4827 GI/2014

(7759)

jftLVªh la- Mh-,y-—¼,u½&04@0007@2003—05

REGD. No. DL—(N)-04/0007/2003—05

lkIrkfgd/WEEKLY

çkfèdkj ls çdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

la- 51]

ubZ fnYyh] fnlEcj 14—fnlEcj 20] 2014] 'kfuokj@vxzgk;.k 23—vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

No. 51] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 14—DECEMBER 20, 2014, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 23—AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g vyx ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk ldsA

(Separate paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation)

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&™.M ¼ii½

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=ky;ksa ¼jšk ea=ky; dks NksM+dj½ }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/kd vkns'k vkSj vfèlwpuk,a

Statutory Orders and Notifications issued by Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministries of Defence)

&&&&&&&&

foÙk ea=ky;

¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½

foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2014

fofofofo”k; %&&

k; %&&

k; %&&isa’ku fuf/k fofu;ked vkSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k esa va’kdkfyd lnL; dh

isa’ku fuf/k fofu;ked vkSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k esa va’kdkfyd lnL; dh

isa’ku fuf/k fofu;ked vkSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k esa va’kdkfyd lnL; dh fu;qfDrA

fu;qfDrA

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 3194

3194

3194.—isa'ku fuf/k fofu;ked vkSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk

51 dh mi&/kkjk 2 ds [kaM ¼[k½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] uhps mfYyf[kr O;fDr;ksa dks]

mudh orZeku fu;qfDr;ksa ds dk;Zdky dh vof/k ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'k gksus rd] tks Hkh igys gks] isa'ku fuf/k fofu;ked

vkSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k esa va'kdkfyd lnL; ds :i esa fu;qfDr djrh gS %

lqJh ,uh tktZ eSF;w] la;qDr lfpo ¼dkfeZd½] O;; foHkkx] foÙk ea=ky; dks lqJh lq/kk d`".ku ds LFkku ijA

lqJh oanuk 'kekZ] la;qDr lfpo ¼isa'ku ,oa isa'kuj dY;k.k foHkkx½] dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r ,oa isa'ku ea=ky;A

[Qk- la- 2@1@2014&ihvkj]

lqfjUnj dkSj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 12^th December, 2014

Subject : Appointment of Part-time Member in Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority

S.O. 3194.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section 2 of Section 51, read with sub-section(4)

of Section 5 of the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development (PFRDA) Act, the Central Government, hereby appoints the

7760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

persons mentioned below as Part-time Member, Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority, with immediate

effect, for the duration of their tenure in their present appointments or until further orders whichever is earlier :

Ms. Annie George Mathew, Joint Secretary (Pers.) Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance vice

Ms. Sudha Krishnan.

Ms. Vandana Sharma, Joint Secretary, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare, Ministry of Personnel,

Public Grievances and Pensions.

[F. No. 2/1/2014-PR]

SURINDER KAUR, Under Secy.

LokLF;

LokLF; ,oa

,oa

,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;

a ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;

¼LokLF;

LokLF;

LokLF; ,oa

,oa

,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx

a ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx

a ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 3195

3195

3195-—dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 11 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½

}kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/kfuf;e dh igyh

vuqlwph esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kks/ku djrh gS] vFkkZr~ —

mDr vuqlwph esa] —

¼d½ ^^ve`rk fo'o fo|kihBe fo'ofo|ky;] dsjy** ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¼vc ds ckn dkWye ¼2½

ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V ds ckn 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, lais{k.k* ¼vc ds ckn

dkWye ¼3½ ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ ds vUrxZr fuEufyf[kr vUr%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %&&

^^{k; ,oa Nkrh ds jksxksa esa fMIyksek**

MhVhlhMh

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g ve`rk

Ldwy vkWQ esMhflu] dksph] dsjy esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs

fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa ve`rk fo'o fo|kihBe fo'ofo|ky;] dsjy

}kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

¼[k½ ^^MkW- jktho xka/kh LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] csaxykSj] dukZVd** ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk*

¼vc ds ckn dkWye ¼2½ ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V ds ckn 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy,

lais{k.k* ¼vc ds ckn dkWye ¼3½ ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ ds vUrxZr fuEufyf[kr vUr%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %&&

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼laosnukgj.k½**

,eMh ¼laosnukgj.k½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g osnsgh

vk;qfoZKku laLFkku vkSj vuqla/kku dsanz csaxykSj] esasa izf'kf{kr fd,

tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa jktho xka/kh LokLF; foKku

fo'ofo|ky;] csaxykSj] dukZVd }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds

Ik’pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼vfLFk jksx foKku½**

,e,l ¼vfLFk jksx foKku½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g osnsgh

vk;qfoZKku laLFkku vkSj vuqla/kku dsanz csaxykSj] esasa izf'kf{kr fd,

tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa jktho xka/kh LokLF; foKku

fo'ofo|ky;] csaxykSj] dukZVd }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds

Ik'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu@ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh

,e,l ¼L=h ,oa izlwfr jksx½

¼L=h ,oa izlwfr jksx½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g osnsgh

vk;qfoZKku laLFkku vkSj vuqla/kku dsanz csaxykSj] esasa izf'kf{kr fd,

tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa jktho xka/kh LokLF; foKku

fo'ofo|ky;] csaxykSj] dukZVd }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds

Ik'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7761

MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼vkS"k/k foKku½

,eMh ¼vkS"k/k foKku½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g osnsgh

vk;qfoZKku laLFkku vkSj vuqla/kku dsanz csaxykSj] esasa izf'kf{kr fd,

tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa jktho xka/kh LokLF; foKku

fo'ofo|ky;] csaxykSj] dukZVd }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds

Ik'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼cky fpfdRlk½

,eMh ¼cky fpfdRlk½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g osnsgh

vk;qfoZKku laLFkku vkSj vuqla/kku dsanz csaxykSj] esasa izf'kf{kr fd,

tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa jktho xka/kh LokLF; foKku

fo'ofo|ky;] csaxykSj] dukZVd }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds

Ik'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼fofdj.k fpfdRlk½

,eMh ¼fofdj.k fpfdRlk½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g osnsgh

vk;qfoZKku laLFkku vkSj vuqla/kku dsanz csaxykSj] esasa izf'kf{kr fd,

tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa jktho xka/kh LokLF; foKku

fo'ofo|ky;] csaxykSj] dukZVd }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds

Ik'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼euf'pfdRlk½

,eMh ¼euf'pfdRlk½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g osnsgh

vk;qfoZKku laLFkku vkSj vuqla/kku dsanz csaxykSj] esasa izf'kf{kr fd,

tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa jktho xka/kh LokLF; foKku

fo'ofo|ky;] csaxykSj] dukZVd }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds

Ik'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼tSo jlk;u½

,eMh ¼tSo jlk;u½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g osnsgh

vk;qfoZKku laLFkku vkSj vuqla/kku dsanz csaxykSj] esasa izf'kf{kr fd,

tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa jktho xka/kh LokLF; foKku

fo'ofo|ky;] csaxykSj] dukZVd }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds

Ik'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼lw{e tSfodh½

,eMh ¼lw{e tSfodh½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g osnsgh

vk;qfoZKku laLFkku vkSj vuqla/kku dsanz csaxykSj] esasa izf'kf{kr fd,

tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa jktho xka/kh LokLF; foKku

fo'ofo|ky;] csaxykSj] dukZVd }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds

i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

Dyhfudy iSFksykWth esa fMIyksek

Mhlhih

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g ,l-Mh-,e-

vk;qfoZKku dkWyst vkSj vLirky] /kjokM] dukZVd esasa izf'kf{kr

fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa jktho xka/kh LokLF; foKku

fo'ofo|ky;] csaxykSj] dukZVd }kjk uoacj] 2012 esa vFkok mlds

Ik'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

¼x½ ^^;susiksvk fo'ofo|ky;] esaxykSj] dukZVd** ds lkeus ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¼vc ds ckn

dkWye ¼2½ ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V ds ckn 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, lais{k.k* ¼vc

ds ckn dkWye ¼3½ ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ ds vUrxZr fuEufyf[kr vUr%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %&&

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu

,eMh ¼jsfM;ksyksth@jsfM;ks Mk;Xuksfll½

¼jsfM;ksyksth@jsfM;ks Mk;Xuksfll½**

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g ;susiksvk

fo'ofo|ky; esMhdy dkWyst] eSaxykSj dukZVd esa izf'kf{kr fd,

7762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa] ;susiksvk fo'ofo|ky;] esaxykSj]

dukZVd }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

¼?k½ ^^ts,l,l fo'ofo|ky;] eSlwj] dukZVd** ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¼vc ds ckn dkWye ¼2½ ds

:Ik esa lanfHkZr½ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V ds ckn 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, lais{k.k* ¼vc ds ckn dkWye

¼3½ ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ ds vUrxZr fuEufyf[kr vUr%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %&&

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼vkS"k/k foKku½**

,eMh ¼vkS"k/k foKku½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g ts,l,l

esMhdy dkWyst] eSlwj dukZVd esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa

ds laca/k esa] ts,l,l fo'ofo|ky;] eSlwj] dukZVd }kjk vçSy]

2012 esa vFkok mlds Ik'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

¼M+½ ^^fnYyh fo'ofo|ky;] fnYyh” ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¼vc ds ckn dkWye ¼2½ ds :Ik esa

lanfHkZr½ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V ds ckn 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, lais{k.k* ¼vc ds ckn dkWye ¼3½ ds

:Ik esa lanfHkZr½ ds vUrxZr fuEufyf[kr vUr%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %&&

^^cky LokLF; esa fMIyksek**

Mhlh,p

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g vk;qfoZKku

fo'ofo|ky; dkWyst vkSj thVhch vLirky] fnYyh] esa izf'kf{kr

fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa] fnYyh fo'ofo|ky;] fnYyh

}kjk vçSy] 2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZA½

lHkh ds fy, uksV % 1- fdlh LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe dks bl izdkj iznÙk ekU;rk vf/kdre 05 o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, gksxh vkSj

mlds ckn mldk uohdj.k djkuk gksxkA

2- mi&[k.M&4 esa ;Fkkisf{kr le; ij ekU;rk dk uohdj.k u gksus ij lacaf/kr LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe esa

nkf[kyk fujiokn :Ik ls can gks tk,xkA

[la- ;w- 12012@18@2013&,ebZ ¼ih- II½]

vuhrk f=ikBh] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 1st March, 2013

S.O. 3195.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council

Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following

further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

In the said Schedule—

(a) against “Amrita Vishwa vidyapeetham University, Kerala” under the heading ‘Recognised Medical

Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely :—

(2)

(3)

“Diploma in Tuberculosis & Chest Diseases”

DTCD

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University, Kerala in respect of

the students being trained at Amrita School of Medicine, Kochi,

Kerala on or after May, 2012).

(b) against “Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka” under the heading ‘Recognised Medical

Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted,

namely :—

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7763

“Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesia)”

MD (Anaesthesia)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore,

Karnataka in respect of the students being trained at Vydehi

Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Bangalore on

or after May, 2012).

“Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)”

MS (Orthopaedics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore,

Karnataka in respect of the students being trained at Vydehi

Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Bangalore on

or after May, 2012).

“Doctor of Medicine/ Master of Surgery

MD/MS (OBG)

(Obstetric gynaecology)”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore,

Karnataka in respect of the students being trained at Vydehi

Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Bangalore on

or after May, 2012).

“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)”

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore,

Karnataka in respect of the students being trained at Vydehi

Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Bangalore on

or after May, 2012).

“Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)”

MD (Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore,

Karnataka in respect of the students being trained at Vydehi

Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Bangalore on

or after May, 2012).

“Doctor of Medicine (Radio Therapy)”

MD (Radio Therapy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore,

Karnataka in respect of the students being trained at Vydehi

Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Bangalore on

or after May, 2012).

“Doctor of Medicine (Psychiatry)”

MD (Psychiatry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore,

Karnataka in respect of the students being trained at Vydehi

Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Bangalore on

or after May, 2012).

“Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)”

MD (Biochemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore,

Karnataka in respect of the students being trained at Vydehi

Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Bangalore on

or after May, 2012).

“Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)”

MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore,

Karnataka in respect of the students being trained at Vydehi

Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Bangalore on

or after May, 2012).

7764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

“Diploma in Clinical Pathology”

DCP

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore,

Karnataka in respect of the students being trained at SDM

College of Medical Sciences & Hospital , Dharwad, Karnataka

on or after November, 2012).

[hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for

Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely :—

“Doctor of Medicine (Radiology/Radio Diagnosis)”

MD (Radiology/Radio Diagnosis)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Yenepoya University, Mangalore, Karnataka in respect of the

students being trained at Yenepoya Medical College, Mangalore,

Karnataka on or after May, 2012).

(d) against “JSS University, Mysore, Karnataka” under the heading ‘Recognised Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter

referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’

[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely :—

“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)”

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

JSS University, Mysore, Karnataka in respect of the students

being trained at JSS Medical College, Mysore, Karnataka on or

after April, 2012).

(e) against “University of Delhi, Delhi” under the heading ‘Recognised Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as

column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter

referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely :—

“Diploma in Child Health”

DCH

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

University of Delhi, Delhi in respect of the students being trained

at University College of Medical Sciences & GTB Hospital,

Delhi on or after April, 2012).

Note to all : 1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it

shall have to be renewed.

2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause-4 shall invariably result in stoppage

of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.

[ No. U.12012/18/2013-ME (P.II)]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

कोयला मं ालय

आदेश

नई द ल, 16 दस बर, 2014

का.आ. 3196. —कोयला धारक !े (अज%न और 'वकास) अ*ध+नयम 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम0 इसके प2 चात् उ7 त

अ*ध+नयम कहा गया है) क; धारा 9 क; उपधारा (1) के अधीन जार भारत के राजप , असाधारण, भाग II, खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii), तारख

10 जुलाई, 2014 के Dकाशन म0 भारत सरकार के कोयला मं ालय क; अ*धसूचना का. आ. संF यांक 1725(अ), तारख 26 माच%, 2014

पर उ7 त अ*धसूचना के Dकाशन पर उससे संलG न अनुसूची म0 वHणIत भूJम (िजसे इसम0 इसके प2 चात् उ7 त भूJम कहा गया है) म0 के

सभी अ*धकार, उ7 त अ*ध+नयम क; धारा 10 क; उपधारा (1) के अधीन, सभी 'व लंगमK से मु7 त होकर, आL यं+तक Mप म0 केN Oय

सरकार म0 +नहत हो गए थे ;

और, केN Oय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है, Sक वेT टन% कोलफ; Wस JलJमटेड, नागपुर,महाराX Y (िजसे इसम0 इसके प2 चात्

उ7 त कंपनी कहा गया है), ऐसे +नबंधनK और शत[ का, िजनका केN Oय सरकार इस +नि मत अ*धरो'पत करना उ*चत समझे, अनुपालन

करने के Jलए रजामंद है ;

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7765

अत:, अब, केN Oय सरकार उ7 त अ*ध+नयम क; धारा 11 क; उप-धारा (1) ^वारा DदL त शि7 तयK का Dयोग करते हुए, यह

+नदेश देती है Sक उ7 त भूJम म0 या उस पर इस Dकार +नहत सभी अ*धकार तारख 10 जुलाई, 2014 से केN Oय सरकार म0 इस Dकार

+नहत बने रहने के बजाए, +न नJलHखत +नबंधनK और शत[ के अधीन रहते हुए, सरकार कंपनी म0 +नहत हो जाऐंगे, अथा%त—

सरकार कंपनी, उ7 त अ*ध+नयम के उपबंधK के अधीन यथा अवधा_रत D+तकर, ` याज, नुकसा+नयK और वैसी ह मंदK क; बाबत्

Sकए गए संदायK क; केN Oय सरकार को D+तपू+त% करेगी ;

उ7 त सरकार कंपनी ^वारा शत% (1) के अधीन, केN Oय सरकार को संदेय रकमK का अवधारण करने के Dयोजन के Jलए उ7 त

अ*ध+नयम क; धारा 14 के अधीन एक अ*धकरण का गठन Sकया जाएगा और ऐसे Sकसी अ*धकरण और अ*धकरण क; सहायता

के Jलए +नयु7 त b यि7 तयK के संबंध म0 उपगत सभी b यय, सरकार कंपनी ^वारा वहन Sकए जाऐंगे और इस Dकार +नहत उ7 त

भूJम म0 या उस पर के अ*धकारK के Jलए या उनके संबंध म0 अपील0 आद जैसी सभी 'व*धक काय%वाहयK क; बाबत् उपगत, सभी

b यय भी, सरकार कंपनी ^वारा भी वहन Sकए जाएंगे ;

सरकार कंपनी, केN Oय सरकार या उसके पदधा_रयK क;, ऐसे Sकसी अN य b यय के संबंध म0 !+तपू+त% करेगी, जो इस Dकार

+नहत उ7 त भूJम म0 या उस पर के पूवc7 त अ*धकारK के बारे म0, केN Oय सरकार या उसके पदधा_रयK ^वारा या उनके 'वMd

SकN हं काय%वाहयK के संबंध म0 आव2 यक हो ;

सरकार कंपनी को केN Oय सरकार के पूव% अनुमोदन के eबना, उ7 त भूJम को Sकसी अN य व् यि7 त को अंत_रत करने क; शि7 त

नहं होगी ; और

सरकार कंपनी, ऐसे +नदेशK और शत[ को, जो केN Oय सरकार ^वारा, जब कभी आव2 यक हो, उ7 त भूJम के 'वJशX ट !े K के

Jलए दए जाएं या अ*धरो'पत Sकए जाएं।

[Qk- सं. 43015/03/2011- पीआरआईड` यू-I]

दोJम+नक डुंगडुंग, अवर स*चव

MINISTRY OF COAL

ORDER

New Delhi, the 16th December, 2014

S.O. 3196.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal,

number S. O. 1725(E), dated the 26th March, 2014, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-

section (ii), dated the 10th July, 2014, issued under Sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and

Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the lands and all rights in or over such lands as

described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested absolutely in the

Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act ;

And, whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur, Maharashtra

(hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central

Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the said lands and rights in or over the said lands so vested shall, with effect from the 10th

July, 2014, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government Company, subject to the

following terms and conditions, namely :—

The Government Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of

compensation, interest, damages and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act;

A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act for the purpose of determining the amounts

payable to the Central Government by the said Government Company under condition (1) and all expenditure

incurred in connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by the

Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals,

etc., for or in connection with the rights, in the said lands, so vested, shall also be borne by the Government

Company ;

The Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other

expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government

or its officials regarding the aforesaid rights in the said lands so vested ;

7766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

The Government Company shall have no power to transfer the said lands to any other person without the prior

approval of the Central Government ; and

The Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the

Central Government for particular areas of the said land as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/03/2011 - PRIW–I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

Je ,oa

,oa

,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

a jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 3197

3197

3197-&&

&&jk"V~ifr] Jh vorkj pUn Mksxjk dks 04-12-2014(iwokZg~u) ls dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

U;k;k/khdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; ua-1] fnYyh] ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds :i esa 10-09-2019 rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd]

tks Hkh igys gks] fu;qDr djrs gSaA

[la- ,&11016@04@2013&lh,y,l&II]

,l- ds- flag] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 16th December, 2014

S.O. 3197.—The President is pleased to appoint Shri Avtar Chand Dogra as Presiding Officer of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Delhi w.e.f. 04.12.2014 (F.N.) for a period up to

10.09.2019 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[No. A-11016/04/2013-CLS-II]

S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 3198

3198

3198-&&

&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

dksphu iksVZ VªLV ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV ¼23@2013½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 09.12.2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&35011@5@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj, MsLd vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2014

S.O. 3198.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 23/2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Cochin Port Turst

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09/12/2014.

