had obliged since he has sufficient balance
in his account According to him inadvertently, rather than
debiting from his own account he had pre-closed the fixed
deposit and credited to the account of Manikandan. He
has stated that his innocence will be proved by the fact
that he has remitted back the amount immediately.
14.
Though it was claimed in the explanation given by
the petitioner to the Charge Sheet itself that he has
remitted back the amount, the petitioner has
conspicuously omitted to give the date on which the
remittance was made. During his argument, the counsel
for the petitioner has stated that the remittance was made
within two hours. However, I do not find from any of the
documents produced that the amount was remitted back
within two hours after the transaction was entered into by
the petitioner. In the written argument of defense submitted
on behalf of the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer the
case is that the amount was remitted back within 21 days.
But one does not know to which date this 21 days relates
to, whether from the date of the transaction or from the
date of enquiry report by MW1. In the written arguments
filed on behalf of the Respondent it is stated that only
after a year of the Investigating Officer detecting the illegal
transfer the amount has been remitted. This statement
certainly reveal that the amount has been remitted, but
only after the misconduct was detected by MW1 while
inquiring into the misconduct of Manikandan.
15.
Is it possible that the petitioner by inadvertence
committed the mistake of pre-closing the fixed deposit and
remitting the amount to the account of Manikandan rather
than debiting his own account and crediting to the account
of Manikandan? Even according to the petitioner the
demand by Manikandan was for ` 10,000/-. According to
him he had sufficient balance in his account also. If so, the
petitioner would have been crediting ` 10,000/- itself to
the account of Manikandan rather than a lesser amount. It
is difficult to accept the case given by the petitioner in his
explanation that it was by mistake he had pre-closed a
fixed deposit in the name of Mangayarselvi. The subsidy
was payable only on 04.06.2010 and that is why it was put
in fixed deposit. In the meanwhile the account of
Mangayarselvi had become non-performing asset and it
was closed. It was in such a situation the petitioner had
pre-closed the deposit on 04.07.2009 and credited it to the
account of Manikandan. Pre-closing of a fixed deposit is a
transaction quite different from debiting a subsisting
account and transferring the amount to another account.
This would not have happened by inadvertence. Again it
is unlikely that the petitioner would not have noticed the
mistake at least within a few days, if it was actually a
mistake. His case is that he was under the impression that
his own account was debited for crediting to the account
of Manikandan. If this is a case, during the next transaction
pertaining to his own account he would have noticed the
same. Manikandan who received the amount would have
informed him also. However, he had waited until the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7317
incident was disclosed through the enquiry report of MW1
to remit the amount. So it is difficult to believe the case of
the petitioner that it was a mistake on his part.
16.
There is also the fact that the petitioner had
admittedly used the password of the Manager to authorize
the entry. MW2, the Manager has stated that he has not
revealed the password to the petitioner. The case of the
petitioner himself is that the branch was in the habit of
using the password of the Manager in his absence. It is
not denied that the Manager was on leave on the particular
date. There is the evidence given by the Manager that
there are other Officers who are empowered to authorize
the entries. While the Manager was on leave no one could
be expected to use his password with or without his
permission. When on leave the Manager does not have
any power to authorize the transaction. There would have
been other Officers who were empowered to do so. So it is
clear that the petitioner was unauthorizedly using the
password of the Manager. The case of inadvertent mistake
advanced by the petitioner could not be accepted at all.
17.
The counsel for the petitioner has argued that except
on sufficient and reliable proof one should not be found
guilty especially when the misconduct alleged is criminal
in nature. The counsel has referred to the decision of the
Madras High Court in VINCENT VS. THE DIRECTOR OF
GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS AND ANOTHER in
Writ Appeal No. 320/79 in this respect. However, here it is
not a case where there is no reliable proof regarding the
guilt of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer had every
justification for finding the petitioner guilty.
18.
The punishment of dismissal without notice was
imposed on the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority. It
has been pointed out that the petitioner had been working
for more than 30 years and there was no allegation of
misconduct against him earlier. When this fact is taken
into account, I feel that the punishment is not in proportion
to the gravity of the offence committed. The punishment
of Compulsory Retirement from service would meet the
ends of justice.
19.
Based on the discussion above, an award is passed
as follows:
The punishment imposed on the petitioner is
modified to one of Compulsory Retirement from service.
20.
The reference is answered accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
WW1, Sri P.
Ramachandran
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
19.06.2010
Xerox copy of the proceedings of
the Disciplinary Authority
Ex.W2
09.08.2010
Xerox copy of the reply submitted
by the petitioner to the charge
sheet
Ex.W3
05.10.2010
Xerox copy of letter from
Disciplinary
Authority
appointing Enquiry Officer
Ex.W4
15.10.2010
Xerox copy of letter from Enquiry
Officer to the petitioner
Ex.W5
23.10.2010
Xerox copy of letter from Enquiry
Officer to the petitioner
Ex.W6
23.10.2010
Xerox copy of defence written
argument submitted by the
petitioner to the Enquiry Officer
Ex.W7
24.02.2011
Xerox copy of the proceedings of
the Disciplinary Authority
Ex.W8
02.03.2011
Xerox copy of the minutes of the
personal hearing before the
Disciplinary Authority
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.M1
20.07.2010
Charge Sheet filed by the
Respondent
Ex.M2
09.08.2010
Explanation to the Charge Sheet
Ex.M3
05.06.2010
Exhibit M.1 filed by the
Respondent in the domestic
Enquiry
Ex.M4
04.07.2009
Exhibit M.2 filed by the
Respondent in the domestic
Enquiry
Ex.M5
-
Exhibit M.3 filed by the
Respondent in the domestic
Enquiry
Ex.M6
-
Exhibit M.4 filed by the
Respondent in the domestic
Enquiry
Ex.M7
-
Exhibit M.5 filed by the
Respondent in the domestic
Enquiry
Ex.M8
23.10.2003
Exhibit M.6 filed by the
Respondent in the domestic
enquiry
7318
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.M9
05.06.2010
Exhibit M.7 filed by the
Respondent in the domestic
Enquiry
Ex.M10
-
Exhibit M.8 filed by the
Respondent in the domestic
Enquiry
Ex.M11
22.06.2010
Letter issued by the Manager to
the Deputy General Manager
Ex.M12 20.07.2010
Proceedings of the domestic
enquiry
Ex.M13
20.07.2010
Findings of the Enquiry Officer
Ex.M14
29.03.2011
Proceedings of the Disciplinary
Authority issued to the petitioner
Ex.M15 28.04.2011
Appeal petition filed by the
petitioner before the Appellate
Authority
Ex.M16 14.06.2012
Proceedings of the Appellate
Authority
Ex.M17 17.08.2012
Petition filed by the petitioner
before the Conciliation Officer
Ex.M18
12/2012
Counter filed by the Respondent
before the Conciliation Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2962-—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 4@2009) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-10-2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41011@40@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2014
S.O.
2962.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 4/2009)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Pune as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of the Central Railway
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 17.10.2014.
[No. L-41011/40/2007-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, AT PUNE.
Reference (IT) No. 04 of 2009
Between :
The Divisional Railway Manager
Central Railway,
PUNE
...First Party
And
The Secretary
Rail Kamgar Sena,
C/o Central Railway,
PUNE
...Second Party
CORAM : D. H. DESHMUKH, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
Shri S. D. Uplenchwar, Advocate for First Party.
Smt. Sheetal Lokhande, Advocate for Second Party.
AWARD
Date : 11-09-2014
This is a reference made by Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. The dispute/demand
referred is as follows :-
“Whether the action of management of Central
Railway, Pune in not giving promotion to Shri Babu
Ballappa w.e.f. 28-8-1989, is legal and correct ? If
not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled
to ?
Initially the reference was made to the Labour
Court, Pune. By subsequent order, it has been transferred
to this Tribunal.
2.
The second party union has contended that it is a
registered trade union, representing the employees of the
first party railway, and Shri Babu Balappa (concerned
employee) was employed on daily wage basis from
17-10-1972, and was regularized in service w.e.f. 21-7-1980.
He was granted status of a permanent employee on or
about 28-8-1980. The concerned workman was working
as a Khalasi under CIOW (M) Pune, but was redesignated
as a Gangman, and transferred to PWI (M) Talegaon in
public interest by order dt.15-9-1986 passed AEM (M),
Pune who is appointing authority. The said authority
maintains combined seniority list of the employees. The
concerned workman was then transferred to CDF,
Lonavala as a Khalasi for short period, and then
transferred again to IOW Pune w.e.f. 25-2-1995 on
administrative ground. The concerned workman
continued to hold the same position in the seniority list.
He passed trade test for skilled Artisan i.e. Fitter Grade
III in 1989. The claim of the concerned workman for
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7319
promotion, was neglected on a lame execuse that he
belongs to PWI. Juniors were promoted.
3.
The concerned workman approached the
administration of the first party for grant of seniority,
and promotion, and thereafter, approached the Assistant
Labour Commissioner through union. There, it was
agreed to grant seniority w.e.f. 16-4-1986. Therefore,
the case of seniority was closed on 19-9-2001. The benefit
of seniority was granted from 16-4-1986, but he was not
granted promotion to the next grade on par with his junior.
It is contended that the trade test is conducted, only if
there is a vacancy. The concerned workman was the
senior most, and was therefore,trade tested in which he
succeeded. The Labour Commissioner office directed the
first party to consider the case of the concerned workman
etc. The contention of the second party is that there was
vacancy. The concerned workman passed trade test, and
he was senior-most, and therefore, should have been
promoted as Fitter Grade III w.e.f. 28-8-1989, when he
passed the test. The concerned workman wants
promotion, and consequential benefits from that date.
4.
The first party was noticed. The first party
appeared, and filed say Exh.C-4, denying the adverse
allegations and the claim. According to the first party,
the union cannot make claim on behalf of the individual
employee. The claim is to be filed before Central
Administrative Tribunal. This Tribunal has no
jurisdiction. Then it is contended that the trade test was
conducted on 17-3-1998, and the result was declared on
24-8-1998, and therefore, the present reference is time
barred. It is contended that there is no ground to neglect
the promotion, and side track the concerned workman
without any reason. No juniors have been promoted. The
claim made is not legal and valid etc.
5.
The issues and my findings thereon, are as follows :-
ISSUES
FINDINGS
1. Whether the Tribunal has
got jurisdiction to adjudicate
the demand ?
...Yes.
2. Whether the action of not giving
promotion to the concerned
workman is legal & correct ?
...No.
3. What relief/award ?
...As per final award.
REASONS
6.
For last several days, the first party has been absent.
The second party has filed affidavit by way of evidence,
and also documents, which are totally unchallenged. The
affidavit of the concerned workman indicates that he
passed the trade test in 1989. There was common
seniority list maintained. His seniority was side tracked,
and his juniors Shri Chandrapal Kartar Singh and Shri
Bhimrao Dayanand Patole were promoted without
passing the trade test as required by the rules. The
concerned workman approached the railway authorities,
but no heed was paid. The first party agreed before
Assistant Commissioner of Labour to give proper
seniority, and therefore that, case was closed. Even after
that, the concerned workman was not considered for
promotion. The dispute was reheard by Regional Labour
Commissioner. The first party tried to evade the
responsibility by remaining absent etc. In the affidavit,
all the necessary details are stated. The concerned
workman has stated that his age of retirement is drawing
near. He passed Trade Test in 1989, and was therefore,
entitled to benefits at that time.
7.
The documents produced support the contentions
of the second party. The documents produced are not
disputed by the first party. The documents include letter
dt.4-9-2001 of the first party, in which it is conceded
that the concerned workman is entitled to the seniority
as a Khalasi w.e.f. 16-6-86. Internal correspondence like
letter dt.6-3-2003, indicates that even according to the
officer of the first party, immediate promotion was
required to be given to the concerned workman. Another
letter dt.2-11-2004 of Shri A. K. Jain of the first party
indicates that according to the City Officer, seniority of
the concerned workman will be with effect from the date
of appointment i.e. 28-8-1980, and further that he had
passed Trade Test in 1989. There is a letter dt.6-2-2006
from Regional Labour Commissioner of Pune to
Divisional Railway Manager, in which certain facts are
stated. The letter indicates that the Trade Test was passed
in the year 1989. Further with great efforts, and after
sufficient delay, the railway accepted the seniority w.e.f.
16-4-86. Further, part of the letter indicates that the
seniority list should be from 21-7-1980. The Labour
Commissioner also mentioned that the management of
the first party was not taking the matter seriously, but
was creating confusion against the concerned workman,
which is not healthy for good relationship with the
workers etc.
8.
The record of Trade Test is also produced. The
matter is more than 5 years old. There is no point in
adjourning the matter further. I have gone through the
record, and have heard the learned counsel for the second
party. The appropriate Government can refer the dispute
pertaining to promotion to this Tribunal, and therefore,
the question of want of jurisdiction does not arise. The
department of first party is industry, and the second party
is clearly a workman, and therefore, Tribunal has
jurisdiction. The existence of Central Administrative
Tribunal is no bar to raise the dispute. Industrial dispute
could be raised by a union also, and therefore, objection
in that regard is also not proper. From the unchallenged
material on record, I find that the concerned workman is
7320
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
entitled to be promoted w.e.f. 28-8-1989, since he was
senior-most and had passed the Trade Test. At least, two
juniors were promoted. The concerned workman is
entitled to be promoted as Fitter Grade III since 1989.
The demand is justified.
AWARD
The first party i.e. Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway, Pune, shall promote the concerned
workman Shri Babu Ballappa as Fitter Grade III w.e.f.
28-8-1989, and shall grant him all consequential benefits
arising out of promotion, including the monetary benefits.
D. H. DESHMUKH, Presiding Officer
Date : 11-09-2014.
ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2963-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] fiQjkstiqj 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 70@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 14@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@77@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th November, 2014
S.O.
2963.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 70/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Ferozepur and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 14/11/2014.
[No. L-40012/77/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 70 of 2012 . Reference No. L-40012/77/2012/
IR(DU)dated 7.01.2013
Shri Mohan Singh
son of Shri Makhan Singh,
resident of Village Lakhmire Uttar,
PO Mamdoot,
Tehsil & district Ferozepur.
...Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
Telecom BSNL,
Bharat Nagar Chowk,
Ferozepur.
...Respondent
Appearances:
For the Workman
:
None.
For the Management
:
Sh. Anish Babbar.
AWARD
Passed On:-07.11.2014
Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-40012/77/2012/IR(DU) dated
07.01.2013 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:
Term of Reference:
“Whether the demand of Shri Mohan Singh son of
Shri Makhan Singh against the General Manager/
DET/SDE,BSNL,Ferozepur for reinstatement in
service w.e.f 16.7.11 is just, valid and legal? If so,
what benefits the workman are entitled for and what
directions are necessary in the matter.?”
2.
Case repeated called. Despite repeated
opportunities, none appeared for the workman.
Representative of the respondent is present. It appears
that the workman is not interested to pursue the present
reference. In view of the above the present reference is
disposed off for want of prosecution.
3.
Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt.
be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
07.11.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2964-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] fiQjkstiqj 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 69@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 14@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@78@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th November, 2014
S.O.
2964.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7321
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 69/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Ferozepur and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 14/11/2014.
[No. L-40012/78/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Case No. ID 69 of 2012 . Reference No. L-40012/78/2012/
IR(DU)dated 7.01.2013
Shri Pritpal Singh
son of Shri Bakhshish Singh,
resident of Village Dilla Ram,
PO Jhok,
Tehsil & district Ferozepur.
...Workman
Versus
1.The General Manager,
Telecom BSNL,
Bharat Nagar Chowk,
Ferozepur.
...Respondent
Appearances:
For the Workman
:
None.
For the Management
:
Sh. Anish Babbar.
AWARD
Passed On:-07.11.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-40012/78/2012/IR(DU)dated
07.01.2013 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:
Term of Reference:
“Whether the demand of Shri Pritpal Singh son of
Shri Bakhshish Singh against the General
Manager/DET/SDE,BSNL,Ferozepur
for
reinstatement in service w.e.f 16.7.11 is just, valid
and legal? If so, what benefits the workman are
entitled for and what directions are necessary in
the matter.?”
2.
Case repeatedly called. Despite repeated
opportunities, none appeared for the workman.
Representative of the respondent is present. It appears
that the workman is not interested to pursue the present
reference. In view of the above, the present reference is
disposed off for want of prosecution.
3.
Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt.
be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
07.11.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2965-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;
HkwoSKkfud losZ{k.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;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 14@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 14@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@99@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th November, 2014
S.O.
2965.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 14/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Geological Survey of India and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 14/11/2014.
[No. L-42011/99/2012-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT:
SHRI RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. NO. 14/2013
Ref. No. L-42011/99/2012-IR( DU) dated: 22.02.2013
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
Geological Survey of India Employed
Nav-Nhetana Association, 466/202-201
Primerose House Peer Bukhara,
PO Chowk Lucknow - 226 001 .
AND
The Deputy - Director General & Head of Office
Geological Survey of India
Northern region, Sector - E
Aliganj Complex Lucknow.
7322
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-42011/99/2012-IR( DU) dated:
22.02.2013 the Central Government in the Ministry
of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred
by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A)
of Section 10 ot the Industrial disputes Act, 1947
(14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between
the General secretary, Geological Survey of India
Employed, Nav-Chetana Association, 466/202-201,
Primerose House Peer Bukhara, PO Chowk, Lucknow
and the Deputy-Director General & Head of Office,
Geological Survey of India, Northern region, Sector-E,
Aliganj Complex, Lucknow to this CGIT-cum-Labour
Court, Lucknow for adjudication
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
"WHETHER THE DEMAND OF GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES NAV-
CHETNA ASSOCIATION, LUCKNOW OVER
NON-IMPLEMENTATION OF DEMAND
POINTS
NO.
01,2,7,10,11,19 AND
22
METIONED IN THE' STRIKE NOTICE TO
THE MANAGEMENT OF GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY OF INDIA, NORTHERN REGION,
LUCKNOW IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? TO
WHAT RELIEF THE ASSOCIATION is
ENTITLED TO?"
3.
The order of reference was endorsed to the
General Secretary, Geological survey of India
Employed, Nav-Nhetana Association, 466/202-201,
Primerose House, Peer Bukhara, PO Chowk, Lucknow
with direction to the party raising the dispute to file
the statement of claim along with relevant documents,
list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within
fifteen days of the receipt of the order of reference
and also forward copy of such a statement to each
one of the opposite parties involved in this dispute
under rule 10 (B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central),
Rules, 1957.
4.
The order of reference was registered in the
Tribunal on 12.03.2013 by the Hon'ble Presiding Officer
and the office was directed to issue registered notice
to the workman' union for filing the statement of claim
with list of reliance & list of witnesses on 12.04.2013.
On the date fixed i.e. 12.04.2013 the General Secretary
of the union, Shri S.A.H. Rizvi was present; but no
statement of claim together with documents etc. was
filed; accordingly, next date 21.05.2013 was fixed for
filing of statement of claim. The Union remained absent
on 21.05.2013 as well as on subsequent dates i.e.
16.07.2013, 30.08.2013, 30.10.2013, 15.12.2013, 28.01.2014,
25.03.2014, 25.03.2014, 20.05.2014, 14.08.2014 and
02.10.2014. The union neither turned up on any of the
aforementioned dates nor moved any application or
adjournment seeking time to file the statement of claim.
More than a year's time has passed and the workman's
union has failed to file its statement of claim, therefore,
the case was reserved for award keeping in view the
reluctance of the workman's union to contest the case.
5.
In the above circumstances, it appears that the
workman's union does not want to pursue its claim on
the basis of which it has raised the present industrial
dispute; therefore, the present reference order is decided
as if there is no grievance left with the workmen's
union. Resultantly no relief is required to be given to
the workmen concerned. The reference under
adjudication is answered accordingly.
6.
Award as above.
Lucknow
30th October, 2014
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2966-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
fgaUnqLrku ,;jksukWfVDl fyfeVsM] y[kuÅ fMohtu vkSj nwljksa ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k
,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 70@2011) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@11@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th November, 2014
S.O.
2966.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 70/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the General Manager, Hindustan
Aeronautics Ltd., Lucknow Division & Others and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 14/11/2014.
[No. L-42025/03/2014-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7323
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT:
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No 70/2011
BETWEEN:
Sri Mansuri Singh
S/o Sh. Mahaveer Singh
R/o Ismailganj, Post Chinhat
Faizabad Road, Lucknow
AND
1.
General Manager,
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.,
Lucknow Division, Lucknow
2.
M/s. Shah Bandhu,
Sri Yogendra Prasad Shah,
Sanitation Contractor,
504 Viman Nagar,
GT Road,
Harendra Nagar,
Kanpur
3.
M/s. Group-4 Facilities Service
Sri Nawal Kapoor,
Director Personnel,
1/97, Vidyut Khand Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow
AWARD
1.
Applicant Sh. Mansuri Singh has submitted a
claim statement dated 28.02.2011 before this Tribunal,
stating therein that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,
Lucknow Division is an engineering industry and
factory as well registered under the provisions of the
Factories Act. The Governmcnt had issued a
notification dtd. 24.04.1990 under Section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
The applicant has stated in the claim statement that
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. employed the contract
labour for sanitation of the factory premises. The
sanitation work is perennial and regular nature of job.
It has been emphasized that the workman/applicant
was working in establishment right from the very
beginning i.e. from the date when the factory was
established and was continuously in job till the date of
illegal termination.
2.
It is asserted that during the said period the
sanitation work was assigned to several contractors
but the services of the applicant workman was
continuous and never interrupted. The applicant
continuously worked in establishment of the Hindustan
Aeronautics Ltd., Lucknow he was directly employed
by the HAL, Lucknow. He neither employed by any
contractor nor his services have been terminated by
the contractor. It has also been pointed out in the
claim statement that regular deductions viz Provident
Fund and Employees State Insurance were made from
salary of the applicant. Moreover the privileges of
the Earned Leave, Casual Leave, Medical Leave etc.
were also provided to him directly by the principal
employer viz. Hindustan Aeronauties Ltd., Lucknow.
The applicant states that although there was
prohibition to employ contract labour in pursuance
of the notification dated 24.04.1990 to contract labour
yet the employers awarded the contract of sanitation
work while it should have been entrusted to the
regular employees. The act of the HAL is totally
illegal and unjustified. The Government of India has
prohibited to employ contractors for sanitation work
of the building premises of the establishment.
3.
It has also been mentioned that applicant
workman was entitled to get same pay and allowances
as were given to other regular employees of the HAL,
Lucknow. HAL Karamchari Sabha (the Union) had
moved an application against the illegal and
unjustified act of the employer under Rule 25(2) (V)
(b) of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition)
Central Rules 1971 which was considered by the
RLC(C), Lucknow and he gave direction on
28.04.1989 to pay the similar pay and wages etc.
which were being paid to other regular employees.
Thereafter the employer had filed writ petition before
Hon'ble High Court challenging the directions given
by the RLC(C) Lucknow but the writ petition was
dismissed by Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated
28.01.1994 and order passed by RLC(C), Lucknow
was confirmed. The workman has stressed that being
aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 28.0l.1994 passed by
Hon'ble High Court, the employer preferred a Special
Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
which was also dismissed and thereafter the employer
filed a review petition and the same was also
dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter,
the employer started to pay the Basic Pay, D.A. and
CCA at par with the unskilled employees but HRA and
annual increments were not being provided. The
workman union preferred the case under the provisions
of the U. P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages)
Act, 1978, thereafter a recovery certificate was issued
against the employers.