[No. L-35011/5/2012- IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present : Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B. Presiding Officer

(Thursday the 14^th day of August, 2014/23^rd Shravana 1936)

ID 23/2013

Union :

The General Secretary

Cochin Port Trust Staff Association

W/Island

Cochin-9

COCHIN

By M/s. A V Xavier

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7767

Management:

The Chairman

Cochin Port Trust

W/Island

Cochin

COCHIN

By M/s. Menon & Pai

This case coming up for final hearing on 13.08.2014 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 14.08.2014

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-

35011/5/2012-IR(B-II) dated 05.04.2013 referred the industrial dispute scheduled therein for adjudication to this

tribunal.

The dispute is:

“Whether the action of the Cochin Port Trust Management in regularizing the services of Shri T M

Arabindakshan from 10.12.2007 is justifiable? What relief he is eligible to get?”

The workman was appointed as Assistant Marine Foreman in the Marine Department of the management

on 01.04.2005 on ad-hoc basis. He was to be regularized on getting formal sanction from the Govt. of India. After

receiving the Ministry’s approval vide letter dated 20.08.2007 he was not regularized and the same has resulted in

raising this industrial dispute.

After appearance of the parties and submission of pleadings the case was posted in the Lok Adalath as

agreed to by both parties. There was a full and final settlement of the dispute between the parties. They have jointly

filed compromise. There is nothing illegal in accepting the compromise and hence an award can be passed in terms

of the compromise.

In the result an award is passed in terms of the compromise which will form part of this award.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 14^th

day of August, 2014.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

I.D. No. 23/2013

The General Secretary

Cochin Port Staff Association

Willingdon Island, Cochin

…..Union

Vs.

The Chairman

Cochin Port Trust

Willingdon Island

Cochin-682009

…..Management

The matter was taken up in Lok Adalat and the parties agreed to settle the dispute on the following terms:

1. The Management agrees to regularize the service of Shri T. M. Aravindakshan, Assistant Marine

Foreman with effect from 20-08-2007 being the date of receipt of approval from the Ministry.

2. For the purpose of increment and other pensionary benefits the period from the date of appointment i.e.

01.04.2005 to 20.08.2007 shall be counted.

3. The employee undertakes that no further claims in this regard will be raised by him in future.

Dated this the 13th day of August, 2014.

Union : Sd/-

Management : Sd/-

Counsel for Union : Sd/-

Counsel for Management : Sd/-

Sd/-

Mediator

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

7768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 3199

3199

3199.—vkS|kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ

bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksafxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksafxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; y[kuÅ ds ¼iapkV 47@2005½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09.12.2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@4@2005-vkbZ vkj (ch--II)]

jfo dqekj, MsLd vf?kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2014

S.O. 3199.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref.47/2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 09/12/2014.

[No. - L-12012/4/2005- IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT,

LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 47/2005

Ref. No. L-12012/74/2005-IR(B-II) Dated: 07.11.2005

BETWEEN:

The Secretary

Bank of India Staff Association U.P.

Central Office, Mohini Mension, 1^st Floor

Naval Kishore Road, Hazaratganj

Lucknow.

(Espousing cause of S/Shri Hriday Naryan Misra and Virendra Prasad Verma)

AND

The Zonal Manager

Bank of India

Varanasi Zone Plaza Complex, Bhelupura

Varanasi (U.P.) – 221 001

AWARD

By order No. L-12012/74/2005-IR(B-II) Dated: 07.11.2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the Secretary, Bank of India Staff Association U.P.,

Central Office, Mohini Mension, 1^st Floor, Naval Kishore Road, Hazaratganj, Lucknow and the Zonal Manager, Bank of

India, Varanasi Zone Plaza Complex, Bhelupura, Varanasi (U.P.) to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow for

adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER IT IS A FACT THAT S/SH. HRIDAY NARAYAN MISRA AND VIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA

WERE ENGAGED BY THE MANAGEMENT OF BANK OF INDIA ON DAILY WAGES FROM 08.08.1994

AND 12.05.1995 RESPECTIVELY? IF SO WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF BANK OF

INDIA, BANARAS IN TERMINATING THEIR SERVICES W.E.F. 21.11.2002 IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED

AND WHAT RELIEF THE CONCERNED WORKMEN ARE ENTITLED TO?”

The case of the workman’s Union in brief is that the workmen viz. S/Shri Hirday Narain Mishra and Virendra

Prasad Verma were engaged by the opposite party bank w.e.f. 08.08.94 and 12.05.1995 respectively as casual daily wage

workers whose services have been terminated by the Bank orally on 21.11.2002. It had been alleged that the Bank retained

other three casual workers while terminating his services without any rhyme or genuine reason or compensation in violation

to the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ignoring the fact that they worked continuously since

the time of their engagement till the date of termination; accordingly the workman’s Union has prayed that the oral

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7769

termination order be set aside and the management of the Bank be directed to reinstate the workmen with all consequential

benefits including full back wages.

Per contra, the management of the Bank of India has disputed the claim of the workman’s Union by filing its written

statement wherein it has submitted that there is prescribed procedure for appointment in the bank and the claimants had never

gone through the selection process, as such, they were 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 are not the employees of the bank. The bank has denied continuous working of the workmen and has also denied

their 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’s Union be rejected without any relief to the workmen concerned.

The workman’s Union has filed rejoinder whereby it has only reiterated its averments in the statement of claim and

has not introduced any new fact.

After submission of documentary evidence in support of their respective cases by the parties, the workman’s Union

adduced evidence of Shri Vrinda Prasad Verma; whereas the management adduced evidence of Shri S.K. Seth & 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’s Union moved

an application W-37 regarding closure of the case.

The workman’s Union in the application W-37, mentioned that it 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 the workmen, whose cause is espoused in the present industrial dispute viz. S/Shri Hriday Narayan Misra and

Virendra Prasad Verma, in the selection procedure and has declared them successful for appointment in the Bank’s services.

It was stated by the workman’s Union that in view of the settlement, it is not willing to contest the present industrial dispute

anymore; and prayed that the case may be disposed of accordingly.

8. Heard General Secretary of the workman’s Union who was accompanied with the workmen viz. S/Shri Hirday Narain

Mishra and Virendra Prasad Verma and perused the application W-37, accompanied with settlement dated 25.06.2013 & the

file.

The workman’s Union in its application W-37 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 workmen have undergone regular selection

procedure and are declared successful for appointment in the services of the Bank. The workman’s Union 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’s Union to prove that the action of the management of Bank of India in terminating the

services of the workmen was illegal and unjustified. The stand of the workman’s Union 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’s Union has come forward with application, W-37, stating therein that since its grievances

have got redressed by the opposite party consequent to settlement dated 25.06.2013, therefore, it 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’s Union stand redressed. Thus, the representative of the workman’s Union

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’s Union for withdrawal of the case, there is no

grievance left with the workmen and the concerned Trade Union. Resultantly, no relief is required to be given to the

workmen concerned. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

12.

Award as above.

Lucknow

8th October, 2014

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-

3200

3200-&&

&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksafxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds ¼iapkV 8@2013½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09.12.2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@69@2012-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

jfo dqekj, MsLd vf?kdkjh

7770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2014

S.O. 3200.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 8/2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 09/12/2014.

[No. L-12012/69/2012- IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 28^th October, 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial dispute No.8/2013

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN:

Sri G. Nagasubramanian

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Deputy General Manager

2^nd Party/Respondent

Indian Bank Corporate Office

Compliance Department

254-260 Avvai Shanmugham Salai

Royapettah

Chennai-600014

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

M/s. K.M. Ramesh, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/Management

M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/69/2012-IR (B.II) dated

04.01.2013 referred the following Industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Management of Indian Bank, Chennai in imposing the punishment of dismissal from

service without notice upon Sri G. Nagasubramanian, an ex-employee is legal and justified? What extent the

workman is entitled to relief?

On receipt of the Industrial dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 8/2013 and issued notices to both sides. Both

sides have entered appearance through their counsel and filed claim and counter statement respectively. The petitioner has

filed a rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement filed by the Respondents

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner are as below:

The petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Shroff in the service of the Indian Bank on 11.09.1995. He was posted to

Kambainallur branch as Single Window Operator on 03.03.2008. The petitioner was discharging his duties diligently and to

the satisfaction of his superiors. While working as Single Window Operator he was served with an order of suspension dated

08.07.2009. The petitioner had submitted his explanation on 07.08.2009. The explanation was not accepted and a memo of

charges was served on the petitioner. It was alleged in this that he had debited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the account of one

Nagamani on 05.11.2008 and misappropriated the money. It was also alleged in the Charge Memo that the petitioner had

failed to handover the cash vouchers and instruments independently passed by him with the Teller’s Cash Register Report to

the concerned Officer for verification on 05.11.2008 with the intention to conceal his act of misconduct. The petitioner had

submitted a detailed explanation to the Charge Memo He had denied the allegations against him by the Charge Memo.

However, without accepting the explanation an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and he was found guilty of the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7771

charges framed against him. The Disciplinary Authority had imposed the punishment of dismissal without notice on the

petitioner on the basis of the enquiry report. The Appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority against the

order of the Disciplinary Authority has been dismissed. The order of dismissal is without any justification. An order may be

passed holding that the dismissal of the petitioner from service is illegal and also directing the Respondents to reinstate the

petitioner in serview with effect from 25.09.2010 with back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

The Respondents have filed Counter Statement contending as below:

While the petitioner was working as Single Window Operator in Dharmapuri Branch there was a complaint against

him from one Madappan, an account holder that withdrawal of Rs. 5,500/- made on 28.10.2006 was unauthorized. There was

also a complaint that a voucher for Rs. 2,000/- dated 07.1.2006 was posted by him by debiting Savings Bank Account of

Senior Manager. There was another complaint that on 22.12.2006 the Branch had detected a shortage of four pieces in

Rs. 500/- section received from the petitioner who was then working as Single Window Operator. A Show Cause Notice was

issued to the petitioner and he had owned responsibility regarding withdrawal of Rs. 5,500/- on 28.10.2006 and debiting of

Rs. 2,000/- on 07.12.2006. The petitioner was awarded the punishment of censure. He was then transferred to Kambainallur

Branch in Dharmapuri circle. While at Dharmapuri Branch the petitioner was issued with Charge Sheet for false claim of

LFC/TA bills. After enquiry the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner.

It would appear that on 05.11.2008 while the petitioner was working in Kambainallur Branch one Nagamani, account holder

of the branch had deposited Rs. 20,000/- to his account on 05.11.2008. There was withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- on the same

day. When the account holder came to the branch on 26.11.2008, he disputed the withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- on 05.11.2008.

The petitioner admitted having taken the money and made good the amount by remitting to the account of the account holder.

On 18.03.2009 the Vigilance Department received an anonymous letter regarding the incident. On 08.07.2009 a Show Cause

Notice was issued to the petitioner regarding the unauthorized withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- the petitioner had given a reply

denying the charges. Since his reply was found unsatisfactory a Charge Sheet was served on him and an enquiry was

conducted. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner. After considering his comments the Disciplinary

Authority had awarded the punishment of dismissal without notice on the petitioner. The punishment was upheld by the

Appellate Authority. The punishment is not harsh or disproportionate to the charges established against him. Though a

complaint was made by the account holder at the branch level, it came to the knowledge of the Zonal Office only by the

anonymous letter, in March 2009. The processing of papers at various levels had taken some time. A delay of four months in

issuing the charge sheet did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The petitioner has filed a rejoinder denying the allegations made in the Counter Statement and also reiterating the

case in the Claim Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documentary evidence consisting of

Ext.W1 to Ext.W23 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M28

The points for consideration are :

(i)

Whether there is any justification in the action of the Respondents in imposing the punishment of dismissal

from service on the petitioner?

(ii)

What if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?

The Points

The petitioner had entered the service of the Indian Bank as a Clerk-cum-Shroff in the year 1995. The incident

which is the subject matter of the dispute had allegedly occurred on 05.11.2008 while the petitioner was working as Single

Window Operator at Kambainallur Branch. It is alleged that on this day he had withdrawn Rs. 10,000/- from the account of

one Nagamani without his knowledge and had appropriated the amount. Nagamani who came to the branch on 26.11.2008 is

said to have noticed on updating his Pass Book that Rs. 10,000/- was withdrawn from his account on 05.11.2008. he

immediately preferred a complaint to the Branch Manager who on enquiry noticed that the petitioner was the Single Window

Operator who handled the transactions. ‘The petitioner is said to have admitted that he has withdrawn the amount and made

good the amount by depositing an equal amount to the account of Nagamani on the next day. However, the branch Manager

did not pursue the matter further. The Circle Office is said to have received intimation of the incident based on an anonymous

letter on 18.03.2009. On 08.07.2009 a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted against

him, he was found guilty and a punishment of dismissal without notice was imposed on him.

In the enquiry proceedings the Management had examined the Assistant Branch Manager and also the Branch

Manager to prove the incident. The relevant documents were also produced in the enquiry proceedings. The Asstt. Branch

Manager of the Kambainallur Branch at the relevant time was examined as MW1 in the enquiry proceedings. The complaint

that was preferred by Nagamani, the account holder was proved through this witness. He has deposed that Nagamani has

given the complaint stating that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was withdrawn from his account on 05.11.2008 without his

knowledge. According to MW1 on receiving the complaint he had verified the statement of account of Nagamani and had

noticed that the amount was withdrawn on 05.11.2008. He came to know that Rs. 20,000/- was deposited in the same

account on the same day. The deposit holder asserted that he had not withdrawn any money on 05.11.2008. So MW1 reported

7772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

the matter to the Branch Manager. Both of them verified who had passed the transaction and it was noticed that it was done

by the petitioner who was acting as Single Window Operator. According to MW1, on enquiry the petitioner admitted that he

had withdrawn Rs. 10,000/- from the account of Nagamani on 05.11.2008. He also requested not to take any action against

him. He agreed to pay the amount to the account of Nagamani. He himself filled the credit challan and deposited the amount.

MW1 had identified the challan written by the petitioner in his own handwriting for remitting Rs. 10,000/- to the account of

Nagamani and this has been marked as MEX-5 in the enquiry proceedings. The complaint given by Nagamani also was

proved though this witness and was marked as MEX-2. He had stated that the complaint was given by Nagamani on

26.11.2008. He has further stated that on a date after 05.11.2008 Nagamani had taken a jewel loan of Rs. 25,000/- and when

his Pass Book was updated he had noticed the withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- without his knowledge. As seen from the evidence

of MW1, on 26.11.2008 also the petitioner was working as Single Window Operator. On his admitting that he had withdrawn

Rs. 10,000/- from Nagamani’s account, the capability of the petitioner was reduced from Level-7 to Level-5 and he was

asked to sit in the transfer counter. Level-7 was allotted to one Samikannu and he worked in the Single Window Operator

seat, after this.

10.

There is also the evidence of MW2, the Branch Manager. This witness has deposed that Nagamani had informed

that he had not withdrawn Rs. 10,000/- from his account and had requested to rectify the account. Immediately he had

verified the account and had found that the account was debited. He searched for the voucher but the same was not

available. It was noticed that the petitioner was the one who was working at the Cash Counter on the day. On enquiry with

him, he is said to have admitted that he had withdrawn the cash. He asked the petitioner to remit the amount. He remitted

the amount on the next day.

11.

The counsel for the petitioner had pointed out that the account holder Nagamani whose account was allegedly

debited and who had allegedly given complaint regarding wrong debiting of account had not been examined. The counsel for

the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in HARDWARI LAL VS. STATE OF UP AND OTHERS

reported in AIR 2000 SC 277 in this respect. In this the Apex Court has held that it was not proper for the Tribunal as well as

the High Court in brushing aside the grievance of the concerned workman that the non-examination of the complainant has

resulted in prejudice to him.

12.

It is true, in the present case, the complainant Nagamani has not been examined though the complaint preferred by

him has been proved through MW1 as well as MW2. However, when the facts of the present case are taken into account it

could be seen that the fact that Nagamani had preferred a complaint stating that he has not withdrawn the amount of

Rs. 10,000/- on 05.11.2008 is established by the very admission made by the petitioner herein. Ext.W2 is the reply given by

the petitioner to the Suspension Order issued by the Disciplinary Authority and marked as Ext.W1. Ext.W1 refers to the

misconduct allegedly committed by the petitioner and had passed the order of suspension on him based on him. The

petitioner was also asked to Show Cause for the misconduct allegedly conducted by him. In Ext.W2 reply the petitioner had

denied the allegation that he had withdrawn amount from the account of Nagamani. He had also stated that he had not

admitted to the Branch Manager that he had withdrawn amount nor had he remitted the amount to the account of Nagamani.

Then he has stated that the dispute was raised by Nagamani over the withdrawal on 25.11.2008. He has further stated that

there was no further insistence from Nagamani as he seemed to have been satisfied with the reply given by the Branch

Manager. He had denied to have remitted Rs. 10,000/- to the account of Nagamani on the next day and has stated that

Nagamani had himself remitted the amount and he happened to extend a helping hand in filling up the challan. It is clear

from Ext.W2 reply itself that Nagamani had preferred a complaint on 25.11.2008 stating that he has not withdrawn any

amount on 05.11.2008 and the petitioner was very much aware of this immediately after the complaint itself. Thus the

evidence given by MWs 1 and 2 regarding the complaint given by Nagamani is very much established through the

corroborative evidence given by the petitioner in the form of his reply marked as Ext.W2. So the non-examination of

Nagamani, the person who has given the complaint is not of any consequence. There was no reason for Nagamani to be

concerned about the affair later since he has received remittance of Rs. 10,000/- to his account on 26.11.2008, the next day of

his preferring his complaint itself.

13.

Another argument that has been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that though documents were produced

in the enquiry proceedings, they were not properly proved. The counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in

ROOP SINGH NEGI VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS reported in 2009 2 SCC 570 where the Apex Court

has held that the purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer by itself could not be treated

to be evidence in the disciplinary proceedings. It was further held that mere tendering of documents could not be treated as

proving the contents of the documents.

14.

On going through the enquiry proceedings it could be seen that there is no basis for the argument advanced by the

counsel for the petitioner on the basis of Roop Singh Negi’s case. It is not a case of mere tendering of the documents in the

enquiry proceedings. Of course, the Enquiry Officer had marked the documents at the outset of the proceedings itself.

However, relevant documents including the complaint, the SB account statement of Nagamani, the challan for remittance, all

were put to MW1, the Asstt. Branch Manager and proved through him. This witness having been the Asstt Branch Manager

of the branch is quite competent to speak about the documents. So it is not a case of mere tendering of the documents. The

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7773

petitioner had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine MWs 1 and 2 regarding these documents also. So the argument that the

documents are not proved is only to be rejected.

15.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was acting as Single Window Operator on 05.11.2008. It is also not in dispute

that Rs. 20,000/- was deposited to the account of Nagamani on 05.11.2008. On the same day Rs. 10,000/- was debited from

this account. It is unusual and improbable that a person who has deposited Rs. 20,000/- to his account withdraws Rs. 10,000/-

on the same day by a withdrawal slip. He could have retained the amount with him rather than having the fun of depositing it

and withdrawing it immediately.

16.

The relevant transaction of 05.11.2008 was admittedly carried out by the petitioner who was the Single Window

Operator. The counsel for the Respondents has referred to the Single Window System Operational Guidelines which was

marked as MEX-IV in the enquiry proceedings (Page-14 of petitioner’s set of documents). In the guidelines under the

heading “Verification of Cash Transactions with the Report before EOD”, it is stated that before EOD for each single

window operator the printout of the Teller’s Cash Register Report should be taken without fail. It should be duly

authenticated by the respective Single Window Operator and handed over to the designated Officer for verification on the

same day alongwith the cash vouchers and instruments. It is further stated that for this purpose the cash cheques, instruments,

vouchers, etc. independently or authorized by the respective Single Window Operator should be held in his custody only and

released along with the Teller’s Cash Register Report to the designated Officer after closing of the cash drawer for the day.

MW1 has stated during his examination that the Single Window Operators in Kambainallur Branch used to submit Teller’s

Cash Register Report regularly. He has also deposed that the petitioner also has been submitting the report regularly on all

days when he had worked in cash other than on 05.11.2008. He has also stated that the vouchers were verified but they were

not able to trace out the relevant cash paid withdrawal slip. Thus what is to be seen from the evidence of MW1 is that the

guidelines for Single Window Operators were being followed meticulously by the Single Window Operators of the branch.

17.

There is no case for the petitioner that he has submitted the relevant report for the day in question. His case in

Ext.W4, the explanation given by him to the Charge Memo is that there was no practice of handing over cash vouchers and

instruments alongwith Teller’s Cash Register Report to the Officer, so far as the branch is concerned at any rate he has no

quarrel regarding the fact that the voucher is missing. If there was no practice of submitting the voucher to the officer, the

same should have been available with him, he being the one who was the Single Window Operator on 05.11.2008, the

relevant date. Of course, there is the fact that on the day in question the absence of the report alongwith the voucher was not

noticed by the Verification Officer in which case the fraud could have been noticed on the same day. But that itself is not a

reason to exonerate the petitioner from the misconduct committed by him. When the guidelines say that the report alongwith

the relevant instrument should be submitted to the Officer on closure at the end of the day, it should have been complied with

by the petitioner. Absence of this itself points to the possibility of misconduct by the petitioner.

18.

The complaint was given by the account holder on 25.11.2008. As could be seen from the evidence of MWs 1 and 2

they had immediately verified and found out that the petitioner was the Single Window Operator on the day and had enquired

with him and he had admitted his misconduct, according to them. According to the petitioner, he did not tell them that he has

debited the amount and appropriated the same. However, the evidence given by MWs 1 and 2 in this respect could not be

false. It is to be borne in mind that both these witnesses in spite of detection of misconduct, according to them, had tried to

help the petitioner. MW2 has stated that he has asked the petitioner to remit the amount in the account of Nagamani and he

had obliged by remitting the money on the next day itself. They had closed the entire thing by the remittance, as could be

seen from the subsequent silence. They have not thought it necessary to report the matter to the superiors. It was only on

receipt of an anonymous letter the Zonal Office came to know about the incident.

19.

More than the admission itself the conduct of the petitioner in remitting the amount on the next day is relevant. Of

course, the petitioner did not admit that he had made the remittance. But it is very much clear from the circumstances and

also the evidences of MWs 1 and 2 that remittance was made by the petitioner himself. It is very much clear from the

explanation marked as Ext.W2 that the petitioner was aware of the complaint preferred by Nagamani on 25.11.2008. It is also

clear from the explanation marked as Ext.W4 that the petitioner was removed from the position of Single Window Operator

on 25.11.2008 itself immediately after the complaint was preferred by Nagamani and the petitioner was questioned. He has

stated in Ext.W4 that on 25.11.2008 though he commenced the day as Single Window Operator by around 1200 Noon MW1

the Asstt. Branch Manager had instructed him to close down the cash and hand over the keys to Samikannu. After this

Samikannu was functioning as Single Window Operator. This statement of the petitioner in Ext.W4 corroborates the version

of MW1 that the capability level of the petitioner was reduced to Level-5 from Level-7 and this position so far handled by

him was allotted to Samikannu and Samikannu continued to operate the Single Window Operator seat on the day. According

to the petitioner this happened by 1200 Noon on the day. MW1 has stated that it was around 1100 AM the petitioner had

admitted withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- from the account of Nagamani. However, Even as admitted by the petitioner in Ext.W4

he had extended a helping hand to Nagamani on 26.11.2008 for remitting Rs. 10,000/-. There is the evidence by MW1 and 2

that the challan for remittance was filled in the hand of the petitioner. The petitioner is very well aware of the restriction in

the guidelines that a person who is acting as the Single Window Operator should not fill up the challan in his handwriting

even in the interest of customer service. Fully aware of this instruction the petitioner herein has stated in Ext.W4 that though

7774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

rules prohibit a Single Window Operator in filing up challan, yet in rural branches helping hand is extended by filling up the

challans whenever needed. The petitioner was of course not the Single Window Operator on 26.11.2008. What he has stated

is that he extended a helping hand to Nagamani only when he was sitting outside on 26.11.2008. During the working hours,

he could not be expected to sit outside idle to help the customers by filling up the challans. Again, if actually Nagamani

himself was remitting the amount on the day the petitioner would have been very cautions since it was only on the previous

day the very same Nagamani had preferred a complaint against him that he had debited amount from his account without his

knowledge. There is the evidence given by MW1 that it was the sub-staff and PTE who used to help the customers in filling

up the challans. So there was no dearth of persons to help the customers. It was not necessary for the petitioner who must

have been engaged in his work on the day to fill up the challan. Before getting a solution to his complaint it is unlikely that

Nagamani would have remitted more amount in his account on the next day after he preferred the complaint itself. So the

only conclusion that could be drawn is that the petitioner who filled up the challan remitted the amount of Rs. 10,000/-

himself to the account of Nagamani after his misappropriation was detected on the complaint by Nagamani. This ready

remittance of the amount by the petitioner immediately after the complaint was preferred also shows that the petitioner

himself is the one who debited the amount without the knowledge of the account holder. The Enquiry Officer has rightly

found that the charges against the petitioner are proved.

20.

The Respondents have produced documents pertaining to the past conduct of the petitioner. Certain proceedings

were initiated against the petitioner earlier. These are admitted by the petitioner also. He has admitted during his cross-

examination that one Madappan who was an account holder of Dharmapuri Branch had given a complaint against him

alleging that he had withdrawn Rs. 5,500/- from his account so also Srinivasan, a Sr. Manager had alleged that the petitioner

had debited Rs. 2,000/- from his account. Ext.M4 is the copy of the explanation given by the petitioner, the charge that he

had withdrawn Rs. 5,500/- from the account of Madappan. Ext.M5 is the letter written by the petitioner stating that as the

investigation and report of the forensic expert revealed that the specimen signature of the party differed regarding the

payment of Rs. 5,500/-. He has remitted Rs. 9,500/- including the amount incurred by the bank for obtaining forensic report,

“taking the moral responsibility for the incident”. Ext.M9 is the Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner regarding the

withdrawal of Rs. 5,500/- from the account of Madappan. As seen from Ext.M9 the petitioner was awarded the punishment

of censure. There is also the evidence given by MW1 who was working as Vigilance Officer of Dharmapuri Circle. He

had stated in his affidavit about the allegation given by Srinivasan, the Manager that Rs. 2,000/- was debited from his account

and credited to the account of the petitioner. The petitioner has admitted during his cross-examination that this amount was

also remitted by him. Thus it could be seen that the past conduct of the petitioner is not without blemish.

21.

The petitioner was awarded the punishment of dismissal without notice. When the present misconduct committed by

the petitioner is taken into account alongwith his past misconducts, the punishment imposed on the petitioner could not be

considered as disproportionate so I am not inclined to modify the punishment to the benefit of the petitioner also. I find that

the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against the petitioner.

An award is passed accordingly.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

WW1, Sri G. Nagasubramanian

For the 2^nd Party/Management

MW1, Sri G. Rajendran

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

08.07.2009

Copy of Show Cause Memo and Suspension Order issued to the Petitioner

Ex.W2

07.08.2009

Copy of Reply submitted by the Petitioner to the Show Cause Memo

Ex.W3

28.10.2009

Copy of charge sheet issued to the petitioner

Ex.W4

11.11.2009

Copy of reply/explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet

Ex.W5

09.02.2010

Copy of Proceedings of the enquiry

to 03.03.2010

Ex.W6

10.04.2010

Copy of letter from Disciplinary authority enclosing enquiry report and asking the petitioner

to give his remarks over the findings

Ex.W7

24.05.2010

Copy of the petitioner’s comments over the enquiry findings

Ex.W8

10.05.2010

Copy of letter from Disciplinary Authority enclosing enquiry report and asking the

petitioner to give his remarks over the findings

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7775

Ex.W9

24.05.2010

Copy of petitioner’s comments over the enquiry findings

Ex.W10

19.08.2010

Copy of Second Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner

Ex.W11

25.08.2010

Copy of reply submitted by the petitioner to the Second Show Cause Notice

Ex.W12

31.08.2010

Copy of proceedings of the personal hearing before the Disciplinary Authority

Ex.W13

25.09.2010

Copy of letter from the Disciplinary Authority enclosing final order

Ex.W14

25.09.2010

Copy of final order imposing punishment of dismissal without notice against the petitioner

Ex.W15

25.10.2010

Copy of appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority

Ex.W16

23.12.2010

Copy of letter from Appellate Authority asking the petitioner to appear for personal hearing

Ex.W17

18.01.2011

Copy of proceedings of personal hearing held before the Appellate Authority

Ex.W18

19.03.2011

Copy of letter from Appellate Authority enclosing appellate order

Ex.W19

19.03.2011

Copy of the order issued by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal

Ex.W20

26.11.2008

Copy of report of details of tellers in the branch (marked as DEX-1 in the enquiry)

Ex.W21

26.11.2008

Copy of Key Movement Register (Marked as DEX-2 in the enquiry

Ex.W22

02.03.2010

Copy of Affidavit of G. Nagamani (Produced in the enquiry)

Ex.W23

21.05.2009

Copy of letter from B.T. Thirulogachander to Vigilance Officer of the Bank (marked as

MEX-III in the enquiry)

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

04.11.2007/

Statement of A/c No. 572456835 A. Nagamani (MEX-VI)

16.03.2009

Ex.M2

13.03.2010

Letter from PRS – Vasan, Sr. Manager/PO/Indian Bank, Soolagiri to Inquiry Officer, Indian

Bank, Uthangarai Branch

Ex.M3

07.08.2012

Conciliation failure report of ALC ©

Ex.M4

27.03.2007

Explanation of petitioner for the memo dated 20.03.2007

Ex.M5

24.03.2008

Letter from Branch Manager, Dharmapuri to AGM/CH/C.O/Dharmapuri enclosing letter

dated 28.02.2008 of Nagasubramanian – taking moral Responsibility

Ex.M6

04.08.2009

Letter from Indian Bank, C.O., Vigilance Cell, Dharmapuri to petitioner

Ex.M7

05.08.2009

Letter from Indian Bank to the petitioner

Ex.M8

Letter by the petitioner to Indian Bank

Ex.M9

24.03.2009

Letter from Indian Bank/CO/Vig./Dharmapuri to petitioner - Memo

Ex.M10

19.05.2009

Letter from Indian Bank/Vig./CO/Dharmapuri to petitioner – “Censure” punishment

Ex.M11

15.11.2006

Complaint from A. Madappan SB A/c No. 464777579 to the Manager, Indian Bank,

Dharmapuri

Ex.M12

28.10.2006

Withdrawal Slip of Rs. 5,500/- dated 28.10.2006

Ex.M13

16.12.2006

Statement and voucher for Rs. 2,000/- debiting in Senior Manager V. Srinivasan’s A/c

Ex.M14

29.12.2006

Letter from V. Srinivasan, Senior Manager denying consent

Ex.M15

22.11.2006

Letter from petitioner to B.M., Indian Bank, Dharmapuri

Ex.M16

Nil received on Letter from A. Madappan to Manager, H.O., Indian Bank with pay-in-slip and withdrawal slip

01.12.2006

Ex.M17

24.11.2006

Letter from Branch Manager – Indian Bank, Dharmapuri to AGM - Dharmapuri

Ex.M18

22.12.2006

Letter from Indian Bank, Vigilance Cell, Circle Office, Dharmapuri

Srinivasan,

Senior Manager, C.O., Indian Bank, Dharmapuri

Ex.M19

23.12.2006

Letter from Branch Manager Indian Bank, Dharmapuri to Circle Office, Dharmapuri

Ex.M20

30.12.2006

Letter from G. Rajendran, Senior Manager – C.O., Indian Bank, Dharmapuri to AGM, C.O.,

Dharmapuri – Complaint on petitioner

7776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

Ex.M21

02.01.2007

Letter from Senior Manager–Indian Bank, Dharmapuri to AGM and Circle Head,

Dharmapuri

Ex.M22

03.01.2007

Letter from Indian Bank, Vigilance, Circle Office, Dharmapuri to GM-Vigilance, H.O.,

Chennai

Ex.M23

25.11.2008

Letter from A. Nagamani to Manager, Indian Bank, Kambainallur – enclosing copy of

withdrawal slip dated 05.11.2008 for Rs. 10,000/- signed by A. Nagamani

Ex.M24

02.05.2009

Letter from K. Vijayakumar, Branch Manager, Kambainallur to KK Ramamurthy, Vigilance

Officer, Indian Bank, Circle Office, Dharmapuri with SB A/c statement of A. Nagamani

Ex.M25

21.05.2009

Letter from BT Thiru Logachander, Indian Bank, Pulikarai Branch to K K Ramamurthy

Vigilance Office, C.O. Dharmapuri

Ex.M26

05.11.2008

Pay-in-slip signed by A. Nagamani for Rs. 20,000/- to A/c No. 572456835

Ex.M27

Nil Received on Anonymous letter addressed to the Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Vigilance Department,

18.03.2009

Chennai-1

Ex.M28

01.08.2012

Letter from Indian Bank, ZO, Dharmapuri to ALC (C), Chennai

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2014

dkdkdkdk-vkvkvkvk- 3201

3201

3201.—vkS|ksafxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksafxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksafxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds ¼iapkV

90@2013½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-12-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@59@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch-&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2014

S.O. 3201.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 90/2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 09/12/2014.

[No. L-12011/59/2013 - IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Monday, the 13th October, 2014

Present :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial dispute No. 90/2013

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN:

The General Secretary

1st Party/Petitioner Union

Indian Bank Employees

Union No. 6, Moore Street,

Mannady Corner

Chennai-600001

AND

The Zonal Manager

2nd Party/Respondent

Indian Bank Zonal Office

359, Dr. Nanjappa Road

Coimbatore-641018

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7777

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union

Sri Thomas Jayaprabhakaran, Authorized Representative

For the 2nd Party/Respondent

M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/59/2013-IR (B.II) dated

09.10.2013 referred the following Industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the Management of Indian Bank in respect of not paying half scale wages to Mrs. Ganga,

Part-Time Sweeper as per Wage Settlement signed in the year 1980 claimed by Indian Bank Employees Union is

justified or not? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

On receipt of the Industrial dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 90/2013 and issued notices to both sides. The

petitioner has appeared through the Authorized Representative and the Respondent through its counsel and filed claim and

counter statement respectively. The petitioner has filed rejoinder after the Counter Statement was filed.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:

Smt. Ganga was engaged by the Respondent as Sweeper to clean the premises of Market Road branch and was

regularized in the service of the Bank from 13.10.1992. Based on the sweeping area and time engaged she was fixed with 1/3

scale wages in the Sub-Staff cadre. The Branch acquired additional space in the same floor in the year 2002. Though the

carpet area as per the lease agreement entered into by the Branch is 1416 sq.ft. on the first floor, Ganga has been sweeping

the balcony, stair case, etc. measuring 438 sq.ft. which has not been included in the carpet area. The total sweeping area being

1977 sq.ft. Ganga is eligible for half scale wages in terms of the guidelines. As per the guidelines the wages payable to part-

time sweepers are to be determined on twin parameters i.e. floor space area to be cleaned and total working hours. A person

sweeping an area about 1751 sq.ft.and below 4000 sq.ft. and working between 13 to 19 hours is eligible for half scale

wages. In view of the guidelines half scale wages should have been fixed for Ganga. She was eligible for proportionate half

increment also every year. The action of the Respondent in denying half scale wages to Ganga from 2002 is illegal and

unjustified. The Respondent shall be directed to pay half scale wages w.e.f. 2002 alongwith consequential benefits.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as follows:

A part time sweeper is engaged for cleaning the toilet and the carpet area of the premises besides any area available

for its use. Wages for Part-Time Sweeper were originally fixed by the industry wise settlement dated 10.04.1989. Under this

settlement wages were fixed with reference to number of hours of work each Part-Time Sweeper will be required to do in a

week. By circular dated 23.02.1989 the Respondent directed the branches that the wages for Part-Time Sweeper were to be

fixed corresponding to the area of the office or branch of the establishment. Regarding premises which are taken on lease, the

area shown in the lease deed is to be taken as the area for the purpose of determination of wages for Part-Time Sweeper.

Even if any common areas are available for use and the sweeper is sweeping this area also it will not be taken into account

for the purpose of determination of wages. Even if the local Branch Manager or any other Officer had erroneously reported

about the excess area for payment of wages the same is not binding on bank. In the lease deed in respect of the Market Road

Branch the carpet area has been shown only as 1416 sq.ft. Even if there is additional area available for use by the branch and

the concerned worker is sweeping this area also it will not entitle her to enhanced rate of wages. She was entitled to only 1/3

wages. From 04.02.2013 the Branch had been shifted from Market Road to Raja Mill Road. The carpet area of this premises

is more than 2000 sq.ft. and as such the concerned worker is to be paid half scale of wages as from that date. The claim of the

petitioner is to be rejected.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the allegations in the Counter Statement and reiterating the case in the

Claim Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W13 and Ext.M1 and Ext.M2. No oral

evidence was adduced by either side.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the concerned worker, Ganga is entitled to half scale wages as claimed by the petitioner?

(ii)

What is the relief, if any, to which the petitioner is entitled?