4.
The applicant has further stated that in pursuance
of mutual settlement the employers enhanced the pay of
the directly employed unskilled workers from ` 1880/- to
` 3000/- but the workers who were shown to be
7324
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
employed through contractor were being paid ` 1880/-
per month and their wages were not enhanced.
Consequently the union filed another case under the
provisions of the U. P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment
of Wages) Act, 1978 which caused annoyance to
employer and they began to conspire for terminating the
services of the workmen including the workman/
applicant. Ultimately the services of applicant workman
were terminated w.e.f. 21.12.200l.
5.
The applicant has stated that the compliance of
Section 25N of the I.D. Act was necessary but the
employers before terminating the services of the
workman, did not follow the mandatory provisions of
I.D. Act.
6.
It has been emphasized in the claim statement
that services of the workman were never terminated by
the contractor but it had been terminated by the
principal employer and the work which was being
performed by the concerned workman is still existing
with the employers and the same is being carried
through new workmen on contract basis which is
unjustified and illegal. It has also been stressed that
earlier the said union had raised this dispute before
the State Government which referred for proper
adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal (II) U. P.,
Lucknow which is being proceeded before the Industrial
Tribunal (II) U. P., Lucknow as Adj. Case No. 126 of
2002. Since the applicant workman was not satisfied
with the efforts made by the union as such a authority
letter was filed alongwith an application by 20 workmen
to represent the said case but the union filed objections
that the applicant are not party in the said case as he
is not entitled to represent the case. The Hon'ble
Presiding Officer vide order dtd. 10.3.2010 directed if
the workman was not satisfied with proceedings of the
union they can raise separate dispute under the
provisions of Act. Thereafter 36 workmen including the
concerned workman moved an application dated
10.07.2010 before the Hon'ble Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal (II) U. P., Lucknow for deletion of the names
of the workmen from the reference order so that they
may be in position to raise fresh industrial dispute
before the competent Forum and the Hon'ble Presiding
Officer, Industrial Tribunal (II) U.P., Lucknow was
pleased to allow the said application except three whose
name were not mentioned in the reference order.
7.
The workman further stated that in pursuance of
the order dated 20.07.2010 the workman concerned along
with 32 other workmen filed an application before
Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Lucknow which was
registered case No. LKO-8(2-32)/2010. The RLC (C)
Lucknow called upon the parties for conciliation
proceedings but due to negative attitude of the
employers no settlement could be arrived between the
parties. Since the mandatory period of 45 days had
been expired as such the concerned workman sought
the permission from the Regional Labour Commissioner
(C) Lucknow to withdraw the case and to approach the
Hon'ble Court on 27.01.2011which was accepted by the
RLC (C) Lucknow and in pursuance thereof, the
applicant has approached this Tribunal for adjudication
of Industrial Dispute as prevalent between the workman
and HAL. The applicant has emphasized that so called
contract system was a mere camouflage, smoke and a
serene and disguised in almost a transparent veil which
could easily be pierced and the real contractual
relationship between the principal employer i.e. HAL in
the instant case. The termination 'of the services of the
workman has been termed as void-ab-initio by the
applicant. The mandatory provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act.1947 not followed filed by the HAL. Act
of the opposite party has been alleged as illegal and
void and the workman claims himself to be entitled to
get the reinstatement in service alongwith full back
wages. It has also been mentioned in the claim
statement since the date of termination upto the date
of filing claim statement applicant is unemployed and
despite of his best cfforts, he could not be gainfully
employed any where else.
8.
The photo copy of the order passed by RLC (C)
Lucknow dt. 10.02.2011 has been enclosed. The
Industrial Dispute was got registered as per the direction
of the then Hon'ble Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour
Court and registered notices were issued to the
management for filing written statement alongwith
relevant documents.
9.
Preliminary objections M-8 were filed on behalf
of opposite parties no., 1 & 2. Opposite Parties have
pointed out that Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal
(II) UP informed them that the said dispute have been
referred by appropriate government vide order dtd.
13.06.2002 and adjudication no.126/02 was registered.
The name of the concerned workman was included in
the list consisting of 89 persons. During the course of
adjudication before the said Tribunal a group of 36
persons moved an application dated 10.5.2010 for
withdrawal of their names so that they may file a
separate case before the competent authority but the
name of the applicant workman was not mentioned in
that list, thereafter the Industrial Tribunal (II) UP vide
order dated 20.8.2010 was pleased to delete the name
of the said workmen except at Sl. No. 32, 33, & 34 from
the list of reference order then a group of 33 persons
has filed an application dated August 2010 under
Section 10 of the I.D. Act., before the RLC (C), Lucknow
with the prayer to call upon the employer for proper
adjudication, the name of the applicant workman was
mentioned at Sl. No. 11 in the list of applicants moved
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7325
there. The establishment filed objection before RLC (C)
Lucknow and on 27.1.2011 during the conciliation
proceedings, the authorized representative of the
workmen has requested the learned conciliation officer
to withdraw the Industrial Dispute so as to raise the
same directly before the CGlT-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow.
10.
The opposite parties have also mentioned that
conciliation officer in its letter dated 10.2.2011 addressed
to the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour
and Employment, New Delhi informed that conciliation
file has been closed on the request of concerned
workman, thereafter the workman has filed a claim
statement before the Tribunal on the same issue which
has been registered at I.D. No. 70/2011.
11.
It has been emphasized by opposite parties No.
1 & 2 that workman can not raise industrial dispute for
adjudication by two different forum on the same matter
of dispute, the concerned workman is still a party in
the adjudication case No.126/2002 pending before
Industrial Tribunal (II) U. P. Lucknow. The opposite
parties No. 1 & 2 stressed that the present claim is
barred by limitation U/s 2A (3) of the ID Act., since the
workman has moved after lapse of about 10 years after
the date of termination of services. It has also been
alleged by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 that the
workman has not come before the Tribunal with clean
hands, and he has suppressed the fact. Accordingly,
opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have requested to reject the
claim filed by the workman.
12.
Several dates were given to the par Lies but no
rebuttal/reply/rejoinder was filed by the workman
regarding preliminary objections raised by the opposite
parties No. 1 & 2.
13.
On 13.08.2013 the learned AR of the applicant
workman made an endorsement in waiting on the claim
statement "I WANT TO NOT PRESS THIS CASE.".
Allegedly, the matter is already pending before the
Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal-II, U. P., Lucknow in
Pursuance of the reference madely the U. P.
Government under Section 4-K of UP Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
AWARD
14.
Under the circumstances and the facts mentioned
herein, no relief is legally required to be given to the
applicant/workman Sh. Mansuri Singh. The reference
under adjudication is answered as NO CLAIM AWARD.
15.
Award as above
LUCKNOW
28th October, 2014
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2967-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkWVkseksfVo
izkS|ksfxdh baVjus'kuy lsaVj ,oa nwljksa 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 92@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@19@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2014
S.O.
2967.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 92/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the M/s. Inter National Centre for
Automotive Technology & Others and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
14/11/2014.
[No. L-42011/19/2014-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No 92 of 2014. Reference No. L-42011/19/
2014-IR(DU) dated 05/05/ 2014
Shri Bhagat Singh,
Son of Shri Bishan Singh,
Ex-workman C/o Shri Hublala Yadav,
General Secretary,
Mercantile Employees Association,
House No. 530,
Near Prem Public School,
Dayal Nagar,
P.O. Amar Nagar, Faridabad-121003.
...Workman
VERSUS
1. The Director,
M/s. Rakshak Securities (Pvt.) Ltd.
T-5, Plot No. 12, Plaza III
Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi 110075.
7326
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. The General Manager,
M/s. International Centre for
Automotive Technology
Plot No. 26, Sector-3, HSIDC,
IMT Manesar, Gurgaon-122050
...Respondents
Appearances:
For the Workman
:
None.
For the Management
:
Sh. Ashutosh Verma and
Rajender Aneja for Res-
pondents
AWARD
Passed on : 03.11.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-42011/19/2014-IR(DU) dated
08/05/2014 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication :
Term of Reference:
“Whether the action of the management of General
Manager, M/s. International Cenre for Automotive
Technology (ICAT), IMT Manesar, Gurgoan for
giving appointment directly and later on deployed
through contractor and thereafter termination of
services of Shri Bhagat Singh son of Shri Bishan
Singh Ex-workman w.e.f. 28.05.2012 is just, fair and
legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
to and from which date."
2.
Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already sufficient opportunity has been allowed
to file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view
of the above the present reference is disposed off for
want of prosecution.
3.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be
sent to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
03.11.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2968-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkWVkseksfVo
izkS|ksfxdh baVjus'kuy lsaVj ,oa nwljksa 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 91@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@18@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2014
S.O.
2968.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 91/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the M/s. International Centre for
Automotive Technology & Other and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
14/11/2014.
[No. L-42011/18/2014-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No ID No. 91 of 2014. Reference No. L-42011/18/
2014-IR(DU) dated 06/05/ 2014
Shri Ajesh Sharma,
Son of Shri Ram Kumar Sharma,
Ex-workman C/o Shri Hublala Yadav.
General Secretary,
Mercantile Employees Association,
House No. 530,
Near Prem Public School,
Dayal Nagar,
P.O. Amar Nagar, Faridabad-121003.
...Workman
Versus
1. The Dtrector,
M/s. Rakshak Securities (Pvt.) Ltd.
T-5, Plot No. 12, Plaza-III
Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi 110075.
2. The General Manager,
M/s. International Centre for Automotive
Techaology Plot No. 26
Sector-3. HSIDC, IMT Manesar,
Gurgoan-122050
...Respondents
Appearances:
For the Workman
:
None.
For the Management
:
Sh. Ashutosh Verma and
Rajender Aneja Respondents
AWARD
Passed on:-03.11.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No L-42011/18/2014/IR(DU) dated
06/05/2014 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7327
“Whether the action of the management of General
Manager, M/s. International Centre for
Automotive Technology (ICAT), IMT Manesar,
Gurgoan for giving appointment directly and later
on deployed through contractor and thereafter
termination of services of Shri Ajesh Sharma son
of Shri Ram Kumar Sharma, Ex-workman w.e.f.
28.05.2012 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to and from which
date?"
2.
Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already sufficient opportunity has been allowed
to file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view
of the above the present reference is disposed off for
want of Prosecution.
3.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be
sent to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
03.11.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2969-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkWVkseksfVo
izkS|ksfxdh baVjus'kuy lsaVj ,oa nwljksa 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 90@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@17@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2014
S.O.
2969.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 90/2014)
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 the M/s. International Centre for
Automotive Technology & Others and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
14/11/2014.
[No. L-42011/17/2014-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 90 of 2014. Reference No. L-42011/17/
2014/1R(DU) dated 08/05/2014
Shri Surender Kumar Jogi,
Son of Shri Amar Singh,
Ex-workman C/o Shri Hublala Yadav,
General Secretary,
Mercantile Employees Association,
House No. 530,
Near Prem Public School,
Dayal Nagar,
P.O. Amar Nagar Faridabad-121003
...Workman
Versus
1. The Dtrector,
M/s. Rakshak Securities (Pvt.) Ltd.
T-5, Plot No. 12, Manish Plaza-III
Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi 110075.
2. The General Manager,
M/s. International Centre for Automotive
Technology, Plot No. 76
Sector-3, HSIDC, IMI Manesar,
Gurgaon-122050
...Respondents
Appearances:
For the Workman
:
None.
For the Management
:
Sh. Ashutosh Verma and
Rajender Aneja Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-03.11.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L.-42011/17/2014/IR(DU) dated 08/
05/2014 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of
General Manager, M/s. International Centre for
Automotive Technology (ICAT), IMT Manesar,
Gurgaon for giving appointment directly and later
on deployed through contractor and thereafter
termination of services of Shri Surender Kumar
Jogi son of Shri Amar Singh Jogi Ex-workman w.e.f.
28.05.2012 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to and from which
date?"
7328
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already sufficient opportunity has been allowed
to file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view
of the above the present reference is disposed off for
want of Prosecution.
3.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be
sent to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
03.11.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2970-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkWVkseksfVo
izkS|ksfxdh baVjus'kuy lsaVj ,oa nwljksa 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 89@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@16@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2014
S.O.
2970.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 89/2014)
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 the M/s. International Centre for
Automotive Technology & Others and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
14/11/2014.
[No. L-42011/16/2014-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 89 of 2014. Reference No. L-42011/16/
2014-IR(DU) dated 05/05/ 2014
Shri Samay Singh,
Son of Shri Dhan Singh,
Ex-workman, C/o Shri Hublala Yadav,
General Secretary,
Mercantile Employees Association,
House No. 530,
Near Prem Public School,
Dayal Nagar,
P.O. Amar Nagar, Faridabad-121003
...Workman
Versus
1. The Director,
M/s. Rakshak Securities (Pvt.) Ltd.
T-5, Plot No. 12, Manish Plaza III
Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075.
2. The General Manager,
M/s. International Centre for Automotive
Technology, Plot No. 76
Sector-3, HSIDC, IMT Manesar,
Gurgaon-122050
...Respondents
Appearances:
For the Workman
:
None
For the Management
:
Sh. Ashutosh Verma and
Rajender Aneja Respondents
AWARD
Passed On : 03.11.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No L.-42011/16/2014/IR(DU) dated
08/05/2014 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:
Term of Reference :
“Whether the action of the management of General
Manager, M/s. International Centre for
Automotive technology (ICAT), IMT Manesar,
Gurgoan for giving appointment directly and later
on deployed through contractor and thereafter
termination of services of Shri Samay Singh son
of Shri Dhan Singh Ex-workman, w.e.f. 28.05.2012
is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to and from which date?"
2.
Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already sufficient opportunity has been allowed
to file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view
of the above the present reference is disposed off for
want of Prosecution.
3.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be
sent to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
03.11.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7329
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2971-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mkd?kj] enqjS
ds lgk;d v/h{kd 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 01@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 17@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@261@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2014
S.O.
2971.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 01/2002)
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 Asstt. Superintendent of Post
Office, Madurai and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 17/11/2014.
[No. L-40012/261/2001-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Monday, the 10th November, 2014
Present :
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 1/2002
(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 Asstt. Superintendent
of Post Office, Postal Department, Madurai and their
workman).
BETWEEN:
Sri R. Pounraj
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Asstt. Superintendent of
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Post Office City South
Sub-Division Madurai-625005
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
M/s. R. Malaichamy,
Advocate
For the 2nd Party/Respondent : Mr.
M.
Liagatali,
Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-40012/261/2001-IR
(DU) dated 19.12.2001 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the Assistant Superintendent
of Post Office, Postal Department, Madurai in
dismissing the services of Sri R. Pounraj (Pavunraj)
from the post of Extra-Departmental Packer is
justified and legal? If not, to what relief the
concerned employee is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 1/2002 and issued notice to both
sides. Both parties have entered appearance through the
counsel and filed claim and counter statement
respectively.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed in the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner was working as ED Packer under
the Respondents. While he was working as such at the
postal training central sub-office an article of charge was
served on him alleging that on 30.09.1987 he had
defrauded the value of Pollachi HVMO No. 4787 dated
28.09.1987 for ` 1583/- with the forged signature of the
payee in the MO and in the intimation slip and thereby
failed to maintain integrity and devotion to duty in
contravention to Rule-17 of Posts & Telegraphs Extra-
Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rule, 1964.
Opportunity was denied to the petitioner to defend his
case. The enquiry authority and disciplinary authority
failed to apply their minds to the evidence introduced in
a just manner. The petitioner had discharged the work
allotted to him. He was made a scapegoat utilizing his
willingness to carry out the orders of the higher authority.
The Sub-Post Master who was the paying official was
responsible for the omission and commission, if any. The
concerned MO was paid under an acquittance. It being a
high value amount, only the Sub-Post Master was the
authority to make the payment. There was no receipt for
handing over the money order to the petitioner. The
defense of the petitioner was not taken into consideration
by the enquiring authority or the disciplinary authority.
The petitioner was punished by dismissing him from
service without any justification. The enquiry was
conducted in total violation of principles of natural
justice. An order may be passed directing the
Respondents to reinstate the petitioner as ED Agent with
all benefits including back wages and other attendant
benefits.
7330
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as follows:
The petitioner who was working as Extra-
Departmental Packer at Postal Training Centre Sub-Post
Office during the period from 12.12.1981 to 30.09.1991
was dismissed from service w.e.f 30.09.1991. The
petitioner was charged with a statement of the imputations
of misconduct and misbehavior and he was asked to
submit his representation. He had denied the charges and
an enquiry was ordered by appointing an Enquiry Officer
and a Presenting Officer on behalf of the Disciplinary
Authority. The petitioner was allowed to avail service of
a Defense Assistant which he availed. The enquiring
authority, on enquiry had recorded a finding that the
charges against the petitioner are proved. The
Disciplinary Authority who had agreed with the enquiring
authority had awarded the punishment. The petitioner
had filed an appeal with the appellate authority and the
same was dismissed. The petitioner had then approached
the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal had
quashed the order of dismissal and ordered the
Respondents to continue the disciplinary proceedings
after serving a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner.
The order was complied with and the petitioner was
reinstated in service and thereafter the proceedings were
continued. The petitioner was again dismissed from
service w.e.f. 30.09.1991. The enquiry against the
petitioner was conducted in compliance with the
principles of natural justice. The petitioner is not entitled
to any relief.
5.
The evidence in the case consists of documents
marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.14. No oral evidence was
adduced by either side. The counsels have endorsed that
they have no oral evidence. The Respondents have not
produced any documentary evidence also.
6.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
“Whether the action of the Respondent in
dismissing the petitioner from service is legal
and justified?
(ii)
What if any is the relief to which the
petitioner is entitled?”
The points
7.
The ID had a chequered career. The petitioner who
was working as Extra Departmental Packer was alleged
to have defrauded the value of an MO for ` 1583/- on
30.09.1987. After the incident was revealed article of
charges have been served on the petitioner and an enquiry
had been conducted. On the basis of the enquiry report,
the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed
on the petitioner w.e.f. 09.01.1989. However, on petitioner
challenging the order before the Central Administrative
Tribunal (CAT), the Tribunal quashed the order of
dismissal holding that a copy of the enquiry report had
not been served on the petitioner. The Tribunal directed
that the petitioner should be reinstated in service. The
Respondents were allowed to continue the enquiry
proceedings also. The Respondents proceeded further in
compliance with the direction of the CAT and again
entered a finding of guilt against the petitioner and
dismissed him from service again w.e.f,. 30.09.1991. It
is against this order of dismissal this dispute is raised.
This Tribunal had earlier passed an ex-parte order in
favour of the petitioner on 06.10.2003 The Respondents
have challenged this order before the High Court of
Madras in WP No. 8981/2004. By order dated 25.06.2014
the Hon’ble High Court has set aside the award and
remanded the matter for fresh disposal on merits and in
accordance with law within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of copy of the order, after giving
opportunity to both the parties. The documents on the
side of the petitioner were marked after this. The
Respondents have not adduced any oral or documentary
evidence.
8.
It has been argued by the counsel for the Respondent
that the ID is liable to be taken off the file for the very
latches on the part of the petitioner. The counsel has relied
upon the decision of the Apex Court in UTTARANCHAL
FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND
ANOTHER VS. JABAR SINGH AND OTHERS reported
in 2007 2 SCC 112 to advance his argument. It was a
case where there was a delay of 10 years in filing Writ
Petition challenging the order of retrenchment of the
workman. The Apex Court has held that the Writ Petition
is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay of 10
years. In the present case the order of dismissal was
made w.e.f. 30.09.1991. The petitioner has not lifted his
little finger until 2001 when he approached the Labour
Commissioner raising the dispute. Thus he has raised
the dispute only after a decade. He has not given any
explanation for the latches on the part in raising the
dispute. So far as the Respondent is concerned it was
treated as a concluded matter long ago. Such unexplained
latches on the part of the petitioner is something which
could not be justified. The ID is liable to be dismissed for
this reason itself.
9.
Earlier my predecessor had granted an order in favour
of the petitioner because the Respondents have failed to
represent the matter. The petitioner has not produced any
documents on his part at that time to help the Court in
adjudicating the case. It was because the matter was not
considered on merits, the Hon’ble High Court has restored
the matter to file with direction to dispose the case on
merits after giving opportunity to both sides to adduce
evidence. After the matter came back to this Tribunal, the
petitioner has produced documents marked as Ext.W1 to
Ext.W14. However, on going through the documents I find
that most of the documents which would be relevant for
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7331
adjudication are not produced by the petitioner even now.
The petitioner was dismissed from service after conducting
an enquiry. The Charge Memo served on the petitioner
has been produced. The Enquiry Report also is produced.
The Memorandum alongwith the Charge Memo has
directed the petitioner to submit his written statement of
defense for the same. However, the copy of the written
statement that was given by him is not seen produced. On
going through the enquiry report it is seen that an
investigation was carried before the enquiry and statement
of the relevant persons were recorded also. Those persons
whose statements were recorded were examined as
witnesses before the Enquiry Officer. It could be seen from
the enquiry report that these witnesses have given
evidence based on those statements. However, neither
those statements nor the depositions of the witnesses in
the enquiry proceedings which would be relevant for
adjudication are seen produced by the petitioner. So this
Tribunal is highly constrained in adjudicating the matter.
The Respondent could not be found fault with in not able
to produce the documents in respect of a matter which
has been closed 10 years ago.
10.
Even on considering the limited materials available,
it could be seen that there is no justification for the claim
of the petitioner that he was terminated from service
wrongly and he is entitled to reinstatement. On going
through the Charge Memo it could be seen that the charge
against him is that while working as ED Packer at Postal
Training Centre Sub Post Office, he had defrauded the
value of a money order for ` 1583/- on 030.09.1987 by
forging the signature of the payee in the money order
and the intimation slip. The petitioner was sufficiently
represented in the enquiry proceedings by his
representative. The enquiry report shows that the Officer
who investigated the matter has been examined as SW1
in the enquiry proceedings and the statements recorded
by him during investigation were marked as Ext.SE7 to
Ext.SE12. The one examined as SW2 was the Sub-
Postmaster of the concerned Post Office. The enquiry
report reveals that she has given evidence in accordance
with the statement given by him to SW1 who conducted
the investigation. She has stated during the examination
that the practice in the Post Office was to entrust Money
Orders to the petitioner who was the ED Packer and
Kumaraswamy who was the EDDA. She has stated
that this was the system prevailing in the Post Office
and she could not have changed it. She has further stated
that on 30.09.1987 also the MOs entrusted with Pavunraj
and Kumaraswamy were all paid by them and that MO
No. 4787 dated 28.09.1987 for ` 1583/- which is the
subject matter of the dispute also was paid by the
petitioner. SW3 who was the Postal Assistant has stated
that she has prepared the intimation slip and it is the
petitioner who has effected payment of the MOs.
According to her, EDDA who was available in the office
was giving intimation to the trainees. Kumaraswamy who
was the EDDA himself was examined as SW4. What he
has stated is that he was not present at the Post Office
when the MO payments were made on 30.09.1987. SW5
is Natarajan to whom the Money Order was entrusted.
He has disowned the signatures appearing in the MO
Voucher and Intimation Slip which are also seen produced
before the Enquiry officer.
11.
The argument that is advanced in the notes of
arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioner is that
normally it was the duty of Sub-Postmaster examined as
SW2 to make window payment of Money Orders and it
was not his duty at all. The argument seems to be that for
this reason itself guilt could not be fastened on the
petitioner. However, there is the specific evidence given
by SW2 that as per the practice in the branch the petitioner
who is the ED Packer and SW4 the EDDA used to make
MO payments. The Enquiry Officer has referred to the
statement of SW2 that she has handed over a total amount
of ` 30,000/- pertaining to various MOs including the
MO under dispute to the petitioner. It could also be seen
from the discussion by the Enquiry Officer that the
petitioner himself has admitted that he has received
` 30,000/- from SW2. According to SW2, every other MO
other than the disputed one was paid by the petitioner on
that day. The argument that is advanced on behalf of the
petitioner is that though he received the amount, he had
paid the amount to SW4 who was to make the payment.
The counsel has also referred to the contradictory
statement of SW3 and SW4 regarding the presence of
SW4 at the office on the particular day. However, on going
through the enquiry report I do not think there is much
of any contradiction. What SW3 has stated is that SW4
was giving intimation to the trainees. What SW4 himself
has stated is that he was not there at the time when MO
payment was made and not that he was not in the office
on the day at all. If it is the case of the petititioner that
SW2 herself was to make window payment, his version
that he has received ` 30,000/- fort payment to SW4
does not make any sense. If his case is correct there would
not have been any necessity for SW2 to pay the amount
to the petitioner for entrustment with SW4. In any case
if SW4 was to make the payment it is unlikely that it
would have been entrusted with the petitioner rather than
paying it directly to SW4. The enquiry report reveals that
SW4 has deposed that all the MOs were paid by the
petitioner himself. So it is unlikely that the MO under
dispute alone would have been retained by SW2 for
payment or that alone was entrusted with SW4. The
Enquiry Officer has stated in his report that the signatures
is appearing in the intimation slip and the MO forms are
different. He has stated that if it was SW2 who was
making payment she would have noticed this and would
not have made payment at all. The entire evidence as
could be deciphered from the enquiry report points to
7332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the petitioner as the person who has been responsible for
the incident. When SW5 the person who was to receive
the amount has denied receipt, the proof against the
petitioner is complete. Thus it could be seen that it was
with sufficient proof that the Enquiry Officer has come
to the conclusion that the petitioner is responsible for
the incident.
12.
Based on the decision of the Apex Court in UNION
OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. GYAN CHAND
CHATTAR reported in 2009 12 SCC 78 the counsel for
the petitioner has stated that no enquiry can be sustained
on vague charges. However, I do not find anything vague
in the Charge Memo served on the petitioner. The only
incident which is the subject matter of the charge has
been specifically described in the Charge Memo and the
petitioner has undergone the enquiry fully aware of the
charge against him. The finding of the Enquiry Officer
could not be termed as perverse or unreasonable nor based
on conjectures and surmises as is attempted to be made
out by the counsel for the petitioner. I find that even on
merits the petitioner has no case. The punishment also
could not be considered as disproportionate.
13.
In view of my discussion above, the petitioner is
not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered
against the petitioner.
The reference is answered accordingly.
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
04.06.1988 Charge Memo of 1st Respondent
Ex.W2
31.12.1988 IO’s report a/w typed copy
Ex.W3
05.03.1991 Order in O.A. No. 738 of 1990
Ex.W4
29.04.1991 Appeal to 1st Respondent
Ex.W5
30.09.1991 Order of 1st Respondent
Ex.W6
07.04.1999 Representation
Ex.W7
10.06.1999 Order of PMG, Madurai
Ex.W8
06.10.2003 Award in ID 1 of 2002
Ex.W9
12.12.2003 Order of Labour Commissioner
Ex.W10
26.04.2004 Notice issued by Hon’ble HC,
Madras
Ex.W11
16.06.2004 Cheque Xerox copy
Ex.W12
21.06.2014 Counter statement in WP No.
8981 of 2004
Ex.W13
25.06.2014 Order in WP No. 8981 of 2004
Ex.W14
20.08.2014 Notice of this Hon’ble Tribunal
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
N/A
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2972-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tSV ,vjost
fyfeVsM ,oe~ vU; pkj ,vjykbZUl 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 68] 70] 71] 74] 75] 76] 77] 78 & 79/
2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&11012@42@2010&vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)_
la- ,y&11012@44@2010&vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)_
la- ,y&11012@50@2010&vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)_
la- ,y&11012@43@2010&vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)_
la- ,y&11012@46@2010&vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)_
la- ,y&11012@47@2010&vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)_
la- ,y&11012@48@2010&vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)_
la- ,y&11012@49@2010&vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)_
la- ,y&11012@51@2010&vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2014
S.O. 2972.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 68, 70, 71,
74, 75, 76, 77, 78 & 79/2011 of the Cent.Govt.Indus.
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the
Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of M/s. Jet Airways Ltd & 4 other Airlines,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-11012/42/2010 - IR (CM-I);
No. L-l1012/44/2010 - IR (CM-I);
No. L-l1012/50/2010 - IR (CM-I);
No. L-l1012/43/2010 - IR (CM-I);
No. L-11012/46/2010 - IR (CM-I);
No. L-11012/47/2010-IR (CM-I);
No. L-l1012/48/2010- IR (CM-I);
No. L-l1012/49/2010- IR (CM-I;
No. L-l1012/51/2010- IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7333
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Monday, the 20th October, 2014
Present:
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute Nos. 68, 70, 71,74, 75, 76, 77, 78
and 79/2011
(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 M/s. Jet Airways and Four
Others and their workman)
BETWEEN:
1.
Sri T. Suresh
Petitioner in ID 68/2011
2.
Sri D. Daniel
Petitioner in ID 70/2011
3.
Sri V. Mahesh Kumar
Petitioner in ID 71/2011
4.
Sri D. Durai
Petitioner in ID 74/2011
5.
Sri V. Jayan
Petitioner in ID 75/2011
6.
Sri S. Suresh
Petitioner in ID 76/2011
7.
Sri K. Sridhar
Petitioner in ID 77/2011
8.
Sri P. Nithyanandam
Petitioner in ID 78/2011
9.
K. Babu
Petitioner in ID 79/2011
AND
1.
M/s. Jet Airways Ltd.
:
2nd Party/1st
SM Centre,
Respondent
Andheri-Kurla Road
Andheri East
Mumbai-400059
2.
M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd.
:
2nd Party/2nd
N.L.-70/329,
Respondent
Mahipalpur Extension
New Delhi
3.
M/s. Jet Lite (India) Ltd.
:
2nd Party/3rd
Anna International
Respondent
Terminal RM &D Department
Meenambakkam
Chennai-600027
4.
M/s. Decor Drapes
:
2nd Party/4th
Aviation Services
Respondent
Ashvin Manor Airport Road
HAL New Borewell
Bangalore -560017
5.
M/s. Sahara Parivar
:
2nd Party/5th
Sahara Information &
Respondent
Contact Point
PB No. 2, Gomathy Nagar
Lucknow-226010
In All Industrial Disputes
S.No.
I.D. No.
Reference No. & Date
1.
68/2011
L-11012/42/2010-IR(CM-I) dated
05.08.2011
2.
70/2011
L-11012/44/2010-IR(CM-I) dated
16.08.2011
3.
71/2011
L-11012/50/2010-IR(CM-I) dated
16.08.2011
4.
74/2011
L-11 012/43/2010-IR(CM-I) dated
16.08.2011
5.
75/2011
L-11 012/46/2010-IR(CM-I) dated
16.08.2011
6.
76/2011
L-11 012/47/2010-IR(CM-I) dated
16.08.2011
7.
7712011
L-11012/48/2010-IR(CM-I) dated
16.08.2011
8.
78/2011
L-11012/49/2010-IR(CM-I) dated
16.08.2011
9.
79/2011
L-11012/51/2010-IR(CMI) dated
16.08.2011
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
M/s.
M.
Muthu
Pandian, Advocate
For the 2nd Party/Respondent :
M/s. Gupta & Ravi,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondent :
Set Ex-parte
For the 2nd Party/Respondent :
M/s. Gupta & Ravi,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondent :
M/s.
Sai
Raaj
A s s o c i a t e s ,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondent :
Sri V. Devraj
(Authorized
Representative)
COMMON AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide the order of references detailed above
referred the IDs to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras for
adjudication. The IDs were numbered as ID 68, 70, 71 and
74 to 79/2011 respectively.
7334
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
The schedule mentioned in the orders of reference
in the above IDs are as under:
ID 68 of 2011
“Whether the action of the Management of the
erstwhile M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd., now
represented by Sahara India Parivar, its erstwhile
contractor viz. M/s. Decor-Drapes Aviation Ltd.,
and M/s. Jetlite (India) Ltd. in denying employment
to Sri T. Suresh, an Ex-Loader is legal and justified?
To what the concerned workman is entitled to?”
ID 70 of 2011
“Whether the action of the management of the
erstwhile M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. now represented
by Sahara India Pariwar, its erstwhile contractor
viz. M/s. Decor Drapes Aviation Ltd. and M/s. Jet
Lite (India) Ltd. in denying employment to Sri V.D.
Daniel, an Ex-Loader is legal and justified? To what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
ID 71 of 2011
“Whether the action of the management of the
erstwhile M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. now represented
by Sahara India Pariwar, its erstwhile contractor
viz. M/s. Decor Drapes Aviation Ltd. and M/s. Jet
Lite (India) Ltd. in denying employment to Sri V.
Mahesh Kumar, an Ex-Loader is legal and justified?
To what relief the workman is entitled to?”
ID 74 of 2011
“Whether the action of the management of the
erstwhile M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. now represented
by Sahara India Pariwar, its erstwhile contractor
viz. M/s. Decor Drapes Aviation Ltd. and M/s. Jet
Lite (India) Ltd. in denying employment to Sri D.
Durai, an Ex-Loader is legal and justified? To what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
ID 75 of 2011
“Whether the action of the management of the
erstwhile M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. now represented
by Sahara India Pariwar, its erstwhile contractor
viz. M/s. Decor Drapes Aviation Ltd. and M/s. Jet
Lite (India) Ltd. in denying employment to Sri V.
Jayan, an Ex-Loader is legal and justified? To what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
ID 76 of 2011
“Whether the action of the management of the
erstwhile M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. now represented
by Sahara India Pariwar, its erstwhile contractor
viz. M/s. Decor Drapes Aviation Ltd. and M/s. Jet
Lite (India) Ltd. in denying employment to Sri S.
Suresh, an Ex-Loader is legal and justified? To what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
ID 77 of 2011
“Whether the action of the management of the
erstwhile M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. now. represented
by Sahara India Pariwar, its erstwhile contractor viz.
M/s. Decor Drapes Aviation Ltd. and M/s. Jet Lite
(India) Ltd. in denying employment to Sri K. Sridhar,
an Ex-Loader is legal and justified? To what relief
the workman is entitled to?”
ID 78 of 2011
"Whether the action of the management of the
erstwhile M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. now represented
by Sahara India Pariwar, its erstwhile contractor viz.
M/s. Decor Drapes Aviation Ltd. and M/s. Jet Lite
(India) Ltd. in denying employment to Sri P.
Nityanandam, an Ex-Loader is legal and justified?
To what relief the workman is entitled to?”
ID 79 of 2011
"Whether the action of the management of the
erstwhile M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. now represented
by Sahara India Pariwar, its erstwhile contractor viz.
M/s. Decor Drapes Aviation Ltd. and M/s. Jet Lite
(India) Ltd. in denying employment to Sri K. Babu,
an Ex-Loader is legal and justified? To what relief
the workman is entitled to?”
3.
On receipt of notice, the petitioners and Respondents
1st, 3rd and 4th have appeared through their counsel and
the Fifth Respondent through Authorized Representative
and filed claim and counter statement respectively. The
2nd Respondent has remained ex-parte.
4.
The averments in the Claim Statement in ID 68/2011
are as below:
The petitioner has received a telegram asking to join
duty with Sahara Airlines Ltd., the Second Respondent
on 26.06.2003 and he has joined duty, He has started
working as Loader in the Cargo Division of the Second
Respondent in Chennai. The petitioner used to work for
12 hours daily. The petitioner was paid salary of ` 3.000/-.
During the last 3 months of his job he was getting salary
of ` 3.500/-. The petitioner was expecting to be made
permanent by the 2nd Respondent since he has worked for
4 years under the Respondent. During March 2007 there
was a merger with Jet Airways Ltd .. the First Respondent.
The Second Respondent promised that the interests of
the workers would be protected by obtaining job for them
in the merger company. Even after, four years of the
merger the petitioner has neither got the job nor the
settlement amount as promised. There may be an order
directing the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in
service with back wages and other consequential reliefs.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7335
5.
The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The First Respondent is not a necessary party to
the dispute. The First Respondent is not concerned with
the reference made by the appropriate government. The
petitioner was never an employee of the First Respondent.
There was no master-servant relationship between the
First Respondent and the petitioner. It is seen from the
pleadings filed before the Conciliation Officer that the
petitioner was under the employment of the Fourth
Respondent who was the Contractor of erstwhile Sahara
Airlines Ltd .. the Second Respondent. It is incorrect to
state that there was merger of the second Respondent
with the First Respondent. The petitioner is not entitled
to any relief against the First Respondent.
6.
The Second Respondent has remained ex-parte.
7.
The Third Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The reference before this Tribunal is incompetent
and cannot be adjudicated upon. The reference proceeds
on the basis that the petitioner was employed by
Respondents 2 to 5. There cannot be a situation wherein
Respondents 2 to 5 which are separate legal entities would
become employer of the petitioner. The petitioner was
never an employee of the third Respondent and there was
no master and servant relationship between them at any
time. The Fifth Respondent was originally carrying out
airline business in the name and style of Sahara Airlines
Ltd. which has been impleaded as Second Respondent.
The shares held by the Fifth Respondent in the Second
Respondent Company were subsequently acquired by the
First Respondent and consequently the name of the
Second Respondent was changed as Jetlite India Ltd.,
the third Respondent. The Third Respondent has no
connection with the other Respondents, but is a distinct
and separate legal entity. The only connection between
the First and Third Respondents is that the First
Respondent holds the entire shares of the Third
Respondent Company and has the status of shareholder.
The Second Respondent had awarded a contract to the
Fourth Respondent for carrying out ancillary ground
support services at the Chennai Airport by agreement
dated 26.10.2002. The agreement seems to have been
renewed from time to time. The Second respondent had
a certificate of registration for contract labour and the
Fourth Respondent had obtained license under the CLRA
Act. As seen from the counter filed in the conciliation
proceedings, the petitioner was in the employment of the
Fourth Respondent. The contract with the Fourth
Respondent was discontinued w.e.f. 05.09.2007.
Consequent to the termination of the contract the third
Respondent had no relationship with the Fourth
Respondent. The salary for the petitioner was paid only
by the Fourth Respondent. The question of protecting
the employment of the petitioner does not arise as he was
employed by the Fourth Respondent only. No assurance
was given that the job of the petitioner or others would be
protected. The contract of the Fourth Respondent was
terminated in September, 2007. The petitioner has raised
the dispute only in July, 2009. If at all the petitioner has
any claim it is to be made only against the Fourth
Respondent. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
8.
The Fourth Respondent has filed counter statement
contending as below:
There is no claim in the petition that the petitioner
was employed with the Fourth Respondent or that any
termination of service was brought by the Fourth
Respondent. Each of the Respondents are independent
entities. The petitioner has sought reinstatement with the
Respondents without specifying from which of the
Respondents relief is sought. The claim of the petitioner
is vague and is to be dismissed on this ground itself. The
Fourth Respondent provides various support services to
various Airlines in the form of ground handlings, cleaning
of aircrafts, baggage handling, providing passenger
facilitation for the airlines and also providing drivers for
vehicles. The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security has
approved the Fourth Respondent as a ground handling
agency. Depending upon the requirement of airlines, the
Fourth Respondent enters into contract or obtains order
in the form of a tender for providing various services to
the Airlines in the airport. A contract was entered into with
the Second Respondent and this was renewed each year
between 2003 to 2007 prior to the merger of the second
Respondent with the First Respondent. The Fourth
Respondent has the necessary license under the CLRA
Act for employing contract labour. The petitioner is one
such workman who was engaged by the Fourth
Respondent on casual basis as part of fulfillment of its
contractual obligations with the Second Respondent. By
or about March 2007 the contract with the second
Respondent ceased to exist consequent to the merger of
the Second Respondent with the First Respondent. Casual
loaders such as the petitioner ceased to be in the
employment of the Fourth Respondent consequently. It is
denied that the petitioner worked on a 12 hour basis. The
work of the loaders in the Airport is fluctuating and is
dependent on passenger traffic as well as number of flights.
The petitioner did not seek employment with the Fourth
Respondent at any time. Even as on this date the Fourth
Respondent has certain ongoing contract in the Chennai
Airport with other Airlines and is willing to provide casual
employment to the petitioner as was earlier provided. It is
open to the petitioner to report for work with the Fourth
Respondent.
7336
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9.
The Fifth Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The correct name of the Fifth Respondent is Sahara
India and not Sahara Parivar. The petitioner was not
working with any of the establishments of Sahara India
Group. There is no employer-employee relationship
between the petitioner and the Fifth Respondent. There
was no merger of Sahara Airlines Ltd. with Jet Airways
Ltd. The management and ownership of Sahara Airlines
Ltd. was taken over by Jet Airways Ltd. The claim of the
petitioner that he was asked to join duty with Air Sahara
is not true. The petitioner was deputed with the Fifth
Respondent by the Fourth Respondent. It is incorrect to
state that the petitioner was assured of a permanent job
with the Second Respondent. The petitioner is not entitled
to any relief.
10.
The petitioners in ID 70/2011,71/2011,74/2011,75/
2011,762011,77/2011, 78/2011 and 79/2011, all claim
to have been employed by the Second Respondent. The
averments in the Claim Statement filed by all these
petitioners are replicas of the Claim Statement filed by
the petitioner in ID 68 of 2011. All the petitioners have
claimed the relief of reinstatement with the Respondents.
In all these disputes the respondents have filed Counter
Statement repeating the contentions that are raised in
the Counter Statements filed by them in ID 68 of 2011.
11.
The Respondents in all the IDs being the same and
the issue to be decided in all the IDs also being similar,
the IDs were tried jointly.
12.
At the initial stage the petitioners were represented
by a lawyer and he was conducting the cases. Though
the lawyer is still on record, at the later stage he was not
available. The petitioner in ID 68/2011 was the one who
was mainly representing the other petitioners and
conducting their cases on behalf of other petitioners also.
However, during his examination he has stated that he is
not representing the petitioners in ID 70/2011, 74/2011
and 79/2011.
13.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
of WW1 and MWs 1 to 3 and documentary evidence
consisting of Exts.W1 to W7 and Exts.M1 to M27.
14.
The point for consideration is:
“Whether the petitioners in the above Industrial
Disputes are entitled to reinstatement as claimed?”
The Point
15.
All the petitioners are claiming the relief of
reinstatement by the Respondents. The case is that they
have started to work with the Second Respondent on the
basis of a telegram asking to join duty and they have
been working for 12 hours on daily basis. They are said
to have worked for almost 4 years as Loaders,
continuously. In the meanwhile, during March 2007, merger
between the Second Respondent and the First Respondent
is said to have taken place. It is stated in the Claim Statement
that though there was an assurance from the Second
Respondent’s council that the workers grievance will be
settled, they were not given any job nor paid any amount
as promised.
16.
On going through each of the Claim Statements it
could be seen that the very nature of these Claim
Statements is vagueness. No specific plea is raised by the
petitioner on any aspect. Though it is stated in the Claim
Statement that the petitioners have started to work on the
basis of a telegram with the Second Respondent, it is not
stated who has sent the telegram or who has engaged the
petitioners as Loaders. The date on which they have
started to work also is not specifically mentioned. It is not
clear from the Claim Statement if the date given is the date
on which the telegram was received or the date on which
the petitioners started to work. Though it could be
gathered from the Claim Statement that each of the
petitioners are without any work, it could not be gathered
on which date they were turned out from job and by whom.
It is stated that there was a merger of the First Respondent
and Second Respondent companies. However, it is not
clear whether the petitioners have continued to work after
the merger which is said to have taken place. The case of
respondents other than the Fourth Respondent is that it
was not a case of merger at all but the shares of the Fifth
Respondent in the Second Respondent were taken over
by the First Respondent and the name of the Second
Respondent was changed and the Third Respondent
Company was’ formed. It is the case of Respondents that
each of the Respondents are different entities. However,
there is no case in the Claim Statement who has employed
the petitioner or who had terminated them, if at all done.
Again, the petitioners do not specify against whom they
are claiming the relief of reinstatement. If the Respondents
are different entities, the petitioners could not have been
under the employment of all of them at the same time. It is
not clear from the Claim Statement who is to reinstate the
respective petitioners.
17.
All the Respondents other than the Fourth
Respondent have contended that there is no employer -
employee relationship between them and the respective
petitioners. The Fourth Respondent has pointed out in
the Counter Statement that there is no case for the
petitioners that they were employed by the Fourth
Respondent. At the same time the Fourth Respondent has
stated in the Counter Statement that the petitioners were
under its employment. According to this respondent it
has entered into an agreement with the Second
Respondent in the year 2002 for handling ground services.
This was renewed every year and continued until 2007
when the Second Respondent became nonest and the Third
Respondent Company was formed and had taken over the
business.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7337
18.
Even though there is no specific plea in the Claim
Statement, it is clear from the evidence of the petitioner in
ID 68/2011 who has given evidence on behalf of the other
contesting petitioners also as WW1 that all of them were
employed by the Fourth Respondent only. He has admitted
during his cross-examination that the Fourth Respondent
was the Contractor of the Second Respondent and he was
given employment by the Fourth Respondent, though he
would claim that he was interviewed by the Second
Respondent. He has stated that himself and all other
petitioners have joined in their job in the same month
and year. He has admitted that it was the Fourth
Respondent who was paying salary to him and all
others. He has admitted that they were covered under
ESI and PF by the Fourth Respondent. It is also admitted
that Rs 1, 2 and 3 did not issue any appointment order
to them. Then he stated that they were working with
the Fourth Respondent till 31.03.2007 and after that the
Fourth Respondent did not give any employment to
them. It could also be seen from the admission of WW1
that it was the Fourth Respondent who was supervising
the job of the petitioners at the Airport According to
WW1, while the petitioners were working in the Airport
the Manager of the Fourth Respondent used to come
to the Airport occasionally. However, there was a
supervisor of the Fourth Respondent who used to come
to the Airport daily. According to WW1, though
Supervisor of the Fourth Respondent was there, work
used to be allotted by the Supervisor of Sahara Airlines
Ltd. However this could not be an indicator of direct
employment of the petitioner by the 2nd Respondent. In
the decision in International Airport Authority Vs.
International Air Cargo Workers (dated 13.04.2009) the
Apex Court has held that loading, unloading, etc. in the
cargo complex of Airport will naturally be under the
supervision of Airport Officers and it cannot be taken
as evidence of direct employment. As is seen from the
evidence of WW1, the petitioners had asked the Fourth
Respondent for job after 31.03.2007 also. It has agreed
to provide job if it got another contract also. Thus it
could be seen from the evidence of WW1 itself that
himself and other petitioners were employed by the
Fourth Respondent and it was only with the Fourth
Respondent as Contractor the petitioners were doing
the job of Loader for the Second Respondent. MW1
examined on behalf of the Fifth Respondent and MW2
examined on behalf of Rs 1 and 3 have reiterated their
case in the Counter Statements. There is also the
evidence of MW3 on behalf of the Fourth Respondent
asserting the case that all the petitioners were employed
by it. The documents to show that the Fourth
Respondent had the necessary license to take up the
job and had entered into a contract with the Second
Respondent are produced by the 3rd respondent. These
are Exts.M1 to 6, M8 and M9. The petitioners did not
produce any document to show from which date they
have started to work with the Second Respondent as
claimed by them, what were the conditions of
engagement, etc. The documents produced and marked
as Ext.W1 to Ext.W5 are certificates issued by Air
Sahara stating that they have participated in Aviation
Security Awareness Programmer at Chennai. It is very
much clear from the evidence of WW1 itself that Fourth
Respondent was the employer of the petitioners and
they were working as contract labourers under the
Fourth Respondent.