The Points

The Petitioner Union has raised the dispute claiming that one Ganga, Part Time Sweeper of the Market Road Branch

who was drawing 1/3 wages in the Sub-Staff cadre was entitled to half scale wages from the year 2002 in view of the

7778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

increase in the area put to use by the bank and to be cleaned by her consequently. According to the petitioner, though the

carpet area of the premises as per the lease deed entered by the bank and the owner of the building in respect of the market

road branch is Rs. 1,416 sq.ft. only the bank had been using additional area of balcony, stair case, etc. measuring 438 sq.ft.

thus making the total area to be swept @ 1977 sq.ft. and therefore she is eligible for half scale wages. The petitioner has

relied upon circular no. 2/18 of the bank in making the claim. As per this circular, it is provided that a person cleaning an area

in between 1751 and 4000 sq. ft. and working for 13-19 hours a week is eligible for half scale wages. According to the

petitioner, though the industry level bipartite settlement of 1989 provide that the wages to the Part-Time Sweepers based on

the number of hours engaged per week, the circular has given more clarity as it has specified the area to be cleaned also.

The contention that is raised on behalf of the Respondent is that in case of execution of lease deed for the premises,

the area shown in the lease deed is to be taken as the area for determination of the wages of Part-Time Sweeper and even if

the worker is cleaning any additional area, that is not specified in the lease deed, she will not be entitled to any extra amount.

10.

Ex.W5 is the first representation by the concerned worker Ganga to the General manager of the Circle claiming half

scale of pay since the Sweeping area is about 1977 sq.ft. There is one more representation dated 05.01.2011 from Ganga

making such a claim and this is marked as Ext.W4. On the basis of representation of Gang the Zonal Office has written to the

Senior Manager of the Market Road Branch asking him to furnish the details such as the carpet area of the branch as per the

lease agreement and the details of any additional area added to the sweeping area from 2002. It is further stated in the letter

that the details of the sweeping area including area like steps, balcony, etc. are to be provided. To this letter which is marked

as Ext.W8, the Branch Manager has given a reply (Ext.W9) stating that the carpet area as per the lease agreement is 1416

sq.ft. in the first floor and that the Part-Time Sweeper is sweeping an additional area including balcony and stair case which

comes to about 438 sq.ft. Ex.W10 is the details of flooring measurement done by a Licensed Building Surveyor and attached

to Ext.W9. It is clear from Ext.W9 and Ext.W10 that even though the lease agreement in respect of the concerned branch

marked as Ext.W7 shows the area as 1416 sq.ft. in the first floor only. The concerned worker It is clear from Ext.W9 and

ext.W10 that she has been sweeping a further area of 438 sq.ft. which was also put to use by the bank. Thus the area that the

concerned worker had to clean was above 1751 sq.ft and below 4000 sq.ft.

11.

Now the question to be considered is whether there is any basis for the contention on behalf of the Respondent that

the concerned worker will be eligible for wages only on the basis of the carpet area shown in the lease deed even if she was

cleaning a further area put to use by the bank, apart from what is shown in the lease deed. It is seen from Ext.W13 the letter

written by the Deputy General Manager to the Zonal Office that even though the floor space area for the purpose of sweeping

has been arrived at on the basis of carpet area following which the rent is fixed, until then, modification has been effected

regarding this stand because of the persistent request of the Employees Union Ext.W13 directs that the floor space area for

the purpose of sweeping is to be determined as carpet area plus area pertaining to toilets, corridors, stair case and other

reasonable areas to be decided by the sanctioning authority which require daily sweeping. This order dated 16.02.1995 was

to have prospective effect. Thus it is clear from Ext.W13 that apart from the area shown in the lease deed, the area which was

put to use by the branch as part of the premises also has been taken into account in determining the sweeping area. By

Ext.W11, the Manager of the Market Road Branch, Pollachi has asserted that the Branch has been using the stair case

exclusively since there is another separate entrance for the other office in the first floor. He has stated in Ext.W11 that no one

can access the second floor through this stair case as the door to the first floor is bolted and closed. So there is sufficient

material to show that apart from the area shown in the lease deed the branch was using the balcony and also the stair case and

the concerned worker had to clean this area also as part of the work. So it is very much clear that Smt. Ganga has been

sweeping an area above 1751 sq.ft making her eligible for elevation to half scale wages. As seen from Ext.M1 the Zonal

Office has rejected the claim of the concerned worker for half scale wages on the ground that the total working hours

engaged is less than 13 hours per week. As per Ext.W2 the circular dated 28.10.1980 if the area to be cleaned is in between

1751 and 4000 sqft. the worker is eligible for one half scale wages. As per industry wise settlement only the working hours

was fixed by specifying the area. Ext.W2 has given more clarity regarding the manner in which wage scale is to be fixed.

If the area to be cleaned is above 1750 sq.ft., it is to be assumed that the working hours is in between 13 to 19 hours a week.

There was no justification for the Respondent in rejecting the claim of the concerned worker.

12.

The prayer in the Claim Statement is for half scale wages w.e.f. 2002 during which period the area to be swept has

been increased. However, the request by the concerned worker for fixing wages at half scale was first made by Ext.W5, the

representation dated 03.09.2010 only. So she will be eligible for half scale wages from the date three years prior to this date

only.

13.

On the basis of my discussion above, an award is passed as follows:

The Respondent is directed to fix the pay of the concerned worker Ganga at half scale wages and pay arrears of

wages at this rate from 03.09.2007. If the arrear is not paid within one month from the date of award, it will carry interest @

9% per annum from the date of the award.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7779

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

Ex.W1

28.03.2012

ID raised by the Petitioner Union

Ex.W2

28.10.1980

Circular No. 2/80 of Indian Bank Head Office

Ex.W3

23.02.1989

Circular to all Zonal Offices by Indian Bank Head Office

Ex.W4

05.01.2011

Representation of Ms. Ganga

Ex.W5

03.09.2010

Representation of Smt. Ganga

Ex.W6

16.08.1992

Appointment Order of Smt. Ganga

Ex.W7

09.01.2003

Copy of the lease agreement between Indian Bank Management and the land lord of

Market Road Branch

Ex.W8

04.07.2011

Letter from Zonal Office, Coimbatore to Market Road Branch

Ex.W9

18.07.2011

Letter from Market Road Branch to Zonal Office, Coimbatore

Ex.W10

28.08.2010

Engineer Certificate for the sweeping area

Ex.W11

27.08.2012

Letter from Market Road Branch to Zonal Office, Coimbatore

Ex.W12

11.09.2012

Letter from Zonal Office, Coimbatore to Market Road Branch

Ex.W13

16.02.1995

Circular to All Zonal Offices by Indian Bank Head Office

On the Management's side :

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

25.10.2012

Letter from HRM, ZO, Coimbatore-Ref. No. PTS 91132:2012-13 to Sr. Manager,

Market Road Branch

Ex.M2

29.10.2002

Sanction ticket with Annexure I -Ref. No. COC:PREM:142:02-03

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3202-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksafxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼223@2003½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-12-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@99@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

7780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2014

S.O. 3202.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref.223/2003) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, NAGPUR as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 10/12/2014.

[No. L-12012/99/2003 - IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/223/2003

Date: 14.11.2014.

Party No.1 :

The Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office, Victoria Building,

Kamptee Road, Nagpur-440001.

Versus

Party No.2 :

Shri Sudhakar Waghuji Chahare

R/o. Waigaon (Nipani) Tahasi and

Distt. Wardha (MS).

AWARD

(Dated: 14th November, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the

employers, in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workman, Shri Sudhakar Chahare, for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-12012/99/2003-IR (B-II) dated 14.08.2003, with the following schedule:-

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Nagpur Region, Nagpur (MS) in terminating the

service of Sh. Shudhakar S/o. Sh. Waghuji Chahare, Casual Worker at the Wardha Extn. Counter Branch of the

Bank without complying the provisions of Section 25-F if the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman concerned is entitled?"

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement

and accordingly, the workman, Shri Sudhakar Chahare, ('the workman" in short), filed the statement of claim and the

management of Central Bank of India, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he is a workman and party No. 1 is an

industry, as defined in section 2 (s) and 2 (j) of the Act respectively and he was in the employment of party No. 1 from 1996

and he was appointed on clear vacancy and vacant post, on daily wages basis and posted at Loyds Steel Industry Extension,

Bhugaon Branch and he was in continuous employment of party No. 1 w.e.f. 16.10.1999, consequent upon the transfer of

Shri Sahebrao Bhaduji Shende, the part time Safai Karmachari from Loyds Steel Industry Extension Branch, Bhugaon to

Wani and his service record was clean and excellent, but his services came to be terminated orally w.e.f. 26.12.2002, without

assigning any reason.

The further case of the workman is that he was working continuously from 16.10.1999 to 26.12.2002 without any

break and he had completed more than 240 days of continuous service in each calendar year and had acquired the status of a

permanent employee and it was obligatory on the part of party No. 1 to regularize his services, however, on the contrary, the

party No. 1 continued to utilize his services on temporary basis for years together, without providing of the facilities of leave,

P.F./Gratuity and uniform etc. and he was performing regular nature of work from 8.A.M. to 3.P.M. and the said work is still

available and a certificate had been issued in his favour, by the Deputy Manager, Loyds Steel Industry Extension, Bhugaon in

regard to the nature of work performed by him and recommendation had also been made by the Deputy Manager for his

regularisation in service and vide circular dated 07.09.2001, the Regional Manager, Nagpur of party No. 1 collected the

informations regarding the temporary workers, who had completed 240 days of continuous work in a period of 12 months as

on 31.07.2001 and inspite of the said circular, his name was not sent to the Regional Office and such action of party No. 1

was unfair and his name ought to have been sent for his regularisation and being aggrieved by such action, he made

representation to the party No. 1 for regularisation of his services and he also made a representation claiming bonus from

1999 to 2002, as bonus was not paid to him and because of his constant demand for regularisation and payment of bonus,

party No1 became annoyed and terminated his services orally, without complying the mandatory provisions of section 25 (F)

and 25 (G) of the Act and therefore, his oral termination from services dated 26.12.2002 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7781

the principles of natural justice and juniors to him in service were retained by the party no.1, so, it can be held that party No.

1 indulged in unfair labour practice and as his termination from services is illegal, he is entitled for reinstatement in service

with continuity and full back wages.

Party No. 1 after denying the adverse allegations made in the statement of claim, in the written statement has

pleaded inter-alia that the workman has completely failed to make out any case in his favour and he was never employed by it

as its permanent or regular employee and he was engaged on daily wages as a casual worker, as and when required and he

being a daily wages worker has no right to claim reinstatement in service as claimed by him and the workman was given to

understand by the Officer-in-charge of the Extension counter that he was being engaged on daily wages, subject to the

availability of work and that he was liable to be discontinued without notice, in case of non-availability of work and he

understood and accepted the condition and accordingly, he worked as a casual worker on daily wages at the Extension

Counter for the period from 1997 to 2001 and from the pleadings made in the statement of claim, it is clear that the workman

himself is confused as to from which date or year, he had worked as a daily wager and the workman did not work

continuously from 16.10.1999 to 26.12.2002 and as the workman was a daily rated employee, there was no question of any

termination order in his name and he being a daily wager, his services were engaged for each day separately and at the end of

the business hours on that particular day, he was deemed to be discontinued from work for that day and he was being paid

wages for the day and the workman being a daily wager was not entitled for the benefits of leave, P.F., gratuity etc and such

facilities are available only to its regular and permanent employees and merely issuing of a letter of appreciation or

recommendation by any of its officers in favour of the workman has little significance, as to fill up any vacancy and for

appointment of regular employee, it is necessary to follow the proper recruitment procedure as provided in the prescribed

Rules and Regulation for recruitment and the claim of the workman for regularisation, on the ground of his completing 240

days of continuous service in a year is without any merit, in view of the series of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and

High Courts and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

It is to be mentioned here that party No. 1 has furnished the details of the working days of the workman as annexure-1.

Annexure 1, which has been made a part of the written statement, discloses that the workman was engaged by party No. 1 for

50 days in 1997, 35 days in 1998, 73 days in 1999, 344 days in 2000 and 273 days in 2001.

In the rejoinder, the workman has stated that he worked in the Extension Counter for the period from 1997 to 2001

and due to typographical mistake, in paragraph 1 of the statement of claim, the initial date of his appointment has been

mentioned as 1998 in place of 1999.

In support of their respective claim, both the parties have led oral evidence, besides placing reliance on documentary

evidence.

The workman has examined himself as a witness to prove his case. Party No. 1 has examined two witnesses, namely, Shri

Shrirang Shankar Mankar, a Senior Manager (HRD) and Shri Prabhakar Balakrushna Rao Ghatode, a retired employee of the

Bank in support of its case.

The workman in his examination-in-chief on affidavit has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim.

However, in the cross-examination, the workman has admitted that he worked on daily wages at Llyods Steel Industries

Extension Counter and no written appointment order was given to him by the Bank and his name was not entered in the

attendance register of the branch as an employee and bank was paying him his wages on vouchers for the days actually he

was working with the branch and he has not filed any document to show that he worked for 240 days in the branch during

any calendar year. The workman has admitted the suggestions that in 2012, the bank had carries out a special recruitment by

giving preference to all the daily wagers, who had worked in the Bank for any length of period and that he had also applied

for his appointment, but as he was over aged, he was not called for the interview by the bank. The workman has also

admitted that he knows that the Branch Manager of any branch of the Bank is not empowered to appoint anybody

permanently in any class-IV post and the bank did not make anybody permanent, who was junior to him, after termination of

his service.

The evidence of the two witnesses for the party No. 1 on affidavit is more or less in the same line of the stands taken

by party No. 1 in the written statement.

The witness No. 1 for the party No. 1 in his cross-examination has stated that he has no personal knowledge about

the case of the workman. This witness has admitted that from 19.01.2000 to 31.12.2000, the workman had worked for 344

days and from 01.01.2001 to 30.11.2001, the workman had worked for 273 days and Ext-W II is a true document regarding

payment of wages to the workman from 01.04.2000 to 01.03.2001 and the amount of the wages so mentioned in Ext. W-II

was for calculation of the bonus to be paid to the workman.

The witness No. 2 for the party No. 1 in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not seen any document

regarding the engagement and termination of the workman and he cannot say if the workman was engaged for the first time

in the service of the Bank in 1997 and he doesn't remember if the workman was terminated from service in the year 2001.

The witness has admitted that Exts. W-II and W-III were written by him as the officer-in-charge and Ext. W-II was written by

him for payment of bonus to the workman for the year 2000 and 2001.

7782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the workman was in the

employment of party No. 1 from 1996 and he was appointed by party No. 1 in a clear and vacant post on daily wages basis

and posted at Llyods Steel Industries Extension counter and he was in continuous employment from 16.10.1999 and he

worked for 344 days in the year 2000 and 273 days in 2001 and he had acquired the status of a permanent employee and it

was obligatory on the part of party No. 1 to regularize his services and the workman insisted for his regularisation and for

providing of the other facilities enjoyed by the regular employees of the Bank, so party No. 1 being annoyed, terminated his

services orally on 26.12.2002, without compliance of the mandatory provisions of sections 25-F and 25-G of the Act and

though, the services of the workman were terminated, juniors to him in service were retained by party no.1.

It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that vide circular dated 07.09.2001, the Regional

Manager, Nagpur of the Bank had directed all the branches of the Bank to furnish informations of the temporary workers,

who had completed 240 days of continuous service in a period of 12 months as on 31.07.2001, but with malafide intention,

the name of the workman was not forwarded to the office of the Regional Manager, even though, he had completed more

than 240 days of work as required and from the evidence on record and the own pleadings of party no.1, it is clear that the

workman had been working continuously and he had completed 240 days of continuous service with the Bank in each

calendar year, more particularly in 2000 and 2001 and party No. 1 adopted unfair labour practice and as the termination on

the service of the workman w.e.f. 26.12.2002 was illegal, the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity,

full back wages and all other consequential benefits.

Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party No. 1 that the workman was never employed by

party No. 1 as its regular or permanent employee and he was a casual worker and he was engaged as and when required and

he worked on daily wages during the period from 1997 to 2001 and the workman in his evidence has admitted that he was

engaged as a casual daily rated worker as and when required and he was paid his remuneration on vouchers and his name

was not in the muster roll maintained for the permanent employees of the bank and as the workman was engaged by the bank

for each day separately and at the end of the business hours of the bank on that particular day, he was deemed to be

discontinued from work and as he was engaged and discontinued on various occasions, there was no question of issuing of

any termination order and the workman was not engaged against any clear vacancy and he did not complete 240 days of work

in each calendar year and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

The learned advocate for the party No. 1 tried to show that the entries made in annexure-1 which had been filed as a

part of the written statement by party no.1, regarding the working days of the workman in 2000 and 2001 to be false and

untrue, by submitting that the total working days of the bank is not more than 285 days in a calendar year and that in 2001,

the workman was shown to have worked on all the days including Sundays and paid holidays and that the chart cannot be

accepted as a gospel truth.

It was further contended by the learned advocate for the party No. 1 that the Branch Manager has absolutely no right

or authority to offer employment to any body and his recommendation or letters to the higher official in the Bank do not carry

any significance and the workman cannot rely upon those documents and the workman in his evidence has admitted such

facts and it is clear from his evidence that due to overage, he was not regularized by the Bank, when in 2012, the bank

decided to regularize all the casual employees and not admitting, but for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the

workman had completed 240 days of work in those particular years, still then, it cannot be said that he has acquired any legal

right to claim employment or reinstatement in service and it is settled position of law that daily rated workers cannot be

granted permanency or reinstatement, since that would tenement to granting of backdoor entry and therefore, the workman is

not entitled to any relief.

In support of such contentions, the learned advocate for the party No. 1 placed reliance on the decisions reported in

2006 II-LLJ -722 (Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi)/ AIR 2006 SC-4065 (Rajasthan State Ganga Sagar S. Mills

ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan), AIR-2010 SC-2140 (Senior Superintendent Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal), 2006 -III-LLJ-152

(H.U.D.A. Vs. Jagmal Singh), 2008 I CLR-784 (General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd & ors. Vs. Mahesh Chand),

2008 II CLR-658 (Dnyandeo Vs. Executive Engineer), 2009-III CLR-426 (Dena Bank Vs. Ashraf Yunus Shaikh), 2008-II-

LLJ-977 (pat) (Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC-1565 (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kumar Verma)

and 1997 LAB-IC-2075 (Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi Vs. State of Bihar).

10.

Before I proceed to the facts of the present case, I think it proper to refer to section 25-F of the Act. It says that no

workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be

retrenched by the employer until the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for

retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in line of such notice, wages for the period

of notice. Moreover, the workman is also entitled to retrenchment compensation equivalent to 15 days' average pay.

According to the learned advocate for the workman, neither notice was issued nor pay in lieu of notice, nor

retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman by party No. 1 and section 25-B of the Act defines continuous service

and according to the said section, a workman can be said to be in continuous service under an employer for a period of one

year, if the workman, during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be

made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days and the workman had completed more than 240

days of work in every calendar year and as such, it was necessary for the party No. 1 to comply with the mandatory

provisions of section 25-F of the Act and the termination of the workman is illegal.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7783

11.

At this juncture, I think it proper to mention that in the judgment reported in 1997 LAB IC-2075 (Supra), the

Hon'ble Apex Court have held that, "Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) -S. 25-F, Sch.2, Item 3- Retrenchment - Daily wage

employees- Appointment made on basis of need of work-Termination of their services-Cannot be construed to be

retrenchment- Same is not arbitrary as they were not entitled to post."

Like wise, in the judgment reported in 2008 -II-LLJ -977 (Supra), the Hon'ble Patna High Court have held that, "A

casual worker in daily wages basis is covered by clause (bb) by Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and termination

of employment of such a person does not attract the provisions of section 25-F of the Act.

However, with respect, I am of the view that the said judgments do not have any implication, in view of the

subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court of coordinate Bench and so also, larger Bench as referred by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the other decisions cited by the learned advocate for the party no.1.

It is clear from the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions cited by the learned advocate

for the party No. 1 that section 25-F of the Act is applicable even to the case of a daily wager, who is engaged as and when

required, in case of his completion of 240 days of work in a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of his

termination and it is for the workman to lead evidence and to show that infact he had worked for 240 days in the year

preceding his termination.

12.

In this case, in the schedule of reference, the alleged date of termination has not been mentioned. In his statement of

claim, rejoinder and evidence on affidavit, the workman has claimed that he was orally terminated from service by the party

No. 1 on 26.12.2002. However, not a single document has been filed by the workman in support of his claim that he worked

with party No. 1 till 26.12.2002. On perusal of the documents filed by the workman, it is found that the last representation

made by him was on 12.10.2001.

The party No. 1 in the written statement has pleaded that the workman was engaged as a casual worker on daily

wages as and when required and he worked intermittently from 1997 to 2001 and his such engagement was till

26.12.2001and not till 26.12.2002 as claimed by the workman. In paragraph four of the written statement, the party No. 1 has

specifically pleaded that, "the actual period of work of the party No. 2 during the aforesaid period is being furnished by the

party No. 1 Bank by way of an annexure to this written statement as Annexure-A and it may be treated as a part and parcel of

the written statement." It is also to be mentioned here that though in paragraph 12 of the written statement, the party No. 1

has stated that it will file documents on record, in support of its written statement at the appropriate stage of the proceedings,

actually not a single document was filed by it.

On perusal of the "Annexure-1" filed by party no.1, it is found that party No. 1 has admitted that the workman

worked for 273 days in 2001 and 344 days in 2000. On perusal of "Annexure-1", it is found that the workman had completed

more than 240 days of work in the preceding 12 calendar months of 26.12.2001, the alleged date after which the workman

was not engaged, as per the claim of the party no.1. In view of such admission by party no.1, there was no need for the

workman to prove the same.

As already mentioned above, the learned advocate for the party No. 1 submitted that "Annexure-1" was prepared

casually and the entries made in the same cannot be taken as gospel truth. However, in fairness, such submission is to be

mentioned and rejected, because such a plea has not been taken by the party No. 1 in the written statement. Moreover, the

witnesses for party No. 1 have not whispered a single word in that respect. On the other hand, the witness No. 1 for party No.

1 has specifically admitted that the workman worked for 344 days in 2000 and 273 days in 2001.

It is the admitted case that party No. 1 did not comply with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act, which are

mandatory in nature, before the disengagement of the workman. So, the dispension of the services of the workman on

26.12.2001 amounted to retrenchment.

13.

Now, the only point remains for consideration is as to what relief or reliefs, the workman is entitled. Admittedly,

the workman worked as a daily wager from 1997 till 26.12.2001 intermittently. The workman was engaged as daily wager

about 17 years back and he worked for about four years. It is also found that he had already been over aged for his

employment in service. So keeping into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and applying the principles

enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in AIR 2010 SC-2140 (Supra) and Hon'ble Bombay High

Court in 2009-III CLR-426 (Supra), it is found that relief of reinstatement and back wages to the workman cannot be said to

be justified and instead monetary compensation would sub serve the end of justice. In my considered view, the compensation

of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) shall meet the ends of justice. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of Central Bank of India, Nagpur Region, Nagpur (MS) in terminating the service of

Sh. Shudhakar S/o. Sh. Waghuji Chahare, Casual Worker at the Wardha Extn. Counter Branch of the Bank without

complying the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is unjustified. The workman is entitled for

monetary compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only). He is not entitled to any other relief. Such payment

should be made by party No. 1 within a month from the date of publication of the award in the official gazette, failing which,

the same shall carry interest of the rate of 9% per annum.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

7784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3203-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼01@2004½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-12-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@163@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf?kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2014

S.O. 3203.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 01/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 10/12/2014.

[No. L-12012/163/2003 - IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

CASE NO. CGIT/NGP/01/2004 Date 25.11.2014.

Party No.1

: The Branch Manager,

Bank of India,

Urjagram Extension Counter,

Brach-Bhadrawati,

Post & Tahsil-Bhadrawati,

Chandrapur (MS)

Versus

Party No.2

: Shri Vilas S/o Madhukar Chiwande,

R/o and Post- Tadali (Railway Station),

Tahsil & Dist. Chandrapur.

AWARD

(Dated: 25th November, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the

employers, in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman, Shri Vilas Madhukar Chiwande, for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-12012/163/2003-IR (B-II) dated 27.11.2003, with the following schedule:-

"Whether the action of the management in relation to Urjagram Extension Counter of Bank of India Branch

Bhadrawati in terminating the services of Shri Vilas S/o Madhukar Chiwande on 16.07.2002 by verbal order is legal

and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement

and accordingly, the workman, Shri Vilas M. Chiwande, ('the workman" in short), filed the statement of claim and the

management of Bank of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he was the employee/workman of party No. 1 and he

belongs to Schedule Caste category and he was appointed by the party No. 1 on 01.10.1993 as a sweeper cum peon and

posted to Urjagram Extension Counter and he worked with the party No. 1 from 01.10.1993 to 16.07.2002 continuously and

wages were paid to him for the said period on vouchers and the entries regarding the work done by him were made in the Dak

book maintained by the party No. 1 and the documents are with the party No 1 and party No. 1 issued a letter dated

27.02.1997 stating therein that he was working with it (party No.1).

The further case of the workman is that he was appointed on daily wages basis and lastly he was being paid wages of Rs.30/-

per day and wages was being paid to him on monthly basis and though he was appointed as a sweeper, he also worked as a

peon during the absence of the regular peon, Waghmare, but party No. 1 did not pay any wages to him for the same and he

worked for more than 240 days w.e.f. 01.10.1993 to 16.07.2002 and his services were terminated verbally by party No.1,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7785

without service of one month's notice in writing indicating the reason of his termination or payment of one month's wages in

lieu of the notice or retrenchment compensation and as such, his termination w.e.f. 16.07.2002 amounts to retrenchment and

the same was in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act and there was also violation of the

provisions of section 25-G of the Act and rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,1957, as the partyNo. 1 did not

display any seniority list 7 days prior to his retrenchment and after his retrenchment from service on 16.07.2002, the party

No. 1 appointed one Rakesh Chandragade at Urjagram Extension Counter, without giving him preference and such action of

party No. 1 amounts to unfair labour practice and the post of sweeper at the said Extension Counter is of permanent nature

and party No. 1 was bound to give him preference and to appoint him in the said permanent post as contemplated by section

25-H of the Act and after his termination from service, he is not gainfully employed.

The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

The party No. 1 in the written statement has completely denied the allegations made in the statement of claim. Party

No. 1 has pleaded that as the workman was never appointed by it and he was never its employee, the question of his joining

in its service on 01.10.1993 and working till 16.07.2002 or making payment of wages to him on vouchers or terminating of

his services orally on 16.07.2002 does not arise and therefore, there is no question of application of the provisions of the Act.

It is also pleaded by the party No. 1 that in terms of the norms and procedure as laid down by the Bank, it had called for the

list of the candidates from the Employment Exchange and after following the procedure, the Committee constituted for the

said purpose, interviewed the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange and out of them, Shri Rakesh Chandragade

was selected and appointed by it and at no point of time, the name of the workman was sponsored by the Employment

Exchange and therefore, the question of committing unfair labour practice or violation of the provisions of section 25-H of

the Act does not arise and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

No rejoinder has been filed by the workman.

Besides placing reliance on documents, the workman has examined himself as a witness in support of his case.

It is to be mentioned here that though several opportunities were given to the party No. 1 to adduce evidence in

support of its claim, it failed to adduce any evidence. Party No. 1 remained absent and did not appear in the case since

22.08.2014. Party No. 1 also failed to advance any argument.

The workman in his evidence on affidavit has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim. In his cross-

examination, the workman has stated that no appointment order was issued by the Bank for his engagement at Urjagram

Extension Counter and he was engaged by the Branch Manager and Bank was paying him wages of Rs.30/- per day as

sweeper charges and Rakesh was recruited as a sweeper-cum-peon as per the recruitment Rules and was posted to the branch,

where he was being working. The workman has denied the suggestions that he was being engaged by the Branch Manager as

and when Shri Waghmare, the regular peon was remaining on leave and that he did not work for 240 days in any calendar

year.

At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the workman was employed

by party No. 1 at Urjagram Extension Counter as a sweeper cum peon w.e.f.01.10.1993 on daily wages basis of Rs.30/- per

day and wages was being paid to him on monthly basis on vouchers and the workman worked continuously till16.07.2002

and his services were terminated illegally on 16.07.2002 without compliance of the mandatory provisions of sections 25-F

and 25-G of the Act.

It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that soon after the termination of the services of

the workman, in violation of the provisions of section 25-H of the Act, the party No. 1 appointed one Shri Rakesh

Chandragade in his place and from the date of termination of the workman from service, he is not in gainful employment and

the workman had demanded for production of the vouchers regarding payment of wages to him from 01.10.1993 to

22.07.2002, but party No. 1 did not produce the same inspite of the direction of the Tribunal and for that adverse inference

has to be drawn against the party No. 1 and the evidence of the workman has virtually remained unchallenged and as the

workman was terminated from services illegally, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages.

In this case, the workman has claimed that he was appointed by the party No. 1 w.e.f. 01.10.1993 and he worked

continuously till 16.07.2002 and he had worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year and on 16.07.2002, his services

were terminated orally by party No. 1 illegally, without compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

The claim of the workman has been denied by the party No.1.It is to be mentioned here that the plea of the party No. 1 is one

of complete denial of the engagement of the workman. Party No. 1 even has not pleaded that the workman was engaged as a

casual worker on daily wages basis, in absence of the regular peon. However, from the suggestions given to the workman in

his cross-examination, it is found that the plea of the party No. 1 is that the workman was engaged by the Branch Manager as

and when required on daily wages basis in the absence of the regular peon, Shri Waghmare. From such facts, it is clear that

Party No.1has not mentioned the real facts in its written statement in regard to the engagement of the workman.

7786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

Persued the evidence on record including the documents produced by the parties and the oral evidence of the

workman and found that the workman was never appointed as a regular or permanent employee by party No.1, but he was

engaged by the Branch Manager on daily wages basis. It is also found that party No. 1 has denied the claim of the workman

that he had worked for 240 days in each calendar year.

In view of the pleas taken by the parties, I think it proper to mention the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a

string of decisions regarding the application of section 25-F of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court have held that for the

applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary to prove that the workman worked for 240 days in the preceding 12

calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment and the burden of

such proof is upon the workman. So, keeping in view the settled principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as

mentioned above, now, the present case in hand is to be considered.

In support of his claim, the workman has produced the Xerox copy of the letter dated 27.02.1997 written by the

Branch Manager stating that the workman was working in the branch since 01.10.1993 and Xerox copies of vouchers

regarding payment of wages to him by party No.1, besides examining himself as a witness. Party No. 1 has produced cash

ledger book of casual Sepoy relating to the period from 20.06.1999 to 28.12.2002. Even though, the documents filed by the

parties have not been exhibited, for the interest of justice, the same have been taken into consideration. It is to be mentioned

here that as party No. 1 has not come up with clean hands regarding the engagement of the workman at Urjagram Extension

Counter and has also not produced the vouchers under which, payment of wages was made to the workman at least for the

preceding one year of 16.07.2002, inspite of the demand of the workman and direction given by the Tribunal, adverse

inference has to be drawn against the party No.1.

From the materials on record including the unshaken evidence of the workman, it is held that the workman had in

fact worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months of the date of his oral termination i.e. 16.07.2002. It is also

clear that before the termination of the workman from service, the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act were not

complied with by the party No.1. So, the termination of the workman from services is illegal.

10.

Now, the only point remains for consideration is as to what relief or reliefs, the workman is entitled. Admittedly,

the workman worked as a daily wager from 01.10.1993 till 16.07.2002 intermittently and such engagement was about

12 years back .So taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and applying the principles enunciated by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to reinstatement of workman engaged on daily wages basis, it is found that relief of

reinstatement and back wages to the workman cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary compensation would sub

serve the end of justice. In my considered view, monetary compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) shall meet

the ends of justice. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management in relation to Urjagram Extension Counter of Bank of India Branch Bhadrawati in

terminating the services of Shri Vilas S/o Madhukar Chiwande on 16.07.2002 by verbal order is illegal and unjustified.The

workman is entitled for monetary compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only). He is not entitled to any other

relief. Such payment should be made by party No. 1 to the workman within a month, from the date of publication of the

award in the official gazette, failing which, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 3204

3204

3204-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ

cMksnk ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼129@2013½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-12-2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@72@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf?kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2014

S.O. 3204.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 129/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 2, New Delhi as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 09/12/2014.

[No. L-12011/72/2013 - IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7787

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT

COMPLEX, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI

Present:-Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 129/2013

Sh. General Secretary,

Trade Union Counsel,

S-55, Naveen Nagar,

Moradabad (U.P.)

Versus

1. Dy. General Manager, Regional Office,

Bank of Baroda, Sanjay Place,

Agra (U.P)

2. Sr. Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,

Amroha Gate Branch, Briz Complex, Amroha Gate, Moradabad, (U.P)

Ex-Parte Award

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide notification No L-12011/72/2013-IR(B-II) dated 16.11.2013

referred the following industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda, Moradabad through its Deputy General Manager,

Regional Office, Agra and Senior Branch Manager, , Moradabad or denying the payment of leave encashment of

221 days amounting to Rs. 25,276/- from 30.09.1992 alongwith 18% interest to Smt. Sankari Devi W/o Late Durga

Singh is justified or not, if not to what relief the claimant is entitled to?”

On 5.12.2013 reference was received in this tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 129/2013 and claimant was

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to be accompanied

with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant filed claim statement on 28.02.2014. Wherein he stated as follows:-

That the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No.L-12011/72/2013-IR(B-II) dated 16.11.2013 has referred

for adjudication as under:-

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda, Moradabad through its Deputy General Manager,

Regional Office, Agra and Senior Branch Manager, , Moradabad or denying the payment of leave encashment of

221 days amounting to Rs. 25,276/- from 30.09.1992 alongwith 18% interest to Smt. Sankari Devi W/o Late Durga

Singh is justified or not, if not to what relief the claimant is entitled to?”

2. That the nominee of Late Sh. Durga Singh, Smt. Sankari Devi, the workman as referred by the Ministry of Labour

was died on 11.11.2013 and after her death her successor Manoj Yadav will take her place as workman. In this regard the

affidavit of Manoj Yadav along with the death certificate of Late Smt. Sankari Devi is enclosed with this claim.

3. That Late Durga Singh was retired on 30.09.1992 by erstwhile Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd. as subordinate staff

after merger presently as Bank of Baroda, before 5 years of the superannuation.

4. That Late Durga Singh successfully challenged his date of retirement and an interim order/injunction was granted by

Hon’ble High Court Allahabad to remain in the service as a Sub-Staff at continually for further 5 years.

5. That the management of the Bank neither released the superannuation benefits including leave encashment of 221

days to Late Sh. Durga Singh nor he was allowed to serve the bank as a sub-staff in Honour to the order of the Hon’ble High

Court.

6. That being sub-staff, late Durga Singh could not pursue the case effectively before the Hon’ble High Court due to

extra ordinary shortage of money and ultimately lost his case in 2003.

7. That the management of the Bank should have been kind enough to release the retiral benefits to Late Durga Singh

i.e. EPF amount, Gratuity Amount and of the leave encashment of 221 days but nothing was paid to him even on his repeated

demands.

8. That gratuity amount was paid to Late Durga Singh less than the actual amount and ultimately it was paid at the

order of Regional Labour commissioner (Central) Dehradun in the appeal.

7788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

9. That the partial amount of EPF of Late Durga Singh was paid to him in his life time and again in complete amount of

rest part was paid to his nominee after his death but not full and final till date and the matter is still pending before Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India.

10. That the management did not pay any heed over the payment of leave encashment of 221 days till date. In this

regard illegal notice was also sent to the Management on 12.09.2005 and ultimately the dispute under section 31c(i) of ID

Act on Form K-2 was filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (central) Dehradun and for years together the matter

was remained in pendency on false assurances given by the management . In the last the matter was ended to failure in 2013

after 8 years.

11. That the claim of 221 days of leave encashment vide application dated 14.12.2005 of Rs. 25,276.00 since 30.9.1992

to 30.09.2005 @ 18% on monthly basis interest was of Rs. 84,421.84 by that time which was never upposed by the Bank and

on pretext grounds the management gave false assurances to make the payment even in black and white to the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner (Central ) Dehradun, several times.

12. That since 30.09.1992 on Rs. 25,276.00 the amount of leave encashment @ 18% on monthly basis the total amount

becomes due as on 28.2.2014 Rs. 9,15659.00 and further interest till the date of full and final of the payment further interest

@ 18% on monthly basis will be included in that amount.

13. That this Hon’ble Court in the light of the reference made by the Ministry of Labour should give the directions to

the management to make the payment to the workman.

14. That the payment of superannuation benefits including leave encashment after the retirement of the workman who

has given his golden days to the industry should have been paid by the Management without given the opportunity of making

the claim of them by the workman but it was not done by the management while it was the management to have all

concerned record at its end.

PRAYER

It is , therefore, prayed respectfully that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to give the answer of the reference in favour

of the workman and Rs. 9,15,659/- since 30.09.92 to 18.2.2014 @ 18% on monthly basis as was mentioned in the legal notice

dated 12.09.2005 and also in the claim raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Dehradun on 14.12.2005

is also mentioned in para no.12 of the statement of claim herein above be paid and such other relief as deemed fit in the

interest of justice, equity and fair play be also given to the workman.

When management has not filed W.S. inspite of several opportunities . Then this tribunal on 17.06.2014 closed the

right to filing W.S. by management and passed order to proceed Ex-parte against management. As well as fixed 1.7.2014 for

Ex-parte evidence of workman.