19.
There is no case in the Claim statement that the
contract entered into between the Fourth and Second
Respondent is sham and nominal and actually the Second
Respondent is the employer. Even during evidence there
was no attempt on the part of the petitioners to put forth
the case that the contract is sham and nominal and was
not acted upon. As already stated, there is not even a
case in the Claim Statement that it is the Fourth
Respondent who has employed the petitioners on the basis
of a sham agreement. In spite of this, an attempt is seen
made in the written argument submitted on behalf of the
petitioners to show that the contract is a sham one. In.the
absence of any plea or any evidence this need not be
considered at all.
20.
The counsel for Respondents 2 and 3 has referred
to the decision in GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD
THERMAL POWER STATION, GUJARAT VS. HIND
MAZDOOR SABHA AND OTHERS reported in AIR
1995 SC 1893 which would has laid down that the
individual contract workmen could not even raise the
dispute in the absence of a plea that the contract is sham
and nominal. Only when such a dispute is raised with
such a contention by the concerned workmen the
Industrial Adjudicator has to decide whether the contract
is sham or genuine. It is only when the adjudicator comes
to the conclusion that the contract is sham he will get
jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. If the conclusion is
that the contract is genuine the reference is to be rejected,
the dispute being not an industrial dispute within the
meaning of Section-2K of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Again, in BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. VS.
ANIL AND OTHERS reported in JT 2006 (10) SC 297
also the Supreme Court has laid down the distinction
between an individual dispute which is deemed to be a
industrial dispute under Section-2A of the ID Act and an
ID espoused by the Union in terms of Section-2(i) of the
Act. It has been held that Section-2A does not cover every
type of dispute between an individual workman and his
employer, but it only enables the individual worker to
raise the dispute notwithstanding that no other workman
or union is party to the dispute and it applies only to
disputes relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment
or termination of service of an individual workman. When
7338
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the petitioners were not employed directly or terminated
by the Second Respondent they could not seek any
reinstatement with the Respondents 1 to 3 or 5 in the sense
that they never engaged the petitioners. As already stated,
there is no specific plea regarding this also.
21. Even in the Counter Statement the Fourth Respondent
has stated that it is willing to provide employment to the
petitioners since they have got another similar contract
with another Aviation Company for the same kind of
work. Even during the trial stage, some negotiation was
made and the Fourth Respondent has agreed to provide
work to the petitioners who are willing to work also.
However, the petitioners have insisted that they are
seeking a job with the First Respondent only by way of
reinstatement for which they are not entitled in the
circumstances discussed above. Therefore I find that
none of the petitioners are entitled to any relief.
However, I expect the 4th Respondent will extend a
helping hand to the willing petitioners at this stage when
their dreams. of a job with the 1st Respondent is
shattered by the disposal of this reference.
22.
In view of my discussion above, all the references
are answered against the petitioners. The awards are
passed accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1 st Party/Petitioners
:
Wl/W1, Sri T. Suresh
MW1, Sri V. Devraj
For the 2nd Party/Respondents :
MW2, Ms. A. Sadhana
MW3, Sri L. Pramod
Documents marked:
On the Petitioner’s side:
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
29.07.2005
Copy of Certificate
Ex.W2
29.07.2013
Copy of Certificate
Ex.W3
29.07.2005
Copy of Certificate
Ex.W4
29.07.2005
Copy of Certificate
Ex.W5
29.07.2005
Copy of Certificate
On the Management’s side:
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ex.M1
27.07.2009
Petition filed by T. Suresh
before
the
Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central)-II, Chennai
Ex.M2
27.07.2009
Petition filed by V. Mahesh
Kumar before the Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central)-II, Chennai
Ex.M3
27.07.2009
Petition filed by V. Jayan
before
the
Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central)-II, Chennai
Ex.M4
27.07.2009
Petition filed by S. Suresh
before
the
Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central)-II, Chennai
Ex.M5
27.07.2009
Petition filed by K. Sridhar
before
the
Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central)-II, Chennai
Ex.M6
27.07.2009
Petition filed by N.
Nithyanandam before the
Asstt. Commissioner of
Labour
(Central)-II,
Chennai
Ex.M7
01.10.2009
Counter filed by the 1st
Respondent M/s. Jet
Airways (India) Ltd. before
the Asstt. Commissioner of
Labour
(Central)-II,
Chennai
Ex.M8
Salary statement for
(Page 118a)
January 2007· (Air
(Page 119b)
Sahara Loaders at And
(Page 120c)
Chennai Airport) by Decor
Drapes Aviation Services
Ex.M9
26.10.2002
Agreement entered into
between 2nd Respondent
M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd.
and 4th Respondent M/s.
Decor Drapes Aviation
Services
Ex.M10
02.11.2002
Letter from 2nd Respondent
M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. to
the 4th Respondent M/s.
Decor Drapes Aviation
Services
Ex.M11
—
Form V Certificate by the 2nd
Respondent M/s. Sahara
Airlines Ltd.
Ex.M12
11.07.2003
Registration Certificate
under the Contract Labour
Central Rules issued to the
2nd Respondent M/s. Sahara
Airlines Ltd.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7339
Ex.M13
12.03.2004
License issued by the Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central), Chennai to the 4th
Respondent M/s. Sahara
Airlines Ltd.
Ex.M14
Various dates
License issued by the Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central), Chennai to the
4th Respondent M/s. Decor
Drapes Aviation Ltd.
Ex.M15
18.01.2006
Share Purchase Agreement
Ex.M16
30.12.2006
Agreement entered into
between 2nd Respondent
M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd.
and 4th Respondent M/s.
Decor Drapes Aviation
Services
Ex.M17
13.01.2007
Form-3A submitted by the
4th Respondent M/s. Decor
Drapes Aviation Services
with the Employees Provident
Fund Organization
Ex.M18
12.03.2007
Invoices raised for the month
of January 2007 along with
salary statement by the 4th
Respondent M/s. Decor
Drapes Aviation Services
Ex.M19
01.04.2007
Amended Share Purchase
Agreement
Ex.M20
06.08.2007
Letter of termination of
contract given by the 3rd
Respondent M/s. Jet Lite
(India) Ltd. to the 4th
Respondent M/s. Decor
Drapes Aviation Services
Ex.M21
13.02.2008
No due certificate given by
the 4th Respondent M/s.
Decor Drapes Aviation
Services to the 3rd Respondent
M/s. Jet Lite (India) Ltd.
Ex.M22
27.07.2009
Petition filed by VD Daniel
before
the
Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central)-II, Chennai
Ex.M23
27.07.2009
Petition filed by D. Durai
before
the
Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central)-II, Chennai
Ex.M24
27.07.2009
Petition filed by K. Babu
before
the
Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central)-II, Chennai
EX.M25
15.10.2009
Counter filed by the 3rd
Respondent M/s. Jet Lite
(India) Ltd. before the Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
(Central)-II, Chennai
EX.M26
28.10.2009
Counter filed by the 4th
Respondent M/s. Decor
Drapes Aviation Services
before the Asstt. Commissioner
of Labour (Central)-II,
Chennai with Annexures
EX.M27
30.10.2009
Counter filed by the 5th
Respondent M/s. Sahara
India Pariwar before the
Asstt. Commissioner of
Labour
(Central)-II,
Chennai
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2973-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
xu dSfjt iQSDVªh] tcyiqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj 93@2000) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14011@05@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2973.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/93/2000) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the General
Manager, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-14011/05/2000-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
7340
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/93/00
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Rajendra Dagaur,
C/o Shri S.A. Khan,
Mahamantri GCF Mazdoor Union,
Sheetalamai, 743/3/East Ghamapur,
Jabalpur
...Workman
Versus
General Manager,
Gun Carriage Factory,
Jabalpur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 24th day of September, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 30-5-00 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-14011/5/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“ Whether the action of the management of Gun
Carriage Factory, Jabalpur in terminating the services
of Shri Rakesh Kumar Raikwar and 20 other ( as per
list) is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen
are entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
through Rajendra Dagaur at Pages 4/1 to 4/3. Case of Ist
party workman is that Shri Rajendra Dagaur and 32 others
were appointed for work of safety of cycle stand from 1-3-
91 by General Manager of IInd party No. 3. That as per
order, 50 % employees were to be taken from dependent
of retired employees and remaining 50 % dependent of
working employees. The rates of cycle stand were fixed
on 8-1-91. Those 33 employees were paid
` 450/- per month. They were to be paid bonus ` 380.
They had submitted grievance before ALC for not paying
minimum wages. IInd party got annoyed and discontinued
from services showing them as employees of contractor
Chourasia. That termination of their service without notice
is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. On such ground,
it is prayed that all 21 employees shown in the list with
reference order be reinstated.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Pages 14/1 to
14/2. IInd party denied employer- employee relationship.
Any of those workmen were not engaged by IInd party.
They were not appointed by management. Claim of
workman relates to the contractor. The contractor was
engaged to look after cycle stand. Management has
nothing to do with it. The services of workman are not
terminated by IInd party. They were engaged by
contractors for looking after cycle stand, gate pass was
issued for the purpose of security. On all such contentions,
IInd party prayed for rejection of claim.
4.
Additional Written Statement is filed after application
for better particulars. It is submitted that manpower in
factory is provided by Central Govt.. according to statutory
recruitment order, its appointments are made by General
Manager. The factory employees out of fear of safety of
cycle , scooter, moped etc. approached management for
safeguarding of their vehicles, Mukesh Trivedi Oursider
was allowed contract of cycle stand. The charges were
fixed per cycle- ` 2/-, moped- ` 3/-, Scooter- ` 4/- quarterly
and annual rates are also shown. IInd party submits that
workman were not engaged by management. There was
no employer employee relationship. That services of
workmen were not terminated by management. Workmen
are not entitled to any relief as prayed.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
“Whether the action of
Services of concerned
the management of Gun
workmen were not
Carriage Factory, Jabalpur
terminated by IInd
in terminating the services
party.
of Shri Rakesh Kumar
Raikwar and 20 other
(as per list) is justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workmen are not
workman is entitled to?”
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
6.
Workmen Ist party challenging termination of their
service for violation of Section 25-F. Management denied
employer-employee relationship. Workmen were not
engaged by management. They were employees of
contractor for safeguarding cycle stand. Identical affidavit
of witness of Shri Wilson, Jagdish Khare, Rakesh Kumar,
Badri Mishra are filed. In their affidavit, all those workmen
have stated that they were appointed for working at bicycle
stand. The charges of cycle stand were deducted from
salaries of the employees. Workmen were paid ` 250/-,
350/-, 450/- per month. Bonus of ` 380/- was paid to them.
Their services were terminated without notice. Affidavit
of all workmen as well pleading of Ist party are not clear
who had appointed them. Wilson was not cross-examined.
Jagdish Prasad in his cross-examination says his name
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7341
was registered in Employment Exchange. Post was not
advertised. He has not submitted application. Notice was
displayed on board. He was appointed as waterman. He
was paid ` 250/- per month. Bonus ` 380/- was paid to
him. His service book was not prepared. He was assured
to be regularized after 3 ½ years. Rakesh Kumar is not
cross-examined. Rajendra Dagaur died during pendency.
His LRs are brought on record. Badrivishial in his cross-
examination says he had not submitted application for
appointment, notice was displayed on notice board.
Appointment letter is produced on record which is not on
the record. his service book was not prepared. He was
paid ` 250/- per month, 350/- in the next year. Any of the
workmen have not produced appointment letters. Anand
Swami filed affidavit of his evidence similar to above
workman. In his cross-examination, he was unable to tell
who issued appointment letter to him, he could not tell
name of officer who issued appointment letter. He was
appointed in cycle stand, the vacancies were published.
He not submitted application in writing that he alongwith
Jagdish, Rajendra, Pappu was interviewed. His medical
examination was not conducted. Police has come for his
verification. In his further cross-examination, he claimed
ignorance whether Shri Mukesh was contractor of cycle
stand. The monthly, quarterly, annual charges for cycle
stand were fixed. He claims ignorance what claim is
submitted by Union. It is submitted orally by Rakesh in
individual capacity. The dispute is not raised by Union.
Dhanraj in his cross-examination says that he was
working for 8 ½ years on say of his father he reported on
duty. He was appointed by Shri Negi Labour Officer.
Appointment order was not received by him. The vehicles
kept at stand, the charges were recovered. Tokens used
to be deposited in the evening.
7.
Evidence of management’s witness Shri
N.Narendra is supporting contentions of management that
workmen were not appointed by IInd party. They were
engaged by contractor Mukesh Trivedi. The charges for
cycle stand were recovered from salary of the workmen.
Evidence in cross-examination shows cycle stand in GCF
is from 1991. Prior to it, the vehicles were kept in shed
and there was no security guard. He claims ignorance
who made appointments during 91 to 99 for employees
at cycle stand. That the employees at cycle stand were to
be appointed 50 % dependents of ex-employees and
remaining 50 % from outside. The evidence on record is
not clear that appointment of all the workmen was made
by management of IInd party. Employer employee
relationship is not established. There is no evidence that
services of those workmen were terminated by IInd party.
Though Ist party produced documents, no care is taken
to prove those documents by adducing evidence.
8.
Learned counsel for management Shri A.K.shashi
relies on bunch of citations on ratio held on the point of
burden of proof lies on the workman to prove continuous
working for more than 240 days.
In case of General manager (OSD) Bengal Nagpur
Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon versus Bharat Lal and another
reported in 2011-I-LLJ-321(SC). Their Lordship held
finding by Industrial Court that person concerned direct
employee of cotton mills and not of contractor with it.
Lord ship held not sustainable as twin tests for
determining question of direct employment or through
contractor held not satisfied.”
In present case, employees are claiming to be
directly appointed and not appointed by contractor.
However evidence on record shows the employer
employee relationship with IInd party is not established.
Therefore ratio in above case cannot be applied to this
case. Contractor is not impleaded as party in the present
case. The workmen are not entitled to relief claimed by
him. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.
9.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The workmen are neither engaged nor
terminated by IInd party.
(2)
Workmen are not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2974-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
xu dSfjt iQSDVªh] tcyiqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@49@1997) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14012@05@1996&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2974.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/49/1997) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown
in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the General
Manager, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur and their
workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-14012/05/1996-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
7342
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/49/97
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Ganesh Prasad Choudhary,
S/Shri R.Choudhary,
House No. 191,
Rajendr Nagar, Baba Tola,
Nai Basti, Jabalpur
...Workman
Versus
General Manager,
Gun Carriage Factory,
Jabalpur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 23rd day of September, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 4-3-97 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-14012/5/96-IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Gun
Carriage Factory, Jabalpur is justified in
terminating the services of Shri Ganesh Prasad
Chaudhary? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Pages 3/1 to 3/9. Case of workman is that he was
appointed as messenger on compassionate ground on
8-1-79 after death of his father. He was sincerely working
for 4 years in establishment of IInd party. His service
record was unblemished. Services of Ist party workman
were terminated on 14-10-83. Its legality is challenged
by workman on the ground that the enquiry conducted
against him is illegal. He was granted opportunity for
his defence. Principles of natural justice were violated.
Chargesheet was served on him on 7-1-83. The
allegations were false. Report was also submitted against
him to police with false allegations. That he had not
committed any misconduct alleged in chargesheet. That
one Dukodi was not employee of IInd party had succeeded
to enter factory premises with help of gate keeper.
Workman was falsely involved for helping him to enter
the factory premises. The allegations were also made
about misappropriation of amount. Workman had
requested management to supply relevant documents.
Workman was not supplied documents on his request.
Workman was prosecuted in criminal case. Workman had
requested to stay Enquiry Proceedings. He had challenged
order of rejecting documents filing appeal. Workman had
prayed for supplying enquiry report. His request was not
considered. Enquiry was proceeded exparte against him.
Workman has pleaded extensive reasons that enquiry
conducted against him was vitiated on various grounds.
As enquiry conducted against workman is found illegal
vide order dated 14-9-01 by my predecessor, the details
given by workman with this regard is not narrated.
3.
Workman submits that he was issued show-cause
notice without considering his contentions order of
dismissal was passed by Disciplinary Authority dated
14-10-83. The termination of his services on the basis of
illegal enquiry is liable to be set-aside. The appeal and
review filed by workman were rejected without proper
appreciation. The findings of Enquiry Officer are
perverse.
4.
Workman submits that he was prosecuted in
criminal case 989/85. He was released on probation for a
period of one year by Addnl.CGM, Jabalpur. That as per
circular dated 30-8-71, a person convicted by court of
law and released under the probation of offenders act are
not liable to be removed or dismissed. Workman further
submits that he is not gainfully employed. He could not
get job any where. His family is suffering from hardship
after his dismissal from service. On such ground,
workman prays for his reinstatement with back wages.
5.
IInd party filed Written Statement at pages 5/1 to 5/3.
Claim of workman is denied outright. Management submits
that workman was employed as messenger from 8-1-79 on
compassionate grounds. On 1-12-1982 at 8.15 AM, Shri
Dukodi Prasad resident of Nai basti, Jabalpur was caught
within factory premises. Identity Card No. 2882/NIE was
found in his possession. It was disclosed during
investigation that said Identity Card was given to Shri
Dukodi Prasad by workman after receiving ` 600/-. Workman
had commenced to secure job for him in the factory. Shri
Dukodi Prasad was entering factory premises alongwith
workman. On 30-11-82, workman paid amount ` 151.22 to
Dukodi Prasad and obtained his thumb impression in
attendance register in security office. Workman was
suspended from 2-12-1982. He was served with
chargesheet on 7-3-83. FIR was lodged in police. That
workman was informed about Enquiry proceedings but
he failed to appear. Consequently enquiry was proceeded
exparte. After receiving findings of Enquiry officer that
charges against workman were proved, workman was
removed from service. Appeal and review were rejected
on 7-11-84, 22-12-86 respectively.
6.
IInd party reiterates that enquiry was conducted
against workman as per rules following principles of
natural justice. If enquiry is found vitiated on any ground,
management be permitted to prove misconduct in Court.
The misconduct committed by workman is of serious
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7343
nature. Workman should not be allowed reinstatement.
On such grounds, IInd party prays for rejection of claim.
7.
Enquiry conducted against workman was found
illegal by my predecessor by order dated 14-9-01.
Management was permitted to prove misconduct in Court.
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 management
proves misconduct alleged
against workman?
In Negative
(ii)
whether punishment of
removal form service
imposed against workman
is proper and legal?
In Negative
(iii)
If so, to what relief the
As per final
workman is entitled to?”
order.
REASONS
8.
After enquiry was found illegal by my predecessor,
management was permitted to prove charges against
workman. Management filed affidavit of Shri Pillai.
However said witness wasnot made available for cross-
examination. Management filed affidavit of witness
Manmohan Singh, Asstt. Works Manager. He was cross-
examined on commission. To be precise, management’s
witness says on 1-12-82 when he came on duty at 8.30
AM, Mr. Dilip Singh, Chargeman/ Security officer
reported him that Dukodi Prasad was found in Security
office with tiffin career. When he was questioned about
his identity he had stated that he was working in Security
office since last few months. Shri Dukodi Prasad was not
in the strength of Security office nor he was seen working
in security office. Shri Dilip Singh felt that either he was
mentally unbalanced and belonged to some other section
or there was some thing fishy about Dukodi Prasad. When
he was produced before him on interrogation, Dukodi
prasad said he was working in Security office since 1 ½
months. On checking witness found identity card token
no. 2882/NIE tied at his button of his shirt. During
interrogation he had disclosed that he was transferred
along with Ganesh prasad in security office. When
Ganesh prasad workman on interrogation disclosed that
Shri Dukodi prasad was his brother in law, his sister was
married to him. He had first time came inside factory
brought his tiffin career. LDC Shri P.C.Jain had disclosed
that on 30-11-82, while he was disbursing monthly salary
Ganesh Prasad approached him for change of ` 100/-
for giving some money to Shri Dukodi Prasad. On
interrogation Shri Dukodi and Ganesh Prasad disclosed
that workman had received ` 600/- from Shri Dukodi
Prasad for securing employment. Since past two months,
workman had arranged Token No. 2882/NIE for Dukodi
Prasad etc. On 30-11-82, workman had paid amount of
` 151.20. that workman Shri Ganesh Prasad concluded
that he had to bring Shri Dukodi since past two months.
9.
Management witness in his cross-examination says
in 1982, he was working as foreman. He was dealing
with work of security foreman of factory. He was not
knowing employees assigned duties in the shift. In 1982,
employees assigned duties in shift were given token. He
was not maintaining record of token. It was maintained
by other office. He admits that the information about token
was not available with gate keeper. The employees given
token numbers were allowed entry for their shift duties.
When document No. ½, 3, 4 chargesheet were referred
to the witness, he admits that Shri Dukodi Prasad was
management’s witness. Witness of management was
unable to tell whether Token No. 2882 was given to
workman by Shri Dukodi Prasad. Management’s witness
admits that chargesheet was issued to workman on the
token number found with Dukodi Prasad. That witness
had not seen Shri Dukodi Prasad enter in the factory.
Witness said that he was acquainted with Shri Dukodi
Prasad. The token number is lost. Matter is report to
concerned section by the employee. Witness was unable
to tell to whom Token No. 2882/NIE was issued.
10.
As per evidence of management’s witness
Manmohan Singh, Dilip Singh had given information about
Shri Dukodi Prasad found in Security Office. Said Dilip
Singh is not examined Security Person who found Shri
Dukodi Prasad are not examined. Even token no. found
with Shri Dukodi Prasad is not produced. Shri Dukodi
Prasad is not examined as witness in the case. The
documents about recording confession or statement of
workman are not produced by witness of the management.
The evidence of management’s witness on affidavit is
submitted in 2011. The incident is of 1-12-1982 the
argument were advanced by learned counsel for
management Shri A.K.Shashi that age of witness is above
80 years minor infirmities are natural. However the material
witnesses are not examined. The documents regarding
interrogation of Shri Dukodi Prasad and confession of
workman are not produced. The evidence of management’s
witness is not cogent to place reliance.
11.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence denying
charges against him. In his cross-examination, workman
says he is not acquainted with shri Dukodi Prasad. He
denies that for more than one month before December
1982, he was taking Dukodi Prasad to the factory premises
but he has no enmity with management’s witness
Manmohan Singh. Workman denied to have paid ` 600/- to
Shri Dukodi Prasad.
12.
From evidence of management’s witness, the
misconduct alleged against workman cannot be proved.
He record of Enquiry proceedings was not produced,
7344
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
secondly enquiry was held illegal. For above reasons, I
record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
13.
Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.1,
charges against workman are not proved from evidence
of management’s witness punishment of dismissal
imposed against workman cannot be sustained. The
question arises whether workman is entitled for
reinstatement with backwages. In statement of claim,
workman has pleaded that in Criminal case, he was
released on probation of Offenders Act copy of judgment
by Criminal Court is produced Annexure B at Page 1/51.