Sh. Manoj Yadav, S/o workman in support of his case produce himself as WW1 and tendered his affidavit on

15.9.2014. His statement is as follows:-

I tender my affidavit in evidence in the instant case which has been filed on behalf of my father who was workman in

the management. Contents of affidavit are correct and true which are based on my personal knowledge. Affidavit bears my

signature at point A and B. Affidavit is marked Ex. WW1/A. Its annexed documents on which I am relying are also marked

Ex WW1/D1 to D14.

XXXXX None on behalf of Management present to cross- examined the witness. Hence cross-examination is marked

nil.

Thereafter, Ld. A/R of Sh. Manoj Yadav, S/o workman, closed the evidence of workman on the instruction of

Sh. Manoj Yadav, S/o workman. As case was proceeded ex-parte against management so I fixed 30.10.2014 for ex-parte

arguments of Sh. Manoj Yadav, S/o workman.

On 30.10.2014 I have heard the arguments of Sh. Nem Singh, Ld. A/R for the workman.

Ld. A/R for the Sh. Manoj Yadav, S/o workman, also filed written arguments which are as follows:-

"Whether the action of management of Bank of Baroda, Moradabad through its Deputy General Manager,

Regional Office, Agra and Senior Branch Manager, Moradabad for denying the payment of leave encashment of 221

days amounting to Rs. 25,276/- from 30.09.1992 alongwith 18% interest to Smt. Sankari Devi W/o Late Durga Singh is

justified or not, if not to what relief the claimant is entitled ?"

At the very outset, before to submit written Arguments following terms are clarified : -

I. Leave encashment : In banking Industry in India these are kinds of leave 1. Privilege Leave 2.Casual Leave 3.Sick

Leave 4.Extraordinary Leave 5.Maternity Leave 6. Special Leave 7. Quarantine Leave 8. Leave Preparatory to Retirement.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7789

The Leave Encashment of unavailed privilege leave accumulated during the service period is being paid to the

employee at the time of his retirement and is the part of his retiral benefits such as EPF-Contributory Provident Fund

"(Governed and controlled under "The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952,) popularly

known as EPF Scheme, applicable exclusively upon Industrial Employees, Gratuatity etc.

II. Rate of Interest @ 18% : The Hon'ble Supreme Court, has awarded Interest @ 18% because of releasing the EPF

amount after the date of retirement for extraordinary delay of the payment of provident fund of the employee - a kind of

retiral benefits in case of "Regional Provident Fund Commissioner" Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi-(2000)1Supreme Court Cases 98.

In the aforesaid Industrial dispute@ 18% interest has been demanded by the workman in follow up of the order of apex court

of the country as mentioned herein above. Copy of the case low. (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 98 is enclosed with the

written argument. For extraordinary delayed payment of leave encashment of 221 days a part of retiral benefit-Social security

measure, the workman demanded the refund of leave encashment @ 18% in the legal notice dated 12.09.2005 on

Rs. 25,276/- since 30.09.1992 upto 30.09.2005, i.e. for 13 years, the interest by that time was Rs. 59145.84. The total claim

was Rs. 84421.84P. (25,276+59145.84P), The same amount was claim in the form K-2, before Regional Labour

Commissioner (C) (R.L.C.) on 14.12.2005 in Legal notice Dt. 24.11.2012, again @ 18% interest was claim on same pattern

of monthly basis calculation. In every reminder, Even before the R.L.C. in the proceeding and was never opposed by the

employer. Thus the claim of 18% interest on monthly basis calculation is justified legally, principally &Practically.

In short written argument are mentioned as under : -

1. The workman Late Durga Singh was retired by the employer before five years on 30.09.1992. It was challenged

successfully by the workman before Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad and got stay order.

2. That as per the stay order dt. 13.08.1993 the workman was allowed to work upto next five years i.e. 13.09.1997.

3. That the employer neither complied with the said order dt. 13.08.1993 of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad nor the

workman was paid his retiral benefits including leave encashment of 221 days. Copy of the stay order dt. 13.08.1993 is Ex-

WW-1/D-1 on file of the court.

4. That the employer had adopted most cruel attitude against the workman which is on record as Ex-ww-1/D-2 on file,

the letter dt. 19.04.1994.

5. That the workman has submitted his representation for releasing his retiral benefit before the employer which are on

record i.e. EX-ww-1/D-3, Ex-WW-1/D-4, Ex- WW -1/D-5.

6. That the full Gratuity could be released before the Appellate Authority with Atmost effort by the workman after the

death of Durga Singh. This is on file as EX- WW -1/D-6.

7. That delaying tactics were adopted by the employer in this case and even the letter of Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central), Dehradun) were ignored knowingly, willfully and deliberately by the employer. These are on record

as Ex- WW -1/D-7, Ex- WW -1/D-8, Ex- WW -1/D-9, Ex- WW -1/D-09/2, Ex- WW -1/D-10. The employer also ignored the

letter dt. 02.04.2013, 25.04.2013 written by RLC (Dehradun) which are on record as Ex- WW -1/D-13 & Ex- WW -1/D-14.

8. That in the claim statement every fact has been mentioned. The workman-Manoj Yadav was tendered in person who

confirmed his affidavit and all facts of the claim in toto.

In the light of the foregoing written arguments, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased respectfully to award @ 18% interest

on the amount of Rs. 25,276/- in the interest of justice as prayed in the statement of claim of the workman /forth class

employee.

He placed reliance on principle laid down by their lordship of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Regional Provident

Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 98.

In the light of contentions Ld. A/R for the workman. I perused the pleading of evidence of Sh. Manoj Yadav, S/o

workman, which makes it crystal clear that evidence of workman is unrebutted. So it credible and reliable as well as

principle laid down in aforesaid ruling applies with full force.

Hence claim petition is allowed and reference is decided in favour of Sh. Manoj Yadav, S/o workman, and against

management. Which is accordingly decided.

Management is directed to pay Rs. 25,276/- alongwith 18% interest p.a. since 30.09.1992 to final payment to Sh.

Manoj Yadav S/o Workman after a period of one month since publication of award and expiry of available remedy against

award.

Ex-parte is accordingly passed.

Dated:-25/11/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

7790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 3205

3205

3205.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj baMks teZu

Vwy :e] vgenkckn ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh 115@2007½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@92@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2014

S.O. 3205.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (I.D No. Reference CGIT 115/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Indo German Tool Room, Ahmedabad and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 08/12/2014.

[No. L-42011/92/2007-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD

Present….

Binay Kumar Sinha,Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,Ahmedabad,

Dated 17^th November, 2014

Reference: (CGIT) No. 115/2007

Order No. L-42011/92/2007-IR-(DU)

The General Manager,

Indo German Tool Room

Government of India Society,

Under Ministry of Micro, small & Medium Enterprise,

Phase-IV, Plot No. 5003, GIDC, Vatva,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

...Management (1^st party)

And

Their workman

Sh. Dinesh C. Vasava

Through the General Secretary,

Gujarat Labour Union,

24/3, ellora Park Centre,

Behind Relief Cinema,

Satapase Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 380001

…Workman/union (2^ndParty)

For the first party:

Shri Pradeep F. Javeri

For the second party:

Shri Hemal K. Acharya, Advocate

Shri L.M. Patil, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/ Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide Order No. L-42011/92/2007-IR (DU) dated 29.11.2007

referred the dispute for adjudication to this tribunal (C.G.I.T.-cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad) in respect of the matters

specified in the Schedule:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Indo German Tool Room in terminating the services of their workman

Shri Dinesh C. Vasava w.e.f. 07.03.1998 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?”

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7791

2. The case of the 2^nd party as per statement of claim (Ext.6) is that the workman Dineshbhai Chandubhai Vasava

was appointed with the 1^st party since 17.08.1995 as a Trainee workman and he had served for more than three and half

years. He was verbally terminated by the management of the 1^st party from 07.03.1998 without following the procedure

u/s 25F of the I.D. Act. The 1^st party company did not give legal right to Dineshbhai at the time of termination and did

not made him permanent helper. Before oral termination he (Dineshbhai) had worked in different departments of the

company, he was performing work diligently and efficiently having with no complaint to the 1^st party company. He was

getting extension letter of service from time to time up to 06.03.1998. The action of the management of the 1^st party to

terminate his service is illegal and unjust. The duties of Dinesh was of perennial nature under the consent and

continuous supervision and control of the officers of the 1^st party. The other Trainees who were working with

Dineshbhai Vasava were appointed as helper in the service whereas Dinesh was not appointed and was orally terminated.

With these submission prayer is made to declare his termination w.e.f. 07.03.1998 illegal and reinstate him with continuity

of service with back wages.

3. On the other hand the contention of the 1^st party (management) as per written statement (Ext-12) pleading

interalia is that the reference is not maintainable , the 2^nd party Union has no locusstandi cause of action to raise demand

and the claim of Union/Workman is barred by delay and latches. It is admitted that Dineshbhai C. Vasava was working as a

Trainee workman, appointed on 17.08.1995 for six months, thereafter his appointment was extended by letter dated

27.02.1996 from 29.02.1996 to 28.08.1996 and again it was extended time to time upto 31.11.1997.On verbal request of

Dineshbhai again taken as trainee from 08.12.1997 to 07.03.1998. Since trainingperiod 07.03.1998, so the training period

of Dinesh was dispensed with. The contention is that Dinesh was appointed as trainee, and the trainee means the person

undergoing training and not working and so Dinesh was not workman as defined u/s 2(S) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The

1^st party has stated that none of the averment and/or contentions/ allegation made in the statement of claim vide para 1

to 9 are acceptable. The 1^st party is an educational institute for technical and production centre for trainees to have on

the job training and to supply trained man power to the industries and to assist small and medium scale industries. On

these scores, prayer is to dismiss the reference since the 2^nd party Dineshbhai is not entitled to any relief.

4. In view of the rival contention of the parties the following issues are taken for determination:

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Has the 2^nd party (Workman/Union) got valid cause of action to raise dispute?

(iii)

Is the reference barred by delay and latches?

(iv)

Has the workman Dinesh C. Vasava continuously worked for about three and half years as trainee workman

before his alleged oral termination w.e.f. 07.03.1998 by the management of the 1^st party?

(v)

Whether Shri Dineshbhai C. Vasava appointed as trainee workman and from time to time period extended

upto 07.03.1998 comes under definition of workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the I.D. Act?

(vi)

Is the organisation Indo German Tool is an industry or is mere educational institute?

(vii)

Whether the action of the management of the 1^st party in terminating the services of Shri Dinesh C. Vasava

w.e.f. 07.03.1998 is legal and justified? Whether the 1^st party has contravened the mandatory provision of

section 25F of I.D. Act?

(viii)

Whether the 2^nd party workman/Union is entitled to relief for reinstatement with back wages as claimed?

FINDINGS

5. ISSUE Nos. (v) & (vi):- The contention of the 1^st party at para 16 (a) is that Indo German Tool Room is constituted

under bilateral agreement between Govt. of India and Republic of Germany ….. the 1^st party is basically an educational

institute for technical and production centre to have on the job training and the objective is to supply manpower to the

industries and to assist small and medium scale industries……. Vide para 16 (e) such plea has been taken that concerned

person (Dinesh) was appointed as trainee and trainee means the person undergoing training and not working. The learned

counsel for the 1^stparty tried to impress upon that the 1^st party (Indo German Tool Room) is not industry as defined u/s

2(j) of the I.D. Act and the concerned workman Dinesh was a trainee till his appointment and so never acquired status of

workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the I.D. Act. On the other hand it has been emphatically argued that Indo German Tool

Room is industry u/s 2 (j) of the I.D. Act and the concerned workman Dineshbhai C. Vasava worked for about three and

half year continuously and the 1^st party used to issue letter of extension of appointment that expired on 07.03.1998 as per

own admission of the 1^st party in w.s. para 16 (d) (last line) It has been further argued that Dinesh had acquired the status

of apprentice workman and so he comes within the definition of workman Section 2 (j) of the I.D. Act says Industry means

any systematic activity carried on by co-operation between an employer and his workman for the production, supply or

distribution of goods or services with a view to satisfy human wants or wishes …….whether or not….

(i)

any capital has been invested for the purpose of carrying on such activity.

7792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

(ii) any activity is carried on with a motive to make any gain or profit.

(iii) any activity relating to the promotion of scales or business or both carried on by an establishment but does

not include…….(3)

Educational, scientific, research or training institution……

6. Thus giving a look to the definition “industry” it transpires that 1^st party company established under joint venture

of India and Germany is not educational institute to impart education, is not scientific institute, is not research institute. The

1^st party company impart training to technical hands to upgrade the skills of apprentice holding I.T.I. certificate, Diploma,

Degree in Engineering etc. for supply of trained manpower to the medium and small scale industries for job training, In

that course, the 1^st party Indo German Tool Room itself requires in large number helper, skilled persons for working hands

in the 1^st party company besides duty of supplying trained man power to other industries. On behalf of the 1^st party in order

to support such stand that the 1^st party (Indo German Tool Room) is not industry reliance has been placed upon a case law

of physical Research Laboratory vs. K.G. Sharma (1997 SCC 723=1997 (3) scale 479= A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1855=1997 (0)

GLHEL-SC 21032-wherein their lordship held that physical Research Laboratory is purely a research institute and it is not

connected with production, supply or distribution of goods of services…..PRL is not an industry. This case law is not

applicable in the status of the 1^st party Indo German Tools Room, it is not research institute rather impart high skilled job

training for supply of technical manpower to different medium and small scale industries and also to absorb them as

helper , technician in the 1^st party company under advertised vacancies of different categories.

7. The 1^st party in order to discard the claim that 2^nd party Dinesh was a trainee and not ‘workman’ as defined u/s 2(s)

of the I.D. Act has cited case law of Kalyani Sharp India limited Vs. Court No. 1 Gwalior [200/0 GLHEL SC 13772= 2002

(9) SCC 655]. But this case law is not applicable as it relates to termination of trainee service Technician before expiry

of probation period where as concerned workman no longer remained Trainee helper rather was discharging duties as

workman and his continued work on extension of appointment till 07.03.1998. On the other hand the learned counsel

for the 2^nd party has cited case laws off M/s. TRAMBAK RUBBER INDUSTRIES vs. Nasik workers Union and others

[2003 (98) FLR 741 S.C. BALKHAN DOSKHAN JOYA vs. Gujarat Electricity Board] [2002 (92) FLR 914 (Gujarat

H.C.)] that trainee or apprentice covered under definition of workman u/s 2(s) of the I.D. Act. Case laws reported in 2001

1- L.L.J. 225 Gujarat, 1991-1-L.L.J 451 Patna High Court , 2005 (3) L.L.N. 719 Madras H.C. also support the argument on

behalf of the 2^nd party. In the case law of Devinder Sing vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur (2011) 6 Supreme Court case 584 (B)

It has been held that source of employment, method of recruitment terms and condition of employment/contract of service,

quantum of wages/pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman

within meaning of section 2 (s) – definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time and part

time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. Ext. 38 memorandum of appointment order dated 17.08.01995,

followed by extension of appointment dated 27.02.1996 (Ext. 39) , Ext. 40 , Ext. 41,Ext. 42, and Ext. 43 speaks a volume

that Dinesh Vasava was appointed as trainee “workman” with stipulation of either side giving one month notice for

termination by employer or leaving the services of organization by the employee (workman). Ext.45 the certificate dated

28.04.1998 granted by G.M. Indo German Tool Room further speaks a volume that Mr. Dinesh C. Vasava was doing

work of Heat treatment profile cutting, cutting by power Hacksaw & Ban saw, Metal spray operation, welding , sample

preparation for metallographic observation & Hardness testing …… taking keen interest in the job entrusted to him …..

wishing him all the success in his future assignment….clearly speaks that Dinesh C. Vasava was a ‘workman’u/s 2(s) of the

I.D. Act. Besides 2^nd party workman in his oral evidence (Ext.13) supported that he was working as workman in the

organisation on being appointed and having extention of appointment in continuity till 07.03.1998.

8. Thus Issue No, v is answered in affirmative that the 2^nd party Dinesh C. Vasava comes within definition of

‘workman’ u/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Issue No. vi is also answered in affirmative that the organisation of the 1^st party

(Indo German Tool Room) is an industries u/s 2(j) of the I.D. Act.

9. ISSUE Nos. (iv) & (vii):- The workman Dinesh C. Vasava in his oral evidence (Ext. 13) has emphatically

supported that he continuously worked for about three and half year as trainee workman. Ext. 38 appoinment order dated

17.08.1995 says regarding monthly stipend….appoint may be extended for another six month. Ext. 39, 40, 41,42,43

support as to his continuous woring as trainee workman thus acquiring status of workman. The stipulation is not

reciprocal since Dinesh if desires to leave the organisation he had to give one month’s clear notice whereas the 1^st party

unwarrantedly take advantage in terminating his service at any time without notice which is not at all justified rather

appearing to have curtail the right of a workman by way of unfair labour practice. Ext. 44 series (muster roll) clearly

speaks about working on all the working days in month.The documents of the 1^stparty Ext. 14/8 (pccca Ext. 23) support

that Dinesh Vasava had been issued interview letter dated 29.11.1996 for the post of ‘Helper’. Ext. 25 and 26 are copy of

application of Dinesh for the post of Helper dated 30.01.01998 and 11.09.2000 respectively. The 1^st party’s witness

Shri Lal V.G. administrative officer in the organisation Indo German Tool Room in his oral evidence vide para 9 ( cross

examination) admits that three category of person are working – workers now called technician, officers and staff and

vide para 10 there is only one muster Roll for production training division. Thus Dinesh though appointed as Trainee

workman used to sign on common muster Roll and that workman of trainee dept. also works in production dept.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7793

10. The 2^ndparty has relied upon case laws reported in 2002 (92) F.L.R. 1914 Gujarat H.C., 1981 3 Supreme

Court cases 225, 1981-1-LLJ 386 S.C. , 2004 III L.L.J Suppl 254 S.C. 1996 II L.L.J 820 S.C., 2011 (6) Supreme Court

cases 584 and 2007 (1) LLN 922 on point continuous service of workman in a year working for more than 240 days

then employer require to give notice an as to compliance of section 25F of the I.D. Act. The continuance service for three

and half year of Dinesh till 07.03.1998 attract provision of section 25B as to continuous service from 17.08.1995 before

his oral termination w.e.f. 07.03.1998 so it is proved that the management of the 1^st party (employer of Dinesh C. Vasava)

have clearly violated the mandatory provision of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. So the action of the

management of the 1^st arty in terminating the services of Shri Dinesh C. Vasava w.e.f. 07.03.1998 is not at all legal and

justified.

11. Thus issue No. (iv) is answered in affirmative and issue no. vii part I is answered in negative and 2^nd part in

affirmative that the 1^st party has contravened the provision of section 25 F of the I.D Act.

12. ISSUE NO. (iii) :- The learned lawyer of the 1^st party has cited five case laws on point of delay and latches in

raising dispute reported on (1) 2005 (1) LLJ 1153 S.C. (Haryana State Co. Op. Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam, (2)

2000 LLR 1196 (Guj H.C.) Saurastra Employee’s Union vs. Sub divisional officer , (3) A.I.R. 2001 S.C 69 (management of

Indian Iron and steel Co. Ltd., Vs. Prahlad Singh , (4) 2002 (10) SCC 167 (Asst. Executive Engineer, KarnatakaVs.

Sivalinga and (5) A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 839 (Nandungadi Bank Limited vs. K.P Madavan Kutty. But on careful consideration of

these case law I find that these are not applicable in the instant case since the workman/Union has not raised such the

dispute that may be called a stale dispute. As per documents submitted by the 1^st party with list Ext. 14 particularly pucca

Ext. 26 and 27 it appears that Dinesh had submitted application to the 1^st party on 11.09.2000 for his posting as helper and

the 1^st party vide letter dated 10.10.2005 had made correspondence to national commission for schedule tribes regarding

retrenched workman Dinesh C. Vasava that he cannot be straight way absorbed rather has to apply against vacancy and

may get absorbed if found suitable…… speaks a volume there is no delay and latches on part of Union/workman in the year

2007. Thus this issue is answered in negative.

13. ISSUE NO. (i), (ii) & (viii):- In view of the findings given to issue No. iii, iv, v, vi & vii in the foregoings, I

further find and hold that the reference is maintainable and the 2^nd party (workman/Union) has go valid cause of action to

raise the Industrial dispute and that the workman Shri Dinesh C. Vasava is entitled for reinstatement to work in the

organisation of the 1^st party with 50% back wages from the date of raising dispute.

Accordingly the reference is allowed. No order of cost.

The 1^st party is directed to comply with the award within 60 days of receipt of copy of award, failing which the back

wages of 50% will carry interest 9% P.A.

This is my award.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 3206

3206

3206-&&

&&vkS|kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eqacbZ iksVZ

VªLV ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼ds- la- vkS- v-&23@2007½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09.12.2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&31011@3@2006-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

jfo dqekj, MsLd vf?kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2014

S.O. 3206.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2007) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Mumbai Port Turst and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 09/12/2014.

[No. L-31011/3/2006- IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

7794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/23 of 2007

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF MUMBAI PORT TRUST

The Chairman

Mumbai Port Trust

Port Bhavan

Ballard Estate

Mumbai-400038.

AND

Their Workmen

The General Secretary

Mumbai Port Trust Dock & General Employees Union

Port Trust Kamgar Sadan

Nawab Tank Road

Mazgaon, Mumbai-400 010.

APPEARANCES:

For the Employer

Mr. Umesh Nabar, Advocate.

For the Workmen

Mr. J. H. Sawant, Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 17^thJune, 2013

AWARD

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-31011/3/2006 -IR (B-II) dated

11/06/2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Mumbai Port Trust in retiring the workman Shri P.L.

Kumthekar from the services w.e.f. 01.03.2005 after attaining the age of 58 years is just and legal? If not,

to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?”

2. After receipt of the reference notices were issued to both the parties. In response to the notice the second party

union filed its statement of claim at Ex-4. According to the second party the workman was employed by Bombay Dock

Labour Board as Tally and Sorting Clerk w.e.f. 02/06/1969. He worked continuously upto 28/2/1979.The Bombay

Stevedoring Association, administrative body of BDLB promoted the second party to the post of Dock Clerk and allotted him

to join the services in M/s. D.C.Cooper & Co. w.e.f. 1/3/1979. It is contended that in pursuance of the Bombay Dock

workers (Regulation of Employment) Amendment Scheme, 1981 the second party was registered under the said scheme

w.e.f. 23/1/1981. In 1994 Bombay Dock Labour Board transferred the services of the workman to the first party and the first

party became employer thereof. The age of retirement of the second party workmen was 60 years as per the Mumbai Port

Trust circular dated 4/7/2000. The second party workman is entitled to continue in service till completion of his 60 years of

age as they were recruited before 3/8/1972. However the first party retired second party workman from the services w.e.f.

1/3/2005 i.e. on completion of 58 years of his age. They did not consider the period of his service from 2/6/1969 to

28/02/1979 and did not give benefit as per the circular dt. 4/7/2000 as done in the case of other workmen placed in similar

circumstances. They ought to have allowed him to work up to 1/7/2007 till the age of 60 years with all consequential

benefits. The first party gave discriminatory treatment to Shri Kumthekar and subjected to losses, hardship and

inconvenience by forcibly retiring him w.e.f. 1/3/2005.

3. The action of the first party in not considering the period of service of the second party workman from 2/6/1969

is illegal. Retiring Shri P.L.Kumthekar at the age of 58 as on 01/03/2005 is arbitrary and illegal and unjustified. Therefore

the second party prays that the first party be directed to give all benefits to Workman Shri P.L.Kumthekar till the age of his

superannuation of 60 years treating as if he is not retired w.e.f. 1/3/2005.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7795

4. The first party management resisted the statement of claim of the Union vide their written statement at Ex-6.

According to the first party the contents in the statement of claim are false, contrary and inconsistent. According to them the

contents in the statement of claim are misconceived, malafied and not maintainable in law and facts. They denied that second

party union is deprived of any such right of the workman. The second party workman is demanding change of date of

appointment and age of retirement which is contrary to the rules of the establishment. It would amount to injustice to

similarly placed employees and showing favour to one set of employees in violation of principles of natural justice.

According to the first party in the year 1979 post of Dock Clerk a higher grade than the grade in which the workmen were

employed became available in stevedoring company. The said grade category of Docks Clerk was not on the schedule of

erstwhile BDLB. Considering the better prospects the workman on his own volition choose to resign from the services of the

erstwhile BDLB and take up the employment of Docks Clerk in the higher pay scale with the stevedoring company w.e.f.

25/01/1979 respectively. After resigning from the erstwhile BDLB the workman had collected all his terminal dues thereby

settling all their claims against erstwhile BDLB in respect of his employment from 02/06/1969. Absorption of erstwhile

BDLB employees is not covered either by Government notification or by the subsequent settlements. Both the majority

unions including the second party union were parties to the settlement. As the workman has resigned from the services of

BDLB and joined the services of the first party their period of service with BDLB cannot be considered. On the other hand

he was recruited on 01/03/1994. Therefore he cannot claim any benefit in respect of his previous service.

5. According to the first party the criteria was adopted by erstwhile BDLB in its meeting dated 11/07/1986 to fix the

age of retirement in respect of Class-III and Class-IV employees recruited on or before 1972 is 60 years and for all future

entrants the retirement age is 58 years. Birth date of workman is 01/03/1947 and as he joined the service on 25/01/1979 he

was due for retirement at the age of superannuation of 58 years and was accordingly retired on 28/02/2005. They denied

that workman was subjected to discriminatory treatment, losses and hardship and inconvenience. Workman was accordingly

retired lawfully at the age of 58. He also received all the retirement benefits. Therefore the first party submitted that the

workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. Therefore they pray that the reference be rejected with cost.

6. The second party filed their rejoinder at Ex-9. They denied the contents in the written statement and reiterated

their version in the statement of claim.

7. Following are the issues for my determination. I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sr. No.

Issues

Findings

Whether second party is entitled to continues in the

service upto 28.02.2007 i.e. till he completes his 60

years ?

No.

What order?

As per order below.

REASONS

Issue No.1:-

9. A short question for my determination is whether the employee under reference is entitled to claim retirement at

60 years of age as fixed by the circular dated 04/02/2000 issued by Central Government on the subject of Bombay Dock

Workers (Regulation of Employment) Amendment Scheme 1981. As per this circular the employees recruited on or before

03/08/1972 are entitled to continue their service up to completion of their 60 years of age. According to the workman he was

recruited by the erstwhile BDLB on 02/06/1969. According to them afterwards in 1979 the workman was taken over by the

first party. As against this it is the specific case of the first party that, the workman has resigned his services with BDLB and

thereafter joined the services afresh with the first party since January 1979. According to the first party the workman has also

received their GPF amount and other dues from BDLB and joined the services of first party since January 1979. Therefore

he is not entitled to get the benefit of the circular which prescribe age of 60 years for the workers who were recruited on or

before 3/8/1972.

10. According to the first party his services were not continuous service since 1969 as has been alleged. In this

respect the Ld. Adv. for the first party pointed out that, though in the affidavit, the workman has denied that he has resigned

from BDLB in the year 1979, he has admitted in his cross at Ex-13 that, BDBL has paid him his legal dues on 7/6/1979. He

admitted that legal dues include PF, Gratuity and ex-gratia payments. He has admitted that those legal dues were in respect

of his employment from 2/6/1969 to 22/1/1979. It indicates that the workman retired or resigned from BDLB in the year

1979. He received all the dues from BDLB and thereafter workman and others have joined the services of the first party. It

shows that the workmen of BDLB resigned from BDLB in the year 1979. They received all their dues such as GPF,

Gratuity, ex-gratia payments etc. and thereafter they joined the services of the first party since January 1979. In the

circumstances the Ld. Adv. for the first party submitted that, his services cannot be said to have been continued since 1969 as

has been claimed. In short, according to him, as he was not recruited as on 3/8/1972 or before that and he is not entitled to

get the benefit of retirement age of 60 years as he joined the services of first party in the year 1979.

7796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

11. In this respect I would like to point out that though workman has joined the services of the first party in 1979, he

was not recruited afresh after following the recruitment procedure prescribed therefor. On the other hand fact is not disputed

that the workers of the erstwhile BDLB were taken over by the first party in 1979 and they were given new and upgraded

designation. In this backdrop though the service prior to 1979 cannot be considered for any monetary benefit from the first

party however as the workmen of erstwhile BDLB were taken over by the first party, their earlier service is required to be

taken into account to get them the benefit of age of retirement as the workman was already in service of BDLB since prior to

1972. He should not have been shown as a new recruit of the year 1979. In this backdrop I hold that, the workman

Mr. Kumthekar is entitled to get the benefit of circular dated 4/2/2000 by which workmen of the first party recruited on or

before 3/8/1972 are given benefit of retirement age upto 60 years and he ought not have been retired at the age of 58 years.

In the light of this discussion I hold that, retiring the workman at the age of 58 years was unjust discrimination as workman

was already in service since prior to 3/8/1972. He was not recruited but was taken over by the first party in 1979. Therefore

he was required to be treated as recruited prior to 3/8/1972. I therefore hold that making the workman retire at the age of 58

instead of 60 years of age was unjust and improper.

12. Though I hold that retirement of workman at the age of 58 was unjust and improper, he cannot be reinstated at

this stage as by the time he has also crossed the age of superannuation of 60 years. In this backdrop the Ld. Adv for the

second party has claimed full back-wages for the period of remaining 2 years. In this respect the Ld. Adv for the first party

submitted that ‘no work no wages’ is the well settled principle of law. Therefore he submitted that the question of awarding

any back wages does not arise. After giving conscious thought to the arguments of both the parties, I am of the opinion that

though the workman has not worked after the age of 58 years, he was entitled to work for two more years. He was

wrongfully retired by the first party and it was not his fault. At the same time I would also like to consider the fact that the

workman has not worked with the first party for the said period of two years. In the circumstances granting full back-wages

would thus put unnecessary heavy burden on the State Exchequer for the fault of some officers. In the circumstances to meet

the end of justice I think it proper to grant compensation to the workman @ 20% p.m. of his last pay (total emoluments) for

the rest of the two years. Accordingly I decide this issue No. 1 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is partly allowed as follows:

(i)

The action of management in retiring workman Shri P.L. Kumthekar at the age of 58 is declared unjust and

improper.

(ii)

The management is directed to pay the workman Shri P.L. Kumthekar compensation @ 20% p.m. of his

last pay (total emoluments) for the period of two years (24 months).

(iii)

No order as to cost.

Date: 17.06.2013

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 3207

3207

3207-&&

&&vkS|kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 191@2000½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-

12-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@332@2000--vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh, vuqHkkx vf?kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th December, 2014

S.O. 3207.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 191/2000) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in

the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 10/12/2014.

[No. L-12012/332/2000- IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7797

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/191/2000

Shri Kamleshwar Prasad Dubey,

S/o Mahadev Prasad Dubey,

Dubey Atta Chaki Post Raja Imlai,

Via Kumdam,

Distt. Jabalpur.

…Workman

Versus

Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

City Branch,

Satna (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 10^th day of November, 2014

1. As per letter dated 10-11-2000 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

12012/332/2000-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, City Branch, Satna (MP) in terminating the services

of Shri Kamleshwar Prasad Dubey w.e.f. 22-9-97 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1 to

2/3. Case of workman is that on 19-2-88, he was engaged as messenger in IInd party Bank. His submissions were utilized for

arranging old record, inward and supervision of said work. He was paid wages Rs.40/- per day. That from 1988 to 1995, he

was appointed for different periods. He worked as messenger for about 8 years. The work of record keeper was extracted

from him. He was appointed even on Sundays and daily wages Rs. 40/- were paid to him.

3. That from 1-1-1996 to 22-9-97, his services were terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation was

not paid to him. Instead of regularizing him in services, management terminated him without notice. Work performed by him

was of permanent nature. His termination is illegal. On such grounds, workman prays for quashing order of his termination.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 9/1 to 9/6. Claim of workman is totally denied. According to IInd

party, workman was engaged as temporary messenger as daily wages for 88 days during 19-2-88 to 16-5-88. Thereafter

workman was engaged on contractual basis on daily wages. Workman was not appointed against any post. He was engaged

as per exigency of work on daily wages. His services ended on end of every day. His discontinuation is covered under

Section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D.Act and not retrenchment. It is denied that workman had completed 240 days continuous services at

any time. Workman was not appointed as messenger record keeper against vacant post, notice under Section 25-F of I.D.Act

was not required. Bank has rules for appointment of staff. It is necessary that the candidate must be sponsored through

Employment Exchange. Workman was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. All adverse contentions of workman

are denied. It is reiterated that non-engagement of workman does not amount to retrenchment as workman had not completed

240 days continuous service. Workman was engaged as per exigencies. IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

5. Workman filed rejoinder at page 10/1 to 10/2 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My

findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India, City Branch, Satna (MP) in

terminating the services of Shri Kamleshwar

Prasad Dubey w.e.f. 22-9-97 is justified?

In Negative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

As per final order

7798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

REASONS

7. Workman is challenging termination of his service for violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. Workman submits

that he was appointed as messenger. Work of record keeper, record clerk was extracted from him. He worked more than 240

days. His services were terminated without notice. All above contentions of workman are denied by IInd party management.

8. Workman filed application for production of documents. As per order dated 13-12-12, IInd party was directed to

produce documents requested by workman. Any of the documents i.e. Attendance register, payment register, miscellaneous

expenses register are not produced by IInd party.

9. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence stating that he was continuously working as messenger/ record keeper

from 1988 to 1997. He had completed 240 days continuous service. Instead of regularizing his services, he was terminated

without notice. No retrenchment compensation was paid to him. In his cross-examination, workman says he worked as

messenger on daily wages in 1988. He was engaged for 88 days during 19-2-88 to 16-5-88. He was engaged as per

exigencies. He denies that after work was completed, he was not engaged by the Bank. That he was not appointed against

vacant post. From calendar year, he means the period January to December, end. That from 12-8-96 to 27-9-97, he was

continuously engaged by Bank.

10. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Arvind Kumar Khare. The witness of management says that

workman was engaged purely on contractual daily wages basis during 1988 to 1997. Workman was intermittently engaged

as per exigencies of work. Ist party workman was working on daily wages and not as permanent employee of the Bank.

Workman did not continuously work for period of 240 days in any of the calendar year. Witness of management denies that

Ist party workman worked as Record Keeper, clerk during 3-1-96 to 22-9-97. Witness of management in his cross-

examination says workman was engaged on daily wages intermittently. He denied that workman was continuously working.

The details of working of Ist party workman are available in Bank. The statement of working days is not produced. Witness

explained that after going through document, he can produce the statement of working days but no such statement is

produced on record by IInd party. It is denied that workman was doing work of record keeping from 1-1-96 to 22-9-97. The

wages were paid weekly. Register was maintained of such payments. Any of the documents about working days about

payment made to workman are not produced. Suggestion is denied that orally workman was told not to come for work.

Management’s witness was posted at Satna from 23-2-09 he has no personal knowledge about working of workman. The

documents on which his affidavit is based are not produced on record. IInd party has failed to produce documents as per

order dated 13-12-12. IInd party has withheld documents about working days of workman. The evidence of workman is

direct, he has personally working in the Bank therefore evidence of Ist party workman deserves to be accepted. From

evidence in record, it is proved that workman completed 240 days continuous service preceding his termination. He was not

served with notice, no retrenchment compensation was paid. His termination is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. For

above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

11. Point No.2- as per my finding in Point No.1, termination of services of workman is not legal, question arises

whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages. The evidence of workman in cross-examination is clear that

he was engaged intermittently on daily wages. No evidence is produced on record. His name is sponsored through

Employment Exchange. The workman was engaged without following selection procedure. The legal position is clear that the

employees engaged on daily wages normally are not entitled for reinstatement. The evidence of workman is clear that he

worked for 88 days in the year 1988, thereafter he was intermittently engaged as per exigencies. Considering above aspects,

reinstatement of workman is not justified. considering period of working, compensation Rs. 1,50,000/- would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

12. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the management of State Bank of India, City Branch, Satna (MP) in terminating the services of

Shri Kamleshwar Prasad Dubey w.e.f. 22-9-97 is not legal.

(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 1,50,000/- to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In case

of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 3208

3208

3208-&&

&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w- lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 08@2011½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-12-2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@05@2011-vkbZ vkj (lh,e-II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d, MsLd vf/kdkjh

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7799

New Delhi, the 11th December, 2014

S.O. 3208.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 08/2011) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in

the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Chandrapur Area of WCL and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 11/12/2014.

[No. L-22012/5/2011- IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

CASE NO. CGIT/NGP/08/2011

Date : 13.11.2014

Party No. 1: The Chief General Manager,

Chandrapur Area, WCL,

Post & Dist. Chandrapur,

Chandrapur (MS).