Shri Dukodi Prasad and workman were accused No.1,2
in criminal case. Both were convicted under Section 448,
303 of IPC. However there being first offender were
released on probation.
14.
Learned counsel for workman Shri Puranik submits
that release on probation of Offenders act is not a bar for
continuance in service. Chargesheet is issued to workman
and disciplinary enquiry is conducted against him. The
charge proved in criminal case is based on same facts
and chargesheet issued to workman by Disciplinary
Authority. The conviction of accused for offence under
Section 448 of IPC is certainly a misconduct. Learned
counsel for workman submits that workman be reinstated
with back wages as charges are not proved by
management. In present case, though charges against
workman are not proved from evidence before this
Tribunal, workman was convicted by Criminal court for
offence.
15.
On the point of reinstatement, learned counsel for
management Shri A.K.Shashi submits that management
has lost confidence in workman and his reinstatement
may not be allowed. In support of above argument reliance
is placed in case of Shriram Refrigeration Industries
versus Industrial Tribunal cum Addl. Labour Court,
Hyderabad and others reported in 2002(9)SCC 708. Their
Lordship dealing with reinstatement/ compensation in
lieu thereof only 3 years of service left and he was
drawing ` 3045 per month, their Lordship in such
circumstances allowed compensation ` 2,25,000/- in lieu
of reinstatement. In present case, workman is convicted
for offence under Section 403, 448 IPC by Criminal Court
but he was released on probation. Said Offence was based
on identical facts. Considering workman was appointed
on compassionate ground in 8-1-79, very few year of
service of workman must be left. Considering above
aspects, instead of reinstatement compensation ` 3 Lakhs
to workman would be appropriate relief. 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 Gun Carriage
Factory, Jabalpur in terminating the services of
Shri Ganesh Prasad Chaudhary is not legal and proper.
Order of dismissal of workman dated 14-10-83 is set-
aside.
(2)
Instead of reinstatement, IInd party is directed to
pay compensation ` 3 Lakhs 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] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2975-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mkd?kj]
Mkd?kj] fcykliqj ds v/h{kd ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj 130@96) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@115@1995&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2975.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R 130/1996) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the
Superintendent of Post Office, Post Office, Bilaspur and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-40012/115/1995-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/130/96
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta,
R/o Village Sakari,
Mungeli Road,
Post Sakari,
Distt. Bilaspur (MP)
...Workman
Versus
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7345
Superintendent of Post Office,
Post Office,
Bilaspur.
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 24th day of September 2014
1.
As per letter dated 30-5-96 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
40012/115/95-IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“ Whether the action of the management of Post
Offices, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in terminating
the services of Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/5. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
engaged as casual workman on daily wages under IInd
party No.4 on 16-5-87. He was granted minimum of pay
scale of vehicle driver 950-1500 from 16-5-88. As per
memorandum dated 6-6-88, he was continuously working
from 16-5-87 to 23-1-90 he was eligible for regularization
under the scheme framed by department as per directions
given by Hon’ble Supreme Court. That his services were
terminated without notice on 23-1-90 in controversion of
Section 25-F of I.D. Act. Workman represented against
termination order on 30-1-90, 12-2-90. He was re-engaged
for different period from 8-3-90 to 8-2-94. Workman
reiterates that his services are terminated on 23-1-90 in
violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. He was not served
notice. Retrenchment compensation was not paid. On such
ground, he prayed for reinstatement.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to
7/3. IInd party submits that workman was engaged on
daily wages from 9-5-87 to 15-5-88. Again intermittently
from 16-5-88 to 28-1-90 on account of execution of Bharatlal
Driver. That the order engaging workman in daily wages
provided his appointment till appointment of regular
candidate. The discontinuation of workman is covered
under Section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D.Act. After regular Driver,
Shri B.K.Gaur was posted from Bilaspur Division, services
of workman were not required. Therefore his services were
dispensed with. Termination of service in violation of
Section 25-F is denied. On such ground, IInd party prays
for rejection of claim of workman.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Post Offices,
Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur
in terminating the services of
Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta
is legal and justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?”
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
5.
Workman is challenging termination of his service
from 23-1-90 for violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act.
Management had denied material contentions of
workman. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence.
Workman stated that he was engaged on daily wages on
minimum scale ` 950-1500 from 16-2-88. He was
continuously working till 23-1-90. Thereafter workman
was re-engaged intermittently on daily wages till 8-2-94.
In his cross-examination, workman has admitted his
reengagement after order of his discontinuation from
23-1-90. Period of his engagement is stated in para-9 of
his cross-examination. It is clear from his evidence that
workman was re-engaged after termination of his services.
He has given order of his discontinuation of his order
dated 23-1-90. Document Exhibit W-1 appointment letter
is clear that workman was appointed temporarily. His
services were liable to be terminated. Workman was given
understanding. Exhibit W-2 shows that documents of
workman were called, Exhibit W-3 shows Shri R. K. Gond
Driver was declared surplus in Jabalpur division and
allotted to Bilaspur division and posted as Driver to
Inspection Vehicle of Bilaspur Division. Thus Shri Gond
surplus was appointed as regular employee. It was reason
for termination of workman.
6.
Evidence of management witness Shri B.L.Patel
is on point that workman Jagdish was engaged as stop
gap arrangement as casual labour on resignation
submitted by Driver Bharatlal. His appointment was not
made as per statutory rules. Shri R.K.Gond surplus
employee was appointed therefore services of workmen
were dispensed. In his cross-examination, management
witness admits that before termination of service,
showcause notice was served on workman, retrenchment
compensation was not paid to him as he was working on
daily wages. As appointment of workman was temporary,
regular driver was appointed. His discontinuation is
covered by Section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D.Act. therefore
compliance of Section 25-F of I.D.Act is not required.
For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Affirmative.
7346
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Post Offices,
Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in terminating the services
of Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta is legal and proper.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2976-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMohtuy
bathfu;j] nwjlapkj ifj;kstuk] jk;iqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj 18@1999) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@46@1998&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2976.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R 18/1999) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Divisional
Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-40012/46/1998-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/18/99
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Indro S/o Mummaru Gada,
Vill Ghatkachhar, PO Signora,
Tehsil Saraipali, Raipur.
...Workman
Versus
Divisional Engineer,
Telecom Project,7,
Sahakari Marg II, Choubey Colony,
Raipur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of October 2014
1.
As per letter dated 30-11-98 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-40012/46/98/IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of
Divisional Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur (MP)
in terminating the services of Shri Indro S/o Shri
Mummaru Gada, Ex-Mazdoor is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim at Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is
that he was in service of IInd party. He was appointed as
employee by IInd party in 1986. He was discontinued
from 16-2-88. He had completed 240 days continuous
service. He was not served with notice, retrenchment
compensation was not paid to him. His services are
terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act which
amounts to victimization and unfair labour practice on
part of IInd party. Workman prays for his reinstatement
with back wages.
3.
Written statement is filed at page 6/1 to 6/2 by
IInd party. It is denied that workman was engaged by
IInd party management DE Telecom Project, Raipur.
According to IInd party workman was engaged by
erstwhile DE Coaxial cable project, Raipur. There was
no question of workman working more than 240 days in
any of the year. There was no employer employee
relationship. Workman was not terminated by IInd party.
The petitioners in original application 17/91 before CAT,
Jabalpur were different. Applicant cannot take advantage
of order passed in said proceedings. On such ground,
IInd party prays for rejection of claim.
4.
Workman filed rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/2
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of In Affirmative
the management of
Divisional Engineer,
Telecom Project,
Raipur (MP) in
terminating the services
of Shri Indro S/o
Shri Mummaru Gada,
Ex-Mazdoor is legal
and justified?
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7347
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled
entitled to any
to?”
relief.
REASONS
6.
Workman is challenging termination of his services
for violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. However he failed
to adduce evidence in support of his claim. Ordersheet
dated 25-5-06 shows that management was served with
notice. Case was fixed for cross-examination of workman
by management. The right to cross-examine workman
was closed. However order was passed on 2-2-06 that
case shall proceed exparte. Affidavit of evidence of
workman is not seen. Management filed affidavit of
evidence of witness Shri R.R.Yadav. In his cross-
examination, management’s witness says workman was
engaged as casual labour, he claims ignorance about
documents maintained about working of workman. That
workman had not completed 240 days continuous service.
In absence of evidence of workman, it is difficult to uphold
that workman had completed 240 days continuous service
and termination of his services without notice without
payment of retrenchment compensation cannot be
accepted. 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 Divisional
Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur (MP) in terminating
the services of Shri Indro S/o Shri Mummaru Gada, Ex-
Mazdoor is legal and proper.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2977-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
ljdkjh viQhe vkSj mi{kkj fuekZ.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;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@03@2000) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@168@1999&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2977.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/03/2000) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the General
Manager, Government Opium & Alkalold Works and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-42012/168/1999-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/3/00
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Prakash
S/o Bapulal Sanghvi,
107, Dhan Mandi, Ratlam (MP)
...Workman
Versus
General Manager,
Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Works,
Neemuch
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of October 2014
1.
As per letter dated 21-12-99 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
42012/168/99/IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“ Whether the action of the General Manager, Govt.
Opium and Alkaloid Works in terminating the
services of Shri Prakash Sanghavi is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at
page 3/1 to 3/8. Case of workman is that he was working
as time keeper with IInd party No.2 at Neemuch from
7-10-79 after due selection. IInd party had published
advertisement in newspaper dated 16-9-78 inviting
application for two post of time keeper in pay scale of
216-400. One post was reserved for ST, one for Open
Category. Workman had submitted application for post
of time keeper. He was selected. After his selection, he
was offered appointment by General Manager vide letter
dated 29-9-79. Workman accepted said offer and joined
service on 7-10-79. On 7-5-80, he was served with order
of termination w.e.f. 5-5-90 without assigning any reason.
He was not served showcause notice. The services were
terminated without notice. Retrenchment compensation
was not paid to him. Provisions of Section 25-F, N of
7348
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
I.D.Act were violated. The termination of his service is in
violation of Article 311 of the constitution.
3.
Workman has narrated detail litigation which he
resorted. He challenged termination before Labour Court
Mandsor, W.P in High Court MP bench, Indore. That
Industrial Court had granted stay to order of termination.
He again joined service on 29-10-81 to work till 18-12-
81. His stay was vacated. Workman has filed petition
before CAT, Jabalpur. As per directions passed by High
Court, CAT, Jabalpur conciliation proceedings were filed
before ALC, the dispute has been referred. Workman
submits that he was appointed after following selection
process, advertisement. The post was not reserved in the
advertisement. The post on which he was appointed was
of open category. There was one post. There cannot be
100 % reservation. The appointment of workman was on
vacant post. He was selected after competition. His
services were terminated by lower authority. He was
served notice under Section 25-F. Pay in lieu of notice
was not paid to him. He was also paid retrenchment
compensation. That principles of last come first go was
not followed. Termination of his service is violatory of
Article 16(1) of the constitution. Workman prays for his
reinstatement with back wages.
4.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to
6/11. Case of IInd party is that 2 post of time keeper were
sanctioned in IInd party. Those posts were filled on
temporary basis from candidates out of panel drawn by
selection board in 1979. After sometime one of the
candidates appointed Nand Kishore resigned from post
of time keeper on family ground. His resignation was
accepted by authorities. The vacancy caused was for SC.
Workman from open category was vailable. Name of
workman was at Sl. No.3 of panel. To fill up vacancies of
time keeper, workman was temporarily appointed on adhoc
basis as per order dated 29-9-79. Workman had accepted
conditions in appointment order and joined duties. The
vacancy arose on resignation submitted by Shri
Nandkishore was published in newspaper on 15-10-79
on completion of recruitment process and availability of
suitable candidate, the services of workman were
terminated.
5.
IInd party has also narrated details of the litigation
resorted by the workman, termination order was
challenged before Jabalpur. Review was filed in Industrial
Court. WP filed in High Court, matters were remanded
and again Labour Court decided the matter observing
that Labur court has no jurisdiction. Remedy under
Section 10 of I.D.Act was appropriate. IInd party submits
that dispute is raised after delay of 18 years. Workman
had chosen wrong forum including petition filed before
CAT. Orders were passed that remedy to workman could
be resorted under Section 10 of I.D.Act. workman was
temporarily appointed as per conditions in appointment
order, his services were terminated. Workman is not entitled
to protection under Section 25-F of I.D.Act. Action of the
management is legal.
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
In Affirmative
General Manager,
Govt. Opium and Alkaloid
Works in terminating the
services of Shri Prakash
Sanghavi legal and justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?”
entitled to any
reliefs.
REASONS
7.
Ist party workman approached courts for retention
against order of his termination. However the proceedings
were not filed before Competent Court. The disputes has
been raised after lapse of 18 years only for the reason that
workman was prosecuting proceedings before other
forums. Workman died during pendency on 11-1-2001. His
L Rs. are brought on record. Affidavit of evidence is filed
by his widow Raj Kumar Sanvi and other LRs in support
of application for substituting LRs. However no evidence
is adduced on behalf of deceased workman or his LRs.
The evidence of workman is closed on 1-6-2010.
Management also failed to adduce evidence. Evidence of
management is closed on 6-5-2014. The parties donot
participate in reference proceeding. It is matter of pain
that the deceased workman did not get any fruits during
his life time for the reasons that he prosecuted proceedings
before wrong forums. For absence of evidence in support
of claim of workman, I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Affirmative.
8.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the General Manager, Govt. Opium
and Alkaloid Works in terminating the services of Shri
Prakash Sanghavi is proper and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief claimed by him.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2978-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMohtuy
bathfu;j] nwjlapkj ifj;kstuk] jk;iqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7349
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@214@1998) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@19@1998&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2978.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/214/1998) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Divisional
Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-40012/19/1998-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/214/98
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Banshi Gopal,
S/o Shri Godno,
Village Ghatkachhar,
PO Sighora, Tehsil Saraipali,
Raipur
...Workman
Versus
Divisional Engineer,
Telecom Project,
7, Sahakari Marg-II,
Choubey Colony, Raipur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of October, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 10-9-98 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-40012/19/98-IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“ Whether the action of the management of
Divisional Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur (MP)
in terminating the service of Shri Banshi Gopal
son of Shri Godno Ex. Mazdoor is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page
3/1 to 3/4. Case of workman is that he was appointed as
mazdoor against permanent post in 1986 by IInd party.
His services were discontinued from 16-2-88. He completed
240 days continuous service in 1986-87. He raised dispute
before ALC. It is reiterated that he was not served notice
of termination, retrenchment compensation was not paid
to him. Termination of his service is in violation of Section
25. On such ground he prays for his reinstatement with
back wages.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement at page 6/1 to 6/
2 denying claim of Ist party workman. It is submitted that
workman was not appointed by management, he was not
engaged by DE Telecom Project, Raipur. Workman was
engaged by DE Coaxial Copper Project Raipur which was
wound up on 31-3-91. It is further submitted that workman
was engaged on muster roll on daily basis, retention
period of muster roll is 5 years therefore it is difficult to
comment about engagement and discontinuation of
workman. The dispute is raised after 12 months for
reinstatement by management. Workman was engaged
purely on temporary basis. There was no question of
termination of his service. Workman is not entitled to one
month’s notice or pay in lieu of notice. Violation of Section
25-F of I.D.Act is denied. It is further submitted that in
O.A.71/91, 96/90 CAT Jabalpur order pertains to the
applicants. Workman is not entitled to get any benefit.
4.
Ist party filed rejoinder at page 7/1 to 7/2 reiterating
its contentions in statement of claim.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
Workman is neither
management of Divisional
engaged or
Engineer, Telecom Project,
terminated by
Raipur (MP) in terminating
IInd party.
the service of Shri Banshi
Gopal Son of Shri Godno
Ex. Mazdoor is legal and
justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?”
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
6.
Workman is challenging termination of his service
for violation of section 25-F of I.D.Act. He filed affidavit in
support of his claim submitting that he was engaged in
1986 as mazdoor. He was continuously working till
31-12-90. He completed 240 days continuous service.
7350
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Workman in his cross-examination says he was working
in co-axial project of Telecom Department. Appointment
letter was not given to him. He denies suggestion that he
not completed 240 days continuous service. Management
filed affidavit of witness Shri R.R.Yadav. Witness of
management has covered contentions in Written
Statement that he was engaged by East DE Coaxial
Project. The witness of management was not cross-
examined. Workman in his cross-examination has
admitted that he was working in coaxial project. As such
employee employer relationship is not established
between parties. Termination of services of workman with
IInd party is not established. Accordingly I record my
finding in Point No.1.
7.
Point No.2— In view of my finding in Point No.1
employer employee relationship between parties is not
established. Termination of service of workman is also
established. Therefore workman is not entitled to any
relief. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.
8.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
Employer employee relationship and termination
of Ist party workman by management is not established.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2979-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj ftyk
vfHk;ark] VhMhb jktx<+ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@17@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@277@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2979.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/17/2002) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Telecom
District Engineer, TDE Rajgarh and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-40012/277/2001-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/17/2002
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Gopal,
S/o Shri Mansingh
R/o Vill: Moya,
Tehsil Biaora, Rajgarh
...Workman
Versus
Telecom District Engineer,
O/o TDE Rajgarh,
At Biaora, Rajgarh
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 24th day of September, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 3-1-02 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal
under Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-40012/277/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under
reference relates to:
“ Whether the action of the management of Telecom
District Engineer, Rajgarh in terminating the
services of Shri Gopal S/o Shri Mansingh w.e.f.
January, 97 is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled for?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 1 to ½. Case of workman is that he was working at
telephone Office , District Rajgarh from 1987 to 1992 as
Mazdoor Category I on muster roll. After muster roll were
discontinued, his wages were paid under vouchers. His
service were orally terminated without notice. On such
ground, he prays for reinstatement.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement. IInd party
submits that workman was individually engaged on
muster roll of management of IInd party. He not
completed 240 days continuous service. In June 1991,
workman worked for 30 days, July-31 days. The services
of workman were not required. Workman is not entitled
for reinstatement or regularization.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Telecom
District Engineer,
Rajgarh in terminating the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7351
services of Shri Gopal
S/o Shri Mansingh w.e.f.
January, 97 is justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?”
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
5.
Though workman raised dispute and filed statement
of claim, he failed to participate in reference proceeding.
Workman has not adduced evidence in support of his
claim. Reference is proceeded exparte on 30-1-2012.
6.
Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Ramjani
Khan. Management witness submits that workman has
not completed 240 days service. Workman worked for 30
days in June, 91 and 31 days in July 91. His evidence
remained unchallenged. I find no reason to disbelieve
evidence of management. There is no evidence of
workman to substantiate his claim. Therefore I record
my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
7.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Telecom
District Engineer, Rajgarh in terminating the services
of Shri Gopal S/o Shri Mansingh w.e.f. January, 97 is
legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2980-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eè; jsyos ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k
Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 213@1999) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41015@03@1998&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2980.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 213/
1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
the Central Railway and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-41015/03/1998-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/213/1999
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE
Shri Anil Kumar Sharma,
C/o Shri Tulsi Singh Thakur,
Behind SI Quarters,
Police Station Ghamapur,
Kanchghar, Jabalpur
...Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 13th day of September, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 19-5-1999 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-41015/03/1998-IR(B-I). The dispute under
reference relates to:
“ Whether the action of the management of Central
Railway Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Anil
Kumar Sharma, Khalasi S/o Shri Gopi Sharma
w.e.f. 19.01.1987 is justified? If not, to what relief
the said workman is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
monthly rated Khalasi in scale 250-940 working in IInd
party No.4. That IInd party No.2 merged in I/d party no.3
under control of IInd party No. 1. workman submits that
he was continuously working from 1985 to 1987. He had
acquired status of temporary employee. That he could
not be terminated without compliance of Rule-9 of
Discipline Appeal Rules 1968. That he was medically
examined and found fit for regular job. IInd party No.4
issued notice dated 3-1-87 . His services were terminated
from 19-1-87 in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act,
Rule-9 Discipline Appeal Rules l968. Workman submits
that termination of his service is illegal. Workman
approached ALC Bhopal for redressal. Workman submits
that termination of his service is also void for violation
of Article 311 of the constitution. That only after
directions issued by Hon'ble High Court in writ petition
4560/98, the reference has been made. On such ground,
workman is praying for reinstatement with back wages.
3.
IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page
8/1 to 8/3. It is submitted that workman had worked as
monthly rated casual labor. He fraudulently entered in
7352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Railway service producing casual labour service card in
1987. Notice in prescribed form was issued to workman
by Competent Authority. Workman did not reply to
the notice instead workman did not turn up for duties.
Rule-9 of Discipline Appeal Rules 1968 is not attracted
in the matter of workman. IInd party submits that at
relevant time, workman was working under PWI(B) at
Bhusawal division and not Bhopal Division. That notice
was served upon workman. He did not submit any
explanation to the notice. Workman had no defence to
submit. Workman kept silence for long time. Workman
was happy with his fraudulent act. Ist party workman
secured appointment on basis of fake casual labour
service card. He had absconded himself not giving reply
to the notice. On such ground, IInd party prayed for
rejection of the claim.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Central
Railway Bhopal in terminating
the services of Shri Anil Kumar
Sharma, Khalasi S/o Shri Gopi
Sharma w.e.f. 19-1-87 is legal
and justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the workman
As per final
is entitled to?"
order.
REASONS
5.
Workman has challenged termination of his service
for violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, Article 311 of
constitution of India. He submits that no enquiry was
conducted against him against Rule 9 of Discipline Rule
1968. Above contentions of workman are denied. IInd
party did not deny workman was working with IInd party
No. 4 as monthly rated Khalasi. IInd party has pleaded
that workman had secured employment producing bogus
casual labour service card. Notice was issued to him. No
reply was given instead workman remained absconding.
Affidavit of evidence is filed by workman reiterating his
contentions in statement of claim that he was working as
casual labour with IInd party from 1985 to 1987. The
services were terminated in violation of section 25-F,
Article 311 of constitution. No enquiry was conducted
against him. In his cross-examination, workman denies
that card submitted by him was bogus. He denies receipt
of notice during absconding period. That he had not eft
his job. Rather he was discontinued by IInd part. In his
further cross-examination, workman says he was working
as temporary employee. He was receiving wages for his
working days. Subsequently he received notice. He had
not given reply to the notice. Suggestion of IInd party
that card produced by him was bogus is denied. The
documents produced by workman Exhibit W-1 shows that
workman had approached for redressal before CAT
Jabalpur. Workman was given liberty to approach before
Tribunal. Exhibit W-2 is copy of order of reference. The
reference was directed only after direction issued by
Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition. IInd party filed
affidavit of evidence of Shri Bharat Bhushan Sharma.
The witness of management says that Service Card
submitted by workman was found bogus. Workman was
given notice. No reply is filed by workman, he had
absconded. In his cross-examination, management's
witness says in 1984, he was not working at Satna. He
brought original documents but any documents are not
produced. No notice was given to workman in that regard.
The documents about workman was absconding are not
available in the office. In his further cross-examination,
management's witness says service record of workman
was found bogus as name of workman was not found in
LHTI register. That showcause notice was not issued to
workman after receiving report. He was not Enquiry Officer.
When service card was issued to workman, he was not
posted at Satna, rather he never worked at Railway
Division, Satna.
6.
Management witness Shri Ashok Kashvi in his
affidavit of evidence says service card produced by
workman was bogus as per order dated 8-1-87. In his
cross-examination, management's witness says in 1987,
he was not posted in Railway Electrification Project. He
received attendance register from PWI Harda. Railway
Electrification Project had ended. The witness of
management was working in section. When service card
was issued to workman he was not in Railway Service.
Management's witness further says termination order was
issued to workman. Any other proceeding initiated against
workman is not available. Termination dated 3-1-87 was
issued by (PWI was not known to him. That had not seen
signature of PWI arher at any time. Document Exhibit M-
1 is letter dated 8-1-87 issued by PWI informing that service
cards of Ist party workman Anil Kumar Sharma and others
were not issued by his office. In Exhibit W-2 attendance
register workman is shown absent from duty and ultimately
terminated .
7.
Service card alleged to have been submitted by Ist
party workman is not produced on record, even
showcause notice issued to workman is not produced on
record. management of IInd party is alleging that service
card produced by workman was found fake/ bogus.
Absolutely no evidence is adduced by IInd party as to
who had found service card submitted by workman was
bogus. In absence of such evidence, contentions of
management cannot be accepted. Services of Ist party
workman are terminated on ground that service card
produced by him was bogus. In that regard, contentions
are not substantiated by evidence. Both witnesses of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7353
management were not working at relevant time. They have
not seen service card produced by workman. They have
not decided that the service card was bogus. Therefore
the action of termination of services of workman cannot
be said legal. For above reasons, I record my finding in
Point No.l in Negative.
8.
Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.l
termination of services of workman is not legal, question
arises whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with
full back wages. Workman was terminated from service
long back in 1988. His evidence is silent how he is
maintaining himself and his family. No evidence is also
adduced by IInd party about 1st party workman is in
gainful employment. Considering above aspects,
workman cannot be allowed reinstatement with full back
wages. In my considered view, reinstatement with 20 %
back wages would be appropriate. Accordingly I record
my finding in Point No.2.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Central
Railway Bhopal in terminating the services of
Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Khalasi S/o Shri Gopi
Sharma w.e.f. 19-1-87 is illegal.
(2)
IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with
continuity of service and 20 % back wages.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2981-—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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
198@98) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@345@(,)@1997&vkbZvkj (ch-&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2981.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 198/
98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the State
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-12012/345/(A)/1997-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/198/98
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. P ATLE
Dy. General Secretary,
State Bank of India workers Union,
Bhopal Circle, C/o SBI,
Jaistambh Chowk,
Raipur (MP)
...Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
Region-V, State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Shanka Nagar,
Raipur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 28th day of October 2014
1.
As per letter dated 20-8-98 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-12012/345(A)/97-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of India in removing Shri G. K. Gurdwan, Ex-
Cashier-cum-clerk from Bank's services with effect
from 25-6-96 vide order no. Area/5/C/111 dated
25-6-96 is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?"
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
parties. Statement of claim is submitted by General Secretary
of Bank employees Union. Case of 1st party Union is that
it is registered under Trade Union Act 1926. Shri G.K.
Gurdwan- employee was its member. Chargesheet was
issued by IInd party on 1-8-95 to above said employee.
Employee was its member. Chargesheet was issued by IInd
party on 1-8-95 to above said employee. Enquiry was
illegally conducted against him. Workman was not
supplied copies of documents. Employee was unable to
submit his clear reply. Enquiry was conducted illegally.
Finding of illegal enquiry based on contradictory evidence.
The punishment of dismissal was imposed. Order of
dismissal is illegal. The appeal preferred by workman
against order of dismissal was rejected. The dismissal
order is illegal. On such ground, Union prays for
reinstatement of workman with consequential benefits.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/16.
Case of IInd party is that employee Shri G. K. Gurdwan was
7354
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
posted as cashier cum clerk at Akaltara branch of SBI on
22-2-95. One Rajaram Sharma handed over amount of
` 43,200/- to workman for depositing the said amount in SB
Account No. 3240. That workman did not deposit said
amount. He made fictitious credit entries in SB Account of
Shri Rajaram Sharma. The entries were also made in ledger
book. Chargesheet was issued to workman. Workman had
admitted receipt of amount from Shri Rajaram Sharma. That
defence of the employee was that he forgot to deposit
amount in his account. Preliminary enquiry was conducted
by Manager, State Bank of India, Region-V, Nagpur. It was
found that entries were taken in Bank pass book of Shri
Rajaram by the employee, amount was not deposited in his
account. After issuing chargesheet, enquiry was
conducted. Full opportunity for defence of the delinquent
was given. The documents demanded by workman were
submitted to him. After receiving report of Enquiry Officer,
its copy was served on delinquent employee vide letter
dated 10-4-96, employee submitted his reply. Considering
gravity of the charge proved after fmding of Enquiry Officer,
punishment of dismissal from service was imposed. Appeal
preferred by employee was dismissed. IInd party submits
that punishment of dismissal against workman is proper
and legal. It is reiterated that the enquiry is conducted
against workman as per rules. order of dismissal doesnot
suffer from any kind of illegality. Claim of workman is not
tenable.
4.
As per order dated 2-8-2013, enquiry conducted
against workman is found legal and proper. Case was fixed
for evidence on other issues. 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 misconduct alleged In Affirmative
against workman is proved
from evidence In Enquiry
proceedings?
(ii)
whether punishment of
In Affirmative
removal from service imposed
against workman is legal and
proper?
(ii)
If so, to what relief the
1st party is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any
relief
REASONS
5.
As stated above, enquiry is found legal and proper.
The question remains for decision whether charges alleged
against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry
Proceedings? Workman has not adduced any evidence
on other issues. The statement of management's witness
Rajaram at Page 27 of the Enquiry Proceedings shows that
he had handed over amount of ` 42,450 to the employee
for depositing in SB Account 3240. Amount was not
deposited in his account. When he had gone to Bank on
27-3-95 for withdrawal of ` 46,300/-, he was told that
amount was not in his account. The amount of
` 42,450/- handed over to Shri G. K. Gurudwan was not
deposited in his account. The evidence of Shri Rajaram
Sharma is recorded in detail. In Enquiry proceedings,
his evidence on material points is not shattered by cross-
examination. The evidence of management's witness
Rajarm Shrama proves charge alleged against workman.
For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.l in
Affirmative.
6.
Point No.2 the punishment of removal from service
is imposed against workman. After receiving findings of
Enquiry officer, that charges against workman are proved
enquiry conducted against workman is found proper and
legal. Charges against workman relates to receiving
amount of ` 42,450/- for depositing in account of Shri
Rajaram Sharma. Workman did not deposit said amount.
However he had taken entry of said amount in pass book
and ledger. The proved miscondouct of workman is of
serious nature. Conduct of employee working as clerk
cum cashier receiving amount for depositing in SB
Account of Rajaram and not depositing it in his account
for taking entries of said amount in pass book and Bank
ledger is serious misconduct. The punishment of removal
from service imposed by IInd party doesnot call for
interference. At the same time, I am also mentioning that
the Union/workman has not adduced any evidence on
other issues. Therefore also there is no reason to interfere
with the order of removal from service. For above reasons,
I record my finding in Point No.2 in Affirmative.
7.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of State Bank of
India in removing Shri G.K.Gurdwan, Ex-
Cashier cum clerk from Bank's services with
effect from 25-6-96 vide order no. Area/5/C/111
dated 25-6-96 is legal and proper.
(2)
Union/workman is not entitled to any relief
claimed by him.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2982-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ
banksj etZM ,t 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 153@02) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@452@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7355
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2982.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 153/2002)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of the State Bank of Indore
Merged as State Bank of India and their workman, received
by the Central Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-12012/452/2001-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/153/02
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
General Secretary,
All India State Bank of Indore
Employees Congress,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager (Operations),
State Bank of Indore,
Merged as State Bank of India
Local Head Office
Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of October 2014
1.
As per letter dated 7-11-2002 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-12012/452/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under rererence
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Assistant
General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Mukesh Nathulal
Vatre S/o Nathulal Vatre w.e.f. 11-12-98 and not
regularizing him is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?"
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. orkman submitted statement of claim at page
2/1 to 2/7. Case of workman is that he was working as
messenger from 2-5-91 as per oral order of IInd party. He
was working with devotion. That on 17-11-87, settlement
was arrived between management of the Banks and all
India State Bank of India Staff Corporation. For absorption
of temporary messengers working for 30/70 days during
the period 1-7-75 to 18-8-95 , the applications of eligible
candidates were called. Workman submits that he had
worked for 84 days from 14-8-91 as per above settlement.
He is eligible for absorption. On his application, he was
called for interview on 19-2-97. He was continuously
working on the post of messenger. He was paid salary
from IInd party. On 11-12-98 Sr. Manager Shri S. K. Arya,
called him and served order of his termination regretting
that he was working since 1991. His services are terminated
without paying retrenchment compensation. Workman
submits that he raised dispute before ALC Bhopal and
dispute has been referred.
3.
Workman further submits that he was paid bonus
under Section 8 of Bonus Act for the period 2-5-91 to
11-12-90. Workman submits that for 1675 working days,
he was paid bonus of ` 4314/- on 8-8-01. That he worked
more than 300 days in every year and total for 2100 days.
Workman had worked for 84 days from 14-8-91. He
claims to be eligible for absorption as per settlement dated
17-11-87 Workman was paid wages ` 22 to 48 per day.
His services are terminated illegally. Instead of
regularization of services IInd party is punishable under
Section 29 of I.D.Act. Workman prays for his
reinstatement with back wages.
4.
IInd party filed Written Statement at page 9/1 to 9/13.
IInd party submits that Shri Ram Nagwanshi dismissed
employee of State Bank of Indore is not competent to
represent the workman. Workman had worked for 84 days
form May 91 to August 91. Thereafter workman was
engaged purely as daily rated contractual employee.
During 1992 to 1998, workman worked for 1684 days.
He was paid retrenchment compensation ` 6480/- in
compliance of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. it is reiterated
that workman was engaged purely on contract basis. His
duties were ending at end of the day. His discontinuation
is not covered as retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of
I.D. Act. it is squarely covered under Section 2(oo)(bb)
of I.D. Act.
5.
IInd party further submits that elaborate
conciliation proceeding is involved out of agreement
entered between Bank Staff Federation. It provides
opportunity for absorption of temporary casual workers
for permanent appointment. The agreements are entered
with staff association on 17-11-87, 16-7-88,28-10-88,
9-9-91 as per above agreement, employees were called
for interview. He was discontinued after 1-7-75 to 31-7-
80. In consultation with management and staff federation,
said period was extended till 14-8-91. He was daily wage
employees. They were given chance for appointment as
permanent employees. As per terms of bipartite settlement
management have only awarded temporary services from
7356
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
empanelled candidates. Ist party employee was continued
to casual vacancies as per the settlement. The panel was
kept alive till March 1997. It is reiterated that workman was
paid retrenchment compensation ` 6480/-. All adverse
contentions of workman have been denied . that workman
worked only for 89 days till cut off dated 14-8-91. Workman
was at low level of selected candidates. He could not be
absorbed in permanent service. IInd party had advertised
in newspaper calling applications in prescribed format as
per the settlements. Workman had submitted application
on 7-9-91 for permanent absorption. He was called for
interview on 19-4-97. Workman was not found suitable for
permanent employment. Therefore workman could not be
absorbed.
6.
IInd party further submits that as per settlement the
panel was required to be kept alive till March 1997 so that
opportunity for permanent employment can be given to
such candidates against available vacancies. The related
settlement dated 30-7-96, 20-2-97 between management
and staff federation 1st party workman discontinued in
retrenchment compensation. Violation of Section 25-F, G
of I.D.Act is denied. It is reiterated that workman was
discontinued paying retrenchment compensation.
Workman was found not suitable for absorption. On all
such contentions, IInd party prays for rejection of claim.
7.
Workman filed rejoinder at Page 10/1 to 10/3
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
8.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Assistant
General Manager, State Bank
of India, Bhopal in terminating
the services of Shri Mukesh
Nathulal Vatre S/o Nathulal
Vatre w.e.f. 11.12.1998 and not
regularizing him is justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the workman
As per final
is entitled to?"
order
REASONS
9.
The terms of reference includes legality of
termination of workman and denial of regularization. There
is no dispute between parties that workman had worked
for 84 days till cut off date i.e. 11-8-91. The pleadings of
parties shows that retrenchment compensation ` 6480/-
was paid to the workman. The agreement between Bank
management and staff federation are not disputed. The
copy of agreement dated 26.07.88 is produced at Exhibit
M-1. Relevant c1ause at Page 3 provides - temporary
employees should have worked in the bank on regular
scale wage part time or full time between 1-7-75 and 31-7-88
and put in the above stipulated period of temporary
service. The aggregate temporary service of 270, 240, 70
days or 30 days should have been put in by an employee
at any one or more offices. Clause VI of the agreement
regarding existing waiting list provides the waiting list
prepared after completion of interviews of the temporary
employees in subordinate cadre who have completed 90
days of service and above as on 31st October 1984 has
not yet been exhausted, it will be valid upto 31-7-88 and
vacancies arising up should be filled from this panel. Exhibit
M-2 Circular No. 32 was forwarded along with the letter.
Bipartite agreement dated 27-10-88, 9-1-99 guidelines
issued for implementation. Category "C" provides that
those who have completed minimum 30 days aggregate
after 1-7-75 or minimum of 78 days aggregate temporary
service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months
during 1-7-75 to 31-8-88 are eligible for chance for
permanent appointment in Bank service. Workman in
present case as per plea was not working in Bank till 1988.
Workman had worked 84 days prior to cut off date 11-8-91.
Exhibit M-4 settlement dated 9-1-91 provides that clause I
of settlement dated 17-11-87 was modified and substituted
in the year 1992 to 1994. Reading of Exhibit M-4 at Page 51
shows that looking to the enormity of the problem and in
view of the currency period of panels now being extended
upto 1994, clause (d) provides if the panels of temporary
employees in a circle are exhausted before December 1994,
the panels of daily wagers available there at will become
operative and will be used for filling up the remaining
vacancies and those arising upto December 1996. Exhibit
M-5 is copy of settlement dated 25-2-97. It clearly provide
that settlement dated 17-11-87,16-7-88,27-10-88,9-1-91 30-
6-96 be complied. The eligibility of working period during
1975 to 88 is not modified in any of the bipartite settlements.
Exhibit M-6 is copy of select list of 1997 name of workman
is not included. Keeping above aspects in view I proceed
to deal with evidence on record. workman in his affidavit
of evidence has stated that he was working as messenger
on daily wages from 2-5-91. He was paid wages ` 20/- per
day. He was working till 14-8-91. That as per settlement
employee working for 30-70 days are eligible for absorption.
He received interview call on 19-2-97. That he completed
more than 240 days continuous service from 2-5-91 to
11-12-98. His services were terminated without notice.
Retrenchment compensation was not paid. He was paid
bonus ` 4314/- on 8-8-01. After termination of his services,
he was not called for work. Workman in his cross-
examination says he was working in Bank from 2-5-91 to
December 98. He was doing work of depositing form
receipts. He was serving drinking water. He admits
retrenchment compensation was paid to him. He was called
for interview.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7357
10.
Management's witness Smt. Nirupa Joshi supported
contentions of management in Written Statement that
earlier employees working during the period 1-7-75 to 31-
7-88 were considered for absorption. Said period was
extended till 14-8-91. Workman was called for interview
on 19-2-97. He had worked for 84 days till 14-8-91. He
was not selected for absorption. Workman was paid
retrenchment compensation ` 6480 as per section 25-F
of I.D.Act. she says contract about engagement of
workman is not produced on record. she was unable to
tell what process was followed before engaging workman.
She claims ignorance whether his name was sponsored
through Employment Exchange. She claims ignorance
whether test or interview was taken before workman was
engaged. Workman was not given appointment letter.
Muster roll was not available. Workman was paid one
months retrenchment compensation before his
termination. List of retrenched employees was not
displayed on notice board.
Section 25-G of I.D.Act provides-
"Where any workman in an industrial
establishment, who is a citizen of India is to be
retrenched and he belongs to a particular category
of workmen in that establishment in the absence of
any agreement between the employer and the
workman in this behalf, the employer shall
ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last
person to be employed in hat category, unless for
reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any
other workman."
Rule 77 provide-
Employer shall prepare a list of all workmen in the
particular category from which retrenchment is
contemplated arranged according to the seniority of their
service in that category and cause a copy thereof to be
pasted on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the
premises of the industrial establishment atleast seven
days before the actual date of retrenchment."
11.
The evidence of management's witne.ss clearly
shows Section 25-G & Rule 77 are not followed. List of
dally wage employees were not displayed on notice board.
Therefore retrenchment of workman is illegal for
violation of above provisions.
12.
Learned counsel for IInd party Shri V.P . Khare
relied on ratio held in
Case of State of Karnataka and others versus M. L. Kesari
and others reported in 2010((SCC 247) . their Lordship
deals with appointment of qualified persons made against
sanctioned post without following process of open
competition are irregular appointments.
The ratio cannot be applied to present case as facts
are not comparable and there is violation of Section 25-G,
Rule 77 of I.D. Act.
Next reliance is placed in ratio held in
Case of Allahabad Bank versus Shri Prem Singh
reported in 11 (1996) BC 387 SC. Ratio held by their Lordship
that qualified to be appointment as a cash clerk status of
daily wager stood terminated at the end of each day, there
is no obligation to employ.
The facts of present case are not comparable and
ratio held in the case cannot be beneficially applied. The
workman was admittedly working for 1684 days during 2-
5-91 to termination of his service. IInd party has not
produced details of working days of workman. The
evidence of workman that he worked more than 240 days
in each of the year cannot be discarded. Therefore the
ratio cannot be applied beneficially. For same reasons ratio
held in case of Nand Kumar versus State of Bihar and
others reported in 2014(5) SCC 300 cannot be applied
beneficially in the present case.
In case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others
versus State of Bihar and others reported in Judgment
today 1997(4) SC 560. His Lordship held daily wager had
no right to the posts and their disengagement is not
arbitrary. If violation of Section 25-G, Rule 77 was not
involved for consideration of their Lordship, therefore ratio
cannot be applied beneficially.
13.
Shri Ram Nagwanshi Union representative submitted
copies of award in R/180100, 4/07, 105/02,27/04.
The facts of present case are not comparable. Each case
needs to be decided as per available evidence.
14.
The evidence clearly shows that workman was not
working prior to 31-7-88 rather he worked for 84 days
between 2-5-91 to 14-8-91. Said working period is not
covered as eligibility period as per settlement of 1987
discussed above. However for violation of Section 25-G,
Rule 77, retrenchment of workman is illegal. For above
reasons, I record my finding in Point No.l in Negative.
15.
Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.l,
retrenchment of workman is illegal for violation of Section
25-G, Rule 77, question arises whether workman is entitled
for reinstatementl regularization of his services. Workman
was not appointed following recruitment process. He is
not eligible for absorption as per settlement of 1987, 88, 91
etc. as he did not work during period of eligibility, therefore
workman is not entitled to benefit for absorption of his
service. However the retrenchment of workman is in
violation of Section 25-G , Rule 77. Workman was paid
retrenchment compensation ` 6480/-. One month's pay in
lieu of notice was paid to workman. Considering above
aspects as retrenchment of workman is found illegal for
violation of Rule- 77, appropriate compensation to
workman would meet the ends of justice. Considering
length of working of workman from May 91 to 11-12-98,
7358
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
compensation ` 2 Lakhs would be appropriate. 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 Assistant General
Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Mukesh Nathulal
Vatre S/o Nathulal Vatre w.e.f. 11-12-98 and not
regularizing him is not proper and legal.
(2)
IInd party is directed to pay compensation ` 2
Lakhs to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to
workman within two months 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] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2983-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 84@2002)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@480@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2983.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 84/2002)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-12012/480/2001-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/84/02
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE
General Secretary,
...Workman/Union
Daily wages Bank Employees
Association,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain (MP)
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India, Zonal Office,
Hamidia Road, Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 17th day of October 2014
1.
As per letter dated 28-5-02 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act,. 1947 as per Notification No.L-
12012/480/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Asstt.
General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Rajendra Mewati
w.e.f. December 1995 instead of regularizing him
is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?"
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Statement of claim is filed by workman at
Page 2/4 to 2/11. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
orally engaged by Branch Manager andelwal at Main
branch of SBI from 20-10-81 to 15-2-82 as messenger.
He worked with devotion. His name was included in panel
prepared for absorption. He was called for interview on
17-8-85. As per settlement dated 17-11-87 between
management and Union, he is entitled for absorption as
permanent employee. He had worked for 70 days during
1-7-75 to 31-7-88. On 11-8-91, he was called in Head
office of the Bank at Indore and informed that his name
was received from Bhopal. He further submits that since
12-8-91, he worked more than 240 days without any
grievance. He was sent on deputation with luggage by
General Manager on 3-8-96. Again he was sent with
luggage by Asstt. General Manager, Bhopal. He suffered
illness. He was treated by Dr. Subhash Sharma. Workman
reiterates that he worked more than 240 days every year
since 12-8-91 till May 1997, he was terminated without
notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him.
His representations were not responded. Junior employees
Mukesh and others were paid retrenchment
compensation. Workman was not paid retrenchment
compensation.
3.
Workman submits that he had submitted
representations for payment of bonus. He had worked
continuously till 31-5-97. He was paid bonus of ` 2665
assuming his working days were 1235. Infact he worked
1614 days. He was paid wages for all those working days.
Workman reiterates that his services were terminated
without notice without paying retrenchment
compensation. Principles of last come first go was not
followed. His termination is in violation of Section 25-F,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7359
G of I.D.Act. He was not re-employed. Bank employed
other persons after his termination. Thus IInd party
violated Section 25-F of ID.Act. On such ground he prays
for reinstatement/regularization.
4.
IInd party submitted Written Statement at page 6/1 to
6/11. Objection is raised that so called General Secretary
of Union Ram Nagwanshi dismissed employee is not
competent to represent workman. Workman was
employed purely on daily wages as messenger. He worked
for 83 days during 20-10-81 to 15-2-82. Dispute raised
by workman is referred for adjudication.
5.
IInd party submits that workman was casually
engaged on daily wages. His discontinuation is not
covered as retrenchment under Section 2(oo) rather is
engaged on daily wages. His service came to end at every
day at end of the day. His discontinuation is covered under
Section 2(oo) (bb) of I.D.Act. IInd party is given details
of working days of workman in Para-5. It is contented
that preceding discontinuation of workman he had not
completed 240 days service. He is not entitled to
protection under Section 25-F of I.D.Act. temporary
employees working during the period 1-7-75 to 31-7-88
were eligible for conciliation. IInd party had given
advertisement alling applications in prescribed proformas
from daily rated employees/ casual workers. Workman
had submitted his application claiming work for 83 days.
Workman could not be absorbed by the Bank as his
working days before cut off date 14-8-91 were at low
level.
6.
It is further submitted that Ist party employee was
appointed purely on daily wages as messenger. That
he was called for interview as per the settlement on
12-8-89. Workman had not completed 240 days
continuous service during any of the calendar year.
Workman was paid bonus ` 2665/- on 23-8-01. Workman
was engaged for work of hammal. He cannot be said
employee of the Bank. Violation of Section 25-F,G, H is
denied. All other adverse contentions of workman are
denied. IInd party prayed for rejection of claim.
7.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India,
Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Rajendra
Mewati w.e.f. December 1995
instead of regularizing him is
justified?
In Negative
(ii)
If not, what relief the workman
As per final
is entitled to?"
order.
REASONS
8.
Before dealing with evidence of parties, documentary
evidence needs to be considered. Exhibit W -1 is certificate
issued by Bank about 83 working days of workman during
20-10-81 to 15-2-80. Exhibit W -2 is letter calling workman
for interview for post of messenger. Exhibit W-3 is notice
calling explanations of temporary casual employees for
absorption as permanent employees as per settlement
dated 31-7-88. The said document is clear that employees
working 70 days during 36 calendar months between
1-7-75 to 31-7-88. Exhibit W-4 is letter for calling interview
dated 10-9-99. Exhibit W-5 is also letter for interview issued
in 1997. Exhibit W-6 is letter issued by Dy. General manager
referring that the workman was claiming 83 days working
during the cut off period. Exhibit W - 7 is copy of rejoinder
submitted before ALC. Exhibit W-8 is application
submitted by workman stating that he was working from
12-8-91 to 10-8-98. He was paid ` 48/- per day. Exhibit W-
9 is copy of cheque for payment of bonus amount
` 2665. Exhibit W-I0 is letter issued by Shri Ram Nagwanshi
Union representative requesting documents regarding
payment of bonus. Exhibit W-11 is letter given by
Dy.General Manager about claim of Ist party workman. He
was not paid retrenchment compensation. Exhibit W-2 is
copy of application submitted before ALC, Bhopal relating
to denial of bonus payment of ` 2665/- Exhibit W-13 is
letter issued by Asstt. General Manager to the branch
offices. Said letter finds reference that for the candidates
in select list, there was no specific period of their working.
Exhibit W-14 is letter issued by Asstt. General Manager
dated 12-12-02. The details of monthwise and year wise
temporary daily wages service in each case was called.
Exhibit W-15 is letter issed by Chief Manager shows
working days of workman as shown III Written Statement.
Exhibit W-17 to 29 shows details of working days and
payment of wages to workman.
9.
Workman has filed affidavit of his evidence that he
worked for 83 days during 12-10-81 to 15-2-82. On 17-8-85,
he was called for interview for absorption. Again he was
called for interview on 12-8-89. He was engaged as
messenger from 12-8-91. He was continuously working till
June 97. He worked more than 240 days during each of the
year. In his cross-examination, workman says he was called
for interview as per settlement between Union. He was
interviewed as per Exhibit W-4. He had asked payment of
bonus as per Exhibit W-4. He had asked payment of bonus
as per Exhibit W-4. Bonus was paid as per Exhibit W -9. He
was paid wages every day from petty cash. After interview
in 1989, his name was included in waiting list. He was
doing every kind of work. Evidence of workman about his
working is not shattered in his cross-examination.
10.
Management produced select list for 1997 Exhibit
M-6. Management witness Smt. Nirupa Joshi in her
7360
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
affidavit of evidence has stated that working days of
workman from 20-10-81 to 15-2-82 were 83 days. The details
of the working days of workman are also shown in para-5
of her affidavit. In para-6. Management's witness has stated
as per settlement with Union temporary employees working
during 1-7-75 to 31-7-88 were considered for absorption.
The period was extended till 14-8-91. Workman had not
completed 240 days continuous service during any of the
year from 12-8-91 to 31-5-97. Provisions of Section 25-F
was not violated. However management's witness in her
cross-examination says workman was paid wages from
petty cash. Said register is not produced. The chart of
working days of workman is not produced. Workman was
called for interview on 12-8- 79. Select list of said interview
is not produced. It is denied that name of workman was
included in select list. Management's witness denied select
list before the date of record. workman was paid bonus. in
1997, workman was not called for interview as he was found
unsuitable in 1989. Witness of management admitted that
workman was continuously working from 1991 to 97. Select
list is produced at Exhibit M-6. Name of workman is not
included in Exhibit M-6 as he had not completed 240 days
continuous service during any of the year 1975 to 1991.
She claims ignorance about any persons engaged by Bank
after termination of services of workman.
11.
Though management's witness says that after
interview in 1989, workman was not found suitable. The
select list of 1989 is not produced. Copy of settlements are
produced on record. settlement dated 17-11-87 is amended
time to time. Copy of amendment settlement at page 15
provides that the aggregate temporary service of 270, 240,
70 days or 30 days should have been put in by an employee
at anyone or more offices. The evidence of workman
that during 1981, 82, he worked for 83 days, is
unshattered rather it is also admitted by IInd party.
Workman is squarely covered by agreement dated 17-
11-87 modified time to time. Workman was called for
interview. List on basis of interview in 1989 is not produced.
Workman is fulfilling condition of working days during
relevant period as per Exhibit W-1 and advertisement
Exhibit W-3 . Evidence of management's witness is not
clear how the workman was not found suitable for
absorption. Evidence discussed above clearly shows that
workman was continuously working from 91 to 98 for more
than 240 days. I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of
workman. In absence of documentary evidence, the
contentions of workman cannot be accepted.
12.
Learned counsel for IInd party Shri V.P.Khare relied
on ratio held in
Case of State of Karnataka and others versus
M.L.Kesari and others reported in 201O((SCC 247) . their
Lordship deals with appointment of qualified persons made
against sanctioned post without following process of open
competition are irregular appointments.
The ratio cannot be applied to present case as
facts are not comparable and there is violation of Section
25-G, Rule 77 of I.D. Act.
Next reliance is placed in ratio held in
Case of Allahabad Bank versus Shri Prem Singh
reported in 11 (1996) BC 387 SC. Ratio held by their Lordship
that qualified to be appointment as a cash clerkstatus of
daily wager stood terminated at the end of each day, there
is no obligation to employ.
The facts of present case are not comparable and ratio
held in the case cannot be beneficially applied. The
workman was admittedly working for 1684 days during 2-
5-91 to termination of his service. IInd party has not
produced details of working days of workman. The
evidence of workman that he worked more than 240 days
in each of the year cannot be discarded. Therefore the
ratio cannot be applied beneficially. For same reasons ratio
held in case of Nand Kumar versus State of Bihar and
others reported in 2014(5) SCC 300 cannot be applied
beneficially in the present case.
In case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others
versus State of Bihar and others reported in Judgment
today 1997(4) SC 560. His Lordship held daily wager had
no right to the posts and their disengagement is not
arbitrary. If violation of Section 25-G, Rule 77 was not
involved for consideration of their Lordship, therefore ratio
cannot be applied beneficially.
13. The evidence shows that workman instead of
regularizing service as per settlement dated 17-11-87
extended time to time, workman was terminated without
notice, compensation was not paid to him. The act of
management therefore is clearly in violation of Section 25-
F of I.D.Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in
Point No. 1 in Negative.
14.
Point No.2- As per my finding in Point Nol,
termination of services of workman is illegal, workman is
denied regularization as per settlement dated 17-11-87.
Instead of regularizing, workman was dismissed from
service without paying retrenchment compensation or
issuing notice. Workman was working with IInd party
during 1981-82, the details given Supra. Thereafter from
91 to 97. Considering denial of absorption as per settlement
between management and Union, workman is terminated.
Workman is entitled for regularisation of his services as
per the settlement. The evidence adduced by workman
and IInd party is not cogent about gainful employment of
workman. Workman has not stated how he was surviving
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7361
after termination of his service since 1997. Considering
those aspects, reinstatement of workman would be
justified.
15.
Shri Ram Nagwanshi Union representative submitted
copies of award in R/180/00, 4/07, 105/02, 27/04. The facts
of present case are not comparable. Each case needs to be
decided as per available evidence. In my view, reinstatement
of workman with 50 % back wages would be appropriate.
Accordingly I record my finding in point No.2.
16.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(l)
The action of the management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Rajendra Mewati
w.e.f. December 1995 instead of regularizing him
is not legal.
(2)
IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with
continuity of service with 50 % back wages.
8.
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] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2984-—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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
75@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@30@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2984.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 75/2002)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
the State Bank of India and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-12012/30/2002-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/75/02
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
General Secretary,
All India State Bank of Indore
Employees Congress,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Region-III, Zonal office,
Hamidia Road, Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 17th day of October 2014
1.
As per letter dated 17-5-02 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
12012/30/2002-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Asstt
General Manager, State Bank of India, Region-III,
Bhopal in not giving the regular appointment to Shri
Madanlal Jakhad even after selection in the interview
is justified? If not, what relief the workman is
entitled?"
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim at Page 2/2 to 2/8. Case of workman is that he
worked for 90 days in State Bank of Indore on vacant
post of messenger in 1984. He sincerely worked without
any grievance from any corner. Branch Manager called
him in his cabin and proved that his name was included
for absorption as permanent employee. He was called for
interview in the year 85 to 89. He was included in the
select list. He was told that he would be called for regular
appointment. That agreements were settled between
management and Union dated 17-11-87 to consider
temporary employees working during 1-7-74 who worked
for 30-70 days during said period. That in 1997,
temporary employees were called for interview for
permanent appointments. Applicant has submitted the
documents. He was present on 19-2-97. However he was
told that the instructions were received from Regional
office Bhopal. That individuals who were interviewed in
1989 were not required to be interviewed.
7362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
Ist party workman further submits that he was
working as messenger in the Bank from 24-4-97. He was
working from 10 AM to 6 PM. He was performing his
service with devotion. On 12-5-97, he submitted
representations that the settlement donot provide for part
time appointments. That he could not maintain his family
as part time employee, he requested for appointment as
permanent employee. It is submitted that he was directed
to approach Regional Office, Bhopal. He was given
understanding to approach appointment as regular
employee to her office. The order for regular appointment
was received. However when he approached branch office
at Dhar, he was given understanding that the order for
regular appointment was wrongly issued. He was
appointed as part time messenger. He was not allowed to
join duty as regular employee. Workman reiterates that
he had worked for 90 days as per the bipartite settlement
during 27-10-88 to 9-1-91. His name was included in
select list. He had completed continuous service under
Section 25 B of I.D.Act. Workman submits that despite
he was selected after interview in 85 to 89, his services
are illegally terminated. He is not given benefit for
bipartite agreement. Instead of regularizing his. services,
he was illegally termmated. On such ground, workman
is praymg for regularisation on post of messenger.
4.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7.
Preliminary objection is raised for General Secretary Shri
Nagwanshi is a dismissed employee of the Bank and he
is not competent to represent workman. Bank has
elaborate selection procedure for permanent appointment.
It is necessary to call name from Employment Exchange.
The Bipartite agreements dated 17-11-87, 16-7-88,
28-10-88, 9-1-91 provides opportunity to be given to the
employees discontinued during 1-7-75 to 31-3-88. IInd
party had given advertisement in newspaper calling
applications in prescribed format of casual workers
working during stipulated period. Workman was called
for interview on 19-2-97. He was selected as part time
employee in March 97. He was given appointment letter
directing to report at Dhar branch. Workman remained
absent from 1-5-97 to 5-5-97. He reported on duty on
6-5-97. Thereafter workman remained unauthorized absent,
notice by RPAD was sent to him on 7-12-97 requesting to
report on duty. However workman reported on duty on
23-7-97 after long period of one year. Workman himself
abandoned job. Above contentions are reiterated by IInd
party while replying to contentions "raised in statement
of claim. It is emphasized that workman was appointed
as part time employee after he was selected in the
interview. He himself abandoned job. Workman was not
selected as permanent employee. On such ground IInd
party submits that workman was never given appointment
as full time messenger workman is not entitled to relief
claimed by them.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
"Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Asstt General
Manager, State Bank of India,
Region-III, Bhopal in not
giving the regular appointment to
Shri Madanlal Jakhad even
after selection in the interview
is justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the workman
As per final
is entitled to?"
order.
REASONS
6.
Terms of reference are clear that workman is
challenging denial of regular appointment evenafter his
selection by interview. IInd party had denied workman
was selected from post of permanent messenger. He
remained unauthorisely absent and abandoned job. The
documents produced by workman are admitted by IInd
party marked as Exhibit W-l to W-16. In Exhibit W-l
select list, name of workman is appearing. His educational
qualification is shown 8th standard, working days-90,
marks 30.1. said letter doesnot indicate that selection was
for part time post. Exhibit W-2 is advertisement notice
shows that the advertisement is given for absorption of
part time employee to full time post. Exhibit W-3 is letter
for interview issued in 1997. It clearly provide that
candidates called for interview in 1989 were not required
to be interviewed. Exhibit W-4 is 1etter given by Branch
Manager about unauthorized absence of workman. He
was called to join duty. W-5 is letter given by Branch
Manager about his unauthorized absence. Exhibit W-6
is letter dated 2-9-97 given to workman about his absence
on account of illness. Exhibit W-7 is receipt of payment
of ` 240/- paid for 9 days working. W-8 is letter given
by Branch Manager informing that he was under
consideration for appointment as regular employee.
Exhibit W-9 is reply given to ALC. It is stated by Ilnd
party that proposal for part time appointment of workman
was submitted. W-10 is notice given to parties by ALC.
Exhibit W-11 to 15 are receipts of payment of
retrenchment compensation to other employees. W-16 is
letter given by AGM of Bank calling information about
temporary daily wage employees completing 240 days
service in branches.
7.
Evidence is adduced by workman on affidavit
covering his contentions in statement of claim that he
worked for 90 days as per the settlement. He. was called
for interiew in 27-7-89, his name was included in the list
as he was interviewed in 1989, he was not interviewed
in 1997. He further submits that he was not given
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7363
appointment as permanent employee despite of his
selection after the interview. In his cross-examination,
workman says when he joined Bank service in 1984, the
post was not advertised. Appointment letter was not given
to him at that time, After he was called on interview on
19-2-97, appointment letter was given to him. He was
also interviewed in 1985. As per settlement between
Union and management, he was interviewed. He had
worked for 90 days. The appointment letter as required
employee on full scale was issued but he was not allowed
to join duty on ground that the order was wrongly issued.
Even after approaching zonal office, he was not allowed
to join duty as regular employee by the Branch manager.
The evidence of workman is supported by documents.
Exhibit W-1 to W-5 as well as W-7,8.
8.
Management adduced evidence of witness
Shri Sanjay Vijay Khole on affidavit supporting
contentions in Written Statement. Witness of management
says as per settlement of 87-88, 91, casual employees were
called and select list was prepared. The period of settlement
was extended till 14-8-91. When workman remained absent,
he was served with notices by RPAD. Management's
witness in his cross-examination says in 1984, he was not
posted at MG Road branch. In 1985, 89 workman was not
called for interview twice. He was called once for interview.
He was unable to tell its date. The witness of management
denied that workman was given appointment letter and
the same was called back. Management's witness admits
that as far as appointment letter given to workman, he had
gone to join at branch. Said appointment letter is not
produced. He admits that workman had submitted
application for appointment as permanent employee. That
contents of his application about resignation submitted
by workman was in the context that workman remained
absent on duty. That para-4 of his affidavit is silent about
workman abandoning job, no enquiry was conducted
against the workman.
9.
Documentary evidence discussed above is clear that
after his interview, name of workman was included in
select list W -1. Said document doesnot show that he was
selected for part time post. Notice W-2 also doesnot show
that part time post was advertised. However document
Exhibt W -8 shows that workman remained absent. As
per evidence of management's witness chargesheet was
not issued to workman, no enquiry is conducted against
him. Letter of appointment given to workman is not
produced on record. Thus management is suppressing
immaterial evidence. The evidence of management's
witness that workman had resigned from Job is not
corroborated by documents. Evidence on said point cannot
be accepted. The documents produced by management,
copies of agreements Exhibit M-3, M-4 are clear that the
employees completed minimum 30 days aggregate
temporary service in any calendar year after 1-7-75 or
7-0 days service in any continuous block of 36 calendar
months after 1-7-75 were eligible for absorption as
permanent employee. Workman had worked for 90 days in
1984. Thus workman fulfills eligibility for absorption as
regular employee. Evidence of management's witness is
not cogent why workman was given appointment as part
time employee of permanent employee. It appears that
name of workman is not included in said list as he was not
interviewed in 1997 and he was called for interview in 1989.
Considering those spects it is apparent that despite of his
selection for absorption as casual employee for regular
appointment, workman was absorpting on regular post.
10.
Learned counsel for IInd party Shri V. P. Khare relied
on ratio held in :
Case of State of Karnataka and others versus M. L.
Kesari and others reported in 2010 (SCC 247). their Lordship
deals with appointment of qualified persons made against
sanctioned post without following process of open
competition are irregular appointments.
The ratio cannot be applied to present case as facts
are not comparable and there is violation of Section 25-G,
Rule 77 of I. D. Act.
Next reliance is placed in ratio held in :
Case of Allahabad Bank versus Shri Prem Singh
reported in II (1996) BC 387 SC. Ratio held by their Lordship
that qualified to be appointment as a cash clerk status of
daily wager stood terminated at the end of each day, there
is no obligation to employ.
The facts of present case are not comparable and
ratio held in the case cannot be beneficially applied. The
workman was admittedly working for 1684 days during
2-5-91 to termination of his service. IInd party has not
produced details of working days of workman. The
evidence of workman that he worked more than 240 days
in each of the year cannot be discarded. Therefore the
ratio cannot be applied beneficially. For same reasons ratio
held in case of Nand Kumar versus State of Bihar and
others reported in 2014(5) SCC 300 cannot be applied
beneficially in the present case.
In case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others
versus State of Bihar and others reported in Judgment
today 1997(4) SC 560. His Lordship held daily wager had
no right to the posts and their disengagement is not
arbitrary. If violation of Section 25-G, Rule 77 was not
involved for consideration of their Lordship, therefore ratio
cannot be applied beneficially.
11.
Shri Ram Nagwanshi Union representative submitted
copies of award in R/180/00, 4/07, 105/02, 27/04. The facts
of present case are not comparable. Each case needs to be
decided as per available evidence.
7364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12.
Evidence clearly shows that workman was found
eligible for absorption on regular post as per the settlement
but he was not given its benefit. The ratio held in above
cases cannot be beneficially applied to present case. For
above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.l in
Negative.
13.
Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.l, the
denial of regularization as permanent employee is illegal.
Question arises whether he is entitled for reinstatement
with back wages. Workman was selected after interview
as per Bipartite Settlement. However he was denied regular
appointment. Evidence of workman is not cogent on the
point of what work he was doing after discontinuation
from service. Evidence of workman is silent how he was
maintaining his family for such long period. Evidence of
management's witness is also silent on this point, therefore
in my considered view, workman is entitled for
regularization/reinstatement with 50 % back wages.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.
14.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(l)
The action of the management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India, Region-III,
Bhopal in not giving the regular appointment
to Shri Madanlal Jakhad evenafter selection in
the interview is not legal.
(2)
IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with
continuity of service with 50 % back wages.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2985-—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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
35@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@220@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2985.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 35/2003)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the State Bank of India
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-12012/220/2002-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/35/03
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. P ATLE
General Secretary,
All India State Bank of Indore
Employees Association,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India, Zonal Office,
Hamidia Road,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 28th day of October, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 13-1-03 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-12012/220/2002-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference
relates to:
" Whether the action of the management of Asstt.
General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal m
terminating the services of Shri Umesh Thakur w.e.f.
6-4-95 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled for?"
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at
Page 5/1 to 5/5 through Secretary, Daily Wage Bank
Employees Union, Ujjain. Case of workman is that he
was engaged as peon/ messenger in May 1989 on daily
wages @ ` 20/- per day. His wages were increased to
` 20, 30, 40 per day. He was working in GPO Branch, Indore.
He was deputed to place of transfer of Manager. He was
cooking meals for them. He was also watching their
residential home. He was paid wages on petty cash. In
May 93, he was directed to work in Indore branch. He
worked under Branch Manager Shri Chatti. Srivastastava,
Sadavarte. He was discontinued from 6-4-95. He was not
paid retrenchment compensation. Notice was not served
on him. It is submitted that he worked continuously more
than 240 days. He was paid bonus for May 89 to 6-4-95.
That he is covered as employee under Section 25 B of
I.D.Act. Termination of his service is in violation of
Section 25-F, H of I.D.Act. On such ground, workman is
praying for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 8/
9. Preliminary objection is raised that Ram Nagwanshi
so called General Secretary of Union is a dismissed
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7365
employee of SBI is not competent to participate in the
reference proceeding. Workman was temporarily engaged
on daily wages as messenger at GPO branch Indore and
Godha Colony branch, Indore. He worked for 80 days in
1991, 126 days in 1992, 11 days in 1993 at GPO branch and
5 days in October 1994,14 days in November 94 and 19
days in December 94 at Godha colony branch. Workman
was paid bonus ` 262/- on 11-12-01. It is reiterated that
workman is not appointed by Bank. His engagement on
the day come to end at end of day. His discontinuation is
covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D.Act. As per
settlement with union, casual employees working during
1-7-75 to 31-7-88 were called for interview for absorption.
Workman did not submit application after advertisement,
Therefore there is no question of his consideration for
absorption. It is reiterated that workman had not completed
240 days contmuous service. He is not entitled to
retrenchment compensation, notice of pay, pay in lieu of
notice. On such ground, IInd party prays for rejection of
claim.
4.
Workman submitted rejoinder at 11/1 to 11/3
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. He submits
that he completed 240 days continuous service. His services
are terminated without paying retrenchment
compensation.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India,
Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Umesh Thakur
w.e.f. 6-4- 95 is justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
6.
Point No.1—terms of reference relates only to
legality of termination of service of workman from 6-
4-95. It doesnot include denial of regularization of workman
as per bipartite settlement. Workman has pleaded that he
completed 240 days continuous service with IInd party.
His services are terminated without notice, not paid
retrenchment compensation. Workman filed affidavit of
his evidence on 11-1-07. As per order sheet dated 2-6-
2010, representative of workman submitted that workman
is not produced for his cross-examination. Evidence of
workman was closed that note that his evidence will not
be looked into. Thus the contentions of workman are not
supported by evidence. The documents admitted by IInd
party W-1 shows attendance of workman in the month of
May 1992. W-2 shows attendance of workman in
December 91, January 92, those documents donot show
that workman was working with IInd party during 12
consecutive months prior to termination of workman in
April 1995. Exhibit W-3 is representation submitted to ALC,
Bhopal about illegal termination of workman for violating
Section 25-F of I.D. Act. W-4 is letter given by workman to
management for payment of bonus from May 89 to May
93. W-5 is letter reply given by IInd party to ALC, Bhopal.
The working days of workman are shown 80 days in 1991,
126 days in 1992, 11 days in 1993. That workman had not
completed 240 days. W -6 is reply submitted by IInd party
before ALC showing payment of bonus ` 162/- for 91-92,
` 100 for 92- 93. The working days of workman are shown
122 days in 91-92, 84 days in 92-93, 11 days in 93-94. In Ex
W-7 working days shown by management similar to earlier
documents. W-8 is letter given by Union Representative
before ALC stating that workman was terminated without
notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid. W-9 is
copy of failure report, W-10 is letter given by Asstt. General
Manager calling information about casual employees
working in branch. W -11 is also letter given by Asstt.
General Manager calling information of daily wage
employees completed 240 days till 30-9-02. All those
documents donot establish that workman was
continuously working for 240 days during preceding 12
months of his discontinuation on 6-4-95. Copies of bipartite
settlement are produced on record. however as per terms
of reference, donot include denial of regularization of
workman in violation of Bipartite Settlement therefore
detailed discussion of conditions in Bipartite Agreement
is not necessary.
7.
Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Mahesh
Kumar Maheshwari. He has supported contentions of
management that the workman was working for 80 days
in 91, 126 days in 1992, 11 days in 1993. He was engaged
on daily wages. Workman was working 5 days in October
94, 14 days in November 94 and 19 days in December 94
at Godha Colony branch, Indore. In his cross-
examination, witness says during 91 to 93, he was not
working in Godha branch. Presently he is working in
said branch. He did not discuss with earlier Branch
Managers about Ist party workman. He claims to have
received information from Administrative office. No
recruitment process was followed before engaging Ist
party workman on daily wages. Permission of Controlling
Authority was not obtained before engaging workman
on work. Bipartite Settlement are applicable to IInd
party.Attendance Register of workman was not
maintained. Workman was paid through petty cash. Petty
cash register was maintained. Workman was paid bonus
in 2001. The documents discussed earlier shows payment
7366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of bonus and working days of workman. The evidence in
cross-examination of management's witness is not
supporting claim of workman that he had worked for more
than 240 days preceding his discontinuation on 6-4-95.
Workman has not made available for his cross-examination
and his evidence cannot be looked into. As such there is
no evidence to support claim of workman that he was
ontinuously working more than 240 days preceding his
discontinuation. Therefore compliance of Section 25-F of
I.D.Act is not necessary. The termination of workman in
violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act is not established. For
above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Affirmative.
8.
Pont No. 2- in view of my finding in Point No.1,
termination of service of workman in violation of Section
25-F is not proved, workman is not entitled to any relief
as claimed. Accordingly I record my finding in Point
No. 2.
9.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Umesh Thakur
w.e.f. 6-4-95 is proper and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2986-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
5@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41012@159@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2986.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 05/2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the West
Central Railway and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-41012/159/2004-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/5/06
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE
Shri Narmada Prasad,
S/o Shri Hari Ram,
R/o Ganeshganj Ward No.9,
Shahpur Police Chouki Sahapur,
Post Magroan,
Distt. Sagar (MP)
Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
West Central Railway,
Jabalpur.
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 30th day of October, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 5-1-2006 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-
41012/159/2004-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Divisional
Railway Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur
(MP) in terminating the services of Shri Narmada
Prasad S/o Shri Hari Ram w.e.f. 15-3-88 is justified or
not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled to
and from which date?"
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim at Page 3/1 to 3/3. Case of workman is that he was
engaged in Railway service from 18-10-78 under Loco
Foreman, Sagar. He worked till 14-3-88 for 10 years.
That he was continuously working for more than 240
days. He gained status of temporary employee. That his
services were not regularized rather he was arbitrarily
terminated without giving any opportunity. Any show-
cause notice was not issued to him. Termination of his
service is illegal. Workman further submits that the
management given assurance in writing that in next
recruitment, he will get his job in recruitment of old card
holders in 2003. That IInd party employed 350 card
holders back on duty. Workman was not recruited along
with them. Workman raised dispute before ALC. Labour
Ministry refused to make reference. He filed Writ Petition
No. 11821/05 only after direction of Hon'ble High Court,
the reference has- been made. Workman prays for
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7367
3.
Ilnd party management filed Written Statement.
Objection is raised after 17 years is not tenable. Ilnd party
referred to ratio held in various cases. That the dispute
raised after 7 years is not tenable. IInd party further
submits that Hon' ble High Court directed to decide issue
as to whether workman had opportunity for re-
employment while 358 Co-workers were re-employed in
2003. Claim of workman is restricted from 2003 as per
orders passed by Hon'ble High Court. Workman was
offered opportunity for re-employment with 350 ex-
casuals. Workman claimed that he was engaged from 78
to 88. It is submitted that Railway has recruitment policy
for appointment of regular employees. Procedure has to
be followed for regular appointments. That in March
2003, IInd party invited applications of ex-casuals
publishing in daily newspaper. Workman had not
submitted application at that time. Workman first time
claimed employment in 2005. It is submitted that
workman had not completed 120 days, he has not
produced record, he has not acquired status of temporary
employee. The details of working days of workman are
given Para-10. All other adverse contentions of workman
have been denied. That workman was engaged as casual
labour in broken period from May 1981 to June 1984. He
has not completed 240 days service. On such ground,
Ilnd 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 rcorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Divisional
Rail Manager, West Central
Railway, Jabalpur (MP) in
terminating the services of
Shri Narmada Prasad
S/o Shri Hari Ram w.e.f.
15-3-88 is justified or not?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
5.
The terms of reference relates to legality of
termination of his service from 15-3-88. However
workman in his statement of claim in Para-4 has pleaded
that he was assured job in recruitment of card holders.
The contention of workman on above point and his
evidence on point is beyond the terms of reference.
Though the Hon'ble High Court set aside order of Govt.
refusing to make reference on ground of delay on 17 years
observing that other casual card holders were appointed
in 2003, claim of workman cannot be said belated.
However the terms of reference donot relate to the claim
of workman for appointment as casual card holders rather
terms of reference relates to the legality of his termination
in 1988.
6.
Workman in his affidavit of evidence has stated
that he was in Railway Service, Loco Foreman Sagar as
casual labour from 18-10-78, he was working till 14-3-88.
He acquired status of monthly rated employees. He
acquired status of 240 days service. Service certificate
was issued to him. His casual card no. is 188095.
Workman in his cross-examination says casual card was
issued by Foreman in 1978 but attendance card is not
produced. On 14-3-88, he was terminated. That he raised
dispute in Labour Court but unable to tell its date. He
claims ignorance whether any settlement was arrived for
employing casual card holders. He was unable to tell
whether the documents M-3 produced by management
was correct or not. He denies that the management had
published notice in 2003. That he had not submitted
application in 2003.
7.
Management's witness Shri Chandan Singh in his
affidavit of evidence has stated that management had
decided to offer opportunity to call casual labours for
appointment against regular vacancies. Said decision was
published in Dainik Bhaskar in March 2003 Exhibit M-1
inviting applications from casuals. The copy of list
Annexure M-2 is produced. That workman did not tender
any application at relevant time. He did not approach
management claiming employment as casual labours.
Workman did not complete 120 days service. The details
of working days of workman are given in para-14 of his
affidavit. Management's witness in his cross-examination
says the casual service card used to be issued by Loco
Foreman. When casual service card was issued, he was
not working at Loco Sagar. He claims ignorance when
working of Loco Sagar was closed, working of steam loco
stopped long back. He never worked in steam loco.
Workman was working as casual labour during 1981 to
1984. He has stated delay of 17 years on basis of
documents. Workman has produced zerox copies of
documents but no care is taken to prove same by valid
evidence. The documents produced by management M-I
shows workman had worked for 474 days during May 81
to June 84. The dispute is raised in the year 2006 whereas
as per pleadings he was terminated in 1988. The dispu~e
relating to legality of his termination raised after almost
17 years is belated. Management has produced Exhibit
M-1 relating to regularization of 308 Railway Casual
labours. The careful reading of said publication doesnot
show that applications were invited for regularization of
casual labours but said publication clearly shows that
General Manager of Central Railway had decided to
regularize 308 casual labors whose signatures were in
the register. The names of such are given only for
convenience of the casual labours regularized by said
publication. Ist party workman was also working as casual
labour. The evidence of management's witness is also clear
7368
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
about his working. Certainly the workman as a casual
labour would have been entitled for regularization.
However the terms of reference are related to legality of
his termination form service in 1988. The terms of
reference donot include claim of workman for
regularization as casual card holders therefore the relief
claimed by orkman for regularization being beyond terms
of reference could not be upheld. The legality of
termination of services raised after 17 years is highly
belated and cannot be interfered. For above reasons, I
record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
8.
In the result, award is passed as under.-
(l)
The termination of services of workman is not
established.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2987-—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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
11@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@307@1999&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2987.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2000)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the State
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 18/11/2014.
[No. L-12012/307/1999-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/11/2000
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R .B. PATLE
General Secretary,
All India State Bank of Indore
Employees Congress,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Region-V, Zonal office,
Hamidia Road, Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 17th day of October 2014
1.
As per letter dated 23-24/12/99 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.
L-12012/307/99/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether Shri Madanlal Malviya was a workman
under ID Act 1947 of State Bank of India, Ujjain
branch. If so, whether the action of the,
management of State Bank of India, Ujjain Branch
in terminating his services w.e.f. 20-9-93 instead
of regularizing is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to?"
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim at Page 6/1 to 6/5. Case of Ist party workman is
that he was engaged by Branch Manager as peon on
monthly salary ` 250/- from 10-5-90. On 20-3-91,
Branch Manager SBI called him for interview. He was
told that he cannot continue him for more than 240 days
continuous service. That his name was sent to Regional
Office. Whenever vacancy will be available, he will be
called . that Branch Manager had engaged him as peon.
He was paid ` 32/- per day. Till 20-9-93, he was engaged
on daily wages, then his services were discontinued. As
per settlement dated 27-10-88, 14-8-91, casual temporary
employees working during 1-7-75 to 31-7-88 for 30, 70,
240, 270 days were eligible for appointment as regular
employees. That as per those settlements, he had worked
for 300 days during 10-5-90 to 14-8-91. That on 12-2-97,
he was called for interview. At the time of interview he
told that he completed 240 days continuous service. It is
alleged that after interview of 1997, some malpractices
were committed of giving amounts. Committee members
were suspended. Workman says that he worked for 314
days during 10-5-90 to 20-3-91. He was not continued
by IInd party. He raised dispute. IInd party had sought
adjournments for filing reply. After failure report
submitted to Govt reference is made. Workman submits
that he completed 240 days continuous service as provided
under Section 25 of I.D.Act. he is not regularized by IInd
party as per settlement dated 27-10-88, workman further
submits that IInd party has committed offence under
Section 29 of the I.D.Act. IInd party also violated the
Section 25-G, H, N of I.D.Act. other employees
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7369
Satyanarayan and 5 others were engaged by management,
workman was not called for re-employment. IInd party
violated Section 25-F of I.D.Act. on such grounds,
workman prays for reinstatement/regularization.
3.
IInd party filed Written statement at Page 8/1 to 8/
12. IInd party raised objection that Union secretary Ram
Nagwanshi is a dismissed employee of Bank and as such
he cannot represent workman. IInd party in Para-2 admits
that workman had worked for 240 days during 11-5-90
to 20-4-91. He had also worked for 36 days during
9-2-94 to 23-5-94 after he raised dispute before ALC. On
failure report submitted to Govt, reference is made to this
Tribunal. Workman reiterates that IInd party engaged
workman on casual basis. The engagement of workman
ended at end of day. The discontinuation is covered under
Section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D.Act. His discontinuation doesnot
amount to retrenchment. It is further pleaded that Bank
has elaborate selection procedure. The provisions of
Bipartite settlement dated 17-11-87, 16-7-88, 27-10-88,
9-2-91, 30-7-96 provides eligibility criteria for selection
procedure for permanent post in sub cadre. Workman was
given chance as per bipartite agreements. Workman failed
to appear on 20-9-91. However interview committee
permitted him to appear for interview since application
was submitted by workman. As per settlement, panel was
required to be kept alive till March 97. Workman was
engaged for only two hours a day as per casual basis.
Workman was not engaged for whole day as pleaded by
workman. All adverse contentions of workman are denied.
It is not disputed that workman was paid wages at ` 250/
- per month. Ist party workman was paid wages at ` 250/
- per month. Ist party workman had not worked 240 days
in any calendar year. The engagement of workman was
purely on part time basis. It is denied that IInd party
violated provisions of Section 25-G, H of I.D.Act. The
allegations of workman are vague. Workman has not
worked for statutory period of 240 days provided under
Section 25 B of I.D.Act. on such contentions, IInd party
prays for rejection of claim.
4.
Workman has filed rejoinder at Page 10/1 to 10/3
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether Shri Madanlal
In Affirmative
Malviya was a workman
under ID Act 1947 of State
Bank of India,
Ujjain branch
(ii)
whether the action of the
management of State Bank
of India, Ujjain Branch in
terminating his services
In Affirmative
w.e.f. 20-9-93 instead of
regularizing is legal and
justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
6.
As per terms of reference, Ist issue deals with
whether Ist party is covered as workman under I.D.Act?
In para-2 of Written Statement, llnd party has contented
that Ist party had worked 240 days during period
11-5-90 to 20-4-91. Workman was again engaged at Ujjain
Branch of State Bank of India as daily rated casual
employee. He had also worked for 26 days during 9-4-90
to 23-5-94.
7.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence stating that
he was working at SBI branch Ujjain from 10-5-90. As
per order ·sheet dated 2-6-2010, workman remained
absent and it is ordered that his evidence will not be
looked into. Though the evidence cannot be looked into,
the pleadings in Written Statement is clear that workman
is covered under Section 2(s) of I.D.Act. he was working
in branch Ujjain. Therefore I record my finding in Point
No.l in Affirmative.
8.
Point No.2- workman is claiming regularization/
reinstatement alleging that though he was working with
the Bank as per bipartite settlement, absorption of casual/
temporary employees , he was nor appointed/absorbed
on permanent post. Workman filed affidavit of his
evidence but he filed to appear for his cross-examination,
his evidence cannot be considered. The documents
produced by workman Exhibit W -1 shows workman was
engaged on supplying drinking water, document Exhibit
W-2 shows that workman was engaged to ` 250/- per
month from 10-5-90 to 20-3-91. Exhibit W-3 is interview
call given to workman, Exhibit W-4 is public notice given
by Bank for regular appointments of casual employees
working during 95 to 98. Exhibit W -5 is application
submitted to ALC by Shri Ram Nagwanshi, W-6 is letter
issued by ALC, W-7,8 are letter given by Secretary to
ALC, W -9 is certificate issued by Branch Manager about
workman engaged during the period 10-5-90 to
20-3-91.W-ll is copy of public notice advertising post,
W-12 is copy of interview call. W-13 is letter given by
Asstt. General Manager calling information about casual
employees working more than 240 days. Copies of bipartite
settlement amended from time to time are produced on
record. Clause III at Page 10 provide The aggregate
temporary service of 270, 240, 70 days or 30 days should
have been put in by an employee at any one or more offices.
Clause VI of the agreement regarding existing waiting list
provides the waiting list prepared after completion of
interviews of the temporary employees in subordinate cadre
who have completed 90 days of service and above as on
7370
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
31st October 1984 has not yet been exhausted, it will be
valid upto 31-7-88. Copy of select list of 1997 is produced
at Exhibit M-6.
9.
Management filed affidavit of Shri Sajeev Nema. He
has admitted 240 days working of workman during period
11-5-90 to 20-4-9l. Management's witness says that after
23-5-94, workman was not engaged. He had worked for 36
days during 9-2-94 to 23-5-94. That after interview, select
list of the candidates was prepared. The period of
settlement was extended till 14-8-91. Selected candidates
were appointed against availing vacancies time to time. In
his cross-examination, management's witness says his
affidavit of evidence is filed on basis of available record.
He did not enquire with respective Branch Managers. The
documents referred by him are not produced. Workman
was initially engaged at ` 10/- per day. Appointment letter
was not given to him. His attendance register was not
maintained. The witness of management claimed that
candidates working less than workman is selected were
appointed. The evidence discussed above shows workman
worked for 240 days during 11-5-90 to 20-4-91. Bipartite
agreement dated 17-11-87 contemplates 240 days working
during the period 1-7-75 to 27-10-88. Workman was not
working during said period. The period of said agreement
was extended till 14-8-91. As per pleadings in Written
Statement para-2, workman was working for 240 days prior
to cut off date 14-8-91. However workman had not submitted
application for regular appointment. Though he was
permitted by IInd party to participate in selection process,
he was not considered in the select list. Considering above
aspects of evidence on record, the management has not
committed illegality not regularizing his services as per
agreement. For above reasons, I record my finding in
Point No. 2 in Affirmattve.
10.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(l)
The action of the management of State Bank of
India, Ujjain Branch in terminating his services
w.e.f. 20-9-93 instead of regularizing is legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2988-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ
banksj etZM ,t 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 27@1998) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@133@1997&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2014
S.O.
2988.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/
1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
the State Bank of Indore Merged as State Bank of India and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
18/11/2014.
[No. L-12012/133/1997-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/27/98
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE
General Secretary,
All India State Bank of Indore
Employees Congress,
Hardev Niwas,
9 Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager (Operations),
State Bank of Indore,
Merged as State Bank of India
Local Head Office,
Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 14th day of October 2014
1.
As per letter dated 13/17-2-98 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-12012/133/97-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of Indore in not regularizing Shri Saroj
Kumar S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal is Justified? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled for?"
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
parties. Statement of claim is submitted by General
Secretary of Union on behalf of workman at page 3/1 to
3/4. Case of 1st party refers to Article 39, 41, 43 rights
given to the citizen of India for employment, payment of
minimum wages etc. Union further submit that 1st party
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 22] 2014@vxzgk;.k 1] 1936
7371
workman was engaged by Branch Manager for cleaning,
dusting etc. work. From 4-10-91, workman was carrying
various duties of peon-distribution of letters, taking
registers to different tables, supplying drinking water. He
was working between 8 to 10 AM and 10.30 to evening
when Bank was closed. He was continuously working till
termination of his services on 15-8-97. That he completed
240 days continuous service. He was working 6 days in a
week. He was not paid wages for holidays. Despite he
completed 240 days continuous service as provided under
Section 25 (B) of I.D.Act. His services were not regularized.
His services were terminated without notice in violation
of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, Para 507, 554 of Sastry Award.
That after termination of his service, other persons are
engaged. Principles of last come first go was not followed.
He was not provided re-employment. As such IInd party
violated provisions of Section 25 G, H of I.D.Act. on such
ground, workman prays for regularization in service.
Statement of claim is signed by Ramnagwanshi, General
Secretary claiming to the General Secretary of Union.
3.
Management filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to
7/7 denying claim of 1st party Union. Preliminary objection
is raised by IInd party without authority. That workman
Saroj Kumar was not member of Union. Claim is not
tenable. The daily wages Bank Employees Union has no
territorial jurisdiction to represent claim of workman. That
Director of Bank is not necessary party. Claim is bad for
misjoinder of parties. IInd party further submitted objection
that statement of claim is not filed in prescribed proforma.
Claim is not tenable. It is denied that Union is registered
and General Secretary is authorized to prosecute claim of
workman. It is denied that workman was carrying various
duties claimed in statement of claim. It is denied that
workman was working for more than 8 hours per day and
he was not paid wages for the same. It is denied that
workman had completed 240 days continuous service in
any of the year. Violation of Section 25-F, Para 507, 534 of
Sastry Award is denied by IInd party. IInd party has not
terminated services of workman. Retrenchment is
challenged in his statement of claim. Workman is not entitled
to any relief. Violation of Section 25-G, H of I.D.Act is
denied. It is denied that workman has crossed the age for
service and his family member are affected.
4.
Ilnd party submits in its special pleading that
workman was engaged for some time temporarily for
supplying drinking water. He was paid wages for said work.
Workman was not appointed following selection process.
Workman was not appointed by the Bank as per rules. He
is not entitled to regularization. Ist party Union submitted
rejoinder at page 8/1 to 8/5 reiterating its contentions in
statement of claim. In para-5 of rejoinder, Ist party Union
has pleaded that IInd party had committed acts of issuing
false certificate, tampering the evidence, work against law
punishable under various sections of IPC. Ist party further
submits that workman was paid wages in name of Shri
Kanhaiyalal from February 92 to April 92, Shri Ranchod
from April 92 to July 92, Shri Radhesham from July 92 to
January 93, Pradeep Jaiswal from February 93 onwards.
All other contentions in Written Statement filed by
management are denied.
5.
Ilnd party also filed reply to the rejoinder at page l0/
l to 10/2. It is submitted that Bank doesnot pay wages in
name of other persons. Bogus vouchers are not prepared
by the Bank. The contentions of Ist party in the rejoinder
are false.
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
In Affirmative
the management of
State Bank of Indore
in not regularizing
Shri Saroj Kumar
S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal
is iustified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not entitled
workman is entitled to?" to any relief claimed.
REASONS
7.
The terms of reference are clear whether not
regularizing Shri Saroj Kumar S/o Kanhaiyalal is
justified. However the pleadings in statement of claim
by Ist party relates to termination of services of Ist party
workman was discontinued from 15-8-97 in violation of
Section 25-F, 25-G, H of I.D.Act. The same are beyond
the terms of reference. All material contentions of Ist
party have been denied by IInd party management.
8.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence at page
19/1 to 19/2. That he was engaged by Branch Manager
from 4-10-91 for working of cleaning, sweeping, dusting
etc. he was paid wages ` 25/- per day. He was also paid
wages in name of Shri Kanhaiyalal from February 92 to
April 92, Shri Ranchod from April 92 to July 92, Shri
Radhesham from July 92 to January 93, Pradeep Jaiswal
from February 93 onwards. Workman could not be cross-
examined by IInd party. Right to cross-examine workman
was closed on 25-9-08. The evidence of workman
remained unchallenged. Management submitted affidavit
of evidence of witness Shri Harinath Srivas. Witness of
management was not present for his cross-examination.
Affidavit of witness Shri Bhupendra Jain was submitted
by management. Witness of management has stated that
workman was engaged as per exigencies for cleaning,
dusting etc work for one hour morning, one hour evening.
Workman was paid wages for it. Other contentions of
7372
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman about continuously working from 4-1-91 to
15-8-97 are denied. It is denied that workman was
continuously working during above said period. In his
cross-examination, management's witness says any
selection process was not followed before engaging
workman. He claims ignorance whether permission from
Controlling Authority was obtained for engaging workman.
Appointment letter was given to him. Witness of the
management had admitted documents Exhibit
W-1 to W -6.
9.
Exhibit W-l doesnot give working days of workman.
Documents W-2 to W-4 shows payment of wages ` 125/-,
75/-,400/- and 750/-. In 1992, payment of ` 75/- is shown in
name of Shri Radhesham Parihar, payment of ` 400/- is
shown in name of Shjri Anil Jaiswal, payment of ` 750/- is
shown for cleaning charges in August 1996. Exhibit W-5 is
application submitted to General Manager, State Bank of
Indore. Workman was paid ` 501/- per month for work of
supplying drinking water. ` 25/- per day for cleaning work.
Working days are not shown in Exhibit W-5, W-6. The
evidence in cross-examination of management's witness
discussed above is clear that workman was not appointed
following recruitment rules. Ist party has submitted copy
of settlement dated 13-7-93 which provides one time
opportunity for appointment as peon/farash to the
employees who have worked more than 240 days in 12
consecutive months. The pleadings anssd evidence of
workman on above point is silent. Clause 2 of said circular
provides for interview of eligible candidates, the pleadings
and evidence of workmen's silent whether workman had
applied for absorption or he was called for interview and
selected. In absence of such evidence, workman cannot
be given benefit of regularization. He was not appointed
following selection process. Representative of workman
Ram Nagwanshi in support of his argument produced
copies of award passed in 180/00, 4/07, 105/03, 27/04. The
facts of present case are not comparable with the facts of
those references. Each case needs to be decided as per
evidence on record, the award passed by this Tribunal in
other cases cannot be treated as binding precedent.
Considering evidence on record, workman was not
appointed following selection process. He has not
complied requirements of circular dated 13-7-93. Workman
cannot be given benefit of regularization. Claim of workman
for reinstatement with back wages on ground of
termination of his service in violation of Section 25-F, G, H
of I.D.Act is beyond the terms of reference therefore
workman cannot be allowed in service. For above reasons,
I record my finding in Point No.l in Negative.
10.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of State Bank of
Indore in not regularizing Shri Saroj Kumar S/o
Shri Kanhaiyalal is legal and proper.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.