Versus

Party No. : The Secretary,

Koyala Shramik Sabha (HMS),

WCL Colony

Qrt. No. NB-139,

Post, Urja,

Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

AWARD

(Dated: 13th November, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the

employers, in relation to the management of Chandrapur Area, WCL and their workman, Shri Prakash D. Shende, for

adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/05/2011-IR (CM-II) dated 09.05.2011, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of M/S. WCL in awarding punishment to suffer heavy financial loss to

Shri Prakash D. Shende, clerk is right and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”

2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement,

in response to which, the workman, Shri Prakash D. Shende, (“the workman” in short) filed the statement of claim and the

management of WCL (“party no.1” in short) filed the written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he has been working as a senior clerk since

last 25 years with unblemished service record, at Chandrapur Area Headquarters of party No. 1 and charge sheet dated

20.10.2008 was submitted against him by party No.1, on the allegation that while he was on leave for availing LTC from

01.02.2007 to 08.02.2007 (wrongly mentioned as 08.12.2007 in the statement of claim), he received TA bills amounting to

Rs. 463/- and Rs.565/- and he submitted his explanation to the charge sheet, stating that the dates of his availing LTC leave

were changed and granted by the concerned controlling officer and he was deputed on tour for auction purpose in the

company’s interest and a departmental enquiry was constituted and during the course of the enquiry, it was revealed that

charges were levelled against him without any complaint against him and he had discharged his duty in the interest of the

company, as per the order of his controlling officer i.e. Timber officer and submitted his TA/DA bills for official tour and

such fact was communicated by his controlling officer, vide office letter no. 7873 dated 27.10.2008 to the Chief Vigilance

Officer and in the said letter, the Controlling Officer had requested to drop the charges levelled against him (workman) and

the Enquiry Officer ignored the above mentioned letter of his Controlling Officer and submitted a perverse enquiry report and

basing on such report, punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed against him,

vide order no. 308 dated 23.09.2009 and though, he had preferred an appeal against the order of punishment before the

Appellate Authority, his appeal was not considered within the stipulated period, as provided in the certified standing order

and the amounts of Rs. 557/- and Rs. 463/- received by him towards T.A. were deposited by him with party no.1, vide cash

receipts no. 10840 dated 22.04.2007 and 10852 dated 28.04.2007 respectively, so there was no loss to the party No. 1 and due

to stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, he is suffering huge monetary loss and the action of party No. 1 is

unjust and improper and as such, the reference is required to be answered in the affirmative in his favour.

7800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

3. The party No. 1 in the written statement has pleaded inter-alia that the schedule of reference as made by the

Central Government is vague and the punishment imposed against the workman was the result of the domestic enquiry

conducted against him, for the wrongs committed by him and there is no question of sustaining of any heavy loss by the

workman. It is further pleaded by party No. 1 that the statement of claim has been filed by the workman himself and not by

the union, who has been made a party in the reference and therefore, the statement of claim is not valid and liable to be

rejected and no material has been filed to show that the present dispute has been espoused and championed by the trade union

in question in the required manner, as per law and as such, the present dispute cannot sustain scrutiny of it being an industrial

dispute under section 2-k of the Act and on this count alone, the reference is liable to be rejected.

The further case of party No. 1 is that charge sheet no. 2750 dated 20.10.2008 came to be issued against the

workman, by the Disciplinary Authority as provided under the certified standing orders, for the misconduct of indulging in

monetary transactions by the workman and the workman submitted his reply to the charge sheet and after considering the

reply, the Disciplinary Authority felt if necessary to order the departmental enquiry and accordingly, Shri U.S. Gonela was

appointed as the Enquiry Officer and the workman attended the enquiry with the co-worker of his choice and copies of the

documents relied upon by it were given to the workman and parties were given opportunity to cross-examine the respective

witnesses and the day to day proceedings of the enquiry were given to the workman and the Enquiry Officer submitted his

findings on 18.04.2009, holding the charges to have been proved against the workman and the copy of the findings of the

Enquiry Officer was provided to the workman and the Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer

and after getting sanction from the competent authority, passed the final order of punishment of stoppage of two annual

increments and the appeal preferred by the workman also came to be rejected and the departmental enquiry conducted against

the workman is valid, just and fair and the misconduct committed by the workman reflects upon his basic character and

integrity and therefore, the punishment should have been more stringent, but in view of the past record and age of the

workman, the punishment impugned was found appropriate by the competent authority and the findings of the Enquiry

Officer are also proper and not perverse and the punishment is just, reasonable and proper and the workman is not entitled to

any relief.

4. The rejoinder has been filed by the union on behalf of the workman. It is pleaded by the union in the rejoinder

that the statement of claim filed by the workman be treated as statement of claim filed by it and the Enquiry Officer and the

management representative were officers working under the Disciplinary Authority and the enquiry was conducted only to

victimize the workman and the enquiry was illegal, arbitrary, improper and unjust, as the Enquiry Officer acted as per the

direction of the Disciplinary Authority and inspite of the demand made by the workman and his defence representative, the

Enquiry Officer did not call the Area Timber Officer, Chandrapur Area, Shri S.M. Singh as a witness and the letter written by

Shri Singh dated 27.10.2008, clearly shows the workman not to have committed the alleged misconduct and the charges

levelled against the workman were not proved and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not based on evidence adduced in

the enquiry and the same are perverse and the enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The

union has also pleaded that copies of the relevant documents were not supplied to the workman and the punishment imposed

against the workman is harsh and disproportionate and is illegal.

5. As the punishment has been imposed upon the workman, in the departmental enquiry conducted against him, the

validity or otherwise of the departmental enquiry had been taken up as a preliminary issue for consideration and by order

dated 26.06.2014, the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman has been held to be legal, proper and in

accordance with the principles of natural justice.

6. It is to be mentioned here that the case was fixed to 14.10.2014 for hearing of argument on the questions of

perversity of the findings and the proportionality of the punishment. However, on14.10.2014, neither the party No. 1 nor the

advocate for the party No. 1 appeared in the case to make argument. So, after hearing argument from the side of the

workman, argument was closed and the reference was fixed for award.

7. During the course of argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the punishment

imposed against the workman is illegal, as penalty of “stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect” has not been

prescribed in the certified Standing Orders of the company and therefore, the punishment of stoppage of two annual

increments with cumulative effect passed against the workman cannot be sustained.

It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the workman had made application for

sanction of 6 days of earned leave from 01.02.2007 to 06.02.2007 for availing leave travel concession, which was sanctioned

by his Controlling authority, the Area Timber Procurement Officer, but due to sickness of his son, the workman made another

application to the Personnel Manager (Administration), through his controlling authority for change of the dates of

sanctioned leave and to grant him leave from 08.02.2007 to 13.02.2007 and his application was duly forwarded by his

controlling officer and thereafter, being directed by his controlling officer, the workman proceeded to attend timber auction

on 01.02.2007 and 02.02.2007 and so also, on 06.02.2007 and 07.02.2007, after taking the T.A. advances, which were duly

recommended by the controlling officer and after completing the official tours, he submitted his final T.A. bills and collected

the final amounts of Rs. 463/- and Rs. 556/- on 27.03.2007 and as per the verbal communication made by the Accounts

Department, he refunded the said amounts and the mistake was committed unknowingly by the workman and the Controlling

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7801

Officer of the workman also recommended to exonerate the workman from the charges, but no heed was paid to the same and

the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not based on the evidence on record of the enquiry and though, the workman denied

the charges, the Enquiry Officer has wrongly mentioned in his report that the workman admitted his guilt and the findings of

the Enquiry Officer are perverse and the punishment imposed on the workman, basing on such perverse findings is also

illegal and more over, the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges and therefore, the order of punishment is

liable to be quashed and set aside.

8. The first submission made by the learned advocate for the workman is that the imposition of the punishment of

stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect is illegal, because such punishment has not been prescribed in the

standing Order. However, the said submission is to be mentioned and rejected in fairness of things, because clause 27.1(e) of

the certified Standing Order prescribes punishment of “stoppage of increment with cumulative effect” for commission of the

misconduct.

9. In view of the other submissions made by the learned advocate for the workman, I think it proper to mention the

principles settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a number of decisions in regard to the power of the Tribunal to interfere with

punishment awarded by the competent authority in departmental proceedings.

In a number of decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that:-

“The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an

appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry officer or competent authority

where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. The power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on

the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the

Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural

justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the

competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal

has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is malafide

is certainly not a matter of the Tribunal to concern itself with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if

the conclusion of the Inquiry officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be

irrelevant or extraneous to the matter.

The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the enquiry officer or the competent

authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter.”

It is also settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that:-

“A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority and on appeal, the appellate

authority, being fact finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline.

They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the

misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own

conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the

appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing

the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional

and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.”

It is also settled beyond doubt that departmental enquiry is not bound by strict rules of Evidence Act, but by fair play

and natural justice. Only total absence, but not sufficiency of evidence before Tribunal is ground for interference. If the

enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of evidence cannot be canvassed before the court and

in a departmental enquiry, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of

“preponderance of probability”.

Keeping in view the settled principles as mentioned above, now, the present case in hand is to be considered.

10. On perusal of the record, it is found that the workman applied for earned leave for the period from 01.02.2007 to

06.02.2007 to avail leave travel concession. The workman has admitted that he was paid the amount in cash towards leave

travel concession for the period from 01.02.2007 to 06.02.2007 and being informed orally by the Personnel Manager

(Administration) that the leave period for LTC was not extended, he showed the LTC period as 01.02.2007 to 06.02.2007 and

during that period also, he claimed of going on official tour and received the TA amount of Rs. 463/- and Rs. 556/-. On

perusal of the record of the departmental enquiry including the report of the Enquiry Officer, it is found that the findings of

the Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence on record of the departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has analyzed the

evidence on the record of the departmental enquiry in a rational manner and has assigned reasons in support of his findings.

It is also found that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not as such, which cannot be arrived at by a reasonable man on the

7802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

materials on record of the departmental enquiry. It is not a case of total absence of evidence on record of the enquiry or that

the findings of the Enquiry Officer are totally against the evidence on record. Hence, the findings of the Enquiry Officer

cannot be said to be perverse.

11. So far the question of proportionality of the punishment is concerned, it is found that grave misconduct of

dishonesty in connection with the employer’s business or property and willful and deliberate act which is subversive of

discipline and detrimental to the interest of the company have been proved against the workman in a properly conducted

departmental enquiry. Hence, the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect imposed against

the workman cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that

there is no scope to interfere with the punishment imposed against the workman. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of M/s.. WCL in awarding punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with

cumulative effects to Shri Prakash D. Shende, clerk is proper and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J.P.CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 3209

3209

3209.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w- lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 47@2009) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@12@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012/70/2009–vkbZvkj (lh,e- II)]

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

New Delhi, the 11^th December, 2014

S.O. 3209.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 47/2009 of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kamptee Sub Area of WCL, and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 11/12/2014.

[No. L-22012/70/2009 - IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/47/2009

Date: 17.11.2014.

Party No. 1 :

The Sub Area Manager,

Kamptee Sub Area of WCL

Post- Kamptee,

Distt.- Nagpur.

Versus

Party No. 2 : Shri Amrut Laxman Chakole,

Nilaj( PO-Salwa),

Tahshil-Parseoni,

Nagpur.

AWARD

(Dated: 17^th November, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the

employers, in relation to the management of Kamptee Sub Area of WCL and their workman, Shri Amrut Laxman Chakole,

for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/70/2009-IR (CM-II) dated 26.02.2010, with the following schedule:-

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7803

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Kamptee Sub Area, Distt. Nagpur in

imposing punishment of termination from services vide its order dated 11/12.08.2005 upon Shri Amrut Laxman

Chakole, Dumper Operator, Kamptee Open Cast Mine w.e.f.13.08.2005 is legal, justified and proper? To what relief

is the workman concerned entitled?”

2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement,

in response to which, the workman, Shri Amrut Laxman Chakole , (“the workman” in short) filed the statement of claim and

the management of WCL, (“party no.1” in short) filed the written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he was appointed as a permanent

underground loader in Inder colliery of Kamptee Sub Area on 03.03.1981 and due to his hard work, sincerity, honesty and

technical skill, he was promoted as Electrical Helper Category II, vide order dated 13/15.07.1991 and he was further

promoted as Dumper Operator (Trainee) vide order dated 11.03.1999 and he was sent for dumper operator training to

Chandrapur Area and on completion of the training, he was posted in the security department w.e.f. 25.08.2002 and he was

promoted and confirmed as Dumper Operator Category V, vide order dated 24.12.2002 and during his long service of

23 years from 03.03.1981 to 31.03.2004, neither any warning letter nor any show cause nor any charge sheet was issued

against him and his entire service carrier was clean and unblemished.

The further case of the workman is that on 28.03.2004, he was on duty in the third shift from 12 midnight to

08 A.M. and his duty was to issue keys to the dumper and dozer operators and at about 4.30 A.M., one Rajaram, a canteen

mazdoor, who was also on duty in the third shift came to the key room and reported him that when he went to attend call of

nature, he found some thieves committing theft of diesel and as he raised shout, the thieves ran away from the spot, leaving a

cane containing diesel, which was in a gunny bag and as there was no security guard nearby, he being in the security

department thought it proper to bring the diesel cane into the duty room and then to report the matter to the security guard

and the security in charge and when he was bringing the diesel cane along with Rajaram, Shri Raut, the security in charge and

Shri Ansari, the head security guard came there in a jeep and stopped them and took away the diesel cane, without issuing

any seizure memo or panchnama and without conducting any preliminary enquiry or issuing any show cause notice, three

days after the incident, all of a sudden, the Mine Manager/ Supdt. of Mine of Kamptee Open Cast Mine, who was not a

competent authority, issued the charge sheet dated 31.03.2004, leveling fabricated, concocted and false charge of theft of

diesel, under clauses 26.1, 26.5 and 26.22 of the Standing Order against him and he submitted his reply to the charge sheet,

denying the charges and the Enquiry Officer was one of the officials of the party No. 1 and he was biased and partial and the

Enquiry Officer failed to conduct a fair and impartial inquiry and the enquiry was a farce and during the enquiry, the vital

document of the seizure of the diesel cane and panchnama at the spot were not produced and theft of diesel was taking place

with the connivance of the Security sub Inspector and Head Security Guard and as he was active in reporting the theft cases

of diesel, he was falsely implicated in theft of diesel by the security inspector and head security guard to harass and victimize

him and to take revenge against him and a false case of theft of diesel was instituted against him and he was not allowed to

cross examine the management’s witnesses and the only eye witness to the incident supported his claim in the enquiry and

the evidence of the witnesses examined by the party No. 1 in the enquiry was contradictory to each other and he was falsely

implicated by the witnesses and the enquiry was conducted in undue haste, in violation of the principles of natural justice and

the enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 30.04.2005, i.e. four months after the last sitting of the

departmental enquiry on 30.12.2004 and the second show cause notice dated 12.05.2005 was issued by the Sub Area

Manager, Kamptee Sub Area, without having any authority or power, as he was neither the Disciplinary authority nor he was

the appointing authority and as such, the entire departmental enquiry is void ab-initio and the second show cause notice is

incurably defective, as in the said notice, it was not mentioned as to whether the Sub Area Manager agreed with the findings

of the enquiry officer or not.

It is also pleaded by the workman that there was no preliminary enquiry, which was required to be done before

deciding to hold regular departmental enquiry and no show cause notice was issued to him prior to the issuance of the charge

sheet, in violation of clauses 28.1 and 28.2 of the Standing Order and the charge sheet was issued by the Mine

Superintendent, a subordinate to the Disciplinary Authority and he was not competent to issue the charge sheet and for that

also, the entire departmental enquiry against him was vitiated and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were without taking

into consideration of the submissions made by him and the findings are based on suspicion, conjecture and surmises and the

findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and vital document were not supplied to him inspite of demand made by him and

the departmental enquiry is illegal, unjustified and improper.

3. The party No. 1 in the written statement has pleaded inter-alia that the workman was caught red handed by the

concerned officer, while he was towing away the cane after committing theft and right from the beginning, the workman is

trying to make out a story that he was innocent and did not commit the theft and the concerned officer could not lodge the

FIR or recorded the spot panchanama as the incident took place in the wee hours and the said officer, on the next day in the

morning immediately reported the matter to the authority concerned and as no loss was caused to it (party no.1) and the cane

was seized, it did not thought it fit to report the matter to the police authorities and when admittedly the diesel cane was

seized from the workman, the fact as to whether the seizure report or panchanama was made or not is of no consequence.

7804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1936

[Part II—Sec.3(ii)]

The further case of party No. 1 is that as the workman was caught red handed, the question of conducting any

preliminary enquiry does not arise and the charge sheet was rightly issued by the competent authority against the workman

and till the date of filing of the statement of claim, no challenge had been made by the workman regarding the competency of

the authority issuing the charge sheet or the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, rather on the contrary, the workman

participated in the enquiry proceedings and the workman had never requested for production of documents and there was no

occasion for the workman to bring to the notice of the Enquiry Officer about the fact of huge theft of diesel and at no point of

time, the workman had brought to the notice of any authority about theft of diesel and wild allegations have been made

against its officer by the workman to save his skin, after the fact finding authority had reached the conclusion that the

workman committed the theft and without making the concerned officers as parties to the proceedings, the workman is not

entitled to make such allegations and the workman has also not pleaded that the said officers were having some grudge

against him and therefore, they made false report against him and the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the

principles of natural justice and it was not conducted in a haste and just for the purpose of making allegations of violation of

natural justice in the enquiry proceedings, such contentions have been raised by the workman and not a single instance has

been mentioned by the workman as to in what manner the enquiry was conducted in a haste and by violating the principles of

natural justice and in view of the proved misconduct, the only punishment which could be awarded to the workman was to

terminate his services for loss of confidence.

The party No. 1 has also pleaded that the second show cause notice and dismissal order were issued by the

competent authority, as per the provisions of the standing order and circulars/notifications issued from time to time and the

workman was given all the opportunities during the enquiry proceedings and the act of misconduct proved against the

workman is of grave nature and in no manner, the same can be ignored, in order to maintain discipline in the organization and

the reference is liable to be answered in the negative.

4. In the rejoinder, denying the pleadings made by the party No. 1 in the written statement, the workman has

reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim.

5. As this is a case of termination of the workman from services, after holding of a departmental enquiry against

him, the fairness or otherwise of the departmental enquiry was taken up as a preliminary issue for consideration and by order

dated 02.04.2014, the enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be legal, proper and in accordance with the

principles of natural justice.

6. It is to be mentioned here that the case was fixed to 10.10.2014 for hearing of argument on the questions of the

perversity of the findings and proportionality of the punishment. However, on 10.10.2014, even though the workman

appeared in the case, the union representative, who was representing the workman remained absent, so no argument was

advanced on behalf of the workman.

7. During the course of argument, it was submitted by the Representative for the party No. 1 that as per order dated

02.04.2014, the Tribunal has already held the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman to be legal, proper and in

accordance with the principles of natural justice and the scope of interfering with the findings of the enquiry officer by the

tribunal is very limited and the punishment to be imposed is the sole prerogative of the employer for the misconduct

committed by the employee and in the entire statement of claim, except the bald statements, the workman has nowhere

pleaded as to how the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and that the quantum of punishment is not proportionate to

the misconduct committed by him and the workman was caught red handed while taking away the cane filled with diesel and

such fact was duly proved in the departmental enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse and the

management has lost confidence in the workman and taking into consideration, the grave misconduct committed by the

workman, the punishment cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate and as such, there is no scope to interfere with the

punishment imposed against the workman and the reference is to be answered in the negative and against the workman.

8. In view of the submissions made by the Representative for the party No.1, I think it proper to mention the

principles settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a number of decisions in regard to the power of the Tribunal to interfere with

punishment awarded by the competent authority in departmental proceedings.

In a number of decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that:-

“The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an

appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry officer or competent authority where

they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. The power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent

authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been

an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the

ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be

imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the

authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is malafide is certainly not a matter of the Tribunal to concern itself with. The

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3¼ii½]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % fnlEcj 20] 2014@vxzgk;.k 29] 1936

7805

Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the Inquiry officer or the competent authority is based on

evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter.