697 GI/2015

(773)

dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;

(dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 13 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 279-—dsanzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiu vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6

ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk çnÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, xksok jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx (lkekU;) lfpoky;]

iksjoksfje] xksok dh lgefr ls fnukad 6 uoEcj] 2014 ds vkns'k

la- 27@12@2014&,pMh (th)@3478 }kjk i.kth ,oa eksjeqxkoks

canjxkgksa ls dukZVd jkT; ds ykSg v;Ld ds voS/ fu;kZr dk

vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh

'kfDr;ksa ,oa U;k;kf/dkj {ks=k dk foLrkj laiw.kZ xksok jkT; ij djrh

gSA

¹iQk- la- 228@18@2014&,ohMh&IIº

lq'khy dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC

GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2015

S.O. 279.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section(1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ( Act No. 25 of

1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Goa, Department of Home (General)

Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa vide Order No. 27/12/2014-

HD(G)/3478 dated 6th November, 2014 hereby extends the

powers and Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special

Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Goa for

investigation only into the illegal export of iron ore of the

State of Karnataka from Panji and Mormugao Ports.

[F. No. 228/18/2014-AVD-II]

SUSHEEL KUMAR, Under Secy.

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la-

ubZ fnYyh] iQjojh 15—iQjojh 21] 2015] 'kfuokj@ek?k 26—iQkYxqu 2] 1936

No. 8]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 15—FEBRUARY 21, 2015, SATURDAY/MAGHA 26—PHALGUNA 2, 1936

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 16 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 280-—dsUnh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

1973 (1974 dk vf/fu;e la- 2) dh /kjk 24 dh mi&/kjk (8)

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] 2th LiSDVªe ls lacaf/r

vkjlh 24(,)@2011&Mh,yvkbZ rFkk vU; ekeyksa esa Jh lquhy

Hkkjrh feÙky }kjk nk;j ,l,yih (lhvkj,y) ;kfpdk la-

2961@2013 ,oa Jh jfo dkUr ,u- :bZ;k }kjk nk;j ,l,yih

(lhvkj,y) ;kfpdk la- 3161@2013 esa Hkkjr ds loksZPp U;k;ky;

esa is'k gksus ds fy,] Jh ds-ds- os.kqxksiky] ofj"B vf/oDrk rFkk

muds dfu"B Jh xksiky 'kadjukjk;.ku] vf/oDrk dks fo'ks"k yksd

vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS A

[iQk- la- 225@30@2013&,ohMh&II]

lq'khy dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2015

S.O. 280.—In exercise the powers conferred by

sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central

Government hereby appoints Shri K. K. Venugopal, Sr.

Advocate and his Junior Shri Gopal Shankarnarayanan,

Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor for appearing in

Supreme Court of India in SLP (Crl.) Petition No. 2961/

2013 filed by Shri Sunil Bharti Mittal and SLP (Crl.) Petition

No. 3161/2013 filed by Ravi Kant N. ruia in RC 24(A)/2011-

DLI and in other matters relating to 2G Spectrum.

[F. No. 225/30/2013-AVD-II]

SUSHEEL KUMAR, Under Secy.

ukxj foekuu ea=kky;

(,,vkbZ vuqHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 5 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 281-—fnukad 3 ekpZ] 2010 ds lk-vk- 172 ds

vuqØe esa dsaæ ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Jh lq/hj jgstk dks osrueku #-

75000—1]00]000 lnL; (;kstuk)] Hkkjrh; foekuiÙku izkfèkdj.k]

ds in ij mudk dk;Zdky 17-02-2015 ls 30-06-2018 vFkkZr~

mudh vf/o£"krk dh frfFk rd] ;k vxys vkns'k rd] tks Hkh

igys gks] rd c<+krh gS A

¹la- ,oh&24011@3@2008&,,vkbZº

ds- oh- mUuhÑ".ku] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

(AAI Section)

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2015

S.O. 281.—In continuation of S.O. 712 dated 3rd

March, 2010, the Central Government hereby extend the

tenure of Shri Sudhir Raheja as Member (Planning),

Airports Authority of India in the scale of pay of Rs.

75000—1,00,000 beyond 17.2.2015 till 30.6.2018, i.e. the

date of superannuation, or until further orders, whichever

is earlier.

[No. AV-24011/3/2008-AAI]

K. V. UNNIKRISHNAN , Under Secy.

LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky;

(nar fpfdRlk foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 9 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 282-—nar fpfdRlk vuqHkkx] 1948 (1948 dk

16) dh /kjk 3 ds varxZr iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnz

ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky; dh vfèklwpuk

la- ,lvks 430 fnukad 24 tuojh] 1984 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u

djrh gS] uker%—

mDr vfèklwpuk esa Øekad 4 vkSj mlls lacaf/r izfof"V;ksa

ds fy, ¶/kjk 3 ds ijarqd ds lkFk ifBr [k.M (d) ds varxZr

p;fur¸ 'kh"kZd ds varxZr blesa fuEufyf[kr izfrLFkkfir fd;k

tkrk gS] uker%

¶4

MkW- tud jkt lcjoky

p;fur

fnYyh nar ifj"kn~

02-01-2015¸

lh&214] fodkl iqjh]

ubZ fnYyh&110018

¹iQk- la- oh&12025@23@2007&MhbZº

lq/hj dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Dental Education Section)

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2015

S.O. 282.—In exercise of the powers conferred

under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the

Central Government hereby makes the following

amendment in the notification of the Government of India

in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare No. S.O. 430

dated 24th January, 1984 namely :

In the said notification under head “Elected under

clause (a) read with proviso to Section 3” for serial No. 4

and the entries relating thereto, the following shall be

substituted therein, namely :—

“4. Dr. Janak Raj

Elected

Delhi Dental

2.1.2015”

Sabharwal

Council

C-214, Vikas Puri,

New Delhi-110018

[F. No. V-12025/23/2007-DE]

SUDHIR KUMAR, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

775

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 4 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 283-—dsUæh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut

ikbiykbZu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e]

1962 (1962 dk 50) dh /kjk 2 ds [akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa

mDr vf/fu;e ds v/hu vka/z izns'k ds jkT; ds Hkhrj vka/z izns'k

xSl forj.k fuxe fyfeVsM dh lHkh ikbiykbZuksa ds fy,] l{ke

izkf/dkjh ds dk;ks± dk fuoZgu djus ds fy, Jherh ,u- lqxquk

dqekjh] fMIVh dysDVj] vka/z izns'k ljdkj] dks fnukad 4-2-2015 ls

izkf/Ñr djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- ,y&14014@3@2015&thih&IIº

ds- ,e- ¯lg] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 4th February, 2015

S.O. 283.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2

of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central

Government hereby authorizes Smt. N. Suguna Kumari,

Deputy Collector, Government of Andhra Pradesh to

perform the functions of Competent Authority for all

pipelines of Andhra Pradesh Gas Distribution Corporation,

under the said Act, within Andhra Pradesh State with effect

from 4.2.2015.

[F. No. L-14014/3/2015-GP-II]

K. M. SINGH, Under Secy.

miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky;

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 284-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mi&fofu;e (3) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, mRiknksa dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vf/lwfpr djrk gS %µ

vuqlwph

Hkkjrh; Hkkx

vuq& o"kZ

mRikn

bdkbZ

U;wure eqgjkadu 'kqYd

bdkbZ nj

LySc esa

'ks"k

izpkyu

ekud

Hkkx

cM+s iSekus NksVs iSekus

LySc 1

bdkbZ;ka

frfFk

la[;k

(#-)

990

1982

pEep] LVsuysl LVhy

100 ihl

55200

46900

2-00

13-8-2014

1109

1980

cksjsDl ds fy, fof'k"Vrk

34000

29000

85-00

31-7-2014

(nwljk iqujh{k.k)

f}rh; la'kks/u

5405

1980

[kk| inkFkks± vkSj i'kq

1000 ihl 34000

29000

28-7-2014

vkgkj ds [kehj vkSj

iQiaQwnh x.ku ds fy,

i¼fr (igyk iqujh{k.k)

10245

1999

'olu midj.k Hkkx 3

1 'olu

71000

60400

200

4-9-2014

rkth gok ds gkSt vkSj

midj.k

laihM+hr gok ds 'olu

midj.k fof'kf"V

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

12950

1990

cSVjh gkbMªksehVj &lhek &

100 ihl

39400

33500

25-6-2014

vEy cSVfj;ksa ds fy,

lqokg~; fl¯jt & fof'kf"V

14203

1999

vfXu izfrjks/h vfHkys[k

1dsfcusV

79000

67000

24-6-2014

laj{k.k dsfcusV & fof'kf"V

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14261

1995

lapj.k ;qfdr;ka & oh&iV~Vs 100ihl

34000

29000

17-11-2014

vkS|ksfxd iz;kstuksa ds fy,

fljkghu ladhZ.k oh&iV~Vs &

fof'kf"V

15073

2008

fo|qr MsVkausVjksa dh iS¯dx

100 cDls 71000

60000

13-10-2014

Hkkx 2 ukyhnkj iQkbcjcksMZ

dsl

15961

2012

rIr fueTth ,Y;wfefu;e&

1 eh- Vu

48300

41000

120

10-03-2014

¯td feJ/krq ysfir bLikr

irh ,oa pknjsa lknk

15962

2012

Hkouksa ,oa mUur HkwdEih;

1 eh- Vu

34600

29400

1-8-2014

izfrjksf/rk okyh lajpukvksa

ds fy, lajpuk bLikr

16014

2012

;kaf=kd i¼fr ls cquh nksgjh

100 fdxzk- 81500

69300

15-28

28-3-2014

,safBr] "kVdks.kh; rkj eS'k

xsfc;u] fjosV eSVªsl ,oa

jkWd iQkWy uS¯Vx tLrhÑr

bLikr rkj

16098

2013

xSj ncko ty fudklh vkSj

100 ehVj 197000

167450

23-00

5-8-2014

lhojst ds fy, lajfpr nhokj

IykfLVd ikb¯ix i¼fr;ka &

fof'kf"V Hkkx 2 xSj fpduh

ckgjh lrg ds lkFk ikbi vkSj

fiQ¯Vxsa] Vkbi ch

vkbZ ,l@ &

2006

lM+d okgu & 60 oksYV

100 ehVj 50000

40000

3-60

1-12-2014

vkbZ ,l

,dy_ dksj dh rkjsa &

vks

vk;ke] ijh{k.k ,oa

6722

vko';drk,a

¹la- lh,eMh&2@th&18º

,e- ts- tksliQ] egkfuns'kd

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 284.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the products given in the schedule:

SCHEDULE

Minimum Marking

Fee (Rs)

IS No.

Part

Sec

Year

Product

Units

Large

Small

Unit Rate

Units in

Remaining

Effective

Scale

(Rs)

Slab-1

Date

Slab-1

990

1982

Spoons, Stainless Steel

100

55200

46900

2.00

13.08.2014

Pieces

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

777

1109

1980

Borax

Ton

34000

29000

85.00

31.07.2014

5405

1980

Sanitary napkins

1000

34000

29000

28.07.2014

pieces

10245

1999

Breathing Apparatus –

1 Breathing 71000

60400

200

04.09.2014

Part 3 Fresh Air Hose

Apparatus

And Compressed Air

Line Breathing

Apparatus - Specification

12950

1990

Battery Hydrometer for 100 pieces

39400

33500

25.06.2014

lead acid batteries

14203

1999

Fire Resisting Records

1 Cabinet

79000

67000

24.06.2014

Protection Cabinet

14261

1995

Transmission Devices-

100 Pieces

34000

29000

17.11.2014

V-Belts-Endless Narrow

V-Belts for Industrial use

15073

2008

Packaging of electric

100 Boxes

71000

60000

13.10.2014

detonators-Corrugated

Fiber board cases

15961

2012

Hot dip Aluminum Alloy 1 MT

48300

41000

120

10.03.2014

Metallic Zinc Alloy

Coated Steel Strip and

Sheet (Plain)

15962

2012

Structural Steels for

1 MT

34600

29400

01.08.2014

Building and Structures

with Improved Seismic

Resistance

16014

2012

Mechanically woven,

100 Kg

81500

69300

15.28

28.03.2014

double -twisted, hexagonal

Wire Mesh Gabions, Revet

Mattresses and Rock fall

Netting (Galvanized steel

wire or Galvanized steel

wire with PVC coating)

16098

2013

Structured-Wall Plastics 100 Meters

197000 167450

23.00

05.08.2014

Piping Systems for Non-

Pressure Drainage and

Sewerage Part 2 Pipes

and Fittings with Non-

Smooth External Surface,

Type B

IS/ISO

2006

Road Vehicles – 605 and 100 Meters

50000

40000

3.60

01.12.2014

6722

600 V Single – Core

Cables – Dimensions,

Test Methods and

Requirements

[No. CMD-II/G-18]

M. J. JOSEPH, Director General

778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 285-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mi&fofu;e (3) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vuqlwph esa fn, x, mRiknksa dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vf/lwfpr djrk gS %µ

vuqlwph

Hkkjrh; Hkkx

vuq& o"kZ

mRikn

bdkbZ

U;wure eqgjkadu 'kqYd

bdkbZ nj

LySc esa

'ks"k

izpkyu

ekud

Hkkx

cM+s iSekus NksVs iSekus

LySc 1

bdkbZ;ka

frfFk

la[;k

(#-)

2573

1986

peM+s ds nLrkus ,oa

,d tksM+k 40700

32600

0-2

26-12-2014

nLrkus (nwljk iqujh{k.k)

5915

1980

,dy xBu okys jcjhÑr

,d oxZ

62100

49700

0-38

26-12-2014

tylg iSQfczd dh

eh-

fof'kf"V

¹la- lh,eMh&2@th&18º

,e- ts- tksliQ] egkfuns'kd

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 285.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the products given in the schedule:

SCHEDULE

Minimum Marking

Fee

IS No.

Part

Sec

Year

Product

Units

Large

Small

Unit Rate

Units in

Remaining

Effective

Scale

Slab

Slab-1

Date

2573

1986

Leather Gauntlets

1 Pair

40700

32600

0.2

26.12.2014

and Mittens

5915

1970

Single Texture

1 Sq.

62100

49700

0.38

26.12.2014

Rubberized

Meter

Waterproof

Fabrics

[No. CMD-II/G-18]

M. J. JOSEPH, Director General

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 9 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 286-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

05@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@02@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@85@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2015

S.O. 286.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 09/02/2015.

[No. L-20012/85/2012-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

779

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947

REFERENCE NO. 05 OF 2013

PARTIES :

The General Secretary,

Sampurn Bharat Coking Coal Limited,

Chalak Samiti, PO:Bhagabandh

Dhanbad

Vs.

General Manager (P & IR)

M/s Bharat Coking Coal India Ltd.,

At/PO : Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad

Ministry’s Order No L-20012/85/2012-

IR(CM-I) dt. 27.12.2012

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

None

On behalf of the Management

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 17th Dec., 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10 (1)

(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No L-

20012/85/2012-IR(CM-I) dt. 27.12.2012.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s

BCCL in not supplying shoes, uniforms to the Drivers

and Peons of Collieries/Area other than BCCL HQ is

legal and justified? To what reliefs are the concerned

workmen entitled?”

Neither the Union Representative for the Sampurn

Bharat Coking Coal Limited Chalak Samittee,Bhagandh

Basti,Dhanbad,nor any Representative for the OP/

Management nor any written statement filed on behalf of

the latter.

On perusal of the case record, it is quite clear that

the case has been all along pending for the appearance of

the Union Representative for the Union as well as the

workman concerned and for filing a written statement cum

Rejoinder on behalf of the Management for which both

the parties were issued three Regd. notices dt. 6.3.13,

28.01.2014 and lastly on 30.05.2014 on the addresses of

both the parties as noted the Reference itself. It also

appears that once the concerned workman himself had

appeared and filed the written statement on his behalf on

26.4.13 and since thereafter, neither the Union

Representative nor the workman appeared in this case

which related to an issue over non-supply of the Shoes

and Uniforms to the Drivers and the peons of the Collieries/

Area other than the BCCL HQr.The Union Representative

as well as the OP/Management by their conducts appear

to be quite reluctant in pursuing the case up to its final

disposal. In such circumstances, it appears to be no longer

any industrial Dispute existing.Hence, the case is closed

accordingly, and it is passed an order of ‘No Dispute

Award’.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 287-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fczfV'k ,;jost

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

127@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

09@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@46@2005&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2015

S.O. 287.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 127/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. British

Airways and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 09/02/2015.

[No. L-11012/46/2005-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT - II, KARKARDOOMA

COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 127/2005

Ms. Rachna Verma,

C-822-A, Sushant Lok-I,

Gurgoan, Haryana

Versus

British Airways,

11th floor, Gopal Das Bhawan,

Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001.

780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-11012/46/2005-IR(C-I) dated 6.12.2005

referred the following industrial Dispute to this tribunal

for adjudication:-

“Whether the action of the management of British

Airways, 11th floor, Gopaldas Bhawan, Barakhamba

Road, New Delhi in terminating the services of Ms.

Rachna Verma, Message Editing Scripter w.e.f.

12.8.2004 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief

is the workman entitled?”

On 19/12/2005 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D No. 127/2005 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.

Claimant/workman on 17.03.2006 filed Claim Statement.

Wherein she stated as follows:-

It is respectfully submitted as under:

That the present industrial dispute has been referred

for adjudication by the Government before this

Hon’ble Tribunal with the following terms of

reference.

“Whether the action of the management of British

Airways, 11th floor, Gopaldas Bhavan, Barakhama

Road, New Delhi in terminating the services of Ms.

Rachna Verma, Message Editing Scripter, w.e.f.

12.08.2004 is just fair and legal? If not, to what relief

is the workman entitled?”

That the workman had joined the services of the

management on 21.2.1994 and since then she has

served in various positions and departments. She

initially joined the management as International Tele-

Sales Support Clerk and was last promoted to the

position of Message Editing Scripter with effect from

19.6.2000. The service record of the workman has

been quite impressive and commendable. The

workman was earning appreciations from the

management from time to time for the quality of her

work and has even earned the prestigious British

Airways Award of Excellence. Despite all this the

services of the workman were terminated illegally in

the most unceremonious manner by the

management vide letter dated 12th Aug 2004.

The management is a Multi National Foreign Airlines

having registered under the Indian Companies Act

to operate its business in India and is involved in

the business of running of an airline commonly

known as British Airways. The said airline operates

flights all over the world including from and to New

Delhi.

THE WORKMAN THROUGHOUT HER PERIOD OF

EMPLOYMENT WITH THE MANAGEMENT WAS

EMPLOYED IN JOBS THAT INVOLVED WORKING

ON THE COMPUTER SYSTEM FOR MORE THAN

EIGHT HOURS EVERY DAY. All the jobs required

the workman to extensively use the computer

keyboard, sitting on a uncomfortable chair provided

to her by the management. The furniture provided

to the staff working on the computers especially the

workman since the date of her joining the

employment of the management was ill designed

and did not conform to the advisable ergonomically

standards. Rather the furniture and the workstations

were so designed that they are a health hazard for

the employees.

The workman joined the services of the management

at Delhi on 21st Feb1994. The workman was

deployed as International Tele-Sales Support Clerk

by the management on 21st Feb1994 AFTER A

COMPLETE FITNESS/MEDICAL CHECK UP DONE

BY DOCTORS APPOINTED BY THE BRITISH

AIRWAYS. The workman joined the services at the

office situated at Connaught Place, New Delhi.

The workman on a typical day would work for 10

hour out of which more than nine hours were spent

working before computer. THE WORKMAN HAD

WORKED WITH THE MANAGEMENT FOR 10

YEARS CONTINUOUSLY.

On 19-6-2000, she was promoted to the post of

message editing scripter. The workman worked

arduously for odd hours for the various projects.

FOR EXAMPLE, SHE WORKED MORE THAN 100

HOURS (in a month) OF OVERTIME FOR ONE OF

THE PROJECTS IN MID 2002. THUS THERE WAS

MINIMAL REST BETWEEN THE SHIFTS. In-spite

of her ill health she continued to work hard and

deliver highly successful projects and has been

given numerous letters of commendation for the

same. She worked over weekends at very short notice

to deliver critical projects for British Airways. Till

her last day in office, she tried to find solutions to

difficult projects and delivered high quality work.

That the workman suffered bad health and injuries

as a direct result and consequence of the bad working

conditions provided by the management.

That the management had made up its mind to

victimize the workman as they considered her useless

for the company, they just wanted to discard her

from the services without any legal benefits.

10.

The HRD manager of the management Mr. Cyril

Daniels in very clear terms asked workman to resign

and accept the VRS without any further delay. THE

WORKMAN WAS THREATENINGLY ASKED TO

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

781

ACCEPT PREMATURE RETIREMENT AND NOT

TO THINK OF TAKING ON THE MIGHT OF THE

MANAGEMENT WHO ON THE STRENGTH OF

THEIR FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE WOULD BE

ABLE TO SUSTAIN ANY LITIGATION that

workman might decide to pursue against them.

11.

The management had illegal terminated the services

of the workman. The management was bent upon

victimizing the workman. The workman prior to her

termination was asked to work during odd working

hours and night shifts which was not acceptable to

the workman. The management had intentionally

forced upon the workman a female to work at night

shifts, which was not acceptable to the workman

due to her family reasons. The management had

intentionally victimized the workman and terminated

her services.

12.

The attitude of the management smacks of mala fide

and it is clear that the management had singled out

the workman and victimized her for no fault of hers.

13.

That the management thereafter illegally terminated

the services of the workman without following the

due process of law. She was victimized and illegally

retrenched without any cause.

PRAYER

The workman respectfully prays for adjudication of

the present industrial dispute and seeks directions/award

for re-instatement of the workman in the services of the

management with full back wages (with interest) from the

date of termination till date of re-instatement.

Against Statement of Claim Management filed Written

statement on 11.5.2006. Wherein it stated as follows:-

Most respectfully showeth:

That Ms. Rachna Verma (hereinafter referred to as

the workman) was employed with the management at DLF

Plaza Tower, DLF City Phase 1, Gurgaon in the state of

Haryana. The services of the workman were terminated at

Gurgaon which was the situs of her employment. No cause

of action or any alleged industrial dispute was either

apprehended or arose within the NCT of Delhi. The order

of reference made by the Central Government to this

Hon’ble Court is therefore incompetent and bad in law.

That the workman has raised a dispute and

challenged the termination of her services was illegal and

unjustified which has been referred for adjudication at

her instance. It is for the workman to prove as to how the

termination of her services is either illegal or unjustified.

The Central Government, however whilst referring the

above dispute for adjudication has placed the burden on

the management to prove that the termination of the

services of the workman is just, fair and legal. It is submitted

that the order of reference is incompetent and bad in law

on this ground as well.

Subject to and without prejudice to the aforegoing

preliminary objections which are without prejudice to each

other para wise on behalf of the management to the

statement of claim is given hereunder:

REPLY ON MERITS:

The contents of para 1 subject to the preliminary

objections are a matter of record.

The contents of para 2 are admitted to the extent

that the workman was appointed as an International

Telesale Support clerk in the establishment of the

management at DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi w.e.f.

Feb 21,1994. And was promoted as Message Editing

Scripter (QIK Scripter) with effect from June 19, 2000. The

contention of the workman that her services were

terminated illegally and unceremoniously Isis

misconceived, baseless and incorrect. It is submitted that

the services of the workman were terminated in accordance

with law. The management would refer to the service record

of the workman in the succeeding paras.

The contents of para 3 are not admitted as stated. It

is submitted that M/s British Airways plc is registered in

England and is an international airlines having worldwide

operations. M/s British Airways has set up its business in

several countries and the controlling office of South Asia

of British Airways is at DLF Plaza Tower, DLF City Phase

1, Gurgaon in the state of Haryana. As pointed out above

the workman was working in the office of British Airways

at Gurgaon in the state of Haryana.

4 to 8. The contents of paras 4 to 8 are not admitted as

stated. The correct facts, inter alia, are:

The workman was appointed as an International

Telesale Support at DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New

Delhi in terms of letter of appointment dated February

21, 1994 and she was confirmed in service with effect

from May 21, 1994 as ITSS Clerk.

ii)

In the year 1998, a vacancy of Message Editing

Scripter (QIK Scripter)arose. The job of a Message

Editing Scripter (QIK Scripter) involves working

extensively on computers. The workman applied for

this post and she was fully aware of the job

description and responsibilities of a QIK Scripter.

She was called for a written test and interview and

was short listed but was not selected.

iii)

It is submitted that again in the year 2000, there was

a vacancy of Message Editing Scripter (QIK Scripter)

arose and the workman again applied in response to

the same. She had appeared in the written test as

well as interview and was short listed in the final

round of selection process for the post of QIK

Scripter. She was found suitable and appointed as a

782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

QIK Scripter - Message Editing Scripter with effect

from June 19, 2000 and was upgraded and placed in

Grade D.

iv)

It may be pertinent to point out that the job of a

Message Editing Scripter (QIK Scripter) involves

working extensively on computers. The workman

was fully aware of the job description and

responsibilities of a QIK Scripter.

It is submitted that the workman had taken a

conscious decision to apply for the post of QIK

Scripter not once but twice and she had herself

offered to work as a QIK Scripter in a higher grade

obviously for her own better prospects.

vi)

The workman in para 4 of the statement of claim has

contended that during the entire tenure of her

employment the jobs on which she was employed

working on the computer system. It is submitted

that working on a computer is a necessary

concomitant of any job in the office these days.

The benefits of working on a computer are immense

and well known and acknowledged. Obtaining and

disseminating any information and data or

communication through electronic media with the

help of computers is quick and even immediate. It

saves a lot of time and energy of the employees and

improves the efficiency.

vii)

It is submitted that more than 130 employees are

working in the office of the management at the DLF

Plaza Tower, DLF Qutab Enclave, Phase I at Gurgaon

where the workman was last employed. It I submitted

that each employee has a separate computer and

work station. All employees work on computers and

the workman was no exception.

viii)

The workman has tried to make out a case that her ill

health is attributable to extensively working on

computers. It is also the contention of the workman

that the furniture provided to the staff for working

on computers was ill designed and did not conform

to the advisable ergonomical standards . The

workman has also contended that the furniture and

workstations were so designed that they were a

health hazard for the employees.

ix)

It is submitted that all the contentions raised by the

workman referred to above are baseless and

incorrect. It is submitted that the working conditions

of the employees in our establishment are one of the

best in the country. It may be pertinent to point out

that the management had re-located its office from

DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi to its present

location at DLF Plaza Tower, DLF Qutab Enclave,

Phase 1, Gurgaon in April 1999. All the employees

who were residing at Delhi were paid a lump sum

amount of Rs. 50,000/- each at that time. In addition

to that the management had made transport

arrangements to pick up the employees and to drop

them at fixed points as agreed.

It may be pertinent to point out that the furniture,

work stations and the working conditions of the

employees while they were employed at DLF Centre,

Sansad Marg, New Delhi and thereafter at DLF Plaza

Tower, DLF Qutab Enclave, Phase 1, Gurgaon were

all excellent.

xi)

It is submitted that the furniture and other

equipments in the office are designed in such a

manner that it not only increases the efficiency of

the employees but simultaneously provides comfort

to them at their workstations. Needless to mention

that efficiency of a person has a direct nexus with

the working environment and conditions.

International norms were followed while designing

the work stations and all contentions to the contrary

raised by the workman in the statement of claim are

clearly by way of an afterthought and impelled by

some ulterior motives.

xii)

It may also be pertinent to point out that the workman

was not the only employee who was working as a

message editing scripter (QIK Scripter). It is

submitted that there is a team of 7 staff members

including the workman which constituted the QIK

team roster. The nature of duties being performed

by the workman and the remaining six staff members

are not only similar but substantially the same. No

other staff member employed as Message Editing

Scripter (QIK Scripter) ever complained about the

working conditions or any defect in the furniture or

work stations as alleged by the workman. The

allegations made by the workman are false to her

knowledge and without any truth or substance.

xiii)

On a consideration of the facts explained above your

good self would appreciate that the contention of

the workman that her ill health was a direct result

and consequences of the bad working conditions

provided by the management is on the face of it

baseless and incorrect. It is wrong to contend that

the working conditions in our organization were/are

in any manner instrumental for the continued ill

health of the workman. It is also wrong to contend

that the claimant was required to work for 10 hours

out of which more than 9 hours were spent working

before a computer. It is also wrong to contend that

she worked for more than 100 hours on overtime for

one of the projects in the year 2002.

xiv)

It is submitted that continued ill health of the

workman is a special problem peculiar to a particular

individual. As already pointed out all the staff

members in the office work on computers and as

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

783

many as 6 other staff members are doing similar work

as QIK Scripter which was performed by the

workman. It is rather unfortunate that the workman

is suffering from continued ill health but is totally

misconceived and baseless on her part to contend

that the working conditions in the organization are

in any manner responsible for her continued ill

health.

xv)

It is submitted that the workman on account of her

continued ill health was not able to report for duties

and to perform the work for which she was employed.

The management had discussed about ill health of

the workman with her on several occasions. During

the course of discussions it became evident that the

workman was not physically fit to perform the job

on which she was employed and the workman very

fairly conceded the fact. All other contentions raised

by the workman in paras under reply are wrong and

therefore denied.

The contents of para 9 are misconceived and

therefore denied. It is wrong to contend that the

management had made up its mind to victimize the workman.

It is also wrong to contend that the management wanted

to discard the workman from service without any legal

benefits. The management had made sincere efforts to

accommodate the workman but the workman on account

of her continued ill health was not able to perform the job

on which she was employed.

10.

The contents of para 10 are misconceived, wrong

and therefore denied. It is wrong to contend that Mr. Cyril

Daniels asked the workman to resign and accept the VRS

without any further delay. It is also wrong to contend that

the workman was threateningly asked to accept premature

retirement. All other contentions raised by the workman in

para under reply are wrong and therefore denied.

11.

The contents of para 11 are misconceived, wrong

and therefore denied. It is wrong to contend that the

management had illegally terminated the services of the

workman. It is also wrong to contend that the management

was bent upon victimizing the workman. It is submitted

that the workman was not physically and medically fit to

perform the job on which she was employed. The

management however in order to accommodate the

workman offered her employment in the customer service

department where the computer related work was minimum.

The management had given this offer to the workman in

writing by letter dated June 2, 2004. It is submitted that the

workman by her e.mail dated June 23,2004 declined the

offer of re-deployment in the customer service department.

The management under these circumstances was thus left

with no alternative but to terminate the services of the

workman in accordance with the terms and conditions of

her employment. The services of the workman were

accordingly terminated by letter dated Aug 12, 2004 on

account of her continued ill health. It may be pertinent to

point out that the management had informed the workman

that her salary would be protected on her re-deployment

in the customer service department but despite these the

workmen declined the offer of alternative employment

given by the management. All other contentions raised by

the workman in para under reply are wrong and therefore

denied.

12.

The contents of para 12 are misconceived, wrong

and therefore denied. It is wrong to contend that the

attitude of the management smacks of malafides or that

the workman had been singled out and victimized. The

facts and circumstances leading to the termination of the

services of the workman have been set out herein above

and on a perusal of the same this Hon’ble Court would be

pleased to note that the decision of the management to

terminate the services of the workman ws eminently

justified and bonafide. The allegation of the workman

regarding victimization is without any truth or substance.

13.

The contents of para 13 are misconceived, wrong

and therefore denied. It is wrong to contend that the

management had illegally terminated the services of the

workman following the due process of law. It is reasserted

and reaffirmed that the services of the workman were

terminated in accordance with law and the order dated

August 12,2004 terminating the services of the workman

does not suffer from any infirmity as alleged or at all. It is

wrong to contend that the termination of the services of

the workman amounts to retrenchment. As already pointed

out the services of the workman were terminated on

account of continued ill health which is not retrenchment.

It may be pertinent to point out that after the termination

of the services of the workman she had settled all her legal

dues in full and final and following terminal benefits which

were paid to her on March 30, 2005".

PF accumulations

Rs. 6.93,465.37

ii)

Pension Fund

Rs. 1,08,097.09

iii)

Gratuity

Rs. 1,38,346.00

It is submitted that the workman after receipt of the

above dues has raised the above dispute clearly by way

of an afterthought and with some ulterior motives. The

demand of the workman for reinstatement is misconceived

and not tenable either or facts or in law. The workman is

not physically and medically fit to perform the job on which

she was employed and the workman had refused the offer

of alternative employment. The dispute raised by the

workman is totally false, frivolous and baseless. The

workman is not entitled to any relief much less the relief of

reinstatement with full back wages or otherwise.

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may most graciously be pleased to pass

accordingly.

784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reply of the written statement on the behalf of the workman

filed rejoinder on 12.8.2006 . Wherein she stated as

follows:-

That the contents of the para 1 of the preliminary

objections is specifically denied. It is denied that no cause

of action or an industrial disputes has arisen within NCT

of Delhi and that the order of reference made by Central

Government to this Hon’ble court is therefor, in competent

and bad in law.

It is submitted that the workman was employed with

the management on 21.02.1994 at Delhi as International

Tele Sales Supports Clerk at its New Delhi Office. Since,

then she has served in various positions in department

within British Airways in Delhi as well as Gurgaon, as and

when directed by the authorities . It is a matter of record

that her salary was being processed and paid out from

Delhi Office of the management. Her terminal dues at the

time of the termination were also paid from the Delhi office

of the management. Including the notice pay paid along

with the letter of termination dated 12th August, 2004.

Even her provident and gratuity accounts were maintained

at Delhi, and the same were paid out to the workman from

the Delhi office of the Management.

That the contents of para 2 of the preliminary

objection are wrong and denied. It is specifically denied

that the order of reference as made by the appropriate

Government is incompetent and bad in law as alleged. It is

submitted that the termination of the services of the

workman was done in an illegally manner without following

the due process of law. It is for the management to establish

its bona fide and jurisdiction of the termination of services

of the workman. The terms of reference made by the

appropriate Government for adjudication before this

Hon’ble Tribunal are correct.

Rejoinder on Merits

As the contents of para 1 of the claim has not been

denied and the same needs no reply.

That the contents of the para 2 of reply on merits are

not denied to the extent of what has been specifically

admitted however, rest of the para is wrong and denied. It

is specifically denied that the services of the workman

were terminated in accordance with law.

That contents of para 3 of reply on merits are

incorrect and hence denied. It is a matter of record that the

Principal Place of business of the management is located

at Delhi. The same is evident from the records of the office

of ROC as well as DGCA. The management be subjected

to strict proof of the averment made by them in the present

para.

4-8.

That the contents of para 4-8 of reply on merits are

wrong and denied and that of corresponding para of the

claim are reiterated and reaffirmed as correct.

(i-iv)

That the contents of sub-para 1-4 are not denied

as the same being matter of record. It is however,

necessary to point out here . The workman

throughout her period of employment with the

management was employed in jobs that involved

working on the Computer system for more than

eight hours every day. All these jobs required the

workman to extensively use the computer keyboard,

sitting on a chair provided to her by the

management. The furniture provided to the staff

working on the computers especially the present

workman since the date of her joining the

employment of the management was ill designed

and did not conform to the advisable ergonomically

standards. Rather the furniture and the work

stations were so designed that they are a health

hazard for the employees. Further the workman

worked continuously for odd hours for the various

projects and there had been minimal rest between

the shifts, which laid to the ill health of the

workman. However, in spite of that she continued

hard work and delivered good results. This is

evident from the various appreciation letters given

to the workman by the management. The workman

number of times pointed out to the management

about the hazards working condition. However, in

spite of various requests the management

completely failed to do the needful which further

led to the deterioration of health of the workman.

(v-viii) That the contents of the para (v-viii) are wrong

and specifically denied. That the contents of para

i to iv above may also read as part and parcel of

present para. It is submitted that the work stations

provided by the management are ill-design and

did not confirm to advisable agronomical standards

due to which many employees working with the

management have suffered heath problems.

(ix-x)

That the contents of para ix and x of the reply on

merits are wrong and denied. It is specifically

denied that the working conditions of employee in

the establishment of workman situated at Gurgoan

and Delhi are one the best country.

(xi)

Contents of para xi of the reply on merits are wrong

and denied. It is specifically denied that the

furniture and other equipments in the office of

management are designed in such a manner that it

increases the efficiency of the employees and

simultaneously provides comfort to them at their

work station as alleged. It is also specifically denied

that the contentions raised by the claimants in her

statement of claim in this regard are clearly and

after thought and impelled by some ulterior motive

as alleged.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

785

(xii)

That the contents of para xii of the reply on merits

are wrong and denied. It is specifically denied. That

there is a team of seven staff members including

the workman, which constituted the QIK Team

Roster. It is submitted that when the workman was

working QIK scripter there were only three

members of the team. The number of members was

increase to seven as soon as the services of the

workman were terminated which shows that the

management is maliciously putting and the false

statement and is trying the prejudice this Hon’ble

Forum when in fact there was a huge work pressure

on the workman and she along with two members

were struggling to cope with the work of 7-8

peoples. This is evident from the fact that the

workman did an over time of 100 hour in 2002 -2003

for the project involving the migration of Manx

Airlines. It is submitted that the management use

to threatening the staff members of termination

due to which nobody else in QIK team use to raise

a voice against the ill-working conditions and

defect in furniture leading to bad work condition.

(xiii-xiv)The contents of para xiii-xiv are wrong and denied.

The contents of paras herein above be also read

as part and parcel or present para also.

(xvi)

The contents of para xv of the reply are wrong and

denied. It is submitted that as the workman was

suffering from bad health and injuries due to the

bad working conditions provided by the

management. Instead of accommodating the

workman the management victimized the workman

and illegally terminated her services.

The contents of para 9 reply on merits are wrong

and denied that of corresponding para of the statement of

the claim are reiterated and reaffirmed as correct. It is

however, specifically denied that the management had

maintained sincere efforts to accommodate to the workman

as alleged.

10.

The contents of para 10 of reply on merits are wrong

and denied that of corresponding para of the statement of

the claim are reiterated and reaffirmed as correct. It is

submitted that prior to termination the management tried

to force workman to work during odd hours and night

shifts on unsuitable job, which was not as per the

qualification of the workman. The management did this

intentionally in order to victimize the workman . Later on ,

the management unlawfully terminated the services of

workman.

11.

The contents of para 11 of reply on merits are wrong

and are specifically denied and the contents of the

corresponding para of the statement of the claim are

reiterated and reaffirmed as correct.

12.

The contents of para 12 of reply on merits are wrong

and are specifically denied and the contents of the

corresponding para of the statement of the claim are

reiterated and reaffirmed as correct.

13.

The contents of para 13 of reply on merits are wrong

and are specifically denied and the content of the

corresponding para of the statement of the claim are

reiterated and reaffirmed as correct. It is however,

specifically denied that at the time of the termination of

services of the workman all her legal dues were settled in

full and final as alleged. It is necessary to mention that

whatever payment was being forced upon workman at the

time of the termination was accepted by her protest and

without prejudice to her rights. That the workman reserves

right to raise claim are her legal dues at and later stage as

and when require and advised to her. It is, specially denied

that the workman after receipt of above dues has raised

the dispute clearly by way of an after thought and with

some ulterior motives as alleged. It is also denied that the

demand of the workman for reinstatement is misconceived

and not tenable either on the facts or in law as alleged. It is

also denied that the workman is not physically and

medically fit to perform the job on which she was

employed. It is also denied that the workman refuse the

offer of alternative employment as alleged. It is also denied

that the dispute raised by the workman is totally false,

frivolous and baseless as alleged. It is also denied that the

workman is not entitled to any relief much less the relief of

reinstatement with full back wages and otherwise as

alleged.

That the contents of prayer clause of the reply are

wrong and denied that of corresponding of claim are

reiterated and reaffirmed as correct.

My Ld. Predecessor proceeded on the basis of

questions of determination mentioned in the schedule of

reference when management moved an application for

recasting of issues mentioned in it then my Ld.

Predecessor on 12.08.2006 passed order on order sheet

that relevant issues will be considered at the time of

arguments and 21.12.2006 fixed for workman evidence.

Workman in support of his case filed affidavit of WW1

Ms. Rachna Verma on 19.10.2006. Where-in she stated

as follows:-

That I am workman in the above industrial dispute

as such I am well conversant with the facts and

circumstances of the case and duly competent to swear

this affidavit.

I Say that the present industrial dispute has been

referred for adjudication by the Government before this

Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal with the following terms of

reference.

“Whether the action of the management of British

Airways, 11th Floor, Gopaldas Bhawan, Barakhamba

Road, New Delhi in terminating the services of Ms.

Rachna Verma, Message Editing Scripter w.e.f.

786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12.08.2004 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief

is the workman entitled?”

I say that the Workman had joined the services of

the management on 21.02.1994 at Delhi office. A copy of

the appointment letter and contract of employment is

exhibited herein as Exhibit Ww1/1 (colly) and since then

she has served in various positions and departments of

the management at Delhi as well as Gurgaon as and when

directed by the management. The salary of the workman

was being processed and paid from Delhi office of the

management. The Provident fund and gratuity accounts

were maintained and paid out to the workman from Delhi

office. The documents pertaining to salary and gratuity

and Provident fund are exhibited herein as exhibit WW1/

2(colly). She initially joined the Management as an

International Tele-Sales Support Clerk, and was last

promoted to the position of Message Editing Scripter with

effect from 19.06.2000. A copy of Promotion letter is

exhibited as exhibit WW1/3. The service record of the

Workman has been quite impressive and commendable.

The Workman has been earning appreciations from the

management from time to time for the quality of her work

and has even earned the prestigious British Airways

Award of Excellence. THE COPY OF THE SAID AWARD

AND OTHER APPRECIATION LETTERS/CARDS ARE

EXHIBITED HEREIN AS EXHIBIT WW 1/4 (COLLY).

Despite all this the services of the Workman were

terminated illegally in the most unceremonious manner by

the management vide letter dated 12th August, 2004.

A copy of the termination letter is exhibited herein as

Exhibit WW1/5(colly).The management issued a Cheque of

Rs. 27837.40/- dated 11.8.2004 towards notice period. The

said cheque was processed and issued by its Delhi office

and was payable at Delhi. A copy of the remittance advice

of the Delhi office of management and that of cheque is

exhibited as Exhibit WW1/6(colly).

I say that the Management is a Multi National

Foreign Airlines having registered under the Indian

Companies Act to operate its business in India and is

involved in the business of running of an Airline commonly

known as the British Airways. The said Airline operates

flights all over the world including from and to New Delhi.

I SAY THAT THE WORKMAN THROUGHOUT

HER PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE

MANAGEMENT WAS EMPLOYED IN JOBS THAT

INVOLVED WORKING ON THE COMPUTER SYSTEM

FOR MORE THAN EIGHT HOURS EVERY DAY. All these

jobs required the Workman to extensively use the computer

keyboard, sitting on an uncomfortable chair provided to

her by the management. The furniture provided to the

staff working on the computers especially the present

Workman since the date of her joining the employment of

the Management was ill designed and did not conform to

the advisable ergonomically standards. Rather the

furniture and the work stations were so designed that they

are a health hazard for the employees. THE WORKMAN

WAS ASKED TO OPERATE TWO COMPUTERS AT ONE

TIME AND THE WORK STATION WERE ILL DESIGNED.

A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WORK STATION IS

EXHIBITED AS EXHIBIT WW 1/7.

I say that the workman joined the services of the

management at Delhi on 21st February, 1994. The Workman

was deployed as International Tele Sales Support Clerk

by the management on 21st February, 1994 after a complete

fitness/medical check up done by doctors appointed by

the British Airways. The Workman joined the services at

the office situated at Connaught Place, New Delhi.

I say that the Workman on a typical day would work

for 10 hours out of which more than nine hours were spent

working before a computer. The workman had worked with

the management for 10 years continuously.

I say that on 19-6-2000, She was promoted to the

post of Message Editing Scripter. The workman worked

arduously for odd hours for the various projects. For

example, she worked more than 100 hours of overtime for

one of the projects (in a month) in mid 2002. Thus there

was minimal rest between the shifts. In-spite of her ill

health she continued to work hard and delivered highly

successful projects and has been given numerous letters

of commendation for the same. She worked over weekend

at very short notice to deliver critical projects for British

Airways. Till her last day in the office, she tried to find

solutions to difficult projects and delivered high quality

work.

I say that the workman suffered bad health and

injuries as a direct result and consequence of the bad

working conditions’ provided by the management. The

workman tried her best to point out the bad working

conditions including bad work stations but management

did not pay any heed to same. THE EMAILS OF

WORKMAN IN THIS REGARD ARE EXHIBITED HEREIN

AS EXHIBIT WW1/8(COLLY).THE MEDICAL

CERTIFICATE OF THE DOCTOR SHOWING THE ILL

HEALTH SUFFERED BY THE WORKMAN DUE TO NON

CONDUCIVE WORKING CONDITIONS IS EXHIBITED

AS EXHIBIT WW1/9.

10.

I say that the Management had made up its mind to

victimize the Workman as they considered her useless for

the company, they just wanted to discard her from the

services without any legal benefits. The management

inspite of the ill health of workman did not allow the

workman to use her sick leaves and forced her to attend

office when she was unwell and was not in a position to

attend the office. THE EMAILS OF WORKMAN

REQUESTING FOR SICK LEAVE AND REFUSAL OF

MANAGEMENT IS EXHIBITED AS EXHIBIT WW1/10

(COLLY).

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

787

11.

I SAY THAT THE HRD MANAGER OF THE

MANAGEMENT MR. CYRIL DANIELS IN VERY CLEAR

TERMS ASKED WORKMAN TO RESIGN AND ACCEPT

THE VRS WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DELAY. THE

WORKMAN WAS THREATENINGLY ASKED TO

ACCEPT PREMATURE RETIREMENT AND NOT TO

THINK OF TAKING ON THE MIGHT OF MANAGEMENT

WHO ON THE STRENGTH OF THEIR FINANCIAL

ADVANTAGE WOULD BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN ANY

LITIGATION THAT WORKMAN MIGHT DECIDE TO

PURSUE AGAINST THEM. The e-mails of Mr. Cyrial

Daniels in this regard are exhibited as Exhibit WW1/11

(colly).

12.

I say that the Management had illegal terminated

the services of the workman. The management was bent

upon victimizing the workman. The Workmen prior to her

termination was asked to work during odd working hours

and night shifts, which was not acceptable to the

Workman. The Management had intentionally forced upon

the workman a female to work at night shifts, which was

not acceptable to the workman due to her family reasons.

The management had intentionally victimized the workman

and terminated her services. THE E-MAILS OF WOKMAN

REQUESTING FOR ALTERNATIVE PLACEMENT WITH

IN THE ORGANIZATION AND REFUSAL OF

MANAGEMENT BY PUTTING ARBITRARY AND

UNSUITABLE CONDITIONS ARE EXHIBITED AS

EXHIBIT WW1/12(COLLY).

THAT EVEN FOR PF, PENSION AND GRATUITY THE

MANAGEMENT TRIED TO FORCE THE WORKMAN

TO SIGN THE DOCUMENT SHOWING THAT SHE HAS

NO CLAIMS AND DUES LEFT. THE WORKMAN

REFUSED TO SIGN THE SAID DOCUMENT.

13.

I say that the attitude of the Management smacks of

malafides and it is dear that the Management has singled

out the Workman and victimized her for no fault of hers.

14.

I say that the management thereafter illegally

terminated the services of the workman without following

the due process of law. She was victimized and illegally

retrenched without any cause. Hence the Present dispute

was raised by the workman seeking reinstatement with

full back wages.

Workman tendered his affidavit on 19.3.2007. Her

statement of tendering of affidavit is as follows:-

I tender into evidence my affidavit exhibit WW1/A

which bears my signature at point A to A and the contents.

I also tender into evidence documents exhibit WW1/1,

WW1/2, WW1/3.

At this stage the remaining statement of the workman

I deferred as she has not brought the originals of some of

the documents filed with the affidavit.

She was partly cross-examined on 21.05.2007. Her partly

cross-examination is as follows:-

I have brought the originals of some more documents

referred in my affidavit which have been exhibited WW1/4

to WW1/20. I further state that I am in possession of the

other original documents and e-mail and needs time to

produce the same on the next date. I have also tendered

an unsigned documents Mark A.

At this stage the A/R of the workman opposed and

submits that this documents should be exhibited. The

remaining statement of the witness therefore deferred to

produce the remaining original documents and the e-mails

etc. and for further evidence.

But her remaining cross-examination is deferred to fixed

date as she was directed to produce the remaining original

for further cross-examination.

On 9.04.2008 she was again cross-examined. Her cross-

examination is as follows:-

XXXXX Q. It is correct that after your appointment in

Fed., 1994 till the Regional office of the management was

setup in Gurgaon in March –April, 1999, you are posted in

the Regional Office of the Management at DLF Center,

Sansad Marg, New Delhi?

Ans. I worked at the office that was assigned by the

Manager concerned including Delhi Airport or any other

city.

Do you have any letter in your possession directing

you to work in any other city except Delhi for the period

mentioned above?

Ans. All instructions by the Mgt. given verbally hence

do not have any letter.

Were you sent out of Delhi during the aforesaid

period by way of transfer or for nay particular assignment

on tour?

Ans. I was sent on assignments or whenever there was

staff shortage.

Were you paid DA and TA while you were sent on

assignment outside Delhi?

Ans. At times I was paid at times I was not depending

upon the rules set by the mgt.

Is it correct that the Regional Office at DLF Center

at Delhi was shifted in April, 1999?

Ans. The office at DLF Center stayed there and a new

office setup in Gurgaon.

I putted to you that the Regional Office at DLF Center

Delhi was discontinued thereafter and is not functional

since last 7 to 8 years.

Ans. This is incorrect. The office of the DLF Center was

operational for many years after a new office was setup in

Gurgaon.

788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

When the Regional office at Gurgaon was setup

you alongwith other employees working at DLF Center

Delhi was shifted at Gurgaon?

Ans. A new office was setup in Gurgaon around 1999

alongwith the other office at Connaught Place.

I worked mostly from Gurgaon after the office got

shifted to Gurgaon.

It is correct that the Union had raised a dispute

regarding setting up of a new office in Gurgaon.

I have not seen the document, the agreement dated

15.04.99 earlier.

I have received Rs. 50000/- for the inconvenience

caused to travel to the new office at Gurgaon.

I was at that time residing at C/148 , Ramesh Nagar,

New Delhi.

I shifted my residence from Delhi to Gurgaon around

5 years back.

It is correct that Ms. Indulal was my boss. I do not

know where she was posted.

I cannot say whether she was posted at Gurgaon.

I am not aware as to whether Mr. C. Danniel, Corporate

Affairs and HR Manager was posted at Gurgaon. Vol. Miss.

Anjumnath was the HR Manager for many years and I

used to see her often in Gurgaon office.

I do not as to whether Mr. Andy stern was posted at

Gurgaon but I had seen him only on few occasions.

After April, 1999, I was addressing my leave

applications to Ms. Priti Sharma, Ms. Archana Sriram, Ms.

Namrita Griover who ever I was reporting at that time.

I cannot say whether they were posted at Gurgaon

as they were travelling a lot. Their Head Quarters was in

London.

My bank account had always been in Delhi.

I used to get my salary through bank advice/salary

slip.

I need to verify whether the British Airways PF, India

is at Calcutta.

Same is my reply for Gratuity fund also.

I have not received a letter dated 7.2.2005 copy of

which WW1/M1 . There is endorsement of receipt written

by me and I have put my signature and written the dated

30.3.2005 and I have received the payment of PF in terms

of receipt Ex. WW1/M2.

I have received the payment of my gratuity as well

as mentioned in WW1/M3 and WW1/M4.

I have put endorsement received on WW1/M1 for

receiving of the cheque.

I have received pension also and the documents in

this regard are WW1/M5 and WW1/M6.

At this stage cross-examination is deferred.

His cross examination has been deferred to 23.02.2012.

On 23.02.2012 she was cross-examined and her cross-

examination is as follows:-

I have done short course in computer application.

vol. I was first class in diploma in marketing in sales

management and one year diploma public relation and

administration and topped in both the course. I had applied

for the post of message editing scripter in the year 1998.

No, I was not selected in the year 1998. It is correct that I

again applied in the year 2000 and then I was selected. It is

correct MES (Message Editing Scripter ) is a computer

related job. There was 2 more MEs in the department apart

from one manager. It is wrong to suggest that during my

tenure there were 7 MES working in the department. I do

not know the exact number of employees working at DLF

Towers Gurgaon. All the employees were working on the

computer except sales and marketing employees. It is

correct that chair of MES employees were same. It is correct

that I was very good in software and I got several awards

for excellence. The company Doctor told me not to

continue working on computer. In the course of doing the

work I had some problem upon which the management

had referred me to the Doctor of management and he

advised the management that I should be asked to

discontinue working on computers for some time and in

the meanwhile I should do some other work. It is correct

that I was diagnosed with “Carpal tunnel syndrome” by

the company doctor. It is correct that two other employees

besides me were suffering from such like symptoms. I

cannot say if any other employee had complained to the

management regarding such like problems. I could get the

benefit of sick leave till May, 2004 though I have to fight

for the same. It is correct that I received the letter exhibit

WW1/18. It is correct that replied the said letter vide email

letter dated 23.06.2004, which is exhibited as Ex. WW1/

M1. Generous VRS package referred by me in my letter Ex.

WW1/M1 was relevant at that time and it could have been

the subject of negotiation with the management. Right

now the same is no longer relevant.

Are you still willing to do the job offered to you

vide letter Ex. WW1/18 ?

Ans. With medical aid I am quite better now and I can do

the job which I was doing before my termination provided

the work station is also suitable to my medical condition.

The alternative job mentioned in the letter is not acceptable

to me.

It is incorrect to suggest that the furniture and chair

given to me were not ill designed. It is incorrect to suggest

that I was not working on 2 computers at one time. It is

incorrect to suggest that my medical condition was

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

789

unrelated to my working in the office. It is incorrect to

suggest that the office furniture and other equipment of

the management was of very high and of international

standards. I have no idea if the management does not

require my services any more Vol. In fact my job is

managerial and supervisory in nature these days. It is

incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely.

On 23.02.2012 her cross-examination is concluded.

On 12.9.2012 she closed her evidence.

Management in support of its case filed affidavit of MW1.

Ms. Ranajee Balaram on 27.04.2013. Wherein he stated

as follows:-

I say that the management M/s British Airways Plc

is registered in England and it is an International Airlines

having worldwide operations. The management has set

up its business in several countries and the Controlling

office of South Asia of British Airway is at DLF Plaza Tower,

DLF City, Phase-I, Gurgaon in the state of Haryana. The

claimant was employed with the Management at Gurgaon

in the state of Haryana. I say that no part of cause of

action as result within the territorial limits of this Hon’ble

Court.

I say that the claimant was employed with the

management at Gurgoan Office and she was discharging

the work as International Tele Sales Support Clerk (ITSS)

from February 21, 1994.

I say that in 1998 a vacancy of Message Editing

Scripter (QIK Scripter ) arose and the nature of the said

job involves working on computers . The claimants applied

for the post of Message Editing Scripter and was fully

aware of the duties and responsibilities of a QIK Scripter.

Vide letter dated 6.5.1998 the claimant was called for a

written test and interview and was shortlisted but was not

selected. A copy of the letter is exhibited as Ex MW1/1.

I say that again in the year 2000 there was a vacancy

of a Message Edition Scripter (QIK Scripter) and the

claimant again applied and was vide letter 27.2.2000

required to appear for the preliminary selection process

comprising of the written test as well as interview.

Thereafter, she was shortlisted for final round of selection

process for the post of QUK Scripter. The claimant was

found suitable and appointed as QIK Scripter-Message

Editing Scripter and was upgraded and placed in Grade D.

I say that the claimant was promoted to the post of

Message Editing Scripter (QIK Scripter) with effect from

19.6.2000. A copy of the letter dated 27.2.2000 is exhibited

as Ex MW1/2 . The letter dated 5.6.2000 appointing her as

Message Editing Scripter is already exhibited as WW1/3.

I say that the claimant had taken a conscious

decision to apply for the post of QIK Scripter and had

offered to work on a higher grade for her own better

prospects. I say that the claimant was aware of the job

description and the responsibilities of a QIK Scripter and

had applied for the said post twice during her tenure with

the management.

I say that during the entire tenure of her employment

the claimant was working on the computer. I say that the

benefits of working on computer are immense and well

acknowledged. Obtaining , disseminating any information,

data of communication through electronic media with the

help of computers is quick and even immediate and saves

a lot of time and energy of the employees and improves

the efficiency. I say that the said job which the claimant

was earlier performing falls currently in the managerial

and supervisory grade.

I say that more than 130 employees were working in

the Gurgaon office where the claimant was last employed.

It is submitted that each employee has been provided with

a separate computer and workstation. The Claimant like all

other employees was working on a computer which was

provided at her workstation. I say that the claimant has

tried to make out a case that her ill-health is attributable to

extensively working on computers. I say that the

contention of the claimant that the furniture provided to

the staff for working on computers was ill designed and

did not conform to the advisable ergonomical standards

is totally false. I also say that contention that the furniture

and workstations were so designed that they were a health

hazard for the employees is absolutely false. I say that no

other employee except the claimant has ever complained

about the medical problems that were being faced by her.

A report on ergonomic workstation and chair pertaining

to workstations used in the British Airways office issued

by the Architect is annexed herewith as Exh. MW1/3.

I say that the working conditions of the employs in

our establishment are one of the best in the country. The

Management had re-located its office from DLF Centre,

Sansad Marg, New Delhi to its present location at DLF

Plaza Tower, DLF Qutab Enclave, Phase I, Gurgaon in April,

1999. All the employees who were residing at Delhi were

paid a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000 /- each at that time.

I state that management made transport arrangements to

pick up the employees and drop them at the fixed point as

agreed.

I say that the furniture, workstations and the working

conditions of the employees while they were employed at

DLF Centre and thereafter at DLF Plaza Tower were/are

excellent and of high standards. I say that the furniture

and other equipments in the office are designed in such a

manner that it not only increases the efficiency of the

employees but simultaneously provides comfort to them

at their workstations . I say that the management has been

following international norm while designing the work

stations and all the contentions that because of the work

and the furniture the claimant suffered is incorrect.

790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

I say that the Claimant was not the only employee

working as Message Editing Scripter (QIK Scripter) . In

fact there was a team of 07 staff members including the

claimant which constituted the QIK Team Roster. The

nature of duties being performed by the claimant and the

remaining 6 staff members are not only similar but

substantially the same. No other staff member employed

as Message Editing Scripter (QIK Scripter) ever complained

about the working conditions or any defect in the furniture

or workstations as alleged by the claimant . No other

aforesaid staff also ever complained about any ill-health

or problem due to the furniture or workstations at the office

of the management.

11.

I say that the continued ill-health of the Claimant is

a special problem peculiar to a particular individual and

has nothing to do with working on the computer. It has

nothing to do and is not at all related with office furniture

or workstations as alleged by the claimant. All the staff

members in the office work on computers. I say that it is

unfortunate that the claimant is suffering from continued

ill-health but it is totally wrong and baseless on her part to

contend that the working conditions in the organization

are in any manner responsible for her continued ill-health.

I say that the claimant worked in accordance with the

working hours of the organization and she did not spend

9 hours as alleged working on the computer.

12.

I say that due to continuous ill-health of the claimant,

she was not able to report for duty for which she was

employed. I say that the Management had discussed about

the ill-health of the claimant with her on several occasions.

The claimant was not physically fit to perform the job on

which she was employed and the claimant very fairly

conceded this fact.

13.

I say that the management had made sincere efforts

to accommodate the claimant but the claimant on account

of her continued ill-health was not able to perform the job

on which she was employed . I say that it is not true that

the claimant was victimized in any manner whatsoever

rather the claimant was not physically and mentally fit to

perform the job for which she was employed.

14.

I say that considering the ill-health of the claimant

the Management had offered that the claimant could be

accommodated in the Customer Service Department where

the computer related work was minimum. This

communication was sent by letter dated 2nd June, 2004. A

copy of the said letter is already exhibited herewith as Ex.

WW1/20.

15.

I say that the claimant by her email dated June 23,

2004 declined the offer of re-deployment in the Customer

Service Department. The management under these

circumstances was thus left with no alternative but to

terminate the services of the claimant in accordance with

the terms and conditions of her employment. The services

of the claimant were accordingly terminated by letter dated

August 12, 2004 on account of her continued ill-health.

The management had informed the claimant that her salary

would be protected on her re-deployment in the Customer

Service Department but despite these the claimant declined

the offer of alternative employment given by the

management. A copy of the email dated June 23, 2004 is

exhibited herewith as Ex MW1/4 and the copy of the

termination letter dated August 12, 2004 is exhibited as Ex

MW1/5.

16.

I say that the services of the claimant were terminated

in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the

termination as alleged. I say that all dues of the claimant

were cleared at the time of the termination of her

employment. I say that on 30.03.2005 all the terminal

benefits which included PF accumulation, pension fund

and gratuity were duly paid to her. I say that the claim filed

by the claimant is not maintainable and is liable to be

dismissed. I say that she is not entitled to relief of

reinstatement with full backwages or otherwise.

MW1 Ms. Rajanee Balaram , tendered his affidavit on

4.10.2013. Her statement of tendering of affidavit is as

follows:-

I tender in affidavit my evidence dated 27th April,

2013. I also tender documents Ex. MW1/1 to Ex. MW1/5.

The Ld. Counsel for claimant/workman objected fro

tendering paper Ex . MW1/3 which is proposal by architect.,

he must prove it. None other is competent to prove it as

per rules of evidence Act.

She was cross-examined on same day and her cross-

examination is as follows:-

I manage the call centre and also manage the

reportics, robotics scheme and the manual CBAJS. I was

employed British Airways since 4th Dec, 1989. I have never

worked with the workman directly. I worked in the same

office in a different team. I have never supervised the

workman directly or indirectly. I have not worked in the

same roll as the but I worked in similar roll.

I joined British Airways as a message editing clerk.

So the roll was same to what Rachna joined in. I have not

seen Rachna Verma job file . Therefore I cannot say

whether the roll was identical. I have worked as a message

editing clerk for 2 years and after 2 years I moved to the

reservation department. It could be correct to say that my

roll reservation to say that my roll reservation was entirely

different form my earlier duty from message editing clerk.

As message editing clerk my duties were entirely computer

based. We were required to do editing in computer

messages. I was required to work on VIDCS come terminal

which is like a computer.

We were using computers when Rachna Verma,

joined her service. She was working company standard

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

791

machine but I cannot say the exact description of the

machine. I have not seen Rachna Verma working on two

machines (Dual Set).

I cannot say since I was not working directly with

the workman . I cannot say if anybody was working on

dual set in the company. I would not be able to give any

detail of the workman is profile. I have a General idea of

what role she was performing since I was not working in

the same department . The HR department would be able

to provide the information about the exact job profile. I do

not know whom the working was working under since I

did not work in the same team QIK scripter would signify

same out who write a software program for the reservation

system . It is a way to automate entries. It is correct that

I have worked as is QIK Scripter . It is correct that

information in para 3 + 4 is not based on my personal

knowledge but based on information from my colleagues

in the Company. It is incorrect to say the QIK was formed

to handle back and reservation for the company. It is

incorrect that before the QIK was formed the back and

reservation worked was done by about 100 employees

manually. It is incorrect to say the QIK team after it was

formed has only 3 employees. It I incorrect to suggest that

QIK department was under staffed. It is incorrect to

suggest that workman alongwith other QIK staff was

required to take compulsory overtime. I do not remember

the exact date. When the job of the claimant was

performing was made managerial grade position. My

statement that the furniture and work station are so

designed that they are not a health hazard is based on the

fact that the same furniture is being used by all the

employee as no one has ever had any health problems. I

am not qualified to judge that if particular piece of furniture

is ill designed or it a health hazard . The documents which

is Ex. MW1/3 has not been prepared by me and I was not

involve in the preparation. I am not aware of the

international norm of designing of workstation but I am

aware that there are norms I am not aware if any other

member of QIK message editing team have any complaint

of any health problems. It is correct that complaint if any

were not supposed to be made to me. The ME Team

manager was Indu Lal was the person to inform if

complaint could any. It is incorrect to suggest that Rupali

Kashyap Sargam Moli Sood were ever complained for

similar problem as workman. It is incorrect to say that I am

not aware of such complaint because I was not the

supervisor of the team. The Workman was offered a

position in customer service depart in which she would

have be required to interact with the customer to meet

customer it was minimum computer based and non-

sedentary job. I am not aware if the position offered to the

workman in the customer service department was two grade

lower than the position the workman was at . I am not

aware if the position offered to the workman in the above

dept. was usually given to the temporary employees of

the company. I am not aware what terms and condition

were offered to the workman in customer service

department. The same would have been mentioned in the

contract if she would have accepted the said position.

The offer would not have been made by personnel. The

same would have become handled by the HR Departments.

It is in correct to suggest the terms and conditions offered

to the workman in the aforesaid department were inferior

to those the workman was enjoying in earlier position . It

is incorrect to suggest that in the new position the

workman was required to do night shift at the airport unlike

her previous position . I am not aware if the workman had

applied for medical leave. Voluntarily unpaid leave due to

her medical condition and the same was declined to her. I

cannot say if similar leave was granted to other employees.

It is incorrect to suggest that the workman was required to

do overtime of about 100 hours in a month at time when

she was working as QIK Scripter. It is incorrect to suggest

that physical disability suffered by the workman was due

to excessive use of computer in the job and ill designed

office furniture. Some of my knowledge is based on the

documents and some of it is based on personal knowledge

since I was working in the company at the same time . I

cannot say if the people worked with the workman as a

supervisor are still in the company .

Written submission on behalf of the workman on

5.11.2014. Wherein she stated as follows:-

Respectfully submitted

Facts in Brief

The workman was appointed by the Respondent on

21.2.1994 and was confirmed on 21.5.1994 as International

Tele Sales Support Clerk. (Undisputed by the Respondent)

Workman was promoted as Message Editing Scripter

on 19.6.2000. The Workman was selected for the above

position by the management after she had passed an

examination for the said position. (Undisputed by the

Respondent)

Both, as Tele Sales Support clerk and Message

Editing Scripter the Workman worked extensively on

computers for long hours. Workman is trained as a

computer programmer. (Undisputed by the Respondent

however it is disputed that the work was stressful)

The Workman’s job profile required the workman to

work for long hours on computers, which also included

working on a type of computers called ‘dual set’. It is a

two computer system where the machine has two screens

and two keyboards. Working on such machine is more

stressful than a regular computer. (Disputed by the

Respondent)

Throughout her time with the Respondent, the

Workman was graded as very good worker. She received

various certificates and appreciations and praises for her

work from the management. The certificates of appreciation

etc. are exhibited as Exhibit WW 1/ 4.

792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Due to extensive working on computers for long

hours the Workman suffered from Repetitive Stress Injury

(RSI), which affected her hands and neck resulting in loss

of control over the same. Workman found it difficult to

operate computers and had to take medical leave for

undergoing treatments.

Respondent got the Workman examined by their own

doctors who diagnosed that the Workman was suffering

from RSI and should not work on computers or take up a

job with minimal computer operations. Two Company

doctors examined the Workman who reported the same

diagnosis . Doctor’s reports are dated 11.2.2004 and

12.2.2004. The reports are not marked as exhibits either in

the Workman’s evidence or Respondent’s evidence but

the same have been filed and relied upon by the

Respondent.

Services of the Workman were terminated on

12.8.2004 (Ex-WW1/5) after declaring the Workman

medically unfit. (Undisputed by the Respondent).

Workman’s Contentions

The termination on medical grounds would amount

to retrenchment as defined under Section 2 (00) of the

Industrial Dispute Act

The Respondent has victimized the Workman for

the following reasons:

(a)

The alternate job offered by the Respondent vide

their letter dated 2.6.2004 was just an eye wash.

(b)

The alternate job offered was a shift job dealing

with missing baggage handling claims at the airport.

It involved night shifts and public dealing. Whereas

the Workman’s original job did not involve night

shifts or public dealing.

(c)

The alternate job was not consistent with the

Workman’s qualification and skills of a computer

programmer.

(d)

The Respondent did not disclose what efforts were

taken by them to find a suitable alternate position

for the workman. Respondent did not disclose if

there were any other positions that were available

and why only airport job with nigh shifts was offered

to her. Only one option was provided by the

Respondent with a condition of ‘take it or leave it’,

that too in a very different profile than the workman’s

own profile and position.

(e)

It was duty of the Respondent to look for a suitable

alternate position for the workman.

(f)

No terms and conditions of the new job were

disclosed to the Workman. Workman could not

undertake night shifts since she had a very young

daughter at home and her husband had a touring

job for which reason she could not leave the child at

home at night.

(g)

She informed the Respondent about her problem

and asked for another option. The Respondent

refused to accommodate and the Workman therefore

declined the airport job. (Ex-WW 1/12)

(h)

The airport position in night shift was clearly an

attempt to victimize the Workman and it was not a

genuine offer. Even earlier, the emails of the Workman

requesting for sick leave were turned down by the

Respondent. (EX-WW 1/10)

(i)

The Respondent wanted to set an example for others

since the Workman had questioned the unhealthy

working conditions offered by the Respondent.

Threatening emails of the management have been

exhibited as Ex-WW 1/11.

(j)

The furniture provided to the employees working in

computers is not designed as per the standards that

the Respondent’s parent company follows for its

employees in England.

(k)

Workman complained about the ill designed

workstations but the Respondent ignored her

complaints.

(l)

Other workers too have suffered similar medical

problems and have complained but they have been

repressed from speaking up making an example of

the Workman for others by terminating her services.

RESPONDENT’S DEFENCE

In their reply, the Respondent had challenged the

territorial jurisdiction and claimed that the Workman was

employed in Gurgaon therefore Delhi will not have

jurisdiction. The objections was however waived off and

given up at the time of arguments.

That medical condition suffered by the Workman

had nothing to do with the employment. There was nothing

wrong with the workstations.

Problem was peculiar to the Workman and nobody

else suffered from the said problem.

Working on computers was part of the job and the

Workman voluntarily chose the said job. She can not later

complain about the job.

It is not the Respondent’s legal obligation to offer

alternate position to a medically unfit employee. Still, the

Respondent treated Workman fairly by offering her a

position at the airport, which she declined.

Respondent has a legal right to terminate the services

of a medically unfit employee. Such termination does not

fall within the definition of retrenchment under Section 2

(oo) of the Industrial Dispute Act

Workman is not so medically unfit for her to decline

the airport position offered to her.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

793

Shift job is a standard operational requirement of

the Respondent, being an airline. There are other women

who do shift jobs without any problem in the Respondent

Company and in other industries.

Evidence

Most of the facts are undisputed except the

Respondent’s denial that the working conditions were poor

which led to the medical condition of the Workman.

Workman examined herself as WW 1 and testified.

Respondent has examined only one witness, namely

Ms Rajnee Balaram (MW 1), working as MD Call BA. In

her evidence MW1 has inert-alia stated that she is not

competent to depose and did not know what was the job

profile of the Workman. She could not even depose on the

nature of job Workman was doing and the problems she

was facing. She candidly deposed that one Ms Indu Lal,

the supervisor/boss of the Workman was dealing with the

Workman. She also stated that she did not know if other

employees also complained about similar medical problem

as she was not the concerned person to whom such

complaints would have been made. She then stated that

HR department should know better. Following are the

excerpts from her statement:

(a)“…….I have never worked with the Workman

directly. I worked in the same department in a

different team. I have never supervised the Wokman.

I have not worked in the same role but I worked in a

similar role. I joined Bristish Airways as a Message

Editing Clerk. So the role was the same as what

Rachna joined in. I have not seen Rachna Verma’s

file therefore I can not say whether the role was

indentical”

The witness clearly states above that she did not

know what Rachna Verma’s role was and if the same was

that of hers. The witness deposed that she worked in a

similar role as the Workman but then said she had not

seen Workman’s file and therefore cannot say if the role

was identical to hers. Therefore the witness is not

competent to depose about the working conditions of the

Workman.

(b)“…. It would be correct to say that my role in

reservation was entirely different from the earlier

duty of message editing clerk”

“……she was working on company standard

machine but I cannot say the exact description of

the machine. I have not seen Rachna Verma working

on two machines (dual sets). I cannot say since I

was not working directly with the Workman. I cannot

say if any body was working on dual set in the

Company. I would not be able to give any details of

the workman’s profile. I have a general idea of what

role she was performing since I was not working in

the same department. The HR department would be

able to provide information of the exact profile. I do

not know who she was working under since I did

not work in the same team.

The Respondent’s witness in examination in chief

had deposed denying all the allegations made by the

Workman including regarding the machines that she was

using. Whereas in her cross-examination she has stated

that she wasn’t aware of what kind of machines Workman

was using and the HR department would know of the same.

Therefore, the evidentiary value of this witness is nil and

the fact that Workman was made to work on extra strenuous

dual set computers has not been controverted in the

evidence of the Respondent.

(c)“….it is correct that I have never worked as a

QIK Scripter. It is correct that information in

paragraph 3 and 4 is not based on my personal

knowledge but based on information from colleagues

in the Company. ….”

It is the case of the Workman that the job profile of

QIK Scripter was a very strenuous job which required

working on dual set computers for long hours. Witness of

the Respondent in her examination-in-chief, has denied

the same. Whereas in her cross examination she has stated

that she has never worked as QIK Scripter. Therefore her

evidence on the said job profile and her statement that the

job was not strenuous is unreliable. The witness does not

explain on what basis she has deposed about the job profile

of a QIK Scripter. Rather she has stated that her statement

is based on information provided by the colleagues. The

evidence of the witness is this hearsay and unreliable.

(d) “…..My statement that the furniture and

workstation are so designed that they are not a health

hazard is based on the fact that the same furniture is

being used by all employees as no one has ever had

any health problems. I am not qualified to judge that

is a particular piece of furniture is ill designed or is a

health hazard. The document which is Ex MW1/3

has not been prepared by me and I was not involved

in the preparation. I am not aware of the international

norms of designing work stations but I am aware

that there are norms…..”

Respondent’s witness in her examination-in-chief,

has deposed that there was nothing wrong with the

furniture design on which the Workman was made to work

for long hours. However, in her cross-examination she has

stated that she is not a expert to judge and that there are

international norms of workstation design but she does

not know what those norms are. Also, MW 1/3 is a report

of architects M/S Interior Design Consultants. This report

has been filed by the Respondent to contend that the

report certifies that the furniture and workstations used

by the Respondent conforms to international standards.

The Workman has objected to marking this document as

794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

an exhibit since the same was a photocopy and the MW 1

did not prepare the said report nor was involved in the

study. Even otherwise, said report clearly acknowledges

that bad furniture and prolonged use of computers is a

health hazard and causes Repetitive Stress Injury (RSI).

(e) “……I am not aware if any other member of QIK

Message Editing team have any complaints of any

health problem. It is correct that complaints if any

were not supposed to be made to me. The ME Team

Manager was Indu Lal was the person to inform. It

is incorrect to suggest that Rupali Kashyap, Sargam

Moli Sood ever complained for similar problem as

Workman. It is incorrect to say that I am not aware

of such complaints because I am not the supervisor

of the team…..”

The Respondent’s sole witness has stated that the

Workman was the only person who had complained in the

office. She has denied that the name of the other

employees from the same team who had made similar

complaints. Whereas, she then states that she does not

know if the complaints were made since they would have

been made to Ms. Indu Lal the supervisor. She admits

that she is not the concerned person to whom such

complaints could be made and that she wasn’t aware if

such complaints were made. Therefore, her evidence that

the Workman was the only employee to have complained

is false.

(f) “……the Workman was offered a position in

customer service department in which she would

have required to interact with the customers, to meet

customers, it was minimal computer based and

sedentary job. I am not aware of the position offered

to the workman in the customer service department

was two grades lower than the Workman was at. I

am not aware if the position offered to the workman

in the above department was usually given to

temporary employees of the Company. I am not aware

of what terms and conditions were offered to the

Workman in customer service department the same

would have mentioned in the contract if any she

would have accepted the said position. The offer

would have been made by me personally the same

would have been handled by the HR department. It

is incorrect to suggest that the terms and conditions

offered to the workman in the aforesaid department

were inferior to those of the workman……”

The sole witness of the Respondent stated that the

Workman was offered an alternate job before termination

and the said job was not inferior to the Workman’s earlier

job. However, she also stated that she did not know what

terms and conditions of the new job were and the HR

department would have known that. Therefore, her entire

evidence that the alternate job and the terms and

conditions thereof is not reliable as she did not know

anything and was not the right person in the Company to

give evidence on the same.

(g)“……..it is incorrect that in the new job the

Workman was required to do night shifts at the

airport unlike her previous position. I am not aware

if the workman had applied for medical leave,

voluntary unpaid leave due to her medical condition

and the same was declined to her. I cannot say if

similar leave was granted to other employees. It is

incorrect to suggest that the Workman was required

to do overtime of about 100 hours in a month at time

when she was working as QIK Scripter…….”

The Respondent’s witness was not aware of

anything. She deposes contrary to the Company’s stand

when she says that workman was not required to work in

night shifts at the airport in the alternate job, whereas the

Company herself has told her that the alternate job was a

night shift job and it’s a normal thing in an airlines job and

other women employees to do it. The witness keeps

repeating that she does not know of anything but makes

statements in denial of the Workman’s claim. She does not

know about overtime or that the Workman was denied

leave etc. The entire evidence of MW 1 has no evidentiary

value.

Illegal Termination/Duty to provide alternate job

employment

The Workman has contracted an occupational

disease due to prolonged, strenuous and excessive

working on computers. The job profile itself required

strenuous computer operations. The Company doctors

have diagnosed the Workman to be suffering from RSI

(Repetitive Stress Injury) and had advised her to take up

jobs with mo or minimal use of computers.

Distinction between occupational disease and continuous

ill health

If the Workman suffered from an occupational

disease, it is duty of the Respondent to provide them an

alternate employment rather than terminate her services.

This principle was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in Anand Bihari & Othrs Vs. Rajasthan State Transport

Corporation Jaipur and Another AIR 1991 SC 1003.

(Annexure-A hereto)

In the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Supreme

Court criticised the employer for treating the bus drivers

employed by them on the same footing as employees who

suffer from ill health. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

attributed weakening of eye sight of drivers, who drive

transport busses for long hours and long distance and at

night, to their employment and there categorised it as an

occupational disease. The Hon’ble Court directed that

such drivers whose eye sight is weakened with time should

be provided alternate jobs and should not be terminated.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

795

Even though the said judgment was passed in

relation to a State Transport Corporation, however the

principle was upheld and applied in the case of a private

employer, by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court

in Balarpur Industries Ltd. Vs. Karan Singh MANU/PH/

1043/2001 (Annexure-B hereto)

In the aforesaid matter, the Hon’ble High Court

upheld the order passed by the Labour Court, directing

the employer to provide alternate employment to the

workman suffering from occupation disease, was upheld,

rejecting the contention of the employer, that principle

laid down in Anand Bihari (supra) was only, applicable to

government employment. (para 7).

Management filed written submission in which it stated

as follows:-

Most Respectfully Showeth:

The present case arises out of an order of reference

issued by the Central Government on the basis of

Conciliation proceedings between the Management of

M/s. British Airways and the claimant Ms. Rachna Verma.

The terms of the reference are as under:-

“Whether the action of the Management of British

Airways, 11th floor, Gopaldass Bhawan, Barakhamba

Road, New Delhi in terminating the services of

Ms. Rachna Verma Message Editing Scripter w.e.f.

12.08.2004 is just fair and legal? If not to what relief

is the workman entitled?”

CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

The claimant filed her statement of claim wherein

the case of the claimant, in nutshell, is that the claimant

joined the services of the Management on 21.02.1994 as

tele-sales support clerk and that she was promoted to the

position of Message Editing Scripter w.e.f. 19.06.2000. It

is the case of the claimant that throughout her period of

employment the claimant worked on the computers. The

furniture provided to the claimant did not conform to

advisable ergonomic standards. She has averred that the

furniture and work station so provided were a health

hazard for the employees. It is further the case of the

claimant that she suffered bad health and injuries as a

direct result and consequence of the bad working

conditions provided by the management. It is further

asserted by the claimant that prior to her termination in

view of her illness the Management offered her an alternate

work which she refused as according to her she was

required to work during odd hours and night shifts

which was not acceptable to her. It is further claimed by

the claimant that the Management illegally terminated her

services.

CASE OF THE MANAGEMENT

In rebuttal to the claim of the claimant, the

Management stated that the termination of the services of

the Claimant was on account of continued ill health and is

covered by Section 2 (oo) (c) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

In order to prove its defence under Section 2 (oo) (c)

of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, the Management filed

its written statement wherein the Management denied the

case of the Claimant. It was, inter-alia, stated that the

claimant while working as tele-sales support clerk with the

Management twice applied for the job of Message Editing

Scripter, first in 1998 and then in 2000, when finally she

was selected for the said post. The Claimant while

applying for the post of Message Editing Scripter, very

well knew that the job involved extensive working on

computers. It is also the case of the Management that

working on a computer is a necessary concomitant and its

benefits are immense, well known and acknowledged, as it

saves a lot of time and energy of the employees and

improves the efficiency. During the tenure of the Claimant,

more than 130 employees employed with the Management,

have had independent and separate work stations and a

computer and worked extensively on computers. There is

a team of 07 employees on the Message Editing Scripter

Roaster of the Management including the Claimant. The

nature of duties being performed by all these 07 employees

is almost similar and identical. None of the 130 employees

or 06 employees on the roaster of MES ever complained to

the Management about any ill health on account of

working on computers, or about any ill-designed work

stations. It is asserted that the working conditions of the

employees in the establishment of the Management are

excellent and one of the best in the country. The work

station, table, chairs etc. conform to the ergonomic

standards approved and used world-wide. It is also

asserted that the Claimant on account of her continued ill

health was not able to report for duties and to perform the

work for which she was employed for a long time. The

Management discussed the ill-health of the Claimant on

several occasions and it became evident that the workman

was not physically fit to perform the job on which she was

employed. Though the Management was not obliged in

any manner whatsoever, yet, as a special case and on

humanitarian grounds, the Claimant in view of her

continued ill health, was offered alternative employment

in Customer Service Department where the computer-

related work was nil or minimal. However, the Claimant

declined the offer of re-deployment on flimsy grounds.

As such the Management had no option but to terminate

the services of the Claimant on the ground of continued

ill-health.

In her rejoinder the Claimant reiterated her case as

made out in the statement of claim.

796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On the basis of the pleadings the Hon’ble Tribunal

framed the following issues:

6.1 Whether the Hon’ble CGIT as the territorial

jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present case?

6.2 In terms of reference.

The claimant filed her evidence by way of affidavit

and was cross-examined, similarly the Management

witness Ms. Rajanee Balaram deposed as the Management

witness and was cross-examined.

APPRECIATION AND EVALUATION ON

THE ISSUE OF TERMS OF REFERENCE.

The defence raised by the Management in rebuttal

to the case of the Claimant is that the services of the

claimant were terminated on account of continued ill-health

in terms of section 2(oo) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (hereinafter referred to as ID Act) which reads as

under:

“2(oo) ‘retrenchment’ means the termination by the

employer of the service of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted

by way of disciplinary action but does not include-

……………….

…………………

(bb)………………..

(c)Termination of the service of a workman on the

ground of continued ill-health.

A perusal of the definition given under 2 (oo) (c) of

the ID Act shows that a case where termination of the

services of a workman takes place on the ground of

continued ill-health is legally permissible and is not

retrenchment. Hence, there is no need for the Management

to comply with the requirements of Section 25-F of the ID

Act or pay any retrenchment compensation.

10.

On the other hand the case of the claimant is that

the ill-health suffered by the claimant was a direct result

of, and attributable to, the various acts of omission and

commission on the part of the management in not providing

proper working conditions and making the claimant to

work extensively on computes and ill-designed work

station.

PRESENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER I.D. ACT AND IS

NOT A CLAIM FOR EMPLOYMENT INJURY-

CLAIMANT FAILED TO PROVE HER CASE

11.

It is respectfully submitted that the present case is

an industrial dispute where the action of the Management

in terminating the services of the claimant w.e.f 12.08.2004

has to be adjudicated. It is not a case under the Employees

Compensation Act where compensation for any alleged

employment injury has to be decided. Without prejudice

to the same the claimant has totally failed to prove any of

her averments that the furniture, chair, work station etc.

provided to her during the course of her employment was

ill-designed or did not conform to advisable ergonomic

standards or that it led to the ill-health of the claimant;.

12.

The claimant has not placed on record even a single

documentary evidence to show that the claimant at any

point in time during her course of her employment informed

the Management about the alleged improper/inadequate/

ill-designed working conditions or furnitures prior to filing

the statement of claim. .

13.

The only documents which have been referred to in

this behalf by the Claimants are emails dated 12.06.2003

and 16.06.2003 (Exhibits WW1/8 colly.). However, a perusal

thereof shows that by these documents the claimant is

merely asking one of her colleagues for some wrist

cushions that are being used by staff placed in the head

office. These documents do not in any manner show that

the work station used by the claimant was ill designed or

that owing to the same the claimant suffered any ill-health.

14.

In fact, what comes out from the assertions of the

Claimant is that the Claimant suffered ill-health on account

of ‘working on computers.’ It is submitted that any

adversity on one’s health on account of performing on

computers, is a personal health hazard and cannot be

attributed to any other reason as is being sought to be

done by the Claimant.

15.

Here it would be pertinent to mention that the

Claimant knew very well that the job of Message Editing

Scripter was a wholly computer oriented job; yet, she twice

applied for the same; firstly in 1998, when she could not

be selected; and then in 2000 when she was finally selected.

This fact only shows that the Claimant was very inclined

and interested in doing computer-extensive job.

16.

The same has also been admitted by the Claimant in

her cross examination, when she makes the following

averments/admissions/statements:-

16.1 I have done short course in computer

application;

16.2 I had applied for the post of message editing

scripter in the year 1998. No I was not selected in

the year 1998;

16.3 It is correct that I again applied in the year 2000

and then I was selected;

16.4 It is correct that MES (Message Editing Scripter)

is a computer related job.

17.

In addition to the above, the Claimant has not been

able to show that the illness that she was suffering from,

was on account of working on ill-designed work station or

working in the office. Rather, from the cross examination

of the Claimant, it comes out that there were other

employees of the Management and none faced health

problems like the Claimant. In this behalf, the Claimant

has admitted that “all the employees were working on the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

797

computer except sales and marketing employees.” The

Claimant has also admitted, “the chairs of MES employees

were same.” The Claimant admitted, “it is correct that I

was diagnosed with ‘carpal tunnel syndrome’ by the

company doctor”. She also admitted, “I cannot say if any

other employee had complained to the management

regarding such problem.” All the statements/admissions

mentioned above go on to show that the ailment of the

Claimant was absolutely unrelated to her work.

18.

Though several employees have been working

extensively on computers in the employment of the

Management; yet, the Claimant failed to prove that any

other employee(s) suffered similar illness as the one she

suffered, or produce any witness in this behalf. In the

absence of the same, a clear inference can be drawn that

the ailment in question was individually related to the

Claimant and has had nothing to do with her working on

computers in the employment of the Management.

19.

On the other hand, the Management in its evidence,

duly rebutted the case of the Claimant. In this behalf, the

MW-1 appearing on behalf of the Management denied

that she has ever seen the Claimant working on two

computers at the same time. The MW-1 has also denied

that before the QIK was formed, the backend reservation

work was done by about 100 employees manually. The

witness also denied the suggestion that QIK department

was under staffed.

20.

The MW1 also denied the suggestion that the

Claimant along with other QIK staff was required to take

compulsory over time. The MW-1 also stated that the

same furniture/work station as the Claimant used, is being

used by all the employees of the Management and no one

has ever had any health problem and as such the same are

not ill designed. The MW-1 denied having any awareness

about any other member of QIK team having any complaint

of any health problems. The MW-1 also denied the

suggestion that Rupali Kashyap or Sorgam Moli Sood

ever complained for similar problem as the Claimant. The

MW-1 also denied the suggestion that the Claimant

applied for medical un-paid leave due to her condition

which was denied; while the same was allowed to other

employees. The witness denied the suggestion that the

Claimant was required to do over time of about 100 hours

in a month when she was working as QIK Scriptor. The

witness also denied the suggestion that the physical

disability suffered by the Claimant was due to excessive

use of computers in the job and ill designed office furniture.

21.

It is pertinent to mention that the Claimant has tried

to introduce new averments for the first time in her evidence

which had not been pleaded in her statement of claim.

Certain averments which were not part of her statement of

claim, but have been taken for the first time in the evidence

affidavit (Ex. WW-1/A) are as follows:-

21.1 The workman was asked to operate two

computers at one time (paragraph 5 of evidence

affidavit WW-1/A)

21.2 The workman tried her best to point out the

bad working conditions including bad work stations

but management did not pay any heed to same

(paragraph 9 of evidence affidavit WW-1/A)

21.3 The management inspite of the ill health of

workman did not allow the workman to user her sick

leaves and forced her to attend office when she was

unwell and was not in a position to attend office.

(paragraph 10 of evidence affidavit WW-1/A)

22.

The Management respectfully submits that primarily

these averments/assertions/allegations/accusations by the

Claimant being not a part of the statement of claim, and

being mentioned for the first time in the evidence affidavit,

cannot be considered at all in accordance with well settled

position of law. Secondly, the same are patently false and

have not been proved by the Claimant during the course

of her evidence or otherwise.

23.

The next contention of the Claimant is that she was

not allowed to use her leaves of all kinds (i.e. earned leaves,

casual leaves, sick leaves etc.). The said allegation is also

false even to her knowledge. In this behalf, the

Management relies upon the documents i.e. email dated

31.03.2004 and letter dated 12.08.2004 proved as Ex. WW-

1/10 and Ex. WW-1/18 respectively in evidence of the

Claimant to show that the Claimant over-availed her leave

than what was legally due and permissible.

24.

A perusal of document Ex. WW-1/10 (email dated

31.03.2004 by the Claimant) shows that the leave entitlement

claimed by the Claimant was 24 days annual leave, 15 days

sick leave with medical certificate and 05 days of sick leave

without medical certificate; thereby totaling to 44 days in

an year. Further, Ex. WW-1/18 shows that the Claimant

had been staying away from work since January 2004;

that the Claimant exhausted all her leaves on 17.05.2004;

that since 17.05.2004 the Claimant has been on leave

without pay, till 12.08.2004 when the Management was

constrained to terminate the services of the Claimant on

account of continued ill-health. Against the entitlement

of 44 days total leave in an year, the Claimant (from January

2004 to 17.05.2004) availed leave for around 04 months i.e.

120 days). Even thereafter, she was on leave without pay

for another 03 months i.e. 90 days (w.e.f. 17.05.2004 till

12.08.2004).

25.

The Claimant has not controverted these documents,

which, in fact, have been relied upon by the Claimant herself

in her evidence. This clearly shows that the allegations of

the Claimant that she was not allowed to avail her leaves as

aforesaid, is patently false and unproved.

798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

26.

From the above, it is evident that the Claimant has

failed to prove her case that the ill health she suffered

from, was owing to the acts of omission and commission

on the part of the Management in not providing healthy

working conditions. It is clear that the ailment of the

Claimant was absolutely unrelated to her work and that

the same was specific to the Claimant individually. Without

prejudice to the above it is submitted that section 2(00)( c)

of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 was clearly attracted

in view of the undisputed continued illness of the claimant

but the Management was sympathetic and gave her an

opportunity to take alternative work where there was

virtually no computer work which was refused by her.

MANAGEMENT DULY PROVED ITS DEFENCE

27.

The Management in order to prove its case under

Section 2 (oo) (c) of the ID Act, has to establish:-

27.1 that the Claimant was suffering from continued

ill-health;

27.2 and that the termination was on account of

continued ill-health;

CLAIMANT SUFFERING FROM CONTINUED ILL-

HEALTH

28.

That the Claimant was suffering from continued ill-

health, rendering her unable to perform her duties arising

out of her employment with the Management, is clearly

evident from the following documents:-

28.1 Ex. WW-1/10 (email dated 31.03.2004)

In this document, the Claimant has stated that ‘the

Management is well aware of her medical disabilities

and severe damage to her hand, arm, neck and spine’

and that ‘ the doctors have advised her against

working on computers and look for an alternate non

computer related profession.’ In fact, the Claimant

has admitted that ‘she is currently physically

disabled’ and requested for ‘special sick leave for

couple of months.’

28.2 Ex. WW-1/M-1 (email dated 23.06.2004)

In this document, the Claimant has stated about her

fragile health and medical condition rendering her

unable to continue working on computers. The

Claimant has referred herself as a disabled employee

and has reiterated that she has to retire due to

disablement.

28.3 Ex. WW-1/19 (medical certificate of the Claimant)

This document is a medical statement of the

Claimant, issued by Physical Therapy Clinic and the

same is suggestive of the fact that the Claimant is

critically ill and is rendered unable to work on

computers.

28.4 Ex. WW-1/20 (letter dated 02.06.2004)

This is a letter by the Management written to the

Claimant wherein the Claimant was offered

alternative employment in customer service

department on account of her medical conditions

and her absence from work due to health grounds.

28.5 Ex. WW-1/18 (letter dated 12.08.2004)

This is the termination letter issued to the Claimant.

The grounds for terminating her services were her

absence on account of continued ill health.

29.

Besides the above, the claimant has also admitted in

her cross examination that she was suffering from carpal

tunnel syndrome due to which she was unable to perform

her duties arising out of employment with the

Management.

30.

The Management Witness has also proved through

her evidence affidavit (Ex. MW-1/A) that the Claimant was

suffering continuously on account of ill health. This ill-

health was due to peculiar personal medical problem called

the carpal tunnel syndrome and is caused apparently due

to certain neurological disorders.

31.

From the above said documents, it is amply clear

that the Claimant was continuously suffering from ill health

on account of which she was unable to perform her

obligations arising out of her employment with the

Management.

32.

The submissions made in foregoing paragraphs

No.10 to 22 make it evident that the ill health suffered by

the Claimant was not related to the work performed by the

Claimant. It was specific to the Claimant individually.

THE TERMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF CONTINUED

ILL-HEALTH OF CLAIMANT;

33.

The Claimant was absent on account of ill-health

w.e.f. January 2004 till 12.08.2004 when her services were

terminated. The company doctor to which the Claimant

was referred diagnosed her to be suffering from carpal

tunnel syndrome. The same has been admitted by the

Claimant in her cross examination. Besides this, various

documents as stated above, show that the Claimant was

suffering from ill health and that she had become

incapacitated to render her professional duties towards

the Management. In view of the same, the services of the

Claimant were terminated in terms of letter dated 12.08.2004,

which has been proved as Ex. WW-1/8. From the above, it

is amply clear that the termination was on account of

continued ill health of the Claimant as envisaged under

section 2(00)( c) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947.

BONAFIDE OF MANAGEMENT: ALTERNATIVE

EMPLOYMENT OFFERED: REFUSED BY CLAIMANT

34.

Though it was not obligatory on the part of the

Management to offer any kind of alternative employment

to the Claimant before invoking Section 2 (oo) (c) of the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

799

ID Act and terminating her services on account of

continued ill health; yet on humanitarian grounds and as

a special case, the Claimant was offered alternative

employment in the customer service department, where

the computer based work was nil or minimal. The document

in this behalf is the letter dated 02.06.2004. The same has

been proved in evidence of the Claimant as Ex. WW-1/20.

However, in terms of her email dated 23.06.2004 (proved as

Ex. WW-1/M-1), the Claimant citing extraneous reasons,

did not accept the offer of alternative employment given

by the Management. In such circumstances, the

Management was left with no option but to terminate the

services of the Claimant on grounds of continuous ill-

health in terms of letter dated 12.08.2004.

IN CASE OF SECTION 2 (OO) (C); NO

RETRENCHMENT COMPENSATION PAYABLE

35.

The Management respectfully submits that the

services of the Claimant were terminated on account of

continued ill-health in terms of section 2(oo) (c) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ID

Act) which reads as under:

“2(oo) ‘retrenchment’ means the termination by the

employer of the service of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted

by way of disciplinary action but does not include-

……………….

…………………

(bb)………………..

ground of continued ill-health.

36.

A perusal of the definition given under 2 (oo) (c) of

the ID Act shows that a case where termination of the

services of a workman takes place on the ground of

continued ill-health is legally permissible and is not

‘retrenchment’. Hence, there is no need for the

Management to comply with the requirements of Section

25-F of the ID Act or pay any retrenchment compensation.

Section 25-F of the ID Act is re-produced as under:-

“25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of

workmen.- 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 that employer until-

(a) 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 lieu of such notice, wages for the

period of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part

thereof in excess of six months; and

appropriate Government or such authority as may

be specified by the appropriate Government by

notification in the Official Gazette.”

37.

Further, it is well settled by various judicial

pronouncements cited in the later part of the written

arguments that no retrenchment compensation as

envisaged under Section 25-F of the ID Act is payable in a

case where termination is on account of continued ill health

as provided under Section 2 (oo) (c) of the ID Act.

TERMINAL BENEFITS WORTH LACS OF RUPEES

PAID TO THE CLAIMANT

38.

It has been stated by the Management that the

Claimant was paid all her terminal benefits at the time of

termination of her services and the same have been duly

received and appropriated by the Claimant.

39.

The details of the various terminal benefits paid to

the Claimant are given as under:-

PF Accumulations

Rs. 6,93,465.37p

Pension Fund

Rs. 1,08,097.00p

Gratuity

Rs. 1,38,346.00p

Total

Rs. 939908.37p

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: NOT

APPLICABLE

40.

It has been argued on behalf of the Claimant that

since the Claimant suffered from the disability on account

of her continued ill health, during the course of

employment with the Management, Persons with

Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and

Full Participation) Act 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the

Disabilities Act) is applicable and in terms of Section 47 of

the Act, her services are not liable to be dispensed with

and she is entitled to some suitable alternative

employment.

41.

The Management respectfully submits that Section

47 of the Disabilities Act is not at all applicable to a private

establishment/company but only to government

employments, which it very clear from a bare perusal of

the Section 47, which reads as under:-

47.

Non-discrimination

Government

employments.—(1) No establishment shall dispense

with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a

disability during his service:

Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring

disability is not suitable for the post he was holding,

could be shifted to some other post with the same

pay scale and service benefits:

Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust

the employee against any post, he may be kept on a

800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

supernumerary post until a suitable post is available

or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever

is earlier.

(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely

on the ground of his disability:

Provided that the appropriate Government may,

having regard to the type of work carried on in any

establishment, by notification and subject to such

conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification,

exempt any establishment from the provisions of this

section.

42.

In fact, the Management is outside the purview of

term ‘employer’ as defined in Section 2 (j) of the Disabilities

Act, meaning thereby that the very Act is not applicable

to the establishment of the Management. In this behalf,

relevant definitions i.e. ‘employer’ and ‘establishment’ as

provided in Section 2 (j) and 2 (k) of the Disabilities Act

are re-produced as under:-

(j) “employer” means,—

(i) in relation to a Government, the authority notified

by the Head of the Department in this behalf or where

no such authority is notified, the Head of the

Department; and

(ii) in relation to an establishment, the Chief

Executive Officer of that establishment;

(k) “establishment” means a corporation established

by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an

authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by

the Government or a local authority or a Government

company as defined in section 617 of the Companies

Act 1956 (1 of 1956) and includes Departments of a

Government;

43.

From the above, it is evident that the management is

neither an employer nor an establishment within the Act

and hence the Act itself is not applicable to the

Management.

44.

Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other

High Courts in various judicial pronouncements, after

discussing the aims, objects and scope of the Disabilities

Act, have categorically held that the same is not applicable

to a private establishment/company like the Management.

Some of the relevant case law has been cited in the later

part of the written arguments.

REBUTTAL TO THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE

CLAIMANT IN HER WRITTEN ARGUMENTS

45.

In paragraph 3, on page 5 of her written arguments,

it has been claimed that the MW-1 in her evidence has

stated that she is not competent to depose; that MW-1

did not know what the job profile of the Claimant was and

that MW-1 could not even depose on the nature of job the

Claimant was doing and the problems the Claimant was

facing. In this behalf, it is submitted that nowhere in her

entire evidence, has the MW-1 anywhere stated that she

is not competent to depose on behalf of the Management;

hence the allegations of the Claimant are absolutely false.

With respect to the job profile of the Claimant, MW-1 has

stated that though she has not worked in the same roll as

the Claimant’s but she worked in similar roll of Message

Editing Clerk and that as Message Editing Clerk, her duties

were entirely computer based and she was required to do

editing in computer messages. MW-1 also stated that she

joined British Airways as Message Editing Cleri and so

was the roll in which the Claimant joined in. Merely

because the MW-1 has not seen the job profile of the

Claimant, it does not mean that the MW-1 is incompetent

to depose about the working conditions of the Claimant

because MW-1 has clarified that MW-1 has a general idea

of the roll the Claimant was performing. Moreover, owing

to the fact that the MW-1 herself worked as Message

Editing Clerk and extensively worked on computers, it is

amply clear that MW-1 is a competent witness, who can

also testify about the computer-oriented job profile being

not a health hazard at all, as has been falsely claimed by

the Claimant.

46.

The allegation contained in last paragraph, on page

6/7 of her written arguments to the effect that MW-1 has

feigned ignorance about the kind of machine the Claimant

was using, is false. In fact, the MW-1 has categorically

stated that the Claimant was working on company’s

standard machine, though she cannot say about the exact

description of the machine. MW-1 is clearly aware about

the type of the machine the Claimant was working on. It is

also incorrect that the allegation that the Claimant was

made to work on dual set of computers, remains un-

controverted. In this behalf, it is submitted that the MW-

1 has categorically denied having seen Rachna Verma

working on two computers (dual).

47.

The allegations made in sub-paragraph 2, on page 7

that merely because the MW-1 never worked as QIK

Scripter, she was not competent to depose about the job

profile of the Claimant. As afore-said, the MW-1 has clearly

stated that she has a general idea about the role the

Claimant was performing. This makes the MW-1 a

competent witness to depose about her profile. Moreover,

it has amply been proved by way of evidence of the

Claimant that she opted for computer-extensive job of her

own choice and will and despite fully knowing that it was

a computer extensive job.

48.

On page 8, first paragraph, it has been alleged that

since the MW-1 was not the author of the Ergonomics

Report Ex. MW-1/3, she was incompetent to depose about

the same. It is respectfully submitted that it is a well settled

proposition of law that in the cases of industrial

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

801

adjudication, strict rules of evidence do not apply. Once

MW-1 has stated that the furniture, workstation etc.

conform to the Ergonomics standards as per the Report

Ex. MW-1/3 and there is other corroborative evidence in

support of the Report, it cannot be said that MW-1 cannot

prove the same in her evidence.

49.

The allegations contained in second paragraph on

page 8 are absolutely irrelevant, inasmuch as the onus to

prove that the continued ill health suffered by the Claimant

was on account of working extensively on computers,

which onus the Claimant has clearly failed to discharge.

The Claimant has also failed to prove, either by

documentary evidence or otherwise, if any complaint in

this behalf was ever made by the Claimant. In this

eventuality, the contention that the MW-1 was not the

supervising authority of the Claimant, or that the MW-1

was not aware if any complaint was made by the Claimant

regarding ill-designed work station, is immaterial and has

no bearing on the case.

50.

The allegations contained in first paragraph on page

9 of the written arguments are, again, flimsy and baseless.

It is submitted that the Claimant has no where denied the

job profile of the alternative employment offered to her;

nor does the Management do. It is, in fact, an admitted

case that the Management out of humanitarian concern

for its employee, the Claimant was offered alternative job

as per her suitability, which was that the job involved

minimal or no-computer related duties. This was despite

the fact that the Management was in no way duty bound

or under legal obligation to offer any alternative

employment.

51.

The allegations contained in first paragraph on page

10 of the written arguments, are repetition of her allegations

in foregoing paragraph.

52.

Lastly, the case-law cited by the Claimant on page

10 onwards has no bearing on the case. In the said two

case laws what was in issue was government employment

and the applicability of the Disabilities Act vis-à-vis

government employment. Whereas the present is a private

employment in which the Disabilities Act does not apply.

In this behalf, the Management refers to the following

case-law, which amply shows that the Disabilities Act does

not apply in private employments.

CASE LAWS

TERMINATION FOR CONTINUED ILL HEALTH:

LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 2 (OO) (C)

OF THE ID ACT: NO NEED TO COMPLY WITH

SECTION 25 (F) OF THE ID ACT

53.

In the case of ‘Hindalco Industries Ltd. V. Labour

Court, Varanasi & Anr.’ (2001) 9 SCC 178, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held as under:-

2. “……. The definition of ‘retrenchment’ contained

in Section 2 (oo) clearly says that retrenchment does

not include ‘termination of the service of a workman

on the ground of continued ill health’. It cannot be

disputed that the unfitness of the respondent on

medical ground to function as a driver of a motor

vehicle on account of failing eyesight could not,

therefore, be treated as retrenchment to permit grant

of the relief which the High Court has given to him.

It is necessary to say so for the purpose of correcting

the conclusion reached by the High Court on this

question of law.”

54.

In the case of ‘Ramaswamy Murugesh V.

S.G.Bhonsale,’ 2005 (4) Mh.L.J. 127, the Division Bench of

Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under:-

“12…………The workman is a fitter. Dr. Dinsukhlal

Sadavarti deposed that the work of a fitter is in

standing position and that fitter’s job cannot be done

in sitting position. Surely the workman would not

take medical leave if he was in a position to work. If

in last five years preceding the order of termination,

the workman remained absent for large number of

days on the ground of medical leave, logically it

follows that he remained absent because of

continued ill-health and his inability to discharge

his duties. The expression ‘continued ill-health’ in

sub clause (c) of Section 2 (oo) does not mean

uninterrupted continued ill-health but what it means

is ill-health for considerable long period and long

duration affecting normal duties. In the facts and

circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by

the Labour Court that the workman was suffering

from continued ill-health and that ill health prolonged

for consideration period cannot be said to suffer

from any illegality or perversity and the learned

single judge cannot be said to have erred in

concurring with the said view in its brief order

dismissing the writ petition at motion hearing stage.”

55.

In the case of ‘Subhash Ramchandra Dumbre V.

Maharashtra State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural

Development Bank Ltd.’, 2010 (2) LLJ 632, the Hon’ble

Bombay High Court held as under:-

5……….The Labour Court had proceeded on the

footing that no inquiry had been held and therefore

the order of termination was illegal since it amounted

to stigma. The Industrial Court rightly, in my view,

noticed that the question of holding inquiry in the

present case did not arise. In the present case, the

complainant admittedly was on leave for long period

on the ground of illness and as such, the Industrial

Court correctly held that the bank was justified in

issuing notice of termination by paying

compensation of discharge simplicitor and for such

a discharge, no inquiry was necessary……”

802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

DISABILITIES ACT: NOT APPLICABLE TO PRESENT

CASE

56.

In the case of ‘Dalco Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs. Satish

Prabhakar Padhye & Ors’, AIR 2010 SC 1576, the Full Bench

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope

and applicability of the Disabilities Act vis-à-vis private

companies/establishments, held as under:-

“12. There is indication in the definition of

`establishment’ itself, which clearly establishes that

all companies incorporated under the Companies

Act are not establishments. The enumeration of

establishments in the definition of ‘establishment’

specifically includes “a Government Company as

defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956”.

This shows that the legislature, took pains to include

in the definition of `establishment’ only one category

of companies incorporated under the Companies Act,

that is the ‘Government Companies’ as defined in

Section 617 of the Companies Act. If, as contended

by the employee, all Companies incorporated under

the Companies Act are to be considered as

‘establishments’ for the purposes of Section 2(k),

the definition would have simply and clearly stated

that ‘a company incorporated or registered under

the Companies Act, 1956’ which would have included

a Government company defined under Section 617

of the Companies Act, 1956. The inclusion of only a

specific category of companies incorporated under

the Companies Act, 1956 within the definition of

‘establishment’ necessarily and impliedly excludes

all other types of companies registered under the

Companies Act, 1956, from the definition of

‘establishment’. It is clear that the legislative intent

was to apply section 47 of the Act only to such

establishments as were specifically defined as

‘establishment’ under section 2(k) of the Act and

not to other establishments. The legislative intent

was to define ‘establishment’ so as to be

synonymous with the definition of ‘State’ under

Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Private

employers, whether individuals, partnerships,

proprietary concerns or companies (other than

Government companies) are clearly excluded from

the ‘establishments’ to which section 47 of the Act

will apply.

13. There is yet another indication in section 47,

that private employers are excluded. The caption/

marginal note of section 47 describes the purport of

the section as non-discrimination in Government

employment. The word ‘government’ is used in the

caption, broadly to refer to ‘State’ as defined in

Article 12 of the Constitution. If the intention of the

legislature was to prevent discrimination of persons

with disabilities in any kind of employment, the

marginal note would have simply described the

provision as ‘non-discrimination in employment’ and

sub-section (1) of section 47 would have simply

used the word ‘any employer’ instead of using the

word ‘establishment’ and then taking care to define

the word ‘establishment’. The non-use of the words

‘any employer’, and ‘any employment’ and specific

use of the words ‘Government employment’ and

‘establishment’ (as defined), demonstrates the clear

legislative intent to apply the provisions of Section

47 only to employment under the State and not to

employment under others. While the marginal note

may not control the meaning of the body of the

section, it usually gives a safe indication of the

purport of the section to the extent possible. Be that

as it may.”

57.In the case of ‘J.B.Kumar V. Brijesh Sethi’ WP (C)

3642/2002, decided on 19.01.2007, the Hon’ble Delhi

High Court held as under:-

“5. It is submitted by the petitioner that his physical

disability could not be a reason for his termination

in view of Section 47 of the Persons with

Disability(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights

and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short the Act).

Section 47 of the said Act reads as under:

“Non-discrimination in Government employments.

(1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce

in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during

his service:

Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring

disability is not suitable for the post he was holding,

could be shifted to some other post with the same

pay scale and service benefits:

Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust

the employee against any post, he may be kept on

supernumerary post until a suitable post is available

or her attains the age of superannuation, whichever

is earlier.”

6. A bare perusal of the above provision would show

that this provision is applicable only in case of

Government employment and it is not applicable in

case of private establishments. It is not the case of

the petitioner that the respondent is a Government

establishment or government aided establishment.

Respondent is a private establishment. The

provisions of Section 47 of the Act would, therefore,

not be applicable in case of the respondent. I am

fortified in my view by judgment of Punjab and

Haryana High Court in Hem Chand v. Union of India

Punjab Law Reporter Vol. Cxxxv-(2003-3) wherein a

Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court

had held that Section 47 is not applicable in case of

non-government establishments.”

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

803

PRAYER OF THE MANAGEMENT

It is prayed by the Management that the reference

be decided in favour of the Management and the claim of

the Claimant be rejected.

I have heard the arguments of Ld. A/R’s for the

parties at length and perused the pleadings of claim

statement , written statement and rejoinder as well as

contentions and counter contentions mentioned in the

written arguments of the parties and principle laid down

in the cited rulings.

I also perused the provisions of section 2(00)(c) of

I.D.Act ,1947 to evaluate the justifiability and legality of

retrenchment of workman without retrenchment

compensation provided in section 25J of I.D. Act, 1947.

I also perused the provisions of Indian Evidence

Act to determine the burden of proof to prove question of

determination No.1 lies on which of the parties.

Perusal of contents of question of determination

No.1 mentioned in schedule of reference makes it crystal

clear that burden to prove it lies on management.

In this background evaluation of evidence adduced

by management and rebutted by workman is needed for

proper appreciation of evidence.

Evidence of parties reveals as follows:-

1.Most of the facts are undisputed except the

Respondent’s denial that the working conditions

were poor which led to the medical condition of the

Workman.

2.Workman examined herself as WW 1 and testified.

3.Respondent has examined only one witness,

namely Ms Rajnee Balaram (MW 1), working as MD

Call BA. In her evidence MW1 has inert-alia stated

that she is not competent to depose and did not

know what was the job profile of the Workman. She

could not even depose on the nature of job Workman

was doing and the problems she was facing. She

candidly deposed that one Ms Indu Lal, the

supervisor/boss of the Workman was dealing with

the Workman. She also stated that she did not know

if other employees also complained about similar

medical problem as she was not the concerned person

to whom such complaints would have been made.

She then stated that HR department should know

better. Following are the excerpts from her statement:

(h)“…….I have never worked with the Workman

directly. I worked in the same department in a

different team. I have never supervised the

Workman. I have not worked in the same role but I

worked in a similar role. I joined British Airways as a

Message Editing Clerk. So the role was the same as

what Rachna joined in. I have not seen Rachna

Verma’s file therefore I can not say whether the role

was indentical”

The witness clearly states above that she did not

know what Rachna Verma’s role was and if the same was

that of hers. The witness deposed that she worked in a

similar role as the Workman but then said she had not

seen Workman’s file and therefore cannot say if the role

was identical to hers. Therefore the witness is not

competent to depose about the working conditions of the

Workman.

(i) “…. It would be correct to say that my role in

reservation was entirely different from the earlier

duty of message editing clerk”

“……she was working on company standard

machine but I cannot say the exact description of

the machine. I have not seen Rachna Verma working

on two machines (dual sets). I cannot say since I

was not working directly with the Workman. I cannot

say if any body was working on dual set in the

Company. I would not be able to give any details of

the workman’s profile. I have a general idea of what

role she was performing since I was not working in

the same department. The HR department would be

able to provide information of the exact profile. I do

not know who she was working under since I did

not work in the same team.

The Respondent’s witness in examination in chief

had deposed denying all the allegations made by the

Workman including regarding the machines that she was

using. Whereas in her cross-examination she has stated

that she wasn’t aware of what kind of machines Workman

was using and the HR department would know of the same.

Therefore, the evidentiary value of this witness is nil and

the fact that Workman was made to work on extra strenuous

dual set computers has not been controverted in the

evidence of the Respondent.

(j) “….it is correct that I have never worked as a

QIK Scripter. It is correct that information in

paragraph 3 and 4 is not based on my personal

knowledge but based on information from colleagues

in the Company. ….”

It is the case of the Workman that the job profile of

QIK Scripter was a very strenuous job which required

working on dual set computers for long hours. Witness of

the Respondent in her examination-in-chief, has denied

the same. Whereas in her cross examination she has stated

that she has never worked as QIK Scripter. Therefore her

evidence on the said job profile and her statement that the

job was not strenuous is unreliable. The witness does not

explain on what basis she has deposed about the job profile

of a QIK Scripter. Rather she has stated that her statement

is based on information provided by the colleagues. The

evidence of the witness is this hearsay and unreliable.

(k) “…..My statement that the furniture and

workstation are so designed that they are not a health

804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

hazard is based on the fact that the same furniture is

being used by all employees as no one has ever had

any health problems. I am not qualified to judge that

is a particular piece of furniture is ill designed or is a

health hazard. The document which is Ex MW1/3

has not been prepared by me and I was not involved

in the preparation. I am not aware of the international

norms of designing work stations but I am aware

that there are norms…..”

Respondent’s witness in her examination-in-chief,

has deposed that there was nothing wrong with the

furniture design on which the Workman was made to work

for long hours. However, in her cross-examination she has

stated that she is not a expert to judge and that there are

international norms of workstation design but she does

not know what those norms are. Also, MW 1/3 is a report

of architects M/S Interior Design Consultants. This report

has been filed by the Respondent to contend that the

report certifies that the furniture and workstations used

by the Respondent conforms to international standards.

The Workman has objected to marking this document as

an exhibit since the same was a photocopy and the MW 1

did not prepare the said report nor was involved in the

study. Even otherwise, said report clearly acknowledges

that bad furniture and prolonged use of computers is a

health hazard and causes Repetitive Stress Injury (RSI).

(l) “……I am not aware if any other member of QIK

Message Editing team have any complaints of any

health problem. It is correct that complaints if any

were not supposed to be made to me. The ME Team

Manager was Indu Lal was the person to inform. It

is incorrect to suggest that Rupali Kashyap, Sargam

Moli Sood ever complained for similar problem as

Workman. It is incorrect to say that I am not aware

of such complaints because I am not the supervisor

of the team…..”

The Respondent’s sole witness has stated that the

Workman was the only person who had complained in the

office. She has denied that the name of the other

employees from the same team who had made similar

complaints. Whereas, she then states that she does not

know if the complaints were made since they would have

been made to Ms. Indu Lal the supervisor. She admits

that she is not the concerned person to whom such

complaints could be made and that she wasn’t aware if

such complaints were made. Therefore, her evidence that

the Workman was the only employee to have complained

is false.

(m) “……the Workman was offered a position in

customer service department in which she would

have required to interact with the customers, to meet

customers, it was minimal computer based and

sedentary job. I am not aware of the position offered

to the workman in the customer service department

was two grades lower than the Workman was at. I

am not aware if the position offered to the workman

in the above department was usually given to

temporary employees of the Company. I am not aware

of what terms and conditions were offered to the

Workman in customer service department the same

would have mentioned in the contract if any she

would have accepted the said position. The offer

would have been made by me personally the same

would have been handled by the HR department. It

is incorrect to suggest that the terms and conditions

offered to the workman in the aforesaid department

were inferior to those of the workman……”

The sole witness of the Respondent stated that the

Workman was offered an alternate job before termination

and the said job was not inferior to the Workman’s earlier

job. However, she also stated the she did not know what

terms and conditions of the new job were and the HR

department would have known that. Therefore, her entire

evidence that the alternate job and the terms and

conditions thereof is not reliable as she did not know

anything and was not the right person in the Company to

give evidence on the same.

(n)“……..it is incorrect that in the new job the

Workman was required to do night shifts at the

airport unlike her previous position. I am not aware

if the workman had applied for medical leave,

voluntary unpaid leave due to her medical condition

and the same was declined to her. I can not say if

similar leave was granted to other employees. It is

incorrect to suggest that the Workman was required

to do overtime of about 100 hours in a month at time

when she was working as QIK Scripter…….”

The Respondent’s witness was not aware of

anything. She deposes contrary to the Company’s stand

when she says that workman was not required to work in

night shifts at the airport in the alternate job, whereas the

Company herself has told her that the alternate job was a

night shift job and it’s a normal thing in an airlines job and

other women employees to do it. The witness keeps

repeating that she does not know of anything but makes

statements in denial of the Workman’s claim. She does not

know about overtime or that the Workman was denied

leave etc. The entire evidence of MW1 has no evidentiary

value.

It is relevant to mention here that this Industrial

Dispute has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication.

It is also relevant to mention here that schedule to

aforesaid reference contains Ist and main question of

determination as follows:-

“Whether the action of the management of British

Airways, 11th Floor, Sh. Gopal Das Bhawan,

Barakhamba Road, New Delhi in terminating the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

805

services of Ms. Rachana Verma Message Editing

scripter w.e.f 12.08.2004 is just, fair and legal?

Which in itself indicates that burden to prove this

question of determination is on management as per

provisions of Indian Evidence Act.

To prove this question of determination management

could only examine MW1 Ms. Rajanee Balaram .

Her statement has been referred above. Wherein

she could not prove the facts required to be proved in

support of case of management. So , evidence of

management is short of required evidence. Moreover MW1

Ms. Rajanee Balaram admitted certain facts favorable to

workman/claimant. In addition to it pleadings of written

statement in want of evidence are waste papers.

While on the otherhand workman/claimant has

proved her case. Through her oral and documents reliable,

credible and unrebutted evidence. Which is supported

with latest principles of law. Hence question of

determination No.1 is liable to be decided in favour of

workman /claimant and against management. Which is

accordingly decided.

Now, it is to be determined to what relief is the

workman/claimant is entitled?

It is relevant to mention here that workman /claimant

through her reliable and credible evidence had proved

that during her employment claimant/workman worked on

the computers. The furniture provided to the claimant/

workman by management did not conform to advisable

ergonomic standards.

The workman/claimant has contracted an

occupational disease due to prolonged, strenuous and

excessive working on computers. The job profile itself

required strenuous computer operations. The company

doctors have diagnosed the workman to be suffering from

Repetitive Stress Injury (R.S.I) and had advised her to

take up jobs with no or minimum use of computers.

Either through her evidence or undisputed fact

workman/claimant has proved following facts in her favour.

Facts in Brief

The workman was appointed by the Respondent on

21.2.1994 and was confirmed on 21.5.1994 as International

Tele Sales Support Clerk.

Workman was promoted as Message Editing Scripter

on 19.6.2000. The Workman was selected for the above

position by the management after she had passed an

examination for the said position.

Both, as Tele Sales Support clerk and Message

Editing Scripter the Workman worked extensively on

computers for long hours. Workman is trained as a

computer programmer.

The Workman’s job profile required the workman to

work for long hours on computers, which also included

working on a type of computers called ‘dual set’. It is a

two computer system where the machine has two screens

and two keyboards. Working on such machine is more

stressful than a regular computer.

Throughout her time with the Respondent, the

Workman was graded as very good worker. She received

various certificates and appreciations and praises for her

work from the management. The certificates of appreciation

etc. are exhibited as Exhibit WW 1/4.

Due to extensive working on computers for long

hours the Workman suffered from Repetitive Stress Injury

(RSI), which affected her hands and neck resulting in loss

of control over the same. Workman found it difficult to

operate computers and had to take medical leave for

undergoing treatments.

Respondent got the Workman examined by their own

doctors who diagnosed that the Workman was suffering

from RSI and should not work on computers or take up a

job with minimal computer operations. Two Company

doctors examined the Workman who reported the same

diagnosis. Doctor’s reports are dated 11.2.2004 and

12.2.2004. The reports are not marked as exhibits either in

the Workman’s evidence or Respondent’s evidence but

the same have been filed and relied upon by the

Respondent.

Services of the Workman were terminated on

12.8.2004 (Ex-WW1/5) after declaring the Workman

medically unfit.

Workman’s Contentions

The termination on medical grounds would amount

to retrenchment as defined under Section 2 (00) of the

Industrial Dispute Act.

The Respondent has victimized the Workman for

the following reasons:

a) The alternate job offered by the Respondent vide

their letter dated 2.6.2004 was just an eye wash.

b) The alternate job offered was a shift job dealing

with missing baggage handling claims at the airport.

It involved night shifts and public dealing. Whereas

the Workman’s original job did not involve night

shifts or public dealing.

c) The alternate job was not consistent with the

Workman’s qualification and skills of a computer

programmer.

d) The Respondent did not disclose what efforts

were taken by them to find a suitable alternate

position for the workman. Respondent did not

disclose if there were any other positions that were

806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

available and why only airport job with nigh shifts

was offered to her. Only one option was provided

by the Respondent with a condition of ‘take it or

leave it’, that too in a very different profile than the

workman’s own profile and position.

e) It was duty of the Respondent to look for a

suitable alternate position for the workman.

f) No terms and conditions of the new job were

disclosed to the Workman. Workman could not

undertake night shifts since she had a very young

daughter at home and her husband had a touring

job for which reason she could not leave the child at

home at night.

g) She informed the Respondent about her problem

and asked for another option. The Respondent

refused to accommodate and the Workman therefore

declined the airport job. (Ex-WW 1/12)

h) The airport position in night shift was clearly an

attempt to victimize the Workman and it was not a

genuine offer. Even earlier, the emails of the Workman

requesting for sick leave were turned down by the

Respondent. (Ex-WW 1/10)

i) The Respondent wanted to set an example for

others since the Workman had questioned the

unhealthy working conditions offered by the

Respondent. Threatening emails of the management

have been exhibited as Ex-WW 1/11.

J) The furniture provided to the employees working

in computers is not designed as per the standards

that the Respondent’s parent company follows for

its employees in England.

k) Workman complained about the ill designed

workstations but the Respondent ignored her

complaints.

l) Other workers too have suffered similar medical

problems and have complained but they have been

repressed from speaking up making an example of

the Workman for others by terminating her services.

It is a case in which management has adopted unfair

Labour Practice towards workman/claimant.

In the instant case workman/claimant was suffering

from Repetitive Stress Injury (R.S.I) which caused to her

due to non-providing of required furniture like furniture

which is provided in parent company in England.

Instead of providing required furniture by

management to workman/claimant. Management changed

the job of workman/claimant . In which workman/claimant

had to work in night shift and that too at a airport .

Although, management was well conversant with the fact

that workman/claimant had a young daughter and her

husband has a touring job. This alternate was chosen by

management not to adjust the workman/claimant but to

harass her so that she may compel to leave the job and

ultimately management terminated job of workman/

claimant on 12.08.2004.

So such egoist approach of management comes

within the ambit of unfair labour practice. Which is

unwarranted under Labour Laws and on moral grounds.

In the circumstances of the case best effort of

management must have been to provide required furniture

like furniture which is provided in parent company in

England.

This was the just fair and legal option to be exercised

by management.

In this circumstances I am of considered view that

workman Smt. Rachana Verma is liable to be reinstated

with full back wages. She is accordingly reinstated with

full back wages with the direction of management to provide

her required furniture like furniture provided to its

employees in parent company in England.

However, it is made clear that expenses incurred in

such furniture shall be borne by management and workman

in equal proportion.

Reference is liable to be decided in favour of

workman/claimant and against management. Which is

accordingly decided and management is directed to

reinstate the workman /claimant Smt. Rachana Verma

alongwith full back wages and management is also directed

to provide required furniture to workman which is provided

to employees in parent company in England. However,

expenses incurred in preparation in requiring furniture shall

be shared by management and workman in equal

proportion.

Dated:-30/1/2015

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 288-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ-lh-vkbZ- ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 17@2012) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22011@1@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2015

S.O.

288.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2012)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

807

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Northern

Zone, Food Corporation of India, Food Corporation of

India, Punjab, Food Corporation of India, F.S.D., Food

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 10/02/2015.

[No. L-22011/1/2012-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 17 of 2012

Reference No. L-22011/1/2012-IR(CM-II)

dated 10.09.2012

Sh. Amar Nath, R/o H.No.1491,

Sector 49, Pushpak Complex,

Chandigarh

...Workman

Versus

The Executive Director,

Northern Zone,

Food Corporation of India,

Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

The General Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Punjab, Sector-31A, Chandigarh.

The Area Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Sirhind Road, Patiala (Punjab).

The Manager, F.S.D.,

Food Corporation of India,

Amloh, Distt.Patiala,

Patiala (Punjab)

...Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

: Sh. Manmohan Singh

For the Management : Sh. N.K.Zakhmi Advocate

AWARD

Dated : 30.01.2015

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification L-22011/1/2012-IR(CM-II)dated 10.09.2012 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

Term of Reference:

“Whether the demand of Sh.Amar Nath, Ex-Head

Watchman against the management of the Executive

Director, Northern Zone, Food Corporation of India,

Noida/the General Manager, Food Corporation of

India, Punjab, Sector 31A, Chandigarh/The Area

Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sirhind Road,

Patiala/The Manager, F.S.D., Food Corporation of

India, Amloh, Dist.Patiala in dismissing from services

w.e.f. 12./13.09.2006 is just, valid and legal? What

benefits the workmen are entitled for and what

directions are necessary in the matter?”

On receipt of the reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman filed claim statement stating therein

that the workman was elected All India President of FCI

Class IV employees Union and was declared as Protected

Worker. The workmen in his capacity of President of the

Trade Union, made complaints against Senior Regional

Manager Punjab, to the Prime Minister of India regarding

large scale corruption by Senior Regional Manager Punjab.

The complaint was also sent to Chairman, Food

Corporation of India along with affidavit. CBI enquiry was

sought in the complaint but to save the corrupt officers, a

departmental enquiry was ordered by the Head Quarter

Food Corporation of India New Delhi. Head office squad

concluded that the allegations have been found

unsubstantiated. Complaint of the workmen was filed on

20.08.1993 without recommending any action by the

management. The authority other than against whom the

complaint was made, issued a charge sheet dated 4.12.1996

to the workman on the basis of same complaint and on

some another anonymous complaints containing the

following charges:

“ARTICLE No. I :

The petitioner while working

as Head Watchman preferred a complaint under his

own signatures to the different authorities by

leveling allegations/charges in question, he inter alia,

alleged that the then Senior Regional Manager,

Punjab, Sh.Sudhir Mittal, IAS was looting the

Corporation with the help of Sh.Sushil Nagpal, the

then District Manager, Patiala. It was also alleged

that Sh.Sushil Nagpal was posted as Dist.Manager,

Patiala after shifting Sh.Harnaik Singh,

Dy.Manager(Genl.) a known honest officer. He also

alleged that Sh.R.K.Jain, Distt,Manager, Sangrur was

an agent of Sh.Sudhir Mittal, IAS, Senior Regional

Manager, who continued to act as Distt.Manager

even when Sh.Jain met with an accident and got

fracture. It was also mentioned in the complaint in

question that Sh.Nagpal collected crores of rupees

by corrupt practices for Sh.Sudhir Mittal, and even

Sh.Sudhir Mittal collected Rs.100/- per consignment

of rice accepted from all the Distts. of Punjab thereby

amassed crores of rupees continuing in the same

breath, he further spilled venom when he recorded

that the rice stocks accepted were rejected at many

centres like Kurali etc. It was also alleged that

Sh.Sudhir Mittal never drew any sample during his

visit. It was also alleged in the said complaint that

Sh.Sudhir Mittal in collusion with Sh.Sushil Nagpal

808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

has put FCI to a loss by unwise linking of Regional

Manager collected lacs of rupees from Sh.Tanwar

Security Contractor and also by adopting pick and

choose policy of transfer.

The allegations so projected by the said Sh.Amar

Nath were got investigated by FCI, Headquarters.

After screening of the record in depth, it was noticed

that there was no truth in any of the allegations. The

investigating authorities did not find any substance

in the allegations and the same were found to be

unsubstantiated.

The said Sh.Amar Nath by doing so committed a

gross misconduct which was in violation of the

conduct Regulations embodied in the FCI(Staff)

Regulations, 1971.

Article No. II : An anonymous complaint purported

to have been sent by Sh.Ramji Dass of Patiala was

received in the FCI Hqrs. New Delhi, which was

addressed by name to Managing Director, Chairman

and the Executive Director, (Vigilance). The said

complaint contained allegations to the effect that

the said Sh.Amar Nath had been indulging in various

acts of indiscipline and blackmailing the officials/

officers of FCI by remaining absent from duty. It

was also alleged that he did not disclose the fact of

conviction by the Hon’ble Court. It was also

mentioned in the said complaint that he has taken

one rice mill on lease under the name and style of

M/s. Sun Rice Mill at Rajpura. It was also indicted in

the said complaint that the said Sh. Amar Nath

participated in various tender enquiries under the

bogus names and later on after getting huge

amounts, he used to resile from the tender enquiries

one of the case cited was of M/s. Malhi and

Co.Rajpura.

Since the said complaint contained serious

allegations, the preliminary enquiry in the contents

of the said complaint was got done through

Headquarters Squad. The Hqrs. Squad after holding

detailed enquiry held that the said Sh.Amar Nath

was convicted by the Court twice. The allegations

relating to his absence from duty too was proved. It

was also observed by the quad that the address in

the tender form given by Sh.Baldev Krishan(having

10% share) for M/s. Malhi and Co.Rajpura was

House No.3049, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh which was

the residential address of the said Sh. Amar Nath

which implied that the said Sh.Amar Nath was having

direct interest in the tender in question.

By committing the above misconduct, he has

rendered himself liable for strict disciplinary action

as his conduct was unworthy of an employee of the

Corporation. He is thus charges of flagrantly

violating the provisions of Regulations 31,32 and

32(A) of FCI(Staff) Regulations, 1971.”

Enquiry Officer was appointed by the same authority

and the case was decided by the same authority in

negation of standing instructions of Central Vigilance

Commission and Food Corporation of India Head quarter..

Enquiry has not been conducted fairly and properly. As

the enquiry officer has acted under the influence and

instructions of the authority against whom the complaint

was made and enquiry officer did not consider the

evidence of defence. It is further pleaded by the workman

that he was illegally dismissed from service by the same

authority vide order dated 05.05.2006. It is further pleaded

by the workman that he made a genuine complaint and

demanded CBI enquiry by giving affidavit. The chairman

of the FCI closed the complaint without recommending

any action against the complainant. It is further pleaded

that the workman was dismissed from service out of

vendetta and without any legal cause because he was a

trade union leader. The workmen prayed that the enquiry

may be declared as vitiated and he may be reinstated in

service with all benefits.

Management filed written statement and submitted

a detailed reply. Management pointed out that the workmen

while working as head watchman preferred a complaint

leveling allegations/charges against the then Senior

Regional Manager Punjab Sh. Sudhir Mittal IAS and Sh.

Sushil Nagpal. Workman also alleged that Sh. R.K.Jain,

District Manager was an agent of Sh. Sudhir Mittal. The

allegations projected by the workman were got

investigated by FCI Headquarter through senior level

officers of the head quarter and it was noticed that there

was no truth in the allegations. Workman by doing so

committed a gross misconduct which was in violation of

conduct regulations embodied in the FCI(Staff

Regulations) 1971. An anonymous complaint purported

to have been sent by Sh. Ramji Dass. The said complaint

contained allegations that workman indulging in various

acts of indiscipline and blackmailing officials/officer of

the FCI by remaining absent from duty. It was also alleged

that workman did not disclose the fact of his conviction

by the Court. It was also mentioned that the workman has

taken one rice mill on lease under the name and style of

M/s. Sun Rice Mill at Rajpura. It is further alleged that

workman indulges in tender enquiries. Preliminary enquiry

got done and it was found that Sh.Amar Nath (workman)

was convicted by the Court twice. The allegations relating

to his, absence from duty too were proved. It was also

found that workman was having direct interest in the

tenders in question. For committing these misconducts,

workman was directed to submit a written statement of his

defence. Workman did not submit reply to the memorandum

in the stipulated period. Enquiry officer was appointed.

Enquiry officer issued notices to both the parties for

appearances for enquiry proceedings. Workman appeared

on 18.7.2005 and 02.08.2005 and confirm having receiving

the charge sheet. A copy of the charge sheet in Hindi was

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

809

given to the workman and read over to the workman.

Workman denied the charges. Workman inspected the

prosecution documents and the workman was permitted

to engage a defence assistant for himself. Subsequently

the workman submitted a list of additional documents for

his defence. Since the documents asked for were not

specific, these could not be made available. Presenting

officer examined four prosecution witnesses, three of whom

were cross-examined by the workman. PW 4 could not be

cross-examined by the workman and the proceedings were

held ex parte on 24.1.2006. The enquiry officer submitted

his report to the disciplinary authority on 28.2.1006. The

charges were found to be proved against the workman.

The disciplinary authority sent a copy of the enquiry report

to the workman through Area Manager, Patiala dated

1.4.2006 and in turn forwarded the same memo along with

the enquiry report to Manager Amloh for servicing upon

the said official. As per report of the Manager dated

4.4.2006, it could not be served as the workman did not

attend the duty on 3.4.2006 and 4.4.2006. District Office

Patiala sent two copies one by Registered post and one

by courier at his known address at Chandigarh. But these

communications were received back undelivered with the

remark that “left the house, address unknown”. Later on

DM vide his letter dated 12.4.2006 apprised that he

attempted to serve the copy of enquiry report on 12.4.2006

but the workman flatly refused to acknowledge the same.

Workman has will fully avoided the receipt of the enquiry

report. Manager in order to afford reasonable opportunity,

a press note got published in two vernacular papers namely

Ajit and Punjab Kesri on 21.3.2006 but the workman neither

collected enquiry report nor submitted any representation.

Disciplinary authority vide order dated 5.5.2006 passed a

detailed order wherein the workman was awarded penalty

of dismissal from service and gratuity was forfeited.

Aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the

workman moved an appeal before the Appellate Authority

i.e. Executive Director. Appellate Authority after carefully

examining the appeal along with record, charge sheet,

enquiry proceedings, enquiry report and also hearing the

workman in person on 25.8.2006 and further his

representation submitted on 25.8.2006, the workman appeal

was rejected by the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the

order of the Appellate Authority, the workman submitted

a review petition. The reviewing authority also find no

merit in the review petition however the reviewing authority

waived off the penalty to the extent of forfeiture of gratuity.

The rest of punishment of dismissal from service was

upheld.

The management in reply also submitted that FCI

cannot ask the Central Bureau of Investigation directly to

make investigation when FCI has its own mechanism to

deal such types of complaints. Management conducted

the investigation through Sh. S.K.Singhal, Executive

Director FCI and Sh. P.K.Mathur, Joint Manager Vigilance.

The enquiry officer has conducted a fair and proper

enquiry and the workman was given full opportunity.

Management also mentioned in its written statement that

principle of natural justice has not been violated. The

workman was not charge sheeted by the officer against

whom he had made the complaint.

After hearing and going through the rival

contentions of the parties, following preliminary issue was

framed vide order dated 17.5.2013:

“Whether the departmental enquiry held against the

workman is fair and proper adhering to the principles

of natural justice.”

7. Both the parties were given opportunity to argue the

case on the fairness of enquiry. This Tribunal after hearing

the parties, vide order dated 23.7.2013 held the enquiry as

proper and valid while passing the following order:-

“From the perusal of the file, it is clear that the proper

and fair procedure was followed in the departmental

enquiry. Copy of the enquiry report was offered to

the workman but the workman deliberately refused

to accept. Thereafter the management got the notice

published in two Newspapers. It is evident from the

record that after passing of the order by the

disciplinary authority, the workman filed appeal

before the appellate authority and he was given

personal hearing also. It is revealed that he also

made representation to the appellate authority who

rejected his appeal after going through all the record

and after giving him personal hearing. From the

record it is also evident that he filed review petition

and the reviewing authority also substituted the

punishment by releasing the gratuity but other

punishment remains the same. Thus the workman

has failed to show that he was not given proper

opportunity to defend himself during enquiry. Every

possible effort was made by the enquiry officer to

provide him the reasonable opportunity. Therefore,

taking into consideration material on the record and

submission of the parties, it is held that enquiry was

conducted in a fair and proper manner and the

workman was given reasonable opportunity to

defend himself and the enquiry was conducted in

accordance with the principle of natural justice.”

The parties were given opportunity for hearing on

the point of perversity and on quantum of punishment

and were also allowed liberty to adduce any evidence in

this regard.

The learned representative of the workman made a

statement on 21.08.2014 that he do not want o adduce any

additional evidence on perversity and quantum of

punishment and close the same.

10.

The management filed affidavit of Vivek Gupta as

Ex.M1 in evidence. This witness was cross-examined by

the authorized representative of the workman.

810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

I have heard the parties on perversity and on

quantum of punishment.

12.

It is the admitted case of the parties that the workman

was charge-sheeted vide memorandum dated 04.12.1996.

and enquiry officer was appointed who conducted the

inquiry which was held to be fair and proper. The learned

representative of the workman submitted that the inquiry

officer arrived on the conclusion which is perverse to the

evidence recorded during inquiry. It is further submitted

by the learned counsel for the workman that Article-I was

proved wrongly against the workman by the enquiry officer

as the evidence recorded during the inquiry proceeding

goes in favour of the workmen in as much as PW2 Sushil

Nagpal submitted during inquiry in his statement that

charged official did not misbehave with him. The statement

of PW1 Harnaik Singh and PW3 Sher Singh also not going

against the charged official. As regard charge No.2 is

concerned, it is partly proved by the inquiry officer. It is

further submitted by the learned counsel for the workman

that in one of the case, the workman was convicted by the

trial court but appellate court acquitted him in appeal. In

the second case he was given benefit of probation under

the Probation of Offenders Act. Therefore, the findings of

the inquiry officer are perverse and the enquiry deserved

to be vitiated and the workman is entitled for reinstatement

with all benefits.

13.

On the other hand learned counsel for the

management submitted that this court vide order dated

23.07.2013 also held that inquiry was conducted fairly and

properly and Article-I was proved fully against the

workman during the inquiry and charge No.2 was proved

partly.As regard charge No.2 is concerned, in one of the

case, the workman was convicted by Sub-Divisional

Judicial Magistrate, Nabha on 01.08.1985 and in the second

case,he was convicted by Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Chandigarh on 11.11.1993 and sentenced to six months

with Rs.500/- as fine and one month rigorous imprisonment

respectively. In the first case he was acquitted in appeal

and in the second case the workmen was given benefit of

probations by the Appellate Court. This fact the workman

never disclosed to the management. Therefore, the

workman is guilty of concealing this fact from the office.

As regard charge No.1 is concerned, workman was

charged for making false and malicious complaint against

the officers and these allegations as made by the workmen,

got investigated by the Headquarter and found to be false.

During inquiry, this charge has been proved against the

workmen that he was indulging in making false and

malicious complaints against the officers. The workman

violated FCI staff regulations. Discipline is the back bone

for any institution and if this discipline is violated, then

no institution can work effectively.

14.

During arguments, the learned counsel for the

management further submitted that once it is held by the

Court/Tribunal that inquiry has been conducted fairly and

properly then Industrial Tribunal is not to sit as a Appellate

Court on the finding of the inquiry officer. It is further

submitted by the learned counsel for the management that

after rejection of the appeal of the workman by the appellate

authority, workman filed review application . The reviewing

authority did not find any merit to alter the punishment of

dismissal from service. However taking a lenient view, the

reviewing authority waived off the penalty to the extent of

forfeiture of gratuity. The learned counsel for the

management submitted that the workmen was guilty of

serious misconduct and also convicted in one of the case

and was given the benefit of probations and guilty of

concealing material facts from the office. Therefore, the

workman is not entitled for relief and the reference deserves

to be rejected.

15.

The workmen failed to point out any perversity in

the findings of the inquiry officer. So far the quantum of

punishment is concerned, reviewing authority had already

taken lenient view in releasing the gratuity. Therefore,

taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of

the case, it would be unwarranted to interfere in the

punishment awarded to the workman which is

proportionate to the gravity of mis-conduct. As workman

fails to point out any perversity, therefore, it is held that

there is no perversity in finding of the inquiry officer and

the finding of the inquiry officer is exclusively bases on

the evidence recorded during the course of inquiry.

16.

From the record, it is amply clear that workmen was

charge-sheeted. The inquiry officer was appointed. The

enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry fairly and

properly submitted his findings proving charge No.1 as

fully proved and charge No.2 partly proved. This court

vide order dated 23.7.2013 after hearing the parties and

taking into consideration the facts and finding of the

inquiry officer, held that inquiry was conducted fairly and

properly. Therefore, the workman is not entitled to any

relief.

17.

Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt.

be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the

Central Govt. for publication.

30.01.2015

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 289-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ-lh-,y- ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 54@1999) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@300@1998&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

811

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2015

S.O.

289.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/1999)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Eastern Coalfields

Limited and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 10/02/2015.

[No. L-22012/300/1998-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 54 OF 1999

PARTIES :

The management of B. C. Incline, ECL

Vs.

Sri Ram Swarup Paswan

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management

Sri P. K. Goswami,

Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman)

Sri Manoj Mukharjee,

Ld. Advocate

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

Dated: 20.01.2015

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/

300/98/IR(CM-II) dated 26/27.05.1999 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of ECL,

B.C. Incline, Po: Sitarampur in dismissing Sh. Ram

Swarup Paswan is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief is the workman entitled?”

Having received the Order No. L-22012/300/98/

IR(CM-II) dated 26/27.05.1999 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 54 of

1999 was registered on 07.06.1999. Accordingly an order

to that effect was passed to issue notices through the

registered post to the parties concerned, directing them to

appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents and a list

of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of

the said order notices by the registered post were sent to

the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the

Tribunal, through their representative and filed their

separate sets of written statement in support of their

respective claims.

The workman’s case in a nut shell is that he was

working in B.C. Incline at Sitarampur Area since 01.06.1974.

The workman was ailing and he remained under treatment

from 20.05.1993 to 09.09.1993 under the treatment of doctor

of Sanctoria Hospital. The workman informed the

management for showing the name in the sick list register

or in the company’s record. But the Manager whimsically

issued a charge sheet being no. BC/PAT/C-6/93/03A/735

dated 23.11.1995. The management set up a domestic

enquiry against the workman but the workman requested

the enquiry officer to examine Dr. S.K. Shah who had

treated the workman, but the enquiry officer paid no

heed. The management without giving proper opportunity

to workman passed the dismissal order on 21.03.1994 vide

letter no. BEJ/TAR/C-6/94/03A/183 dated 21.03.1994.

Although Dr. S.K. Shah who was later on posted at SPEL

Bindi, Sripur Area Hospital issued letter on 21.04.1994 to

the Manager / Welfare Officer, B.C. Incline, Sripur Area

informing that Sri Ram Swarup Paswan was suffering from

Jaundice and he was advised to take bed rest from

20.09.1993 to 09.091993. But even then the management

did not examine Dr. S.K. Shah. The Enquiry Officer as well

as management has not given proper opportunity to defend

the workman and thus violated the principle of natural

justice. The workman has prayed that award may kindly

be passed by the Tribunal to set aside and to declare

dismissal of Sri Ram Swarup Paswan as illegal and order

for reinstatement of workman with full back wages and

other fringes and benefits.

The management has stated in his written statement

that Sri Ram Swarup Paswan absented from duty from

20.05.1993 without any leave or any information to Colliery.

On submitting Medical Certificate, Sri Ram Swarup Paswan

was permitted to join duty. Later on it came to the

knowledge of the management that the Medical Certificate

produced by Mr. Paswan in support of his illness was

manufactured for the purpose of getting excuse for his

absence. Therefore, Mr. Paswan was charge sheeted for

the act of producing false certificate vide charge sheet

No. BC/PAT/C-6/93/03A/735 dated 25.11.1993. After

receiving reply, departmental enquiry was conducted after

giving full opportunity to Mr. Paswan to defend himself.

From the evidence adduced by the parties and after

perusing the report received from Dr. Sinatal, M.S. C.M.O.

Cell, ECL/H.Q./Sanctoria vide Ref. No. ECL/C-5(E)/CMO/

CONFI/93/1844 dated 13.10.1993 as well as confirmation

report received from Ch. Vigilance Officer, /ECL/H.Q. under

Ref. No. ECL/C-5(E)/CMO/CONFI/93/1864 dated

13.10.1993.

812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

After perusing the report of Enquiry Officer the

management dismissed Sri Ram Swarup Paswan from

service. Mr. Paswan has raised dispute before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner after lapse of five years

without any reason as such for the reasons unexplained

delay.

The workman has filed additional written statement.

He has reiterated the allegation of written statement already

submitted by him.

The workman has filed certificate of doctor, the

report of doctor and the letter of doctor to the Manager,

B.C. Incline. The workman namely Sri Ram Swarup Paswan

has been examined as PW1.He has examined PW2 and in

support of his allegation. The management has filed the

copy of Charge Sheet, Enquiry Proceeding, Enquiry

Report, Dismissal Order, letter of Sri S.K. Chowdhury, Joint

Secretary to A.L.C, Doctor’s Certificate, letter of Dr. S.K.

Shah to manager, the Medical Certificate of Dr. S.K. Shah

and out door patient slip of Eastern Coalfield Limited dated

1st April, 5th May and 5th July. The management has not

examined any witness.

I have heard the argument of Sri Manoj Mukherjee,

Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of workman and Ld.

Advocate Sri P.K. Goswami appearing on behalf of the

management.

Ld. Advocate Mr. Manoj Mukherjee has argued that

PW2, Dr. S.K. Shah has proved the medical certificate of

workman namely Sri Ram Swarup Paswan. Therefore the

plea of management is that the medical certificate issued

by Dr. S.K. Shah and submitted by workman is concocted

and false is wrong. The workman due to his sickness for

a period of 3 and ½ months and due to compelling

circumstances did not come on duty and there was no

willful absence on duty.

On the other hand Mr. P.K. Goswami, Ld. Advocate

has argued that the evidence of PW2 and PW1 there is a

contradiction. Hence the workman is not entitled to get

any relief.

It is an admitted fact that Sri Ram Swarup Paswan

was coal face worker in B.C. Incline colliery at Sitarampur

since 01.06.1974. The case of workman is that the workman

was ill. He had undergone treatment of Dr. S.K. Shah the

then doctor of Sanctoria Hospital. Therefore, due to his

sickness he was absent from duty under compelling

circumstances. On the other hand the case of the

management is that the workman namely Sri Ram Swarup

Paswan remained absent from duty without any

permission. On producing the medical certificate he was

permitted to join his duty. But on verification the medical

certificate was found to be false. Therefore, after domestic

enquiry the concerned workman was dismissed from

service.

On perusal of charge sheet no. BC/PAT/C-6/93/03A/

735 dated 25.11.1993 it transpires that charge sheet to the

delinquent workman has been framed on 25.11.1993 on

two counts.

“17(i)(a) - Theft, fraud, dishonesty in connection

with the employer business or property.

17(i)(n) - Continuous absence without permission

and without satisfactory cause for more than ten

days.”

As per version of the management after receiving

the reply of charge sheeted workman the Enquiry officer

for domestic enquiry was appointed. Though there is no

copy of reply of charge sheeted workman, the above charge

sheet is on record.

“Reasonable opportunity means not only framing

of charges and asking for explanation but much more”.

The employee must be apprised of the material on which

the charges were framed so that he could have a proper

opportunity of testing or challenging that material so far

as would be possible for him. The Rules of Natural justice

require that when a fact is sought to be proved before a

tribunal, it must be supported by statement made at his

back. The basic requirement of fair opportunity is that

enquiry must be conducted with honesty and in bonafide

manner with a view to determine whether the charge framed,

against particular employee is proved or not. Care must

be taken to see that the enquiry does not become formality.

In dealing with domestic enquiry in industrial matters, the

fact that in large majority of cases employers are likely to

be illiterate and ignorant. The enquiry officer has to take

care in the facts and circumstances of the case that the

defence of workman is not prejudiced in any manner.

The management in ‘Para 7’ of the written statement

has alleged that “from the evidences adduced by the

parties and after perusing the report received from Dr.

Sinatal, M.S. C.M.O. Cell, ECL/H.Q/Sanctoria vide ref no.

ECL/C-5(E)/CMO/CONFI/93/1844 dated 13.10.1993 as well

as confirmation report received from Ch. Vigilance Officer,

ECL/HQ under ref. no. ECL/C-5(E)/CMO/Confi/93/1864

dated 13.10.1993.

But in the Charge sheet the report of Dr. Sinatal and

confirmation report of vigilance officer has not been

referred. It is relevant to mention here that the above

report is basis of departmental enquiry. On the report of

doctor and vigilance officer the enquiry has been initiated.

Therefore, it is mandatory to refer all those reports in

charge sheet and copy of these reports must have been

given to the delinquent employee but neither copy has

been given to the delinquent employee nor it has been

mentioned in the charge sheet even the report of those

officers has not been filed on the file of reference of tribunal

by the management.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

813

Delinquent workman had examined Dr. S.K. Shah as

PW2. Dr. S.K. Shah has proved the medical report of Sri

Ram Swarup Paswan who was under treatment from

20.05.1993 to 09.09.1993. It has been exhibited as “X and

Y”. Besides PW2, Dr. S.K. Shah has proved the medical

certificate X/1, X/2 and X/3 respectively. Dr. S.K. Shah has

been examined by the management but in his cross-

examination he has supported the statement of

Examination-in-Chief. Therefore, the genuineness of the

medical certificate issued by Dr. S.K. Shah can not be

suspected. The charge is therefore not proved.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court , in AIR 1973 SC1227,

workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co, of India

Private Limited V/s Management, in paragraphs 36 and

37, has held thus: Therefore it will be seen that both in

respect of cases where a domestic enquiry has been held

as also in cases where the tribunal considers the matter

on the evidence adduced before it for the first time, the

satisfaction under section 11 A about the guilt or otherwise

of the workman concerned, is that of the tribunal. It has

to consider the evidence and come to a conclusion one

way or other. Even in cases where an enquiry has been

held by an employer and a finding of misconduct arrived

at, the tribunal can now differ from that finding in a proper

cause and hold that no misconduct is proved.”

In an enquiry proceeding the statement of Sri

Somnath Chowdhury and Sri V.K. Balabyal the management

witness has been recorded. But these witnesses have not

been cross examined. Delinquent workman has not given

opportunity to cross examine these management witnesses

which is against the principle of natural justice. Enquiry

should be held impartially, objectively and after giving an

opportunity of hearing to the delinquent workman. Fair

opportunity and fair trial are elements of the principle of

natural justice which are always applied to the facts and

circumstances of a case. The elements of reasonable

opportunity of being heard are that firstly, an opportunity

to be heard must be given and secondly, this opportunity

must be reasonable. Debarring the delinquent workman

for cross-examining of the management witness is totally

non-compliance of principle of natural justice.

When different category of penalties can be imposed

in respect of alleged fault, the disciplinary authority is

required to consult himself for selecting the most

appropriate penalty from out of range of penalties available

that can be imposed having regard to the nature, content

and gravity.

Unless the disciplinary authority reaches the

conclusion that having regard to the nature content and

magnitude of the fault, committed by the employee

concerned, it would be absolutely unsafe to retain him in

service, the maximum penalty of dismissal should not be

imposed if the lesser penalty can be imposed without

seriously jeopardizing the interest of the employer. It does

more harm than good to the employee and also to the

society. Before imposing punishment of discharge or

dismissal fair plea requires that the delinquent workman is

given reasonable opportunity to put forth his defence

before the Enquiry Officer in accordance with the rules of

natural justice but the employee has not been given

opportunity to put his defence. Beside show cause notice

before imposing punishment has not been issued by the

management to the delinquent workman which is

mandatory in law and clear violation of natural justice.

When the question of determining the entitlement

of a person to back wages is concerned the employee has

to show that he was not gainfully employed anywhere.

The initial burden on him. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Uttarnchal Forest Development Corporation V/s.

M.C. Joshi, 2007 AIR, SCW 70350 has held that the relief

of reinstatement with full back wages would not be granted

automatically only because it would be lawful to do so.

For the said purpose several factors are to be taken into

consideration. The workman was dismissed on 21.03.1994.

The Joint Secretary of Koayla Mazdoor Congress has

written letters to the Asansol Labour Commissioner on

01.06.1998 and 23.06.1998 regarding illegal dismissal of Sri

Ram Swaroop Paswan. After lapse of 4 years the union

has tried for reconciliation. Reference was made in the

year 1999 when the workman has himself delayed to settle

the dispute by reconciliation, therefore a workman can

not get advantage of his own wrong and he should no be

awarded full back wages in this context.

In view of this matter I think it just and proper to

modify the same by exercising the power under section

11(A) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The impugned order

of dismissal is hereby set-a-side and the management is

directed to reinstate Sri Ram Swarup Paswan, the

delinquent workman with the continuity of the service. I

think it appropriate that the delinquent workman be

imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments with

cumulative effect. It is further directed that the concerned

workman will get 20% of the back wages from May 1999

till the reinstatement.

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per

above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

information and needful. The reference is accordingly

disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 290-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w-lh-,y- ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 59@1991) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@489@1990&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2015

S.O.

290.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 59/1991)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Western Coalfields

Limited and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 10/02/2015.

[No. L-22012/489/1990-IR(C-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/59/91

Organising Secretary,

RKKMS (INTUC),

Post Chandametta,

Distt.Chhindwara

...Workman/Union

Versus

The Manager,

Tandsi Project of WCL,

Post Rampur,

Distt. Chhindwara

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5th day of January, 2015

As per letter dated 3-4-91 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-

22012/489/90-IR(C-II).The dispute under reference relates

to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Manager,

Tandsi Project, WCL, Kanyan Area, PO Rampur,

Distt. Chhindwara in dismissing from services to

ShriPradeep Kumar Arora, General Mazdoor of

Tandsi Project w.e.f. 17-6-89 on the basis of the

enquiry conducted without giving him an

opportunity to reform is justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. As workman had failed to submit statement of

claim, no dispute award was passed on 18-8-92. Application

for setting aside exparte award was allowed as per order

dated 5-2-96. Ist party workman submitted statement of

claim at Page 13/1 to 13/5. Case of workman is that he was

initially appointed at Nandan No.1 Mine as General

Mazdoor. He was transferred to Tandsi Project. He was

performing duties in lamproom and various departments.

He served with devotion without any adverse remarks or

stigma. Chargesheet was served on him on 25-1-89 alleging

misbehavior with Shri H.K.Tondon overman. Misconduct

covered under clause 17-1A of standing orders. Workman

had denied charges against him and replied to chargesheet.

Though chargesheet was issued to him alleging

misconduct under standing orders, workman submits there

were no standing orders existing in WCL, Chhindwara.

The standing orders were not certified. That Disciplinary

Authority instead of giving any response to his

explanation, decided to conduct enquiry against him. Dy.

Personnel Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer.

Enquiry was conducted on various dates. That workman

being member and office bearer of Union used to raise

grievance of workman before appropriate forum. INTUC

Union was against workman with view to victimize under

undue influence. Management prosecuted false case.

Workman was not given proper opportunity for his defence

in Enquiry Proceedings. He was not allowed to be

represented by co-worker. He was not allowed opportunity

to be cross-examined. Enquiry conducted against him is

not proper and legal. Proper procedure was not followed

by Enquiry Officer. Therefore on the basis of such enquiry,

dismissal imposed is illegal. The application for change of

Enquiry Officer was rejected without proper reasons. On

such ground, workman is praying for reinstatement with

consequential benefits.

IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page

13/1 to 13/10. IInd party denied allegation and relief claimed

by workman. it is submitted that on 25-1-89, while workman

was on duty, he abused and threatened to kill

ShriH.K.Tondon, chargesheet was issued to workman ,

reply given by workman was found unsatisfactory. Shri

Deepak Dy. Personal Manager was appointed as Enquiry

officer and Mr. G.Prasad Sr. Personnel Officer was appointed

as Management’s Representative. Enquiry was conducted

on various dates details given in para-6 of the written

Statement. Enquiry Officer submitted report that charges

against workman were proved. The workman was supplied

copy of Enquiry Report. Workman was engaged in act of

criminal nature. Proceeding under section 107, 116 CRPC

was initiated against workman. the Bond of Rs. 5000 was

obtained by workman. it is reiterated that charges against

workman were proved in the Enquiry proceedings.

Workman had abused and threatened to kill overman Mr.

Tondon. Considering nature of charges, workman was

dismissed from service.

As per order dated 27-12-2014, enquiry conducted

against workman was found proper and legal. Considering

pleadings on record and order of preliminary issue, the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

815

points which arise for my consideration and determination

are as under. My findings are recorded against each of

them for the reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the alleged miscon-

Charges against

duct is proved from evidence

workman are

in Enquiry Proceedings?

partly proved.

(ii)

Whether punishment of dismi-

Punishment of

ssal imposed against workman

dismissal is not

is legal and proper?

legal.

(iii)

If so, to what relief the work-

As per final

man is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

As stated above, enquiry conducted against

workman is legal and proper, question remains as to

whether the charges against workman are proved from

evidence in Enquiry Proceedings and punishment of

dismissal is proper and legal. Workman was issued

chargesheet alleging misconduct under rule 17(1)® of

standing order. That on 22-1-89 around 11.15 AM, workman

abused Shri S.K.Tondon overman and threatened to kill

him. workman had denied charges against him. in his

statement in Enquiry Proceedings, Shri S.K.Tondon MWI

says on 25-1-89 he was on duty in Ist shift around 11.15

AM, CSE abused him. he had submitted report about said

incident. The evidence of Shri H.K.Tondon is silent about

workman threatened to kill him. what abuses were given

to him by workman, the particulars are not given in his

statement. In cross-examination of ShriTondon by

Management’s representative, he admits that workman had

threatened to kill him. in his cross-examination by workman,

ShriH.K.Tondon says that he was on duty. CSE was not

working in his shift. The CSE had no reason to come to

him. the report was submitted to police. Witness No.2

Mahesh Akhliya in his statement says that on 25-1-1999,

he and foreman Nasir were working as Mechanical Fitter

at Tandsi Project. CSE bused ShriH.K.Tondon and also

threatened to kill him. he had specified CSE and taken him

towards office. In his cross-examination on behalf of

workman,.he says that he was doing work of welding in

front of mine No.1. in reply to Q.No.4, MW Mahesh says

workman was in full sense but since past 4-5 months, he

was mentally disturbed. The Mine Manager Saxena was

harassing CSE. His attendance was not marked. His wages

were not paid. Management’s witness No. MW3 Ashok

says that CSE had abused ShriH.K.Tondon. His evidence

is silent about threats given by workman. in cross-

examination by management’s representative he claims

ignorance about threats given by CSE to ShriTondon.

Management’s witness Nasir also says that CSE was

abusing shriH.K.Tondon in cross-examination by

Management’s Representative. He reiterates that he had

heard only oabuses. In his cross-examination, he says

that he was at 50 ft. distance from Shri Tondon. Shri Tondon

was alone at that time. In statements of all that witnesses

of management’s he had not disclosed particulars of

abuses given by CSE. The evidence about threats to kill

workman is not corroborated by three other witnesses. In

evidence in Enquiry Proceedings cannot re-appreciate the

evidence of Appellate Authority. The legal position is

settled but evidence discussed above shows that CSE

has only abused. Evidence about threats given by CSE is

not corroborated by other witness. The evidence of

management’s witnesses is silent that workman was

holding any harm causing danger to life of ShriTondon

therefore the particulars of abuses are also not given by

any of the witnesses. Therefore the charge of giving

abuses by workman proved from evidence of

management’s witness cannot be said of serious nature.

For reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point

No.1, charge of giving abuses by workman is proved.

Point No. 2 : The charge of CSE giving threats to kill

Shri H.K.Tondon is not established. Only charge of giving

abuses by CSE to shriTondon is established. As per

evidence on record, proceeding under Section 107, 116 3

CRPC was initiated against workman. he was not

prosecuted for any offence. Therefore punishment of

dismissal imposed against workman appears excessive.

Learned counsel for workman Shri Rajesh Chand

relies on ratio held

In case of management of Shri Ganapati Bus Service

Thirunelvel and Presiding Officer Labour court and

others reported in 2001(1) LLN 780, their Lordship

of Apex Court considering termination of service of

conductor set aside by Labour Court on ground

that dismissal was disproportionate to the charges,

namely failure to charge for a small luggage and

charging half fare instead of full fare to one

passenger. Plea of employer that Labour Court did

not try the question whether enquiry was valid and

proper as a preliminary issue and that no

opportunity was given to employer to lead evidence

in support of the charge. Held since the Labour Court

had found that enquiry was proper and valid, not

trying the question as a preliminary issue has not

prejudiced the employer in any manner..award of

Labour court directing reinstatement of dismissed

conductor requires no interference.

In present case, charge against CSE threatening to

kill Tondon is not established. Only charge of abusing by

CSE to Shri Tondon is established. The punishment cannot

be said proper. The dismissal for such a charge appears

excessive.

Next reliance is placed on ratio held in

Case of Scooter India Ltd versus Labour court,

Lucknow reported in AIR 1989 SC-149. Their

816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Lordship considering termination of service.

Disciplinary enquiry found to be fair and lawful and

its findings were not vitiated in any manner. The

direction of Labour Court in the facts for

reinstatement of employee with 75 % back wages on

ground that erring workman should be given

opportunity to reform himself and prove to be loyal

and disciplined employee of company was held not

illegal and arbitrary. Their Lordship held Disciplinary

Enquiry found fair and interference in reinstatement

by Labour Court is thereafter not illegal.

In present case, enquiry conducted against workman

is found proper and legal. However charge of CSE

threatening to kill ShriTondon cannot be proved from

evidence . The charge CSE abusing Shri H.K.Tondon is

proved, particulars of abuse is not disclosed by any of the

witnesses.Punishment of dismissal need to be modified

to stoppage of two increment with cumulative effect. In

my considered view, reinstatement of workman with

continuity of service and 40 % back wages would be proper.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The the action of the management of Manager,

Tandsi Project, WCL, Kanyan Area, PO Rampur,

Distt. Chhindwara in dismissing from services to

Shri Pradeep Kumar Arora, General Mazdoor of

Tandsi Project w.e.f. 17-6-89 on the basis of the

enquiry conducted without giving him an

opportunity to reform is not proper and legal.

(2)

Dismissal of Ist party is modified to stoppage of two

increments with cumulative effect. IInd party is

directed to reinstatement workman with continuity

of service and 40 % back wages.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 291-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-bZ-lh-,y- ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 63@2005) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@281@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2015

S.O.

291.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 63/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of South Eastern

Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 10/02/2015.

[No. L-22012/281/2004-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/63/05

The Secretary,

Samyukta Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),

C/o Sanjay Mishra, Telephone Exchange,

PO Kotma Colliery,

Distt.Shahdol

...Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Jamuna & Kotma Area,

SECL, PO Jamuna,

Distt.Annupur (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 13th day of January, 2015

As per letter dated 11-7-05 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/

281/2004-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates

to:

“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager,

Jamuna & Kotma Area of SECL in not promoting

Shri Rambahadur Vishwakarma, Electrician SLU-B

to the technical and supervisory Grade C w.e.f.

25-9-98 and Grade B from 2001 and also not making

payment of difference is legal and justified? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at

Page 3/1 to 3/4. Case of Ist party is that on 1-4-03, he was

appointed and working on the post of Electrician SLU

Grade B. That as per cadre scheme for Electrician Grade B

he was entitled for consideration for promotion to the post

of Asstt. Foreman Electrical, T&S grade C. workman being

senior most electrician Grade B was due for consideration

for promotion. DPC was held by management in 1998. Junior

to workmen were considered by DPC for promotion.

Workman was not considered. In DPC of 1998, 38 persons

were considered. Workman was excluded. That proceeding

of DPC reveals the juniors to the workman were considered

like Ram Vishal S/o Shri Mahadeo. His name was at Sl. No.

29 of DPC proceeding. Said Ramvishal was from batch of

workman. The result of DPC was published. Order

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

817

promoting 12 persons to the post of Asstt. Foreman T&S

Grade C was issued on 25-9-98. All the persons promoted

were junior to the workman. Workman had submitted

representations to the management but his representations

were not considered. He has raised dispute before ALC.

Management submitted incorrect reply. The conciliation

proceedings failed and dispute has been referred.

Workman reiterates that junior to him were promoted and

workman was superseded. That as per cadre scheme, on

completion of 3 years service in Grade C, he was due for

promotion to the opost of Asstt. Foremen (Electrical) T&S

Grade B. On such ground, workman submits that

management be directed to promote him on post of Asstt.

Foreman T&S Grade C w.e.f. 25-9-98 and difference of salary

be paid to him. He has also submitted on 13-4-04 that he

had retired from post of Electrician Grade B.

IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page 6/1

to 6/4. Claim of workman is opposed. Workman was

working at Amadand Project as Electrician Cat-VI, Grade B

SLU. The service condition of employees in coal mines

are covered by settlement known as NCWA. The

settlement provides cadre scheme. Cadre scheme No. VII

is meant of Electrical Mechanical Discipline Employees

who are circulated on 20-6-84. The promotional channel of

various categories are provided in the scheme. The

selection up to Cat-V is on basis of Seniority-cum-Merit

and selection from above category V to VI is on merit-

cum-seniority basis. The selection for supervisory Grade

C post is on merit of the employees in Cat VI.

IInd party further submits that competency certificate

from appropriate authority is condition president for

promotion to the post of Grade C. workman was not

possessing competency certificate therefore he was not

recommended by DPC for promotion to Grade C post. The

seniority is irrelevant for selection for post of Grade C. On

such contentions, IInd party submits that promotion

cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Promotion is given

considering eligibility, recommendations of DPC,

availability of sanctioned post. On above ground, it is

submitted that reference be answered in its favour.

Ist party workman submitted rejoinder reiterating

his contentions in statement of claim. Workman submits

that he was fulfilling qualification for promotion to the

post of Foreman Grade C. He denies that he was not

considered by DPC as he did not posses requisite

certificate.

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 Chief

In Affirmative

General Manager, Jamuna & Kotma

Area of SECL in not promoting

Shri Rambahadur Vishwakarma,

Electrician SLU-B to the technical

and supervisory Grade C w.e.f.

25-9-98 and Grade B from 2001 and

also not making payment of

difference is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

Workman is

entitled to?”

not entitled

to any relief.

REASONS

Though workman raised dispute claiming promotion

to the post of Asst. Foreman electrical T&S Grade B and

grade C from respective dates, he was superseded by his

juniors, workman failed to adduce evidence to substantiate

his claim. Evidence of workman was closed on 16-4-2013.

Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Priyabrata

Mohanty Manager (P) supporting contentions of IInd

party that as per cadre scheme, the selection of Supervisory

Grade C is on merit. That workman was not possessing

competency certificate as such he was not fulfilling required

conditions for promotion to the post of Asstt. Foreman

(T&S) Grade C. The evidence of management’s witness

remained unchallenged as workman failed to cross-examine

the witness. Copy of cadre scheme is produced at Exhibit

M-1. The illegality for promotion requires working of the

employees in Cat-VI for 3 years. Workman was not selected

by DPC therefore claim of workman for promotion cannot

be established. For above reasons, I record Point No.1 in

Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the Chief General Manager, Jamuna &

Kotma Area of SECL in not promoting Shri

Rambahadur Vishwakarma, Electrician SLU-B to the

technical and supervisory Grade C w.e.f. 25-9-98 and

Grade B from 2001 and also not making payment of

difference is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 292-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w-lh-,y- ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 111@2012) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@143@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2015

S.O.

292.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 111/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Western

Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 10/02/2015.

[No. L-22012/143/2005-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/111/2012

Shri Daud Ali,

S/o Noor Mohd.

Newton/ Ganpati Mine of WCL,

PO Parasia, Bhimsen,

Distt. Chhindwara

...Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Western Coalfields Limited,

Pench Area, Post Parasia,

Distt.Chhindwara

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 13th day of January, 2015

As per letter dated 9-10-2012 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/

143/2005-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates

to:

“ Whether the ID against correction of his date of

birth raised by Shri Daud Ali S/o Shri nor Mohd. Ex

Raj Mistry, Newton/Ganpati Mines of W.C.Ltd. PO

Parasia, Bhimsen, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) is genuine

and fair? To what relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman failed to submit statement of claim.

Workman was proceeded ex-parte on 27-3-2014.

Management filed ex-parteWritten Statement.

Management submits that workman Daud Ali S/o Noor Ali

was employee of Newton/ Ganpati Mine Pench Area. He

was initially appointed in Newton Colliery. At the time of

his initial appointment, his date of birth was recorded

5-5-40 in Form B of Newton Colliery. Workman has signed

in token of acceptance of entries in Form B. In service

book of workman, date of birth was recorded 5-5-40.

Workman had signed entries recorded in his service book.

Workman had not raised dispute about his date of birth.

Workman was retired attaining age of 60 years on 5-5-2000.

Workman had filed Writ Petition No. 2449/2000 before

Hon’ble High Court. The dispute was raised before ALC,

Chhindwara for connection of his date of birth.

IInd party also filed affidavit of witness Shri Hirok

Sarkar. Management’s witness has stated that in form B

5-5-40. Same date of birth was recorded in his service book.

Abstracts of service book were sent to workman. The date

of birth was not objected. The evidence of management’s

witness remained unchallenged. The copies of entries in

form B Register and service book are produced. Workman

failed to file his statement of claim. He has failed to

participate in reference proceeding. Therefore award is

passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the Chief General Manager, Jamuna &

Kotma Area of SECL in not promoting Shri

Rambahadur Vishwakarma, Electrician SLU-B to the

technical and supervisory Grade C w.e.f. 25-9-98 and

Grade B from 2001 and also not making payment of

difference is legal and justified.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 293-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w-lh-,y- ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 158@1994) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@275@1994&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2015

S.O.

293.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 158/

1994) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Western

Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 10/02/2015.

[No. L-22012/275/1994-IR(C-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/158/94

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

819

General Secretary,

MP Koyla Khadan Mazdoor

Panchayat (HMS),

PO Junnardeo,

Distt.Chhindwara (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

Manager,

Tandsi Project,

WCL, Kanhan Area,

PO Rampur,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5th day of January, 2015

As per letter dated 12-9-94 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/

275/94-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Tandsi

Project of WCL, Kanhan Area PO Rampur, Distt.

Chhindwara MP in dismissing Shri Parasram S/o

Tularam, General MazdoorTandsi project of WCL,

Kanhan Area from services w.e.f. 5-6-92 is justified?

If not, to what relief the worker is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

through Union at Page 3/1. Case of Ist party workman is

that he was appointed in place of his mother Ramrati Bai

on 18-2-89. Management has ordered to reduce manpower

of Khandwa Area. Ist Party workman Shri Parasram is one

of the victim by dismissing his services. That workman

was injured underground on 5-12-90. He was under

treatment at Company’s Hospital. He has become week.

He was never absent for long period. Workman was called

in Enquiry Proceedings. No charge sheet was given to

him. he had attended Enquiry Proceedings. Secretary of

Union demanded charge sheet. He was orally told that 2

years back he was absent for few days. He shown medical

certificate of injury. Workman was working satisfactorily

in 1992. Without any reasons, he was dismissed on 5-6-92.

Without issuing charge sheet to workmen, enquiry was

started. Within few hours, enquiry was closed. Workman

was not provided opportunity for his defence. Workman

demanded copy of Enquiry Proceedings dated 9-6-92. It

was denied by management. As per management, charge

sheet was issued on 26-3-91. Enquiry was completed on

8-6-91. While order of dismissal was issued after one year.

The act of management is illegal. On such ground, workman

is praying for reinstatement with full back wages.

IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page 4/1

to 4/4. IInd party reiterates that reference is not tenable.

The dispute was not raised by employees representative

or management. workman was not member of HMS Union.

Said Union has no locus standi to raise the dispute. In

standing orders, appeal is provided under order of

dismissal. Such appeal was not preferred by workman.

That conciliation was not exercised for settling dispute

therefore reference is not tenable. In 1990, workman was

on duty for 99 days, in 1991, he was on duty for 49 days.

The absence of workman amounts to misconduct. Charge

sheet was issued to workman on 26-3-91. Charge sheet

was sent by RPAD on is address. The charge sheet was

also displayed on notice board. Charge sheet sent to

workman was received back. Management appointed

Enquiry Officer. Workman had not submitted explanation

for his unauthorised absence. Workman claimed suffering

from illness. Workman had assured to properly work in

future. That hospital facilities are provided to the workers

of Tandsi Project besides residential accommodation.

Principles of natural justice were followed while conducting

enquiry against workman. he was given opportunity for

his defence. Workman failed to submit reasonable

explanation for his absence. Enquiry Officer submitted his

report holding workman guilty of the charges. Workman

was dismissed on 5-6-92. Workman had submitted

explanation of illness suffering underground injury but

no document was submitted by workman or his

representative. Workman remained absent from duty. He

was habitual absentee. On such ground, IInd party prays

that action of management is proper and legal.

Ist party Union filed rejoinder at Page 5 reiterating

contentions in statement of claim. It is contented that

workman submitted medical certificate about his illness.

All adverse contentions of management are denied.

As per order dated 17-7-2013, enquiry conducted

against workman is found proper and legal. Considering

pleadings on record, the points which arise for my

consideration and determination are as under. My findings

are recorded against each of them for the reasons as

below:-

(i)

Whether the alleged misconduct

In Affirmative

is proved from evidence in

Enquiry Proceedings?

(ii)

Whether punishment of dismissal

In Affirmative

imposed against workman is legal

and proper?

(iii)

If so, to what relief the workman

Workman is

is entitled to?”

not entitled

to any relief.

REASONS

Enquiry conducted against workman is found proper

and legal. Question arises whether charges of misconduct

alleged against workman is proved from evidence in

enquiry Proceedings. Charge sheet was issued to workman

820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

for unauthorized absence alleging misconduct under Rule

17(1)(N) & 17(1)(B). Management’s Representative

submitted details of working days of workman at Page 8 of

Enquiry proceedings. The explanation of workman was he

was suffering from illness. However he failed to produce

documents about his treatment. So far as documents

Exhibit W-1 to W-11 produced by workman shows that

the medicines were prescribed documents exhibit W-5 to

W-9 are not legible. Exhibit W-10, W-11 are application

submitted by workman. The findings of Enquiry Officer

that workman has not produced satisfactory documents

about his illness cannot be interfered as Documents W-1

to W-4 are not issued by any Doctor giving treatment to

the workman. the documents donot pertain to treatment

received by workman. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

Point No.2- workman has not adduced any evidence.

Documents and evidence in Enquiry Proceedings shows

workman was absent from duties for more than 10 days.

He was absent from duty frequently therefore finding of

Enquiry Officer cannot be said perverse. For above reasons,

I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

Point No.3- The charges against workman are proved

from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Workman was

absent from duty for more than 10 days. He was also

habitual absent from duty therefore the punishment of

dismissal imposed on workman cannot be interfered.

Accordingly I record my finding on Point No.3.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Tandsi Project of

WCL, Kanhan Area PO Rampur, Distt. Chhindwara

MP in dismissing Shri Parasram S/o Tularam, General

MazdoorTandsi project of WCL, Kanhan Area from

services w.e.f. 5-6-92 is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 294-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,u-lh-,y- ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 18@1996) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@213@1995&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2015

S.O. 294.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/1996)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Jhingurda Colliery

of NCL and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 10/02/2015.

[No. L-22012/213/1995-IR(C-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/18/96

Shri Bedram S/o Shri Sahuram,

Ex General Mazdoor, Cat-I, HB 398,

Post Jhingurda Colliery,

Distt.Sidhi (MP)

...Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Jhingurda project of NCL,

Post Jhingurda Colliery,

Distt.Sidhi

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5th day of January, 2015

As per letter dated 1-1-1996 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/

213/95-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the General Manager,

Jhingurda Project of NCL, Singrauli in dismissing

shriVedram, General Mazdoor, Cat-I from company

services w.e.f. 30-4-94 is legal and justified? To what

relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of

claim at Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is that

he was appointed as General Mazdoor Cat-I as son of

Jhaduram. That workman was appointed on 18-9-90 as

clerk as per Para 9.4/3 of standing orders. That he

successfully completed probation period. He was also

allowed benefits of promotions. That complaint was

manipulated from his father under intoxication alleging

that he was not son of Jhaduram as per order dated 30-1-

93, he was suspended. Charge sheet was issued to

workman. it is alleged that charge sheet was issued by

incompetent authority is illegal. That enquiry was not

properly conducted. He was not supplied documents.

Enquiry Officer represented workman to change his co-

worker. Shri G.P. Tiwari should be engaged as co-worker

otherwise he will loose his service. Workman had

submitted certificates having name of his father Jhaduram.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

821

Affidavit of other witnesses were also submitted. That

Shri Jhaduram was his father. At the time of his

appointment, verification was made and it was confirmed

that ShriJhaduramwas his father. Enquiry Officer observed

in his report that workman was not giving money to

Jhaduram and therefore he alleged that workman was not

his son. The findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse and

illegal. On such contentions, workman prays for his

reinstatement with consequential benefits.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/5.

The appointment of workman as General Mazdoor is not

disputed. That NCWA-II came in force on 1-1-1979

providing employment to dependents of employees who

have died or declared medically unfit for service. That

ShriJhaduram was working as General Mazdoor Cat-I. he

was declared unfit for service. On application submitted

by Shri Jhaduram, Ist party workman was declared as his

son. Workman was provided employment as per order

dated 16-8-90. Workman was asked to report for occasional

training with Security Officer, Jhingurda colliery. He was

working with management. Jhaduram complained to

management that workman was not his son, he secured

employment by fraud. After receiving said complaint,

chargesheet was issued to workman. Reply to chargesheet

was submitted by workman, it was found not satisfactory.

Shri S.P. Singh was appointed Enquiry Officer, enquiry

was conducted on various dates. Management’s

representative Shri G.P. Tripathi and co-worker of workman

were present. Workman had denied charges against him.

Jhaduram was examined as Management’s witness. Other

witnesses were examined. They were also cross-examined.

It is disclosed in the evidence that Jhaduram had brother

Manglu. Workman was son of Manglu. Jhadu had two

wives. Jhaduram got one illegitimate child, he was not

married to the lady. Considering the evidence, workman

was dismissed from service.

As per order dated 26-11-09, preliminary issue was

decided. Enquiry conducted against workman was found

not proper and justified. enquiry was vitiated. Management

was permitted to prove misconduct against workman.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the General

In Negative

Manager, Jhingurda Project of

NCL, Singrauli in dismissing

Shri Vedram, General Mazdoor,

Cat-I from company services

w.e.f. 30-4-94 is legal and

justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Enquiry conducted against workman is found

vitiated therefore the evidence in Enquiry Proceedings

cannot be considered. Management was permitted to

prove misconduct alleged against workman. after the

enquiry conducted against workman is found vitiated,

management filed affidavit of witness Shri Prithvipal Singh.

Management’s witness in his affidavit says that Shri

Jhaduram was working as General Mazdoor Cat-I. He was

declared unfit. Jhaduram submitted application alongwith

declaration for employment to ShriVedram declaring that

Vedram was his son. As per his declaration, workman was

appointed as General Mazdoor on compassionate ground

vide order dated 16-3-90. That Jhaduram thereafter

complained to the management that Vedram was not his

son. He obtained job by fraud therefore chargesheet was

issued to workman. Enquiry Officer submitted his report

holding workman guilty of charges. The workman was

terminated on report of Enquiry Officer. That Shri Jhaduram

himself had declared Vedram was son of his younger

brother Manglu. Manglu had died. His wife was alive.

Vedram got two brother. Jhaduram admitted Vedram was

not his son. Workman refused Smt. Chaitabai is wife of

Late Mangloo. She hasstated Vedram was his son. His

father died of TB. Management’s witness has no personal

knowledge about the relationship. Management’s witness

has narrated what was evidence tendered by parties in

Enquiry Proceedings. As enquiry was found vitiated, the

evidence in Enquiry Proceedings cannot be considered.

Management’s witness in his cross-examination says he

was posted at NighaiHqr during 1990 to 1992. His affidavit

of evidence is based on available record. he had seen

complaint of Jhaduram. Complaint is produced in Enquiry

Proceedings. Jhaduram was working in Jhingurda project.

He was declared medically unfit. Other witness had seen

service details of Jhaduram name of workman was not

appearing as dependents in his service record. Jhaduram

had submitted application for providing employment to

workman ShriVedram. Management’s witness admits that

for employment on compassionate ground, office calls

various information. After such information is submitted,

employment on compassionate ground is to be allowed.

That workman was given employment without conducting

enquiry. Shri Jhaduram had submitted complaint alleging

that Vedram was not his son. Said complaint was received

on December 1992. At that time Jhaduram was alive. He

has withdrawn his complaint. He stated that Vedram was

son of Manglu and not his son. Jhaduram had not

submitted any other application to provide employment

on compassionate ground. The witness admits that during

enquiry workman had produced certificates of residential

proof, certificate issued by Gram Panchayat. All those

documents are in Enquiry Proceedings Exhibit W-1 to

W-4. It is denied that workman is dismissed from service

by victimization.

822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Workman has filed affidavit of his evidence. He has

stated that he was appointed on compassionate ground

as son of Jhaduram. In certificates produced by him,

Jhaduram is shown as his father. At the time of his

appointment, police verification was made. It was

confirmed that he was son of Jhaduram. Workman in his

cross-examination says he was appointed after consent

of Jhaduram. He denies he is not son of Jhaduram. His

further evidence is devoted that signature of Jhaduram

was on complaint obtained by other person he submitted

reply to the chargesheet. Jhaduram had two brothers one

of them was Mangloo. Mangloo died 15-17 years before.

Jhaduram died 7 years back. Workman denies that he is

son of Mangloo. Widow of Mangloo is alive. He denies

that on understanding that workman will look after

Jhaduram for his whole life Jhaduram had allowed his

name as father of workman. Ist party workman further says

that name of his mother is Chaitibai. He denies that she

was wife of Mangloo. Workman reiterates that Chaitibai

was wife of Jhaduram. When he was of six months,

Jhaduram had driven him out of his house along with

Chaitibai. Thereafter Mangloo married with her. No other

witness was examined.

If evidence of management’s witness is compared

with evidence of workman, the management’s witness has

no personal knowledge. He has narrated what was

evidence adduced in Enquiry Proceedings. Workman was

admittedly appointed on compassionate ground as son of

Jhaduram. Jhaduram himself had complained that workman

was not his son. Management’s witness in his cross-

examination says Jhaduram had withdrawn his complaint

therefore evidence of management’s witness cannot

establish charges against workman. For above reasons,

the dismissal of workman on complaint of Jhaduram cannot

be said illegal. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1

in Negative.

Point No.2- Learned counsel for IInd party Shri A.K.

Shashi submits that workman was issued chargesheet after

complaint received from his father Jhaduram. Management

was justified in issuing the chargesheet. Jhaduram himself

had withdrawn his complaint. Under such circumstances,

workman if reinstated, backwages may not be allowed.

When charges are not proved against workman, but

complaint was submitted by Jhaduram who was shown as

his father at the time of his appointment on compassionate

ground. In my considered view, workman cannot be blamed

for dismissal form service therefore workman deserves to

be reinstated with 50 % back wages. Accordingly I record

my finding in Point No.2.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the General Manager, Jhingurda

Project of NCL, Singrauli in dismissing shriVedram,

General Mazdoor, Cat-I from company services w.e.f.

30-4-94 is not legal and justified.

(2)

IInd party is directed to reinstate workman Shri

Vedram with continuity of service and 50 % back

wages.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 295-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

,VkWfed ikoj LVs'ku] jkorHkkVk ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 05@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@1@2008&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2015

S.O. 295.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 2/2008)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Rajasthan Atomic Power Station,

Rawatbhata and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 05/02/2015.

[No. L-42011/1/2008-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Presiding Officer : Bharat Pandey

I.D. 2/2008

Reference No.L-42011/1/2008-IR(DU)

dated: 13.3.2008

The General Secretary

Parmanu Vidhyut Karamchari

Union (CITU), Post Bhabhanagar,

Via Kota, Rawatbhata (Kota)-323307.

V/s

The Site Director

Rajasthan Atomic Power Station

Unit 1 to 6, P.O.Rawatbhata via Kota

(Rajasthan), Rawatbhata (Kota)-323303.

AWARD

Dated : 30.12.2014

The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of sub-section 1 & 2(A) of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

823

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication :-

“ Whether the demand of the Rajasthan Anushakti

Pariyojna Karmachari Sangh for grant of regular

appointment to shri Nand Kishor Meena w.e.f.

31/7/93 by the management of site Director, RAPP

Unit 3 & 4 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief

the workman is entitled to?”

Sh. Ramesh Gautam, Joint Secretary, Rajasthan

Atomic Power Project Karamchari Sangh (INTUC),

Rawatbhata (Raj.) has filed this statement of claim on behalf

of workman Sh. Nandkishore Meena, hereinafter known

as applicant. According to statement of claim the brief fact

of the case is that applicant is authorised to file statement

of claim for & on behalf of The General Secretary, Parmanu

Vidhyut Karamchari Union (CITU), Post Bhabhanagar, Via

Kota, Rawatbhata (Kota)-323307. It has been further

alleged that a dispute was raised by INTUC regarding

irregularities in recruitment of Sh. Nandkishore Meena

before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Kota

but due to rigid attitude of the management conciliation

could not be made. As a result of failure in conciliation

proceeding the matter was referred by Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Kota to Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi whereupon reference was

made for adjudication before the CGIT, Jaipur. Reference

has been attached as Annex-1 to the statement of claim.

It has been alleged in para 1 & thereafter in

succeeding paragraphs of the statement of claim that

Sh. Nandkhsore Meena had received a call letter for

interview to regular post & he was interviewed after

examination of all the eligibilities to the post. Call letter for

interview has attached as Annex-2 to statement of claim. It

has been further alleged that Sh. Nandkishore Meena was

medically examined by Medical Superintendent, Rajasthan

Atomic Power Station Hospital, a medical examination,

which is conducted only for regular recruitment. Medical

examination report is Annex-3 to statement of claim.

Sh. Nandkishore Meena was selected to the post of Helper-

B(Rigger) in pay-scale 775-12-1025 but in appointment

letter it was mentioned that he will be getting fixed pay of

Rs.750/- p.m. & overtime @ Rs.3/- per hour. Appointment

letter is Annex-4 to the statement of claim. It has been

further alleged that tenure of Sh. Nandkishore Meena was

extended in the slabs of six month to the extent of 20 month

but he was not made permanent & was kept on

consolidated pay on fixed term basis. Annex-5 is the order

dated 28.1.94 of extension of his service for further period

of 6 months. It has been alleged in para 5 of the statement

of claim that Sh. Nandkishore Meena was allotted computer

code 634/79 & was issued pay slips like other regular

employee. Annex-6 is the pay bill of Sh. Nandkishore

Meena for the month of March, 95 & September, 93. It has

been further alleged that he appeared for trade test &

interview for regular appointment & as a result of test &

interview he was given regular appointment as Assistant

‘B’ in the pay scale of Rs. 775-12-1025 on 7.3.95 & Annex-

7 is the document connected with such test, interview &

regular appointment. It has been alleged that appointment

letters were issued to five candidates amongst those who

appeared for interview along with Sh. Nandkishore Meena

& four candidates alongwith Sh. Nandkishore Meena

joined on 31.7.93 & remaining one candidate joined on

2.8.93 but management regularised four candidates on

1.1.95 leaving Sh. Nandkishore Meena. Sh. Nandkishore

Meena was sent to participate in All India Atomic Energy

departmental game competition & he was regularised on

7.3.95 after his return from participation in sports. In above

circumstances, Sh. Nandkishore Meena was promoted

only in May, 2004 & he was left behind six month in

comparison to others. It has been alleged that

Sh. Nandkishore Meena was sent for participation in sports

as departmental candidate & was issued certificate of

participation in alleged sports activities & was given

regular allowances as regular employee. Annex-8 is the

various certificates obtained by Sh. Nandkishore Meena

during sports activity. It has been further alleged that

there has been deduction @ Rs.5/- p.m. from the pay of

Sh. Nandkishore Meena as contribution to CHSS scheme

which deduction is made only from the employee getting

regular pay scale. In the call letter of Sh. Nandkishore

Meena it has not been shown that call letter was issued

for daily rated, trainee or for fixed term basis but conditions

not mentioned in the call letter were thrust upon the

workman Sh. Nandkishore Meena which are entirely

different conditions than those issued in interview letter.

Annex-9 is the concerned correspondence for appearance

of the applicant for medical & physical fitness.

According to the contention of the applicant in para

12 of the statement of claim Sh. Nandkishore Meena was

given two promotions namely Karyadakchh ‘A’ w.e.f. 1st

May, 2001 & from Karyadakchh ‘A’ to Karyadakchh ‘B’

w.e.f. 1st May, 2005. According to contention of the

applicant ACR of Sh. Nandkishore Meena was similar to

other employees but he suffered the loss for a period of

six month. Promotion orders are Annex-10 to statement of

claim. According to para 13 of statement of claim further

documents and information will be submitted by applicant

with rejoinder & argument to help the tribunal & to secure

the justice from the tribunal. Finally it has been prayed

that Sh. Nandkishore Meena should be treated regular

employee w.e.f. 31.7.93 as helper “B’ (Reeger) & thereafter

he should be given promotion of Karyadakchh ‘A’ w.e.f.

1.5.99 & Karyadakchh ‘B’ w.e.f. 1.5.2003 with respective

scale of pay 3050-75-3950-80-4590 & 3200-85-4900 & all

consequential benefits attached therewith.

Notices were issued to the parties on 19.1.2009.

Statement of claim was filed on 29.11.2010 & same day

copy of statement of claim was given to opposite party for

824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

filing reply on 20.1.11. On 20.1.11 opposite party did not

file reply hence, case proceeded ex-parte against opposite

party & 21.2.11 was fixed for filing documentary evidence

by applicant. On 21.2.11 no evidence documentary or

otherwise was filed by applicant & time was sought for

filing document & evidence on 28.4.11, the next date. On

28.4.11 none appeared from both the side hence 26.5.11

was date fixed for further order. On 26.5.11 information

was given by learned representative of the applicant that

information has been received about death of workman

Sh. Nandkishore Meena which is required to be confirmed.

Finding the fact that claim was filed through Union

therefore, the then learned presiding officer fixed next

date 27.6.11 for evidence of the applicant. Opposite party

continuously remained absent since 20.1.11. On 27.6.11

both the parties were present. Learned representative of

the applicant sough adjournment to file authority &

application for substitution on behalf of legal

representative of the deceased workman Sh. Nandkishore

Meena. Next date 16.8.11 was fixed for filing authority &

application. On 16.8.11 both the parties were present &

adjournment was granted in favour of applicant to file

authority & application for substitution on 1.11.11. On

1.11.11 both the parties were present & again adjournment

was granted in favour of applicant to file authority &

application for substitution on next date 16.1.12. On 16.1.12

both the parties were absent hence 2.4.12 was next date

fixed by the tribunal on its own motion for filing authority

& application for substitution.

On 2.4.12 Learned representative of the applicant

was present & none was present for & on behalf of

opposite party. It was alleged by Learned representative

of the applicant that he had filed authority on behalf of

deceased workman Sh. Nandkishore Meena who is dead

but statement of claim was filed by General Secretary

(CITU) hence, time should be granted to file authority on

behalf of concerned union. The then learned Presiding

Officer granted time for filing authority on behalf of union

on 9.5.12 with observation that union is the party in

reference order hence, authority of the union is necessary

to be brought on record. On 9.5.12 authority on behalf of

union was not filed from applicant side & it was alleged by

learned representative of the applicant that on next date

authority will be filed & 24.7.12 was next date fixed. On

24.7.12 applicant side was absent & opposite party was

present hence, 16.10.12 was next date fixed for filing

authority from applicant side. On 16.10.12 both the parties

were present but authority was not filed. On next dates

7.1.13 & 2.4.13 both the parties were present but authority

on behalf of applicant was not filed from the applicant

side. On next date 6.6.13 both the parties were present & it

was observed by the then learned presiding officer that

reply to the statement of claim had not been filed hence,

30.8.13 was fixed for filing reply to the statement of claim

& authority from the applicant side on behalf of applicant.

On 30.8.13 both the parties were absent & on subsequent

dates 11.11.13 both the parties were present but authority

of the union & reply of the opposite party was not filed &

next date 9.1.14 was fixed for the same. On 9.1.14 both the

parties were present & case was adjourned fixing 1.1.14

with last opportunity for filing authority & reply to the

statement of claim. On 1.4.14 none appeared for both the

sides. Sh. P.V.Sharma (Retd.) who was previous Secretary

of the union was present who was provided time for filing

information about LRs of the deceased applicant

Sh. Nandkishore Meena. Again last opportunity was given

for providing information about LRs of the deceased till

next date 1.5.14. On 1.5.14 none appeared from both the

side & no step was taken in light of order dated 1.4.14

hence, case was fixed for further order on 3.6.14. After

passing the order Learned representative of the opposite

party appeared & took notice of the next date fixed for

3.6.14. On 3.6.14 applicant side was absent & opposite

party was present & on next date 7.7.14 both the parties

were absent & no step was taken from opposite party to

file reply to statement of claim. Applicant side also failed

to file authority on behalf of union or on behalf of LRs

with application for substitution. On 7.7.14 next date 21.7.14

was fixed & tribunal adjourned the proceeding on its own

motion. On 21.7.14 also both the parties were absent &

there was advocate strike on 21.7.14 hence, 25.8.14 was

next date fixed for filing information about LRs of the

deceased workman mentioning that last opportunity for

taking step was provided on 1.4.14. On 25.8.14 also both

the parties were absent & learned counsel were on trike

hence 11.11.14 was next date fixed for same above

proceeding. On 11.11.14 also both the parties were absent

& proceeding was adjourned by the tribunal on its own

motion fixing 19.11.14 for further order. After order learned

representative of the opposite party appeared who was

informed about the next fixed date 19.11.14. on 19.11.14

none appeared on behalf of applicant. Learned

representative of the opposite party was present hence

once more case was adjourned in the interest of justice by

tribunal on its own motion providing once more last

opportunity for taking step for substitution till 27.11.14.

No reply to the statement of claim was filed till 19.11.14

from the opposite side. On 27.11.14 none appeared on

behalf of applicant. Learned representative of the opposite

party was present. Case was again adjourned by tribunal

on 27.11.14 & once more last opportunity was given to the

applicant side for taking step for substitution till next date

9.12.14.

On 9.12.14 also none appeared on behalf of applicant.

Learned representative of the opposite party was present.

It has been observed in the order dated 9.12.14 that

according to order-sheet of 26.5.11 information about death

of Sh. Nandkishore Meena is on record but no step has

been taken for substitution despite numerous opportunity

given to applicant. Finding that statement of claim has

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

825

been filed by the union hence, it was felt just, legal &

proper by the tribunal that a notice should be sent to

General Secretary of the Union that why the proceeding in

the case be not stopped as no step for substitution is

being taken from the applicant side & no representative or

an advocate for that purpose is appearing from the

applicant side & next date 23.12.14 was fixed for answering

the notice. Notice sent to the General Secretary is available

on the record which has been served upon the notice.

Stamp of the post office dated 15.12.14 is on

acknowledgement to the notice which is available on the

record of the file. On 23.12.14 again none appeared from

both the side. In above circumstances, further proceeding

in the case was closed & case was reserved for award as

notice sent to applicant did not serve any purpose to initiate

the applicant to take steps to lead the case to a logical

conclusion.

From above fact & circumstances, it is evident that

no step has been taken from the applicant side for

substitution proceedings although information about

death of the applicant is available on record since, 26.5.11.

The then learned presiding officer fixed 27.6.11 for ex-

parte evidence as case was proceeding ex-parte but no

evidence was adduced from the applicant side. Finding

the fact that statement of claim has been filed by the union

& not by Sh. Nandkishore Meena it was ordered by the

then learned presiding officer to file authority on behalf of

union but till date no such authority has been filed. Thus,

it shall appear that despite notice to the General Secretary

no step has been taken by the applicant to proceed with

the reference either in the matter of substitution proceeding

or in the matter of adducing evidence relating to statement

of claim. From above fact & circumstances, it is clear that

despite reminder the applicant is not appearing & adducing

any evidence with respect to reference under adjudication.

Hence, there is inability to record the finding on reference

due to no evidence. In above circumstance the statement

of claim is fit to be dismissed for want of evidence.

The reference is answered accordingly.

10.

Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 296-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 9@2014) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@14@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2015

S.O. 296.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 9/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-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 13/02/2015.

[No. L-12011/14/2013-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Monday, the 12th January, 2015

Present

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 9/2014

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10

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

the Management of Indian Bank and their workman)

Between :

Smt. Banumathi

1st Party/1st

Petitioner

The Dy. General Secretary

1st Party/2nd

Indian Bank Employees

Petitioner Union

Union, 6, Moore Street,

Mannady Corner

Chennai-600001

AND

The Zonal Manager

2nd Party/

Indian Bank Zonal Office

Respondent

46-51, Katpadi Road, Vellore

Tamil Nadu-632004

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/1st

: M/s. J. Thomas Jeyaprabhakaran,

& 2nd Petitioner

Authorized Representative

For the 2nd Party/

: M/s. Aiyar & Dolia, Advocates

Respondent

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/14/2013-IR(B-II)

dated 12.02.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Management of Indian

Bank in imposing the penalty of Compulsory

Retirement and denying pension to Smt. Banumathi,

Clerk/Shroff of Devanampattu Branch after fulfilling

the requirement as per Bipartite Industry Level

Settlement is legal and justified? What relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 9/2014 and issued notice to both

sides. The petitioner has appeared through Authorized

Representative and the Respondent through the counsel

and filed claim and counter statement respectively.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioners in brief are these:

The First Petitioner had joined the services of the

Respondent Bank at Thiruvannamalai Branch.

Subsequently she was transferred to Devanampattu

Branch. While at this branch, the First Petitioner was

served a charge sheet dated 11.09.2009. The first four

charges in the charge sheet were in respect of three

payments made by the petitioner in the SB Account of

one Jeeva. It was stated in the charge sheet that the

payments were made against withdrawal slips while the

account was cheque operated and without obtaining

permission from the higher authorities, that the First

Petitioner had failed to verify the signatures in the

instruments, that the transactions turned out to be

fraudulent and the Bank had been facing financial loss

because of these. The fifth charge is that on 03.12.2008

one Subramaniam had remitted Rs. 300/- in his newly

opened SB Account alongwith SB Pay-in-Slip duly filled

and signed and the First Petitioner had received the cash

from the customer and had affixed cash received stamp in

the pay-in-slip and initialed the same for having received

the same but did not account the same in the bank’s book

of account and she accounted it only on 05.12.2008 and

had thus temporarily misappropriated the amount. The

charge sheet was preceded by a Show Cause Notice and

the petitioner had given reply to the Show Cause Notice.

The staffs across the counter are having the responsibility

of completing the transactions as quickly as possible. The

rural folk are normally trustworthy and do not indulge in

fraudulent activities. When known faces tender

instruments across the counter the staff at times bypass

time consuming procedures in good faith. The person who

had obtained payments from the account of Jeeva is a

close associate of the account holder. The amount involved

was very meager. Whether the account is a cheque

operated one or otherwise could be ascertained only if the

cheque details issued to the customer are fed into the

system. The details of some of the accounts are not fed in

the system. Regarding non-accounting of the challan for

Rs. 300/- on 05.12.2008, the petitioner did not arrive at any

excess on that date. When the Manager pointed out her

initial on the challan the petitioner had remitted the amount

of Rs. 300/- in the newly opened account, accepting her

moral responsibility. When the account holder knew about

the payment he had handed over Rs. 300/- for the First

Petitioner. After issuing of the charge sheet an enquiry

was held and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges.

The punishment of Compulsory Retirement from service

was imposed on the petitioner. The First Petitioner had

not committed the offences alleged. There is no justification

for the punishment imposed on her. The First Petitioner

was denied pension also without any justification. The

First Petitioner was in service of the Bank on 27.04.2010,

the date on which another option to join the Pension

Scheme was given. As requested by her, the amount

equivalent to 2.8 times of the revised pay for November,

2007 was recovered and remitted to the Head Office as

provided in the settlement. The First Petitioner had thus

fulfilled all the requirements for getting pension. The First

Petitioner is entitled to have pension. An order may be

passed holding that the Respondent had acted illegally in

imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and

denying pension option to the First Petitioner and

directing the Respondent to reinstate the First Petitioner

with continuity of service, back wages and all other

attendant benefits including the right of exercising option

for pension and to award costs.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The First Petitioner was working as Single Window

Operator (SWO) and was required to follow the system

introduced in the Bank as per the banking procedure. The

Clerks sitting in the counters as SWO were required to

make payment only after debiting and after due verification

of the signature of the account holder with the specimen

signature available in the system, upto a specified amount.

Alternately she can refer the instrument to the Officers.

The First Petitioner ought to have referred the issue to the

concerned Officer for getting authorization before making

the payment. She has not obtained the authorization.

The entire transaction was found to be fraudulent as

the signature in the withdrawal slips did not match with

the signature available in the bank records. The issue came

to light only when the account holder made complaint of

unauthorized debits in his account. Thus the First Petitioner

had been negligent in making payments against withdrawal

slips with forged signatures, bringing disrepute to the

bank. Contrary to the system in practice the First Petitioner

had received cash alongwith challan for opening a new

Savings Bank Account from one of the customers and

released the challan duly stamped and signed by her. But

she failed to enter the amount in the system and the account

showed zero balance. On verification it was found that the

First Petitioner had received the cash but failed to enter in

the system resulting in excess cash but she did not make

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

827

a report of it also. The First Petitioner was having excess

cash unaccounted in her possession. She had remitted

the same only on enquiry by the Branch Manager. This

amounts to temporary misappropriation by the First

Petitioner. Enquiry was conducted against the First

petitioner and the Enquiry Officer had submitted report

holding that all the charges are proved. The Disciplinary

Authority had issued Show Cause Notice and on receipt

of reply from the First Petitioner had imposed punishment

of Compulsory Retirement on her. The punishment

awarded to the First Petitioner is commensurate to the

misconduct committed and is justified in the eye of law.

The order of punishment was confirmed by the Appellate

Authority in the appeal filed by the Fist Petitioner. The

employees who were compulsorily retired from service by

way of punishment are not eligible to avail option to join

the Pension Scheme as per the provisions of the Pension

Settlement. Having consciously agreed to the terms and

conditions of the Pension Settlement the Second Petitioner

Union who is a signatory to the same cannot seek to

reopen the terms of the Settlement. Denial of pension was

based on the existing service regulations. The petitioners

are not entitled to any relief.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext.W33 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M3.

The points for consideration are :

(i)

Whether the action of the management in imposing

the penalty of compulsory retirement on the First

Petitioner is legal and justified?

(ii)

Whether there is any justification in denial of

pension to the First Petitioner?

(iii)

What, if any are the reliefs to which the petitioners

are entitled?

Point No. 1

The First Petitioner was given appointment as Clerk

in the Respondent Bank on compassionate grounds. The

incidents leading to the punishment of Compulsory

Retirement from service occurred while she was working

in the Devanampattu Branch of the Bank. She had made

three payments out of SB Account No. 588427181 in the

name of one Jeeva, Rs. 1300/- on 04.10.2008, Rs. 7,000/- on

13.10.2008 and Rs. 300/- on 18.10.2008, all on the basis of

withdrawal slips. The account holder gave a complaint to

the Bank regarding unauthorized debiting from his

account. On investigation it was noticed that even though

the account of Jeeva was a cheque operated one, payments

were made from the account on the basis of withdrawal

slips. It was also noticed that the signature of the account

holder in the specimen card and the signatures in the

withdrawal slips were totally different. The first four

charges against the First Petitioner are in respect these

payments. On 03.12.2008 the First Petitioner had received

Rs. 300/- from one Subramani for opening a new SB

Account and had issued receipt but she had not credited

it to the account nor had she reported any excess amount

at the time of the closure. Only when the Manager enquired

about the same on 05.12.2008 she had remitted the amount

in the newly opened account. The fifth charge is regarding

this.

In fact the First Petitioner has not disputed the

veracity of any of the charges leveled against her. Ext.W2

is the reply given by her to Ext.W1 memo calling for

explanation. In Ext.W1 only the payments from the account

of Jeeva are referred to. In Ext.W2 reply, rather than

denying the acts alleged against her, she has tried to justify.

She has stated in her reply that those in the rural area are

innocent and do not indulge in unethical act and because

of work pressure, certain formalities are skipped in good

faith when known faces appear at the counter. She has

further stated that the person who came to withdraw

amount from the account of Jeeva was his relative and

had accompanied him on earlier occasions and thus he

was a known person. She has further stated that the

amounts withdrawn were meagre only. Another memo is

seen issued to her on 13.12.2008 regarding the incident of

not crediting amount remitted by Subramani and this was

marked as Ext.W3. Ext.W4 is the reply given by her. In this

she has stated that Subramani had opened the account on

03.12.008 and she had released the challan and counterfoil

duly affixing the stamp. However, according to her, she

had not noticed any excess on the day. Only on 05.12.2008

when the Branch Manager enquired and showed the

voucher she had realized that something had gone wrong

and had remitted the amount taking moral responsibility.

She had further stated that in fact the party had not handed

over the amount to her and so he had given the amount to

her colleague who had enquired with him about the

incident. Ex.W6 is the reply given by the First Petitioner in

answer to the Charge Sheet. In this she had specifically

admitted that she had effected payment from the account

of Jeeva without verifying the signatures on the withdrawal

slips since the presenter had been a person known to her.

Regarding non-accounting of Rs. 300/- to the account of

Subramani also she had repeated her earlier explanation.

In the enquiry proceedings the Management had

examined the then Manager of the Devanampattu Branch.

On the side of the First Petitioner, Subramani was examined.

The Manager had given evidence regarding the incidents.

The report given on the complaint received from Jeeva

was proved through this witness. Another report regarding

remittance of cash by Subramani for his newly opened

account was also proved through him. He has stated that

the account of Jeeva is a cheque operated account. He

has deposed that the First Petitioner made payment

through withdrawal slips without any permission and he

had no knowledge of those payments until complaint was

made by Jeeva. Regarding the failure to credit amount in

828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the account of Subramani he has stated that on verification

on 04.04.2008 he had found that a cash challan dated

03.12.2008 for Rs. 300/- from Subramani was available but

the related cash was not accounted in the books of the

bank. When he enquired with the First petitioner on

05.12.2008 she had told him that she was having excess

amount but she did not inform him as it would have delayed

her departure from the branch. Then she had prepared a

credit challan for Rs. 300/- and had remitted the amount.

10.

It is very much clear from the evidence as well as her

admission that the First Petitioner had been making

payment through withdrawal slips even if the account was

a cheque operated one. The argument that had been

advanced on behalf of the First petitioner is that the fact

that it is a cheque operated account was not fed in the

system and so it would not have been possible for her to

know that it is a cheque operated account. There is no

merit in this argument. If it is not fed in the system it was

imperative for the First petitioner to send it to the

concerned Officer for his approval. She has not even cared

to compare the signature in the withdrawal slips with the

specimen signature of the account holder. She has stated

in her reply that she did not make the verification since the

person who approached her was one known to her and

had been accompanying the account holder on some earlier

occasions. Her another justification is that she expected

that the rural folk being innocent would not resort to any

malpractice. I do not think these are justifications that

should come from an employee who is holding a very

responsible post in a banking institution. She was holding

the position of a Single Window Operator and she had the

power and the responsibility to deal with all matters that

came to her including receipt of the amount and payment

of amount upto a particular limit single-handedly without

referring to her superior Officers. She has not handled this

position with the seriousness it deserves. One could not

handle an office under assumptions and beliefs. She was

bound to verify the signatures in the withdrawal slips. If

she has not done it she must have been doing it in other

cases also. A person of such irresponsibility is certainly

not suitable to sit in the position in which she was.

11.

Regarding the non-crediting of the amount of

Rs. 300/- to the account of Subramani also, the First

Petitioner has acted in an irresponsible manner. If what

the Bank Manager has deposed is taken into account she

wanted to leave the Bank at a particular time and avoid

crediting the amount or reporting excess to the Manager

only to avoid the delay in leaving the Bank. All the

arguments advanced on behalf of the First Petitioner that

the Bank was situated in a remote area and sufficient

transport facility were not available are not those which

would help the First Petitioner in any way. By giving her

employment on compassionate grounds the Bank has

placed great confidence in her and has put great

responsibility also upon her. She was to rise to the occasion

to meet the expectations of the Bank. The excuses

advanced on behalf of the First Petitioner would not entitle

her to flout the procedure. Of course, Subramani had given

evidence on behalf of the First Petitioner that he had not

given money to the First Petitioner when he opened the

account. This is of no help. Even if this case is accepted,

the irresponsibility of the First Petitioner is once more

exhibited by this. It means she had issued receipt with the

seal “Cash Received” without actually receiving payment.

But this does not seem to be the case as seen from the

evidence of the Bank Manager. The Enquiry Officer had

every justification in finding the charges proved.

12.

The Disciplinary Authority also had acted properly

by granting the punishment of Compulsory Retirement

from service. The punishment is only commensurate with

the nature of offences. The point is answered against the

petitioners.

Point No. 2

13.

On 27.04.2010 a Memorandum of Settlement has been

entered into between the Indian Banks’ Association on

behalf of the Management including that of the

Respondent Bank and the workman represented by All

India Bank employees Association, etc. regarding Pension

Scheme. As per Clause-1 of the terms of settlement all

workmen employees in the service of the Bank as on the

date of the settlement who exercise option to join the

pension scheme in terms of the settlement will contribute

from their arrears on account of wage revision in terms of

the settlement an amount of Rs. 878 crores towards their

share of the pension fund. For individual workmen

employees the amount was worked out at 2.8 times of the

revised pay for the month of November, 2007. Ex.W26

circular was issued by the Respondent Bank regarding

the additional option to join the pension scheme under

the Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations. Clause-

1 of the terms of settlement dated 27.04.2010 is repeated in

this and it is stated that the offer to join the Pension Scheme

opens on 23.08.2010 and closes on 21.10.2010.

14.

According to the First Petitioner she has exercised

her option to join the Pension Scheme as stated in Ext.W26.

She has also paid the amount of 2.8 times of her revised

pay for the month of November, 2007 towards the Pension

Fund. Considering this option given by the First Petitioner

the Respondent gave Ext.W29 reply rejecting her claim for

pension. It is stated in this that as per the terms of the

pension settlement dated 27.04.2010 compulsorily retired

employees are not eligible to exercise option for pension.

So her option was rejected.

15.

The argument that is advanced on behalf of the First

Petitioner is that the settlement dated 27.04.2010 does not

differentiate between the compulsorily retired employees

and other employees. On the other hand all those who

were in service as on 27.04.2010, the date of the settlement

were entitled to exercise the option. It does not matter

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

829

whether the option was exercised subsequently, even after

the employee has ceased to be in employment of bank

provided he/she was in service as on the date of settlement.

16.

In fact it could be seen from the terms of settlement

dated 27.04.2010 and also the circular marked as Ext.W26

that there is no provision that option to be exercised only

if one continues to be in service at the time of the exercise

of the option. The only criterion is that the person should

have been service as on 27.04.2010. In fact, from Clause-2

of the settlement it could be seen that option for joining

the Pension Scheme was extended even to a section of

retired employees. The First Petitioner has stated during

her examination that she has exercised her option to join

the pension scheme only after she ceased to be in

employment as she was compulsorily retired from service

by order of the Disciplinary Authority on 08.09.2010.

However, it is clear from Ex.W29 that the option was

received by the Head Office on 27.09.2010 well before the

closure of the date to exercise the option. Thus it could

be seen that the First Petitioner has exercised her option

and contributed towards the Pension Fund also as

prescribed. The amount contributed by her has been

returned to her as seen from Ext.W26, while declining her

option.

17.

The only reason for declining the option was that

the First Petitioner was compulsorily retired from service

and so she would not be entitled to pension and therefore

she is not eligible to exercise the option. When the

provisions in the pension regulations are taken into account

it could be seen that this stand of the Respondent is not a

proper one. Even on going through the provisions

regarding disciplinary action this is clear. Even though

the punishment imposed on the First Petitioner is

“Compulsory Retirement from Service”, this is to be

construed as “Compulsory Retirement with

Superannuation Benefits”. This is because the punishment

provided as per the procedure for disciplinary action is

only compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits

and not mere compulsory retirement. Clause-6(C) of the

Disciplinary Procedure provides the punishment of

Compulsory Retirement with Superannuation Benefits i.e.

Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be

due otherwise under the rules or regulations prevailing at

the relevant time and without disqualification from future

employment. That means if a person is to become eligible

for pension on compulsory retirement, he must have

exercised his option for pension. Otherwise only Provident

Fund and Gratuity would have been payable.

18.

It is also clear from Clause-6(c) that the entitlement

of pension on compulsory retirement would be only as

per the rules and regulations prevailing at the relevant

time. Merely because an option is exercised one would

not become eligible for pension. If only pension is provided

one would become eligible. The reason given by the

Respondent to decline the option given by the First

Petitioner is that a person on whom the punishment of

compulsory retirement was awarded is not eligible for

pension. However, on going through the Pension

Regulations, it could be seen that this is not the case. The

Regulations refers to various clauses of pension,

superannuation pension, pension on voluntary retirement,

invalid pension, compassionate allowance, premature

retirement pension and also compulsory retirement

pension, apart from these. Regulation-31 of the pension

regulations providing for compassionate allowances states

that when an employee who is dismissed or removed or

terminated from service shall forfeit his pension.

Conspicuously an employee who is compulsorily retired

from service is not included in this. For those who are

dismissed, removed or terminated from service

compassionate allowance is to be provided, though it is

the discretion of the employer. Regulation-33 providing

for compulsory retirement pension states that an employee

compulsorily retired from service may be granted pension

by the authority higher than the authority competent to

impose such penalty at a rate not less than two-thirds and

not more than full pension admissible to him on the date

of his compulsory retirement. From this also it is clear that

unless option is exercised by the employee he would not

be entitled to claim pension as provided under Regulation-

33.

19.

There is no allegation of misappropriation against

the First Petitioner. Her only fault is that she was extremely

careless, negligent and irresponsible. This will not

tantamount to misappropriation which is a far serious

offence. The First Petitioner was given employment on

compassionate grounds on the death of her husband. The

Bank is expected to show the same compassion to her in

the matter of pension also though she was made to retire

from service on account of her irresponsibility. The Bank

is to accept the option exercised by the First Petitioner

and consider her eligibility for pension under Regulation-

33 of the Pension Regulations. The point is found

accordingly.

Point No. 3

20.

In view of my finding on Point No. 2, the Respondent

is directed to accept the option for pension exercised by

the First petitioner and consider her eligibility for pension.

An award is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined

For the 1st Party/

WW1, Ms. N. Banumathi

1st Petitioner

For the 1st Party/

None

2nd Petitioner Union

For the 2nd Party/

MW1, Sri R. Shanmughanathan

Management

830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Documents Marked

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

20.11.2008

Memo issued to Banumathi calling

for explanation

Ex.W2

10.12.2008

Reply by Banumathi

Ex.W3

13.12.2008

Memo issued to Banumathi

seeking explanation

Ex.W4

02.01.2009

Reply by Banumathi

Ex.W5

02.04.2009

Show Cause issued to Banumathi

Ex.W6

13.04.2009

Reply submitted by Banumathi

Ex.W7

11.09.2009

Charge Sheet issued to Banumathi

Ex.W8

22.10.2009

Proceedings of the Preliminary

Enquiry

Ex.W9

12.01.2010

Proceedings of regular enquiry

Ex.W10

11.09.2009

Letter by Disciplinary Authority

appointing the Presenting Officer

Ex.W11

22.10.2009

Letter from Banumathi authorizing

the Defence Representative

Ex.W12

02.01.2009

Reply by Banumathi

Ex.W13

17.11.2008

Letter from the Devanampattu

Branch to the Circle Head with

Enclosures

Ex.W14

05.02.2008

Letter from the Branch to the

Circle Office with Enclosures

Ex.W15

10.12.2008

Letter from the Branch to the

Circle Office with enclosures

Ex.W16

09.12.2008

Letter from A. Subramani,

Customer

Ex.W17

07.02.2010

Letter from the Presenting Officer

enclosing his summing Up

Ex.W18

07.02.2010

Defence Summing up

Ex.W19

07.06.2010

Letter from the Disciplinary

Authority enclosing the findings

of the Enquiry Officer dated

03.06.2010

Ex.W20

25.06.2010

Banumathi’s comments on the

findings of the Enquiry Officer

Ex.W21

13.08.2010

Second Show Cause issued by the

Disciplinary Authority proposing

the punishment of Compulsory

Retirement

Ex.W22

28.08.2010

Reply by Bhanumathi

Ex.W23

08.09.2010

Final order from the Disciplinary

Authority

imposing

the

punishment of Compulsory

Retirement

Ex.W24

22.10.2010

Appeal submitted by Bhanumathi

before the Appellate Authority

Ex.W25

25.06.2011

Letter from the Chief Manager,

HRM enclosing the orders of the

Appellate Authority

Ex.W26

21.08.2010

Circular by HO:HRM Department

on another option to join the

Pension Scheme

Ex.W27

Option form to be filled in by the

employees who are in the service

of the Bank – Annexure-I

Ex.W28

15.06.2011

Letter from Banumathi to the

Executive Director requesting for

pension on CRS

Ex.W29

06.06.2011

Letter from HO:HRM Department

declining her option for pension

Ex.W30

19.08.2011

Petition under Sec.2 A by

Banumathi before the Asstt.

Labour Commissioner, Chennai

Ex.W31

29.05.2012

Representation from Banumathi

before the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner, Chennai on denial

of pension

Ex.W32

24.08.2012

Reply filed by the Management

before the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner, Chennai

Ex.W33

10.09.2012

Rejoinder submitted by the

Petitioner Banumathi

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

13.07.2010

Letter from Respondent to Indian

Bank’s Association (IBA) seeking

clarification on pension option

under IX Bipartite Settlement

Ex.M2

20.07.2010

Reply received from IBA

Ex.M3

13.05.2010

IXth Bipartite Settlement –

Payment of arrears to Award Staff.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 297-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkjiksjs'ku cSad

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

831

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 32@2010) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@36@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2015

S.O. 297.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2010)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Corporation

Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 13/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/36/2010-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 27th November, 2014

Present

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 32/2010

(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 Corporation Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri V. Swaminathan

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Chairman &

2nd Party/Respondent

Managing Director

Corporation Bank

PB No. 88, Mangaladevi

Temple Road Pandeeswaram

Mangalore

Karnataka

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

M/s R. Karthikeyan,

Petitioner

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

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

Respondent

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/36/2010-IR (B.II)

dated 15/19.07.2010 referred the following Industrial

Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Corporation Bank in

discharge of service of the petitioner, Sri V.

Swaminathan on 26.05.2009 is justified or not? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

On receipt of Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 32/2010 and issued notice to both sides.

Both parties entered appearance through their counsel

and filed their Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner had joined the service of the

Respondent Bank as Sub-Staff on 25.05.1998. He was

promoted as Clerk-cum-Cashier and was transferred to

Peruntholuvu and then to Dindigul. While working at

Dindigul the petitioner was served with an order of

suspension dated 22.11.2007 for reported cash shortage

on 12.11.2007. An investigation was ordered and the

Investigating Officer submitted a report. Thereafter a

domestic enquiry was ordered against the petitioner on

three charges leveled against him. It was alleged in the

charge sheet that on 12.11.2007 while he was working as

Cashier at Dindigul branch of the Respondent, a cash

shortage of Rs. 9,983/- had occurred, that since the

petitioner failed to reimburse the amount on the day, the

amount was debited to sundry debtors account in his name

and the cash was closed and the amount was reimbursed

by him on the next day. It is also alleged that on 15.06.2007

while working at the same branch as Cashier, one

Vijayalakshmi, a SB Account holder had remitted Rs.

30,000/- in cash to the credit of her account, that the

petitioner had received the amount and issued counterfoil

after affixing stamp with his initial but he had not credited

the amount to the account, and on 22.06.2007 when the

account holder complained to the Branch Manager about

the non-crediting of the amount the petitioner had remitted

the amount. It was further alleged that the petitioner had

temporarily misappropriated the amount of Rs. 30,000/-. A

domestic enquiry was conducted and a report was

submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer

had held that the first two charges against the petitioner

are proved. However, the petitioner was exonerated of the

third charge of Rs. 30,000/- The Disciplinary Authority

took a different view in his proceedings and found the

petitioner guilty of misappropriation of Rs. 30,000/- and

proposed punishment of discharge from service with

superannuation benefits and without disqualification of

future employment. Though the petitioner was afforded

with a personal hearing the proposed punishment was

confirmed and the petitioner was discharged from the

service of the bank on 05.01.2010. The appeal preferred by

832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the petitioner against the said order was rejected and the

order of discharge was confirmed. The petitioner had

raised the dispute accordingly. The conciliation

proceedings before the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour

had ended in failure and the matter had been referred to

this Tribunal for adjudication. The order imposing the

penalty of discharge from service on the petitioner is

arbitrary, illegal and against principles of natural justice.

The Enquiry Officer has not given due weight to the

evidence given by the petitioner. An order may be passed

holding that the action of the Management in discharging

the petitioner from service is illegal and unsustainable

and direction may be issued to the Respondent to reinstate

the petitioner in service with continuity of service and

back wages.

The Respondents have filed Counter Statement

contending as below:

During the year 2007 the petitioner was working as

Cashier in Dindigul branch of the Respondent. It came to

light that on 15.06.2007 Vijayalakshmi, a SB Account holder

had remitted Rs. 30,000/- in cash to the credit of her account

and the petitioner who was handling the cash department

on that day had given her a counterfoil duly sealed and

signed by him. The petitioner did not account for the

amount received from Vijayalakshmi nor did he report any

excess amount while closing the cash balance. On

22.06.2007 when Vijayalakshmi called at the branch to get

her pass book updated she found that the amount remitted

on 15.06.2007 was not credited to her account. Vijayalakshmi

produced the counterfoil and the petitioner admitted

having received the amount before the Branch Manager

and agreed to credit the amount to her account on the

condition that she should hand over the original

counterfoil to him. Vijayalakshmi handed over the

counterfoil to the Branch Manager. The Manager took a

photocopy of the counterfoil. The petitioner handed over

the sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the Branch Manager after the

original counterfoil was given to him and the amount was

credited to the account of Vijayalakshmi. On 12.11.2007 by

0530 PM the petitioner reported to the Officer Sri Vinoj

that there was a cash shortage of Rs. 1,00,000/- and on

verification it was found that the exact shortage was Rs.

99,983/-. The petitioner was not able to explain the shortage.

As the shortage could not be traced, the amount was

debited to sundry Debtors Account of the branch. On

13.11.2007 by 0700 PM the petitioner remitted the amount.

A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner and he

was placed under suspension and charge sheet was issued

to him on 23.02.2008. On enquiry the Enquiry Officer gave

report holding that the charges other than misappropriation

of the amount of Rs. 30,000/- is proved. The Disciplinary

Authority differed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer

and found that the charge of misappropriation also is

proved. A second Show-Cause Notice was issued to the

petitioner proposing punishment and after hearing the

petitioner the punishment of discharge from service with

superannuation benefits without disqualification for future

employment was imposed on the petitioner. The

punishment awarded to the petitioner is fully justified.

The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W15

and Ext.M1 to Ext.M59.

My predecessor in office had passed an award on

27.09.2011 answering the reference against the petitioner.

The petitioner had approached the Hon’ble High Court of

Madras and the High Court has set aside the award with a

direction to consider the dispute afresh and dispose the

matter within six months. It is accordingly the present

revised order is being rendered.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent in imposing

the punishment of discharge from service on the

petitioner is justified?

(ii)

What if any is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

The petitioner had entered the service of the

Respondent Bank as a Sub-Staff in the year 1984. He had

been later promoted to the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier and

he was working in this capacity at Dindigul branch of the

Bank while the incidents referred to in the charge sheet

against him allegedly occurred. On 12.11.2007 while the

petitioner was working as Cashier shortage of Rs. 99,983/-

was noticed before closing the cash balance. The petitioner

himself had reported the same to the Officer concerned

and the cash was closed after debiting to Sundry Debtors

Account in his name. On the next day he has reimbursed

the amount. An investigation was ordered regarding the

above incident. The Investigating Officer, during his

investigation had requested for details of any past flaw

on the part of the petitioner and it was in reply to this

request the Manager of the Dindigul branch had informed

him about the incident that is said to have taken place on

15.06.2007. He had informed the Investigating Officer that

on 22.06.2007 Vijayalakshmi an account holder had

complained to him that the petitioner has failed to credit

Rs. 30,000/- that was remitted by her towards her account,

that she had produced the counterfoil and the petitioner

had remitted the amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the account of

Vijayalakshmi after obtaining the original counterfoil which

was handed over to him by Vijayalakshmi. It seems only

on 22.06.2007 when Viajaylakshmi made the complaint, the

incident was noticed by the Branch Manager. The

Manager is said to have dropped the matter without

reporting to the Superior Officers since the petitioner had

remitted the amount and also because Viajaylakshmi whose

only demand was that she should have the amount in her

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

833

account and wanted an amicable settlement refused to

give a complaint in writing. When the Investigating Officer

received report of this from the Manager in answer to his

query regarding the past conduct of the petitioner, he

submitted a report regarding this also apart from the

shortage that had occurred on 12.11.2007.

The counsel for the petitioner has advanced a

preliminary contention that the charge itself is very vague

and therefore the petitioner was not in a position to answer

the charges and for this reason itself the punishment

imposed on the petitioner will not stand scrutiny of law.

On going through the charge sheet which is marked as

Ext.W2, I find that there is no basis for this contention

raised on behalf of the petitioner.

10.

It was on the basis of the Investigation Report a

charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner. The charge

sheet included the incident of the alleged failure to remit

Rs. 30,000/- in the account of Vijayalakshmi and

misappropriation of this amount also, though the

suspension of the petitioner was based on the shortage

of cash that occurred on 12.11.2007 only. The details of

the shortfalls or misconduct allegedly committed by the

petitioner are narrated in detail in the charge sheet.

Regarding the incident of 12.11.2007 it is stated that a

shortage of Rs. 99,983/- was found while closing the cash.

The incident pertaining to 15.06.2007 that is the alleged

failure to credit the amount received by the petitioner

towards the account of Vijayalakshmi also is narrated

in the charge sheet. There is a specific charge that the

amount of Rs. 30000/- which was retained by the petitioner

without crediting to the account of Vijayalaksmi has been

misappropriated by him. The charge also states that by

the acts or the omissions detailed the petitioner has

committed gross negligence involving or likely to involve

the Bank in serious loss and moral turpitude under Clause-

5j of Memorandum of Settlement on disciplinary procedure.

Of course, the charge sheet contains details such as

conduct on the part of the petitioner towards Vijayalakshmi,

the account holder, his non-cooperation in the

investigation by failing to produce the original counterfoil

etc. also. However, these things do not affect the clarity of

the main charges detailed in the charge sheet. The charges

are sufficiently detailed to enable the petitioner to know

what all are the charges to which he is answerable.

11.

The Enquiry Officer has filed a report finding that

the charge of shortage of Rs. 99,983/- on 12.11.2007 and

failure to credit Rs. 30,000/- on 15.06.2007 are proved.

However, regarding the charge of misappropriation of Rs.

30,000/- he had found that there is no sufficient evidence

to prove the charge of misappropriation and had entered a

finding against the Management. The Disciplinary

Authority who considered the report felt that the charge

of misappropriation also is proved and entered a tentative

finding to this effect. A show-cause notice was issued to

the petitioner based on this tentative finding, opportunity

was given to him to put forth his case and after hearing

him the punishment proposed was confirmed.

12.

Before going into the evidence in detail it would be

better to refer to the argument advanced by the counsel

for the petitioner questioning the manner in which the

Disciplinary Authority had conducted its proceedings. The

counsel has referred to the decision of High Court of

Madras in VEERASEKARAN AND OTHERS VS.

MANAGING DIRECTOR, TASMAC reported in 2010 4

LLJ 1172 where it was held that if the Disciplinary Authority

differs with the view taken by the Enquiry Officer he is

bound to give notice setting out his tentative conclusions

to the employee. On going through the enquiry

proceedings it could be seen that it is not a case where

notice was not given to the petitioner or he was denied

opportunity to have a say in the matter. It is seen from

Ext.W13 order of the Disciplinary Authority that on

disagreeing with the enquiry officer and tentatively

holding the petitioner guilty the petitioner was issued

notice for a personal hearing. Accordingly, he had appeared

before the Disciplinary Authority on 04.05.2009 alongwith

a representative and he had made his submission orally

and in writing. So there is no force in the argument

advanced that the order of the Disciplinary Authority is

bad for want of notice prior to passing an order based on

a conclusion different from that of the Enquiry Officer.

13.

Now it is to seen whether the Respondent had

succeeded in establishing the charges against the

petitioner. So far as the incident dated 12.11.2007 is

concerned, it is a matter admitted by the petitioner himself

that there was a shortage of Rs. 99,983/-. The petitioner

himself has reported the matter to the Cash Officer Sri

Vinoj who has been examined in the enquiry proceedings

as MW2. Immediately cash receipts, cash scrolls and other

relevant records were verified but they were not able to

locate the shortage. The cash was closed on that day

debiting the cash shortage to Suspense Account in the

name of the petitioner. On the next day itself the petitioner

had made good the shortage by remitting the amount.

14.

It is a fact that there was a shortage on 12.11.2007

while the petitioner was in cash. This certainly accounts

for the negligence on the part of the Respondent. Since

the matter was immediately reported the Respondent could

not have alleged misappropriation on the part of the

petitioner regarding the shortage and there is no such

charge in Ext.W2, the charge sheet.

15.

There was an attempt on the part of the

Respondent’s counsel to show that the shortage was not

on account of mere negligence but there was a calculated

attempt on the part of the petitioner to show that it was a

shortage which he could not explain, though he had

removed the amount and misappropriated the same. In

support of this it was pointed out that in the morning of

834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12.11.2007, while the petitioner was sitting in cash he

complained that he is not well and had requested the help

of a second Cashier and accordingly help was rendered

also. According to MW2, it was not a crowded day and

there was no rush in the bank and there was no necessity

for second Cashier in the day. So he had initially refused

to provide the assistance of a Cashier. However, the

petitioner is said to have requested again consequent to

which MW4 was deputed as second Cashier. However,

after sometime he was withdrawn from the place as it was

found that there was no rush at all. There is the evidence

given by MW2 as well as MW4 that the cash receipts and

payments made by MW4 on the day were properly

accounted and they were handed over to the petitioner.

Though during the enquiry proceedings when the Enquiry

Officer had questioned the petitioner after evidence of

the Management was closed, the petitioner had advanced

a case that he was not able to verify it properly, there was

no such case for him earlier. He seems to have accepted

the amount entrusted by MW3 fully satisfied of its

correctness. However the fact that the assistance was

taken for dealing with cash on the day could not be

interpreted as an attempt on the part of the petitioner for

some foul play. It has come out in evidence that he was

having some illness and in all probability he sought help

because of his illness. The incident of 12.11.2007 is

certainly the result of negligence on the part of the

petitioner. The petitioner has accepted his folly and he

has made good the shortage by remitting the amount on

the next day itself. So the first charge regarding the incident

on 12.11.2007 is not one that calls for major punishment

on the petitioner.

16.

Now it is to be seen whether the charge that the

petitioner had failed to credit Rs. 30,000/- to the account

of Vijayalakshmi on 15.06.2007 and had misappropriated

this amount is correct. The Enquiry Officer, while finding

that he has failed to credit the amount has reasoned that

during the month of June 2007 there were several instances

of excess cash found and credited to Sundry Creditors

Account. According to him, on earlier instance the

petitioner had accounted for the excess cash found at his

hands on various occasions, which he could have easily

misappropriated, but he had not done this and so the

petitioner could not be said to have misappropriated the

amount of Rs. 30,000/-.

17.

Though the charge of failure to credit Rs. 30,000/- to

the account of Vijayalakshmi was found out only

incidentally during the investigation regarding the incident

of 12,11.2007, there can be no doubt that there was failure

on the part of the petitioner in crediting the amount. The

matter seems to have been hushed up by the Branch since

the petitioner agreed to remit the amount immediately after

the concerned account holder found out the same and the

petitioner remitted the amount. There cannot be any doubt

regarding the occurrence of the incident on 15.06.2007.

The chain of events consequent to the incident had been

spoken to clearly by the Branch Manager examined as

MW7, Cash Officer Vinoj examined as MW2 and also

account holder Vijayalakshmi examined as MW6. The case

that is set up by the petitioner is that all these witnesses

have given evidence against him because of their vindictive

attitude towards him. However, it is to be borne in mind

that the Branch Manager himself had not reported the

matter to the superior officer in his attempt to protect the

petitioner from any proceedings that would have been

initiated against him. It was only because of the query

from the Investigating Officer he happened to reveal the

incident. So the petitioner could not attribute

vindictiveness on the Branch Manager.

18.

There is clear evidence given by the account holder

regarding the incident. She has stated during her

examination that she has gone to the branch on a Friday

and had remitted money to her account. She was given a

counterfoil and she was asked to reach the bank on the

next day to make entry in the Pass Book. She is an LIC

agent and used to go to the bank to remit amount received

by her as premium from LIC holders. On the next Friday

she had gone to the branch and she had found out that

the amount was not credited to her account. She

approached the Branch Manager and informed him about

this. The petitioner seems to have taken the stand at the

time that she had not remitted the money at all. She had

remained in the branch till 0730 in the evening to have the

matter solved. After the incident had come to light she

seems to have given a complaint and this has been marked

in the enquiry proceedings also. During cross-examination

she has deposed that she had remitted the money standing

in the queue and the counterfoil was issued by the

petitioner.

19.

There is also the evidence given by the MW7, the

Branch Manager regarding the incident. He has stated

that MW6 was shocked when she found that the money

was not credited to her account. She did not want to give

a complaint in writing for fear of consequences since she

was moving around being an LIC agent. He had further

stated that he had not reported the matter to the higher-

ups since MW6 had told him that she wanted only her

money back and the petitioner had requested him not to

report the matter.

20.

It is the evidence of MW7 that the petitioner had

remitted the amount only on the condition that the original

counterfoil is entrusted to him. So MW7 had handed over

the counterfoil to the petitioner before he was made to

remit the amount of Rs. 30,000/-. However, in the

meanwhile he had seen to it that a photocopy of the

counterfoil is taken and this has been produced in the

enquiry proceedings. It is clear from the contradictory

stand taken by the petitioner during the enquiry

proceedings that the counterfoil was with him. MW1, the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

835

Investigating Officer has questioned the petitioner during

his investigation and the petitioner has told him that the

counterfoil is at his house and he would be producing it

later. However, at the subsequent stage of the enquiry

proceedings the petitioner has taken the stand that he

had not issued the counterfoil at all and he has not told

the Investigating Officer that he is having it. The stand

taken then was that the Investigating Officer being one

who is not conversant with Tamil, his version was

translated by the Branch Manager who was alongwith

him and a wrong translation to the detriment of the

petitioner was given. However, the Investigating Officer

himself has stated that the petitioner was answering his

queries using English as well. Though the petitioner has

started as a Sub-Staff he had acquired the qualification of

MA and was doing his MBA at the time of enquiry

proceedings. So, as commented by the Disciplinary

Authority, there was no justification for the petitioner in

raising such a contention at all.

21.

The stand of the petitioner that he remitted the

amount only because of coercion by the Manager also

could not be accepted. The petitioner was vigilant to get

the original of the counterfoil before he made the

remittance. MW7, the Branch Manager has stated that he

even refused to make remittance in his own name. However,

it is clear from the version of the petitioner to the Enquiry

Officer that he himself remitted the amount, though he

would say that it was out of coercion. It is clear that the

petitioner had agreed to remit the amount when it was

found out by MW6 and the Bank that the counterfoil was

issued with the seal “Cash Received” and yet he had not

remitted the amount.

22.

Now it is to be considered whether it was a case of

misappropriation of the amount of Rs. 30,000/- on the part

of the petitioner. The reasoning given by the Enquiry

Officer to enter a finding that the petitioner has not

committed the misconduct of misappropriation has no

justification. It is only natural that the Disciplinary

Authority who scanned the evidence and scrutinized the

report found his reasoning unacceptable. That on an earlier

occasion the petitioner had reported excess cash of a small

amount could not be a justification for finding that he has

not committed the offence of misappropriation. The

incident is to be viewed and assessed on its own to find

out if there was misappropriation. The petitioner who had

issued the counterfoil on accepting amount remitted by

MW6 should have been in possession of excess cash

with him on the day even if he has omitted to take further

steps regarding the remittance made. However, he has not

reported the matter while closing the cash. He had been

keeping silence until MW6 came to the branch and enquired

about the same. If the petitioner has retained the cash that

only means he has misappropriated the same. There is no

reason to differ from the finding given by the Disciplinary

Authority in this respect.

23.

Now the question to be considered is whether the

punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate

to the nature of offence, as argued by the counsel for the

petitioner. Certainly, the Tribunal has the power to interfere

if the punishment imposed is more severe in nature when

compared to the nature of the offence. While imposing

the punishment the Disciplinary Authority had allowed

the petitioner to have superannuation benefits and other

benefits that will be due. The imposition of a lesser

punishment would mean that the petitioner will have to be

reinstated in service. The petitioner was working in a

position which requires utmost confidence. He has

committed breach of this confidence put on him by

retaining the amount of a customer and putting it to his

own use. So a more lesser punishment is not called for in

the matter. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

24.

In view of my discussion above, the reference is

answered against the petitioner.

An award is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/

WW1, Sri V. Swaminathan

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

None

Management

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

22.11.2007

Order of Suspension

Ex.W2

23.02.2008

Charge Sheet

Ex.W3

03.01.2008

Investigation Report

Ex.W4

14.11.2007

Letter from DGM/HO

Ex.W5

15.11.2007

Medical Report

Ex.W6

23.11.2007

Letter from Branch Manager

Ex.W7

15.06.2007

Cash Challans

Ex.W8

10.06.2008 to

Enquiry Proceedings

01.08.2008

Ex.W9

06.11.2008

Order of revocation of suspension

Ex.W10 14.09.2008

Written submission by D.R.

Ex.W11 26.12.2008

Findings of the Enquiry Officer

Ex.W12 04.05.2009

Written submission made by the

workman

Ex.W13 26.05.2009

Order of Discharge

Ex.W14 12.06.2009

Appeal to DGM

Ex.W15 05.01.2010

Order of the Appellate Authority

836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

25.04.2008

Daily order sheet

Ex.M2

16.06.2008

Daily order sheet

Ex.M3

15.07.2008

Daily order sheet

Ex.M4

16.07.2008

Daily order sheet

Ex.M5

16.07.2008

Enquiry Proceedings – Evidence

of MW-6 – Ms. R. Vijayalakshmi

Ex.M6

31.07.2008

Daily order sheet

Ex.M7

01.08.2008

Daily order sheet

Ex.M8

03.01.2008

Investigation Report

Ex.M9

11.04.2007

Letter from Dindigul branch to

Zonal Office, Coimbatore

Ex.M10 23.11.2007

Proceedings in respect of

clarifications offered by petitioner

in respect of shortage in cash

Ex.M11 04.12.2007

Letter from Dindigul branch to

Vigilance Cell, Mangalore

Ex.M12 13.11.2007

Agreement between Abirami Auto

Finance and Hirer – V.

Swaminathan – Petitioner

Ex.M13 13.11.2007

Promissory Note executed by V.

Swaminathan – Petitioner for Rs.

1.00 lakh

Ex.M14 21.11.2007

Proceedings

Manager,

Vigilance Cell in respect of visit

made by him to the residence of

Petitioner

Ex.M15 25.11.2007

Certificate of fitness issued to the

petitioner by Dr. N. Rajaram

Ex.M36 22.11.2007

Letter from Manager – Vigilance

Cell – Mangalore to Branch

Manager – Dindigul

Ex.M37 15.06.2007

Pay-in-slip signed by Ms. K.

Bakkiyam-SB A/c No. 9281 – for

Rs. 2200

Ex.M38 15.06.2007

Pay-in-Slip for Rs. 105/-

Ex.M39 15.06.2007

Pay-in-Slip for Rs. 9705/-paid into

the account of Vignesh Sports

Ex.M40 15.06.2007

Pay-in-Slip – for Rs. 1000/- - New

A/c – R. Vinothini

Ex.M41 15.06.2007

Pay-in-Slip for Rs. 1,000/- SB A/c

No. Shanmughasundaram

Ex.M42 15.06.2007

Pay-in-Slip for Rs. 3,300/- SB A/c

No. D. Muthukamatchi

Ex.M43 15.06.2007

Pay-in-Slip for Rs. 20,000/- SB

A/c – 9463 of R. Rajagopal

Ex.M44 15.06.2007

Pay-in-Slip – for Rs. 56,275/- A/c

of Sundry Deposit

Ex.M45 15.06.2007

Pay-in-Slip – for Rs. 500/- A/c of

P. Chandra Kumar

Ex.M46 22.11.2007 &

Securities

inspection

and

14.11.2007

document verification Register

Page 29, 30

Ex.M47 10.11.2007

Cash balance – page 87, P88, P89

– Dindigul branch – Dindigul

13.11.2007

Ex.M48 10.11.2007

Double Lock Register – Page 61,

62, 63 – Dindigul branch

12.11.2007

Ex.M49 10.11.2007

Postage Register Page 64, 65, 66,

12.11.2007

67, 68, 69 and Teller”s Cash Book

13.11.2007

dated 12.11.2007, Postage Register-

Page No. 70, 71, 72 & 73

Ex.M50 -

Cashier Receipts Scroll and

Payment Scroll for 15.06.2007 –

Dindigul Branch and cash scroll

summary as on 15.06.2007

Ex.M51 -

Cashier Receipts Scroll and

Payment Scroll for 22.06.2007 –

and cash scroll summary as on

22.06.2007

Ex.M52 -

A/c Statement from 03.04.2007 to

31.03.2008 of A/c No. SB101/

010609 – Ms. Vijayalakshmi

Ex.M53 19.05.2008

Complaint of R. Vijayalakshmi SB

A/c No. 10609 to Branch

Manager, Dindigul – Reg.

Harassment of Petitioner

Ex.M54 21.05.2008

Letter from Senior Manager,

Dindigul branch to Mangalore,

forwarding the letter of R.

Vijayalakshmi

Ex.M55 08.04.2006

G.L. Detailed Report from

15.03.2007

01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 and from

01.04.2007 &

07.04.2007 to 20.03.2008 and

31.03.2008

01.04.2008 to 15.05.2008

Ex.M56 21.12.2007

Pay-in-Slip – M. Thangaraj – A/c

No. 11789 – Rs. 500/-

Ex.M57 15.04.2008

Notice of enquiry sent by E.O. to

Petitioner

Ex.M58 04.08.2008

Written brief submitted by Mr.

Janardhan Prabhu – Manager –

H.O. Mangalore

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

837

Ex.M59 31.03.2009

Letter from Manager – Mangalore

to Petitioner enclosing copy of

proceedings dated 31.03.2009

proposing

punishment

discharge and calling for his

explanation and also enclosing

copy of Enquiry Report.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 298-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 42@2013) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@73@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2015

S.O. 298.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial 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 13/02/2015.

[No. L-12011/73/2012-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 6th January, 2015

Present

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 42/2013

(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

Indian Bank Employee’s

Union

Association, No. 17,

Ameerjan Street

Choolaimedu

Chennai-600094

AND

The General Manager

: 2nd Party/Respondent

Indian Bank Zonal Office

Chennai North

24/21, Ethiraj Salai

Chennai-600008

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

Sri G. Gopal, Authorized

Petitioner

Representative

For the 2nd Party/

Sri T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

Respondent

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/73/2012-IR (B-II)

dated 11.03.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of Indian

Bank in dismissing Sri S. Manoharan, Clerk/Shroff

of Red Hills Branch is legal and justified? What relief

the concerned workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 42/2013 and issued notices to both

sides. The petitioner has entered appearance through the

authorized representative and the Respondent through

the counsel and filed claim and counter statement

respectively.

The averments in the Claim statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner is a Union registered under the Trade

Union act and has substantial following in the Respondent

Bank. The Union takes up genuine grievances of its

members who are working in the Respondent Bank.

Sri Manoharan a member of the Petitioner Union was

working in the Red Hills branch of the Respondent as

Clerk/Shroff. A Charge Sheet dated 09.12.2009 was issued

to him by the circle office. In the Charge Sheet it was

alleged that on 12.06.2009 Rs. 3,500/- has been remitted

with him in cash to be credited to the account in the name

of Chandrammal and Nageshwari and he had issued

counterfoil to the remitter but he has not credited the

amount to the account. It was further alleged that on

19.06.2008 one Prabhu Ram had remitted Rs. 13,000/- by

cash with Manoharan and he had issued counter foil for

the same but he has not credited the amount to the account

on the said day. The above acts of Manoharan were

described as gross misconduct under Clause-5(j) of the

Memorandum of Settlement on disciplinary action and

procedure dated 10.04.2012. Manoharan had given a letter

to the disciplinary authority admitting the lapses on his

part and at the same time denying the allegation that these

838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

amounted to misappropriation. A domestic enquiry was

conducted on the charges and the Disciplinary Authority

imposed the punishment of dismissal without notice on

Manoharan. The appeal filed by him against the order of

dismissal was rejected. Manoharan had not committed

any act of misappropriation. He had honestly admitted his

lapses. He has expressed his readiness to undergo any

punishment other than dismissal from service. Regarding

the first charge the complainant had withdrawn the

complaint subsequently. Regarding the second charge,

the matter has been closed with the knowledge of the

concerned customer and the Manager of the Bank. It has

been re-opened after a year. An order may be passed setting

aside the punishment of dismissal from service.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows :

Manoharan the concerned workman had joined the

service of the Respondent as Sub-Staff in 1980 and was

promoted as Clerk in 1994. He was posted as Single window

Operator / Cashier at the Red Hills Branch in 2005. A single

Window Operator is entitled to allowance as per the

Bipartite Settlement. A customer can approach any SW

counter to avail any of the services. In case of drawing

cash from SB Account through SW Counter passing of

cheque and making payment is limited to Rs. 20,000/-.

Clearance at Officers level is not required for cheques

upto Rs. 20,000/- coming through SW Counter. In case of

withdrawal by suing the Withdrawal Slip the account

holder should personally come to the branch or he should

give an authorization to the person who presents the

withdrawal slip and the account holder concerned or the

authorized person should come to the branch with the

Pass Book. After the concerned workman was posted at

Red Hills Branch there were complaints from customers

that remittances made by them were not being credited to

their account during the periods when he was posted as

Single Window Operator. During a surprise cash inspection

in the year 2008 while the concerned workman was a Single

window Operator there was an excess cash of Rs. 10,000/-

in the cash drawer of the concerned workman and he was

not able to account for the same. In another instance he

had received remittance of Rs. 4,500/- towards a loan

account which was already closed. When the counterfoil

of the challan was produced the concerned workman

returned the amount. In another instance an excess cash

of Rs. 500/- was found with the concerned workman and

the same was credited to Sundry Creditor’s account. On

12.11.2009, the Branch Manager received a complaint from

one Bhuvaneshwari that she had remitted Rs. 3,500/- in

her mother’s account on 12.06.2009 but there was no entry

in the Pass Book. The concerned workman and his people

had prevailed upon the account holders to withdraw the

complaint. Bhuvaneshwari and her mother had come to

the Branch and informed that the petitioner had returned

the amount of Rs. 3,500/- remitted to the account. On

23.11.2009 when Mariappan, the Senior Manager of the

Circle Office visited Red Hills Branch the Branch Manager

had traced an old file containing a letter of complaint from

one Prabhu Ram against the concerned workman alleging

that Rs. 13,000/- remitted by him on 19.06.2008 to his SB

Account was not credited to the account. Charge Sheet

was issued to the concerned workman referring to the

complaints made by Chandrammal and Prabhu Ram and

calling upon him to Show Cause why action shall not be

taken. He had given a reply stating that he had omitted to

account the amounts received from the customers and

that he had not misappropriated the amounts. In the enquiry

held subsequently he pleaded for lenience. The

Disciplinary Authority ordered the punishment of dismissal

of the workman from service. The dismissal is fully justified

and is valid in law. The conduct of the concerned workman

cannot be brushed aside as mere lapses or unintended

mistakes. There is no necessity to interfere with the

punishment imposed on the concerned workman.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.13 and

Ext.M1 to Ext.M40. No oral evidence was adduced on the

side of the Respondent.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Management in dismissing

Manoharan, the concerned workman is legal and

justified?

(ii)

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

The Points

Disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against

Manoharan, the concerned workman while he was working

as Clerk/Shroff at Red Hills branch of the Respondent.

Manoharan had joined the Respondent Bank as a Sub-

Staff in 1980 and was promoted as Clerk after 14 years, in

1994. It was in 2005 he was posted at Red Hills Branch as

Single Window Operator / Cashier.

While working in this capacity as Single Window

Operator the charge sheet specifying two charges had

been served on the concerned workman. The first charge

was that he had failed to credit the amount of Rs. 3,500/-

remitted with him on 12.06.2009 to the concerned account.

The second charge was that on a previous occasion on

19.06.2008 he had failed to credit Rs. 13,000/- that had

been remitted with him to the concerned account. A

domestic enquiry was conducted on the charges against

the concerned workman, not satisfied with the explanation

given by the workman. On the basis of the admission made

by the workman and also on the basis of the evidence let

in by the Management before the Enquiry Officer the

concerned workman was found guilty of both charges.

Based on the enquiry report the Disciplinary Authority

imposed the punishment of dismissal without notice on

the concerned workman.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

839

In fact the petitioner has not challenged the finding

of guilt entered by the Enquiry Officer. The challenge is

on the punishment imposed on the workman. The stress

seems to be on the fact that the acts of misconduct on the

part of the concerned workman will not amount to

misappropriation on his part but only lapses on account

of negligence.

10.

On going through the documents produced it could

be seen that even from the beginning the concerned

workman had not challenged the acts of misconduct

alleged against him. Ext.W3 is the reply given by the

workman to the charge sheet which is marked as Ext.W1.

In this he has stated that he has received Rs. 3,500/- from

Chandrammal for remitting in her SB Account. He has

explained that there was crowd in the bank at that time and

since he knew the customer personally he had released

the counterfoil signed by him with the idea to attend to

the challan later but he had omitted to do so out of pressure

of work. He had further stated that he had returned the

amount to the customer on the same day evening but he

had failed to record the same. He has stated that he has

not misappropriated the amount. Regarding the second

charge of failure to remit Rs. 13,000/- to the account of

Prabhu Ram he has stated that he might have inadvertently

acted in the same way as in the case of first charge, though

not intentionally. He has added that he has not

misappropriated any amount. On later occasions, during

the enquiry proceedings and after this also the concerned

workman had throughout admitted the acts of misconduct

alleged against him, at the same time maintaining that those

acts will not amount to misappropriation. During the

enquiry proceedings, the concerned workman was given

opportunity to cross-examine the four witnesses examined

by the Management, but he has not cross-examined them,

on each occasion stating that he has already admitted the

charges. Ext.W4 is the reply given by the concerned

workman to the Disciplinary Authority’s letter calling for

his comments on the report of the Enquiry Officer. In

this also he has stated that he had admitted the charges

leveled against him and that his only request is to avail

the provision under Section 12(e) of the Bipartite

Settlement dated 10.04.2002.

11.

On going through the enquiry proceedings it could

be seen that in spite of the admission made by the

concerned workman by Ext.W3, an enquiry was conducted

and the Management had placed the entire evidence

before the Enquiry Officer. The Investigating Officer, the

Manager of the Red Hills Branch, the Asstt. Branch

Manager and also the two account holders viz.

Chandrammal and Prabhu Ram were examined. All the

relevant documents were also marked through the

concerned witnesses. These witnesses have placed the

facts before the Enquiry Officer with reference to the

documents. The evidence of the witnesses or the

documents were not challenged by the concerned

workman.

12.

The stand of the concerned workman that the acts

on his part will not amount to misappropriation but are

only inadvertent lapses certainly could not be accepted.

It could be seen from the evidence that it was only when

the complaint was made he had made good the amount.

This was not the conduct expected from a person who

had no intention of misappropriation.

13.

Probably aware of the gravity of the charges against

him the concerned workman had maintained the stand that

he is admitting the charges and that he may be proceeded

against under Section 12(e) of the Bipartite Settlement

regarding disciplinary proceedings. His only prayer was

that the punishment of dismissal may not be imposed on

him. This has not been heeded to by the Disciplinary

authority and the severe punishment of dismissal without

notice was imposed on him.

14.

When the circumstances are considered it could be

seen that the punishment of dismissal from service need

not have been imposed on the concerned workman. True,

he had failed to credit the two remittances. However, while

imposing punishment the background and the

circumstances could have been taken note of. The

concerned workman entered service of the Respondent

Bank in the year 1980. He was at the age of 57 when

proceedings had been initiated against him. Though certain

lapses on the part of the concerned workman on some

previous occasions are also referred to by the Respondent,

there is no case for the Respondent that any disciplinary

action has been taken earlier against the workman. By the

age of 57, by working for several years continuously the

concerned workman had already earned his right to have

pensionery benefits. The second charge against the

concerned workman had been raised almost a year after

the matter has been closed. Considering all these, I feel

that Compulsory Retirement would have been sufficient

punishment in the case. I am inclined to interfere with the

punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and

convert it to one of Compulsory retirement with

superannuation benefits. Accordingly an order is passed

as follows:

The punishment imposed on the concerned

workman is converted into one of Compulsory

Retirement from service with superannuation

benefits. An award is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/

WW1, Sri K. Krishnan

Petitioner Union

For the 2nd Party/

None

Management

840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

09.12.2009

Charge Sheet VIG/DPAS/408/2008

issued to Sri S. Manoharan by

Indian Bank, Circle Office,

Kanchipuram

Ex.W2

13.11.2009

Letter from Smt. E. Chandrammal

regarding her previous complaint

letter

Ex.W3

04.01.2010

Reply by Sri S. Manoharan for the

Charge Sheet dated 09.12.2009

Ex.W4

18.03.2010

Letter by Sri S. Manoharan to the

Enquiry Officer

Ex.W5

18.03.2010

Enquiry proceedings relating to

deposition of Sri S. Manoharan

(CSE)

Ex.W6

22.07.2010

Letter VIG/DPAS/408/2009 by

Disciplinary Authority proposing

punishment

Ex.W7

05.08.2010

Reply letter to the above

Ex.W8

06.08.2010

Order VIG/DPAS/408/2009 by the

Disciplinary Authority imposing

punishment of dismissal without

notice on the employee Sri S.

Manoharan

Ex.W9

17.11.2010

Appeal

the Appellate

Authority against the punishment

Ex.W10

16.03.2011

Order of the Appellate Authority

confirming the punishment

Ex.W11

26.04.2011

Letter IBEA/GEN/82/2010-13 by

the Petitioner Union to the Asstt.

Labour Commissioner, Chennai

raising an Industrial Dispute

against the punishment

Ex.W12

29.02.2012

Reply letter by the Management

of Indian Bank to the above letter

Ex.W13

28.03.2012

Rejoinder by the Petitioner Union

Documents Marked :

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

24.11.2009

Order issued to Manoharan

suspending him from work (with

his acknowledgement)

Ex.M2

25.11.2009

Letter from Red Hills Branch to

AGM/DA – CO/Kancheepuram

Ex.M3

09.12.2009

Charge

Sheet

issued

Manoharan enclosing list of

documents numbering 7 (with

acknowledgement)

Ex.M4

24.12.2009

Letter from Indian bank, CO,

Kancheepuram to S. Manoharan

advising to submit his reply for

the charge sheet before 28.12.2009

with acknowledgement

Ex.M5

11.01.2010

Letter from Bank to Manoharan

enclosing enquiry order dated

11.01.2010

Ex.M6

13.02.2010

Representation of Manoharan to

the charge sheet dated 09.12.2009

Ex.M7

20.02.2010

Reply from Bank to Manoharan’s

representation dated 13.02.2010

(with acknowledgement)

Ex.M8

09.02.2010

13.02.2010

Proceedings of the

26.02.2010

Enquiry

11.03.2010

Ex.M9

19.04.2010

Letter from Bank to Manoharan

enclosing Presenting Officers

Brief and calling for defence brief

Ex.M10

24.05.2010

Letter from Bank to Manoharan

reminding him to submit defence

proof on or before 29.05.2010

Ex.M11

31.05.2010

Defence (Manoharan’s) Brief.

Ex.M12

11.06.2010

Letter from Bank to Manoharan

enclosing findings of the Enquiry

Officer dated 05.06.2010 and

calling of his comments

Ex.M13

22.07.2010

Second Show Cause Notice issued

from Bank to Manoharan

proposing

punishment

dismissal without notice with

acknowledgement and advising to

appear for personal hearing on

30.07.2010

Ex.M14

30.07.2010

Letter from bank requesting to

Manoharan postponing the

personal hearing fixed on

30.07.2010 to 05.08.2010 at his

request (with acknowledgement)

Ex.M15

05.08.2010

Reply from Manoharan to the

Second Show Cause Notice of the

Disciplinary Authority

Ex.M16

13.11.2009

Letter of Red Hills Branch

addressed to Assistant General

Manager, CO, Kanchipuram

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

841

Ex.M17

12.11.2009

Letter of Smt. E. Chandrammal,

holder of SB No. 498158265

addressed to BM, Red Hills

Branch

Ex.M18

12.06.2009

Copy of counterfoil issued for

having remitted cash Rs. 3,500/-

for credit of SB No. 498158265

Ex.M19

13.11.2009

Letter of Smt. E. Chandrammal

addressed to Manager, Red Hills

Branch

Ex.M20

23.06.2008

Letter of Sri C. Prabhu Ram,

holder of SB Account No.

455078559 addressed to the

Manager, Red Hills Branch

Ex.M21

19.06.2008

Copy of counter foil issued for

having

remitted

cash

Rs. 13,000/- for credit of SB No.

455078559

Ex.M22

27.11.2009

Investigating Report of Mr. M.

Mariappan, Senior Manager

Ex.M23

SB Pass Book copy – SB No.

498158265 – E. Chandrammal and

Nageswari

Ex.M24

21.11.2009

Written statement of Mr. S.

Manoharan, Clerk/Shroff

Ex.M25

23.11.2009

Written statement of Mr. Y. Rama

Moorthy Raju, Senior Manager

(BM), Red Hills Branch

Ex.M26

23.11.2009

Written statement of Mr. V.

Sundaram, Manager (ABM), Red

Hills Branch

Ex.M27

23.11.2009

Written statement of Smt. E.

Chandrammal

and

Ms.

Bhuvaneswari

Ex.M28

23.11.2009

Written statement of Mr. C. Prabhu

Ram, holder of SB Account No.

455078559

Ex.M29

13.11.2009

Counterfoil issued for having

remitted cash for Rs. 3,500/- for

credit of SB No. 498158265. Pay-

in-Slip – E. Chandrammal

Ex.M30

13.11.2009

Challan for having remitted cash

Rs. 3,500/- for credit of SB No.

498158265 – Pay-in-Slip – E.

Chandrammal

Ex.M31

24.06.2008

Counterfoil issued for having

remitted cash Rs. 13,000/- for

credit of SB No. 455078559 – Pay-

in-slip – C. Prabhu Ram

Ex.M32

24.06.2008

Challan for having remitted cash

Rs. 13,000/- for credit of SB No.

455078559- Pay-in-slip-C. Prabhu

Ram

Ex.M33

25.07.2007

Letter of Red Hills Branch,

addressed to Mr. S. Manoharan,

Cl./Sh.

Ex.M34

31.07.2007

Letter of Mr. S. Manoharan,

addressed to the Manager, Red

Hills Branch

Ex.M35

18.03.2008

Letter of Red Hills Branch

addressed to DGM/Circle Head,

CO, Kanchipuram

Ex.M36

31.03.2008

CO, Kanchipuram, Audit Section

letter addressed to BM, Red Hills

Branch

Ex.M37

10.12.2009

Red Hills Branch’s letter

addressed to CO, Kancheepuram,

forwarding copies of documents

Ex.M38

12.11.2009

Challan for Rs. 8,000/- for cash

remitted into account SB No.

498158265 of E. Chandrammal –

Pay-in-Slip

Ex.M39

12.11.2009

Report

cash

transactions – evidencing the

above transaction for Rs. 8,000/-.

SB A/c No. 498158265 E.

Chandrammal

Ex.M40

12.11.2009

Teller Report – evidencing the

above transaction for Rs. 8,000/-

SB A/c No. 498158265 – E.

Chandrammal.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 299-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 51@2014) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@24@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2015

S.O. 299.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Bank

842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 13/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/24/2014-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Monday, the 2nd February, 2015

Present :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 51/2014

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10

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

the Management of Indian Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN

Smt. K. Nagamani

: 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Chief Manager

: 2nd Party/Respondent

Indian Bank, HRM Department

Zonal Office, 359,

Dr. Nanjappa Road

Coimbatore-641018

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

M/s P.S. Ratnamani,

Petitioner

P. Mathivanan

For the 2nd Party/

M/s Aiyar & Dolia,

Respondent

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/24/2014-IR (B.II)

dated 24.06.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of Indian

Bank, Coimbatore in terminating the services of K.

Nagamani, Sub-Staff on the ground that she had

voluntarily vacated employment is justified? What

relief Smt. Nagamani is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 51/2014 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance and filed Claim

Statement and Counter Statement respectively.

The case was being posted for enquiry repeatedly.

The counsel for the petitioner has reported that the

petitioner has not turned up in spite of his informing her

of the posting of the case for enquiry. The counsel has

endorsed on the Vakalat that he has no instruction from

the petitioner.

The petitioner seems to be not interested in pursuing

the case. The petitioner is said to have abandoned service

by her continued absence. The counter statement reveals

that she has raised the dispute after long three years of

her absenting herself from duty. The only assumption to

be drawn is that the petitioner has abandoned the dispute

also. So the reference is to be answered against her.

Accordingly the reference is answered against the

petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/

None

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

None

Management

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 13 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 300-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 24@2013) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@16@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2015

S.O. 300.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial 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 13/02/2015.

[No. L-12011/16/2012-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

843

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 17th December, 2014

Present

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 24/2013

(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 workmen)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

1st Party/Petitioner Union

Indian Bank Employees

Association (Tamilnadu)

17, Ameerjan Street,

Choolaimedu

Chennai-600094

AND

The Dy. General Manager :

2nd Party/Respondent

Disciplinary Authority

Indian Bank, Circle Office

Katpadi Road

Vellore.

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

Sri G. Gopal, Authorised

Petitioner

Representative

For the 2nd Party/

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

Management

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/16/2012-IR (B.II)

dated 06.02.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Management of Indian

Bank in imposing the punishment of reduction of

increment by one stage for two separate charges

resulting in punishment of reduction of increment

by two stages upon Sri V. Balakrishnan, SR No. 26513,

Indian Bank, Sankaramallur Branch is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 24/2013 and issued notices to both

sides. The petitioner has entered appearance through

Authorized Representative and the Respondent through

the counsel and filed claim and counter statement

respectively.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner is a Union registered under the Trade

Union Act. It has substantial following among the workmen

in the Respondent Bank and it takes up genuine grievances

of its members and workers in the Respondent Bank. The

Respondent has imposed the punishment of reduction of

increment by two stages on Sri V. Balakrishnan, a member

of the Petitioner Union for the fraud that has taken place

in Arni Branch while he was working there. The Asstt.

Branch Manager was the person who committed all the

frauds. The Respondent had alleged by the charge sheet

served on Balakrishnan that he has failed to verify certain

instruments and has failed to obtain the signature of the

presenter on the reverse side of the instrument, that the

transactions were found to be fraudulent, that he has failed

to ensure that certain persons who received payment from

him are those who are entitled to receive the payment and

also failed to get acknowledgement from the payee on the

reverse side of the instruments when payments were made,

that the transactions were subsequently found to be

fraudulent, that he facilitated withdrawal of money from

deceased pensioner’s account resulting in misuse of

government funds and thereby he has failed to protect

the interest of the bank. A domestic enquiry was held

against Balakrishnan. Even though the charges against

him were not proved the disciplinary Authority imposed

the punishment of reduction to lower scale of pay by one

stage for charge 1 and 2 and censure for charge 3. The

appeal preferred by Balakrishnan has been dismissed by

the Appellate Authority. The dispute has been raised

accordingly. The fraudulent transactions in Arni branch

of the Respondent Bank took place during the period

between August 2005 and August 2006. Elangovan, the

then Asstt. Branch Manager of Arni Branch was

responsible for the fraudulent transactions. The

transactions were not the result of negligence of any staff

or violation of systems and procedures by the staff. The

Bank had failed in its duty of locking the deceased

pensioner’s account. If this had been done the fraud would

not have taken place. Balakrishnan was a Sub-Staff

promotee who was very sincere and honest in his work.

The work load at Arni Branch was very heavy and there

was shortage of manpower. Without considering all these,

the Respondent had inflicted the punishment on

Balakrishnan, the concerned workman. An order may be

passed setting aside the punishment and restoring all the

monetary loss suffered by the concerned workman, to him.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows :

If in the discharge of his duties an employee commits

an irregularity by not conforming to the laid down

procedures and systems, he is deemed to have done it at

his own risk and it shall not be open to him to say that he

did it under the instructions or orders of his superiors. If

844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

any loss is caused by any irregularity on the part of the

employee he is liable to make good the loss to the Bank. In

the course of operations for switching over to Core

Banking Solutions the Govt. of India Pension Account of

the Arni Branch came up for scrutiny and the members of

the project team who were carrying out electronic data

processing for the purpose of conversion suspected some

irregularities in the matter of payment of pension to some

of the deceased pensioners. An investigation team was

formed to go into the details. In the course of investigation

it came to light that in respect of certain deceased

pensioners, pension was paid after their death by means

of withdrawal slips. In all such transactions pension

account of the deceased pensioners was credited with

large amounts by debiting Government of India Pension

Account and thereafter withdrawal of amount was

engineered through presenting withdrawal slip by

unauthorized persons. The fraud was perpetrated by an

Asstt. Branch Manager of Arni Branch. The concerned

workman had passed entries based on the withdrawal slips

though they were not accompanied by the Pass Book and

had errors on the instrument. While acting as payment

cashier he made certain payments without verifying the

identity of the payees. He had debited Pension Account

and made credit entries in the accounts of the existing

account holders and withdrawals were made from those

accounts. The irregularities on the part of the concerned

workman were brought to his notice on 25.07.2007 and his

explanation was called for. The reply given by him was not

satisfactory so a charge sheet was issued to the concerned

workman in respect of 27 transactions, many of them

relating to deceased pensioner’s account. The concerned

workman gave a reply denying the charges and an enquiry

was conducted and the Enquiry Officer gave his findings

that the charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority

imposed the punishment of reduction to lower scale of

pay by one stage without cumulative effect for Charge

No. 1, reduction to lower scale of pay by one stage without

cumulative effect for Charge No. 2 and punishment of

censure for Charge No. 3. The fraud was perpetrated not

only by the Asstt. Manager but by other Officers and

Staff as well. Punishment was awarded to other staff also.

The concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W13

and Ext.M1 to Ext.M14.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent in imposing

the punishment of reduction of increment by one

stage each for two separate charges resulting in

punishment of reduction of increment by two stages

upon the concerned workman is legal and justified?

(ii)

What if any is the relief to which the concerned

workman is entitled?

The Points

It could be seen from the charge sheet marked as

Ext.M6 that irregularities of three different kinds are alleged

against the concerned workman. The incidents had

happened while he was working as clerk in the Arni Branch

of the Respondent Bank. According to the Respondent,

an Assistant Manager of the Respondent Bank had

facilitated fraud by withdrawing amounts from the

accounts of several deceased pensioners. The allegation

against the petitioner is that by his negligence and

irresponsible actions he helped the perpetration of fraud

though not intending it. As per the first charge the

concerned workman had failed to verify 20 instruments

and to see if they were in order and obtain the signature of

the presenter on the reverse of the instrument at the time

of issue of token. These instruments are of the period

ranging from August 2005 to February 2006. The amounts

involved in each of the transactions are in between

Rs. 32,000 and Rs. 1,500/-. It subsequently turned out that

all these transactions were fraudulent. The second charge

against the petitioner is that regarding 27 transactions

detailed in the charge sheet he failed to ensure that

the persons who received payment are those who are

actually entitled to receive them and also failed to get

acknowledgement of the payee on the reverse side of the

instrument against which the payment was made. These

27 transactions are of the period in between August 2005

and September 2006 and the amount involved in the

transactions vary from Rs. 72,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-. The

third charge is that in the above transactions the petitioner

facilitated withdrawal of money from the deceased

pensioner’s account resulting in misuse of government

funds.

A Show Cause Notice has been issued to the

concerned workman regarding the irregularity or

misconduct on his part and this is marked as Ext.W7. Ext.W8

is the reply given by him to the Show Cause Notice. On

going through the reply it could be seen that the concerned

workman did not deny the case that he is the one who had

dealt with the instruments referred to in the three charges.

He has also not stated in his explanation that he has not

been responsible for the latches or negligence alleged

against him by the charges. His attempt in the explanation

has been to give reasons for the latches on his part. He

has stated in the explanation that since substitutes were

not provided after two of the staff in the branch have been

relieved, the work burden in Arni Brnch was heavy and

customer’s pressure in all counters had increased and it

was heavier in the Savings Bank counter also. According

to him, to reduce the customer crowd the other staff

members including subordinates were pressurized to give

tokens to the customers. It had become practically

impossible to identify the tenderer of the instrument or

get his address. He has further stated that as the

instruments were already verified, debited and passed by

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

845

the Section Officer-in-Charge he made the payments

referred to in the second charge in good faith. According

to him it was practically impossible and there was no such

practice in the Arni Branch to collect the acknowledgement

or address of the receiver during the time of payment.

He had further stated that Elangovan, the Asstt Branch

Manager has been exploiting his ignorance and compelling

him to attend the transactions in question. Thus it could

be seen that the concerned worker, rather than contending

that there were no latches on his part was trying to explain

the latches.

In the enquiry proceedings, the investigation report

and the documents pertaining to the transactions were

produced. Regarding the transactions under first charge

the log copies were available. So far as the second charge

is concerned also the log extracts were relied upon by him.

The third charge is based on the first two charges and the

finding on this charge is based on the findings of the two

charges. Ext.M1 to Ext.M5 are produced by the

Respondent to prove the procedure to be adopted while

dealing with the customers and making payments. It is

clear from the very admission made by the concerned

workman that he was not following the procedure and the

guidelines. If he was vigilant the fraud could have been

avoided. The contention on the part of the petitioner that

it was the Bank which was negligent by failing to lock the

accounts of the deceased customers could not be accepted.

Each of the employees of the establishment are expected

to go by the procedure and be vigilant in their duty, more

so in the case of a banking establishment which is dealing

with the money of the Government, that of the pensioners

and generally the entire public. It is very much clear that

the concerned workman has been negligent in his duty.

The finding that the charges against the concerned

workman was proved was the only possible conclusion

that could have been arrived at by the Enquiry Officer in

the given circumstances.

10.

The case on hand is not one that comes under

Section-11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, it being not a

case of discharge or dismissal of the workman. Such being

the case this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment

over the decision of the employer as an Appellate Body

(1973 1 SCC 813 – WORKMAN OF FIRESTORE TYRE

AND RUBBER CO. OF INDIA PVT. LTD. VS.

MANAGEMENT AND OTHERS). Interference in the

decision will be justified only when the findings arrived at

in the enquiry are perverse or the Management is guilty of

victimization, unfair labour practice or was acting in

malafide manner. There is nothing to show that it is a case

of victimization on the part of the Management or the

Management acted in a malafide manner. As already stated

the finding in the enquiry is not perverse as it was the

only plausible conclusion flowing from the material

available on record. So this Tribunal has no reason to sit

in judgment over the decision of the Respondent also. In

the circumstances, the concerned workman is not entitled

to any relief.

11.

In view of my discussion above, the reference is

answered against the petitioner.

An award is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/

WW1, Sri K. Krishnan

Petitioner Union

For the 2nd Party/

Management

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

05.12.2006

Interim Report by Sri Ramamurthy,

Senior Manager, Circle Office,

Vellore. Irregularities observed

under Govt. Pension accounts of

Arni Branch of Indian Bank.

Ex.W2

12.12.2006

Report by Sri Ramamurthy, Sr.

Manager, Circle Office, Vellore

regarding irregularities/fraudulent

transactions done by Mr. D.

Elangovan, Asstt. Manager

(relieved

under

CRS

04.10.2006)

Ex.W3

10.12.2006

Confession letter by Sri D.

Elangovan, then Asstt. Branch

Manager of Arni Branch regarding

fraudulent transactions in Govt.

Pension accounts in Arni Branch

Ex.W4

10.12.2006

Letter from Sri D. Elangovan

giving undertaking to make the

good the loss due to his

misappropriation in pension

accounts

Ex.W5

10.12.2006

Letter from Sri D. Elangovan

with a promissory note for

Rs. 22,00,000/- executed in favour

of Indian Bank for the loss

Ex.W6

23.01.2007

Vigilance Investigation Report

submitted by Sri Selvam, AM

Circle Office, Vellore to Circle

Head, Indian Bank, Vellore

regarding irregularities/fraudulent

transactions done by Mr. D.

Elangovan, Asstt. Manager

(relieved under CRS on 04.10.2006

at Arni Branch

846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W7

05.05.2008

Show Cause Notice CO/VLR/VIG/

F311/203/08 to Sri V. Balakrishnan

issued by Indian Bank, Circle

Office, Vellore

Ex.W8

06.06.2008

Reply by Sri V. Balakrishnan to the

above Show Cause Notice

Ex.W9

17.11.2008

Presenting Officer’s summing up

report

Ex.W10 22.12.2008

Defense

Representative’s

summing up report

Ex.W11 11.03.2010

Orders of Appellate Authority

HRM/DPC/671/2009-10 dated

11.03.2013

Ex.W12 27.09.2010

IBEA/GEN/19/2010-13 dated

27.09.10 – Letter from the Union

to ALC, Chennai raising an

Industrial Dispute

Ex.W13 24.10.014

Reply letter by IBEA (TN) to

Indian Bank, Zonal Office letter

dated 28.02.2011

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

Know Your Customer – KYC

guidelines extract of manual – 2006

– at page nos. 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 –

clause 2.4.1 to 2.4.5 and 2.5

Ex.M2

Extract – Procedure how to debit

a transaction by ledger workman

at pages 4.19, 4.20, 4.21, 4.22 and

4.23 – at clauses 18 to 23

Ex.M3

Extract – operational guidelines of

low income groups – pages 1.18

and 1.19 – clause 15

Ex.M4

Procedure for inoperative and

scarcely operated account – page

4.45 – clause no. 35

Ex.M5

Extract – Managers manual

2006 – page nos. 292 & 293 – Risk

Based Management

Ex.M6

29.07.2008

Charge Sheet issued to V.

Balakrishnan CO/VLR/VIG/F311/

368/2008 by Bank

Ex.M7

17.09.2008

Proceedings of enquiry on the

14.10.2008

charge sheet dated 29.07.2008

Ex.M8

31.01.2009

Findings of Enquiry Officer –

under cover of letter of DA dated

12.02.2009 on charge sheet dated

29.07.2008

Ex.M9

12.03.2009

Comments of Balakrishnan on the

findings of the Enquiry Officer

Ex.M10 15.04.2009

Second Show Cause Notice issued

to Balakrishnan – proposing

punishment and offering personal

hearing

Ex.M11 20.04.2009

Proceedings of personal hearing

on 20.04.2009

Ex.M12 22.04.2009

Order of Disciplinary Authority

Ex.M13 28.05.2009

Appeal of Balakrishnan

Ex.M14 28.02.2011

Counter Statement of Respondent

Bank filed before ALC ©, Chennai.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 301-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ehBs ikuh esa

tyh; Ñf"k ds dsUæh; laLFkku ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 25@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@3@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2015

S.O. 301.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 25/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Central Institute of

Freshwater Aquaculture and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 12/02/2015.

[No. L-42025/3/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri Pradeep Kumar, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE MISC. CASE NO. 25/2014

Date of Passing Order – 29th day of January, 2015

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

847

Between :

Shri Sarat Chandra Khuntia,

S/o Batakrushna Khuntia,

General Secretary,

Central Fisheries Research

Employees Association,

Kausalyaganga, Bhubaneswar

Odisha

...Applicant

(And)

The Director,

Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture,

Kausalyaganga, Bhubaneswar-2

...Opposite Party

Appearances:

1. Shri S. C. Khuntia

…

For the applicant

himself

2. Shri Indramani Muduli

…

For the Opp. Party

Asst. Administrative Officer

ORDER

This Misc. Case is filed by the applicant under

Section 33-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 alleging

therewith that the opposite party management have done

illegality in imposing upon him the punishment of

compulsory retirement during pendency of one ID Case

No. 9 of 2009 before the Tribunal involving the applicant.

The matter is registered as Misc. Case and necessary

judicial proceedings were undertaken as per law. The date

is fixed for recording of evidence from the side of the

applicant. On perusal of the record, it is found that the

original case bearing ID Case No. 9 of 2009 has already

been disposed with the passing of award with an

observation that the matter as referred to this Tribunal by

the Government for adjudication vide their order No. L-

42011/4/2006 -IR(DU), dated 13.02.2009 cannot be

adjudicated as the same is not coming within meaning of

Section 2(k) as an Industrial Dispute under the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, the reference was

returned to the Ministry unanswered.

Since, the matter of ID Case No. 9 of 2009 was not an

industrial dispute as defined in Section 2(k) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, the opposite party management has

rightly taken the decision of imposing the punishment of

compulsory retirement in the light of the findings of the

Disciplinary Proceedings conducted against the applicant.

Thus, the Opposite Party Management has not done any

illegality on it’s action against the applicant as alleged by

the applicant.

In view of the above observations, the Misc. Case

is dismissed as not maintainable.

PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 302-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad uksV izSl

nsokl ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@82@92) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 12@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&16011@3@84&Mh&II (ch)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2015

S.O. 302.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/

LC/R/82/92) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Bank Note

Press, Dewas and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 12/02/2015.

[No. L-16011/3/84-D-II (B)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/82/92

General Secretary,

Bank Note Mundranalaya

Shramik Sangh,

Bank Note Press,

Dewas (MP)

General Secretary,

Bank Note Press Control

Staff Association,

Dewas (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

Bank Note Press,

Dewas (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 4th day of December, 2014

As per letter dated 1-5-92 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-16011/

3/84-D-II(B). The dispute under reference relates to:

848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“ Whether the demand of workmen represented by

the Bank Note Press Control Staff Association of

the Bank Note Press, Dewas for grant of incentive

bonus @ Rs.100% like unclassified workers is

justified? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled

and from which date?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party Bank Note Press Control Staff

Association, Dewas submitted statement of claim at Page

7/1 to 7/11. Case of Ist party workman is that dispute relates

to grant of incentive to Inspectors Control, assistant

Inspectors control. Dy. Technical Officers, Dy. Works

Engineers, Store Keepers, Assistant Store Keepers,

Canteen Manager and Canteen supervisor. That Bank Note

Press Dewas is a factory registered under Factory Act. It

is engaged mainly in printing of Bank Notes, these Notes

are supplied to RBI. It is doing commercial business and

earning profits. And declared as commercial undertaking.

For purpose of printing and processing, there are

various sections such as control, printing, stores,

workshop, Ink Factory, canteen and office etc. the

employees are required to work overtime to meet the rising

demand of the Reserve Bank of India. That for purpose of

production, each department is complimentary to each

other and the total contribution of all the employees results

in production. The workman in the factory contribute to

the totality of the production. To achieve more production,

Group Incentive scheme was introduced from 1-9-77. It

was amended time to time. Para-3 of the scheme covers all

Industrial and such classified staff upto the level of

Inspectors, Dy.Technical officers, Dy.Works Engineers,

Store Keepers and Canteen Manager . Para 4(5) of the

said scheme classifies Inspector Controls, Assistant

Inspector control, Dy.Technical Officers, Dy.Works

Engineers, Store keepers, Assistant Store Keepers, canteen

Managers as supervisors. The distinction between worker

to worker in the factor on the basis of classified and

unclassified is unjustified. The classified workers of shop

floor of the factory were separated from other unclassified

workers by incentive scheme. The incentive was fixed 50%

to classified works of the unclassified workers. It was

revised to 76 % in 1983. That contribution to the provision

of classified workers is equal to unclassified workers.

Unclassified workers were paid 100 % incentive. Ist party

workmen has exhaustively given duties of Junior Checker

( Machine Checker) posted on intaglio machine. He has

to accompany lots of sheets twice a day duly counted by

other workers , from the vault to the machine and vice-

versa. Till paper is in running condition on machine, he

has to be on machine or with the paper. His main duty is to

be present on machine all time till machine is in running

condition as Security Paper is there. The duties of Cage

Checker are to deposit or issue lots of sheets to or from

the vault of his posting, (ii) to keep records of all the

sheets put in his vault, (iii) to supervise the work of other

workers put in his vault, (iv) to be present all the time till

his vault is open. Duties of Cage Checker has been

classified as direct worker of control under incentive

scheme whereas I.C/A.I.C are classified as supervisors.

Duties of Sr.Checker are to act as a link between other

checker on same tables, to have watch on working of on

his set only and to be responsible for the entire set to his

superiors. It is purely a supervisor job classified as direct

worker. Para 4(b)(i) of the Group Incentive Scheme effective

from 1-9-77. Sr. Checker is getting full incentive.

The duty of Head checker is to take muster of all

employees working in a section. Besides above, he has to

perform other duties to attend cutting of Rs.100/- in

Guillotine Section, to attend search of trimmings of sheets

in F.E.I to attend partly bad exam in F.E.II or F.E.IV to

attend counting of sheets in pre-conditioning, to attend

counting of spoiled and punched notes etc. the duties of

Junior checker are about adjustment of work allotted to

others on his table, to attend counting of sheets by

removal methods, to keep records of work done by others

etc. the duties of I.C/A.I.C are just similar to junior checker

posted on machine or on table, senior checker posted on

table, Cage checker and Head Checker. He has to be

present all the times inside the section till section is open

like the junior checker on machine or like cage checker.I.C/

A.I.C are also eligible to get full benefit at par with the

workers. I.C/A.I.C are said to be direct workers. Indirect

works means workers in service department such as work

shop, timeoffice and stores. IC/AIC cannot be deemed to

be indirect workers. That functions of control department

include storing of notes in strong room, packing of notes

in the form of bundles, dispatch of notes to various RBI

centres, keeping of records properly for security and

safety of notes, and reconciliation. There are some of the

very important jobs in control, IC/AIC perform all the above

jobs manually. The duties of IC/AIC are to pickup keys to

open sectional door, top operate vault keys now and then,

to check physically the whole section by going round the

machine and/ or tables etc. to check both the numbers of

each note of every first sheet at the time of change of run

or change of denomination on numerota machines. The

clerical work relates to day to day accounts of sheets/

notes. To process leave and allied applications. To keep

records of various day to day works, to write various gate

passes for movement of men/material etc. the supervisory

work is to check various registers, maintained by other

workers, to attend cutting of Rs.100/-, to attend search of

boxes, to attend arranging of bundles , to attend

weighment of packed cases.

It is submitted that classified canteen workers were

kept in indirect category and 25 % incentive was paid to

them. Later on canteen workers converted from classified

to unclassified by Govt. 100 % incentive paid to them. The

classified category was also not covered by Factory Act

for payment of overtime allowance. As per award passed

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

849

in Case No. C/135/85 & 158/85 by this Tribunal and

confirmed by High court and Supreme Court overtime

allowance was paid to unclassified workers also.

Ist party further submits that Inspector Control,

Dy.Technical Officer, Store Officer, Dy.Works Engineers

were paid OTA as per section 59 of Factories Act. That as

a result of Incentive Scheme production is increase. The

increased production generated more physical work and

mental labour. It was due to the method and system of

working and actual process of production. Management

is paying 100 % incentive to workers who are on Casual

Leave, go out of factory for purchasing, going on tour

even who are time officer, canteen staff. 100 % incentive

allowance is also paid to operator of an automatic,

electronic and computerized machine. 100 % incentive is

paid to Head checker, Table checker, Sr. Checker, Jr, checker

posted on machine. When they are directly denying

incentive allowance to IC/AIC.

It is submitted that in security Paper Mill

Hoshangabad , the incentive is paid at Identical rates to

every employee. There is no differentiation adopted in

SPM for paying incentive to different class of employees

the duty hours and service conditions of employees

working in Bank Note Press Dewas and SPM are identical.

Only different formulas are adopted in both the concerns

so far as the payment of incentive is concerned. The

criteria fixed for calculation of payment of incentive is not

at all justified just because of the designation of any post.

On such ground, Ist party prays that management of IInd

party be directed to pay 100 % incentive bonus from 1977

to all categories of workers who are paid 76 % incentive

allowance.

IInd party submitted Written Statement at 10/1 to

10/18 opposing claim of Ist party. IInd party submits that

Bank Note Press is a departmental undertaking controlled

by Ministry of Finance, Deptt. Of Economic Affairs and is

engaged in printing of Bank Notes of Rs.50, 100 & 500/-

denominations supplied to RBI. The Press has different

wings such as Printing, control, platemaking, stores,

workshop, ink factory etc. with a view to increase the

production of notes, the Press started working one hour

extra w.e.f. 14-3-75 and purely adhoc incentive scheme

was introduced. The rate of remuneration was payable at

different rates from Rs.30 to 70 to the industrial workers

and @ 10 % of their emoluments to the supervisory staff

and Class IV of shopfloor and for staff @ 5 % of their

emoluments. The officers were paid upto Rs.1100-1600

honorarium of 10 % of pay limited to Rs.100/- per month.

Before introducing the said scheme, a study team

M/s. IBCON Pvt. Ltd. was engaged to carry out the work

study and formulate a group Incentive Scheme vide Govt

of India, Ministry of finance order dated 30-6-75. The report

was submitted in January 1976. The govt. accepted their

recommendations to the extent and subject to the

conditions laid down in order dated 29-8-77 of Defence

Ministry. The scheme was implemented from 1-9-77. It

was effectively implemented from January 78 after its

acceptance by two Unions- Bank Note Press Karmchari

sangh and Bank Note Press karmchari Parishad. The

scheme was to boost the existing level of production and

to help the workers to earn additional monetary benefits

and to decrease absenteeism amongst the workers. To

meet further demand of the notes, the Press started working

3 hours overtime in two shifts.

10.

It is submitted that scheme is primarily meant for

industrial employees and for supervisory staff who are

observing the same working hours and holidays as in

Factory and whose presence is necessary for efficient

working of the industrial employees . the scheme doesnot

cover the officers, office staff and the staff engaged in

Estate, Dispensary and Canteen. Subsequently on

repeated representations, the above categories of staff

and officers are also included under the Scheme for getting

incentive 25 % subject to terms and conditions laid down

in amendment dated 1-2-83. The officers are getting special

allowance in lieu of incentive @ Rs. 300 to the shop officers

and Rs.200 to the other officers. Group Incentive Scheme

has categorized the eligibility. That Direct Industrial

Workers of the Printing, control departments and Ink

Factory, essential indirect workers of the workshop, stores,

supervisory staff on the shopfloor, non-essential indirect

workers of the dispensary, hospital, estate and office,

officers whose wages donot exceed Rs. 1600/- per month.

The admissibility of rates of incentive to the supervisory

staff in Printing, Control, Ink factory workshop and stores

upto the level of store keeper is 76 % of the rate of incentive

earned by the Industrial workers of the respective

departments.

11.

It is submitted that subsequently canteen employees

are brought within the purview of Incentive scheme in as

much as provisions of canteen facility is statutory

requirement under the Factories Act and Canteen

employees are catering to the needs of factory and their

area of function covers throughout the factory. The

canteen employees have also been declared as essential

indirect workers for the purpose of incentive scheme as

per order dated 5-3-87 & 17-5-88 of Ministry of Finance. It

is submitted that M/S IBCON conducted study for

implementing the Group Incentive Scheme. The scheme

itself provides categorization at different levels for getting

incentive according to the contribution of each category

of employees. The duties and responsibilities of the

petitioners are mainly of supervisory nature. They

recommend leave, hold charge of the section, initiate

disciplinary action against the employees, arrange to issue

gate passes, a discipline, to keep the section clean and

tidy, to allot the work of his subordinates to write the

850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

confidential reports of the workers etc. These duties

cannot be compared with the workers who perform their

work manually and directly involved in production. That

Ist party workers tried to compare with the Incentive

scheme prevailing in SPM, Hoshangabad. That both the

units are entirely different and cannot be compared with

each other. SPM is engaged in manufacturing of paper,

Bank Note Press, Dewas is engaged inn printing of bank

notes. The incentive scheme applicable to both the units

are entirely different and cannot be compared with each

other. That in judgment passed by Honble CAT, Jabalpur

in Case No. TA 116/86 dated 13-2-91 disallowed claim of

inventive to the officers of BNP, Dewas at par with

workman irrespective of offices working in shop floor etc.

it is submitted that it was held that in all Public Sector

undertakings under the Central Govt., there is a cut off

pay limit in regard to the officers, supervisory staff, non-

gazetted supervisory staff .

12.

IInd party submits that in its statement of claim, Ist

party has referred to demand for 100 % incentive bonus

to its member who are employees of BNP is not as per

terms if reference made by Govt. the terms of reference

relates to the demand for grant of incentive bonus 100 %

like unclassified workers is justified. IInd party denies

that Bank Note Press is engaged in commercial activities.

That profit is not object of BNP. IInd party is engaged in

sovereign functions of printing notes. The object of Press

is very specific and not like other commercial departments

earning profits in open market. It is admitted that for

meeting demands of the notes, the Press is working on

overtime basis and the workmen engaged in production

are paid extra wages as per Factory Act. Ist party workers

are included in Para 6(a)(3) of the Group Incentive scheme

under the supervisory staff on the shopfloor and they are

entitled for 76 % of the rate of incentive earned by industrial

workmen of respective departments. It is submitted that

classification of workman supervisory staff, officers and

office staff is carefully done at the time of creation of the

posts in the organization according to the nature of work

performed by them. Incentive scheme was studied by team

of M/s. IBCON and recommended Group Incentive scheme.

It was accepted by Govt. and implemented from 1-9-77.

That initially Govt. accepted payment of 50 % incentive to

supervisory staff. From 11-12-83, it was increased to 76 %.

13.

IInd party submits that there are 297 junior checkers

posted at various sections covered under Group Insurance

scheme as direct workers. Ist party workman are covered

under the Group Incentive Scheme as direct workers

whereas the petitioners are all supervisors whose nature

of duties are entirely different to that of Junior checkers.

Hence there cannot be any scope for comparison with the

junior checkers. That the workmen are trying to mislead

the Hon’ble Tribunal by detailing the duties of Senior

checker who are unclassified industrial workers treated as

direct workers for the purpose of incentive under Group

Incentive scheme. There are about 73 senior checkers in

control department and they are posted in different

sections. The workmen are trying to mislead the Tribunal

by comparing the duties of Head checkers with the

workmen. There are 26 Head checkers performing duties

in different sections and the post of Head Checker being

the highest in the cadre of unclassified industrial workers,

they have to take care of all duties in guiding the workers

and assisting the Assistant Inspectors(Control)/

Inspectors(Control). In Group Incentive scheme, the Head

Checkers who are unclassified industrial workers are

treated as direct workers for the purpose of incentive

scheme. In Group Incentive Scheme studied by expert body

i.e. IBCON, the junior checkers have been correctly

included as direct workers looking to their nature of duties.

There are different categories decided for purpose of

incentive for example the Gazetted Officers were not

included in the Group Incentive Scheme. Subsequently

they were included and getting Rs. 300/- to shop floor and

Rs. 200/- to other officers by way of special allowance.

The IC/AIC who are supervising industrial workers cannot

be equated with the workers as the duties of the Inspectors

(control) and Assistant Inspectors (Control) are to

supervise and extracting the work from them. In the said

scheme, the supervisors are allowed 76 %of the incentive

earned by the workers of respective sections and officers

who are doing the supervision and managerial functions

are at present getting fixed amount of Rs.300 to shopfloor

Gazzetted Officers and Rs.200 to other officers whose total

emoluments exceeds Rs. 2500 w.e.f. 1-10-86.. the office

staff, dispensary and Estate staff who are not connected

with the production have also been excluded though based

on various representations , the Govt. have considered

25% of the weighted average of the rate of incentive of

direct workers of the Printing and Control Departments

and Ink Factory. The rate of incentive payment is fixed

76%. That in each and every section of the Press though

there are supervisors but their duties are different

according to the nature of work and therefore the duties

of the other sections cannot be compared with other

sections. The canteen workers were previously in Group

D category and accordingly were treated as non-essential

indirect workers and thus paid 25% of the direct workers

as of office staff. Considering nature of work of the

canteen, the Govt. of India vide letter dated 13-11-86 have

re-categorised the canteen employees as industrial workers

and accordingly for the purpose of incentive scheme these

employees were treated at par with other industrial workers

and were included as Essential Indirect workers. All other

contentions of Ist party workmen are denied by IInd party

as misleading. The CGIT order followed by judgment of

High Court was only for overtime allowance at double the

rate and not under Section 59 of Factories Act. That for

each category of workers, staff, different duties and

responsibilities are attached and only when they perform

their respective duties and responsibilities is, the targeted

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

851

production can be achieved for which wages, overtime

and incentive is paid according to the Group Incentive

Scheme. The payment of incentive on Casual Leave and

to time office staff is in accordance with the Incentive

scheme accepted by the two Unions. That SPM

Hoshangabad is a separate unit for manufacturing process.

Bank Note Press prints Bank notes. Said position was

upheld in TA/116/86 by CAT Jabalpur. On all such

contentions, IInd party prays that reference be answered

in favour of management.

14.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the demand of workmen

In Affirmative

represented by the Bank Note

Press Control Staff Association

of the Bank Note Press, Dewas

for grant of incentive bonus @

Rs.100% like unclassified

workers is justified.

(ii) If yes, to what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

orders.

REASONS

15.

The terms of reference pertains to demand of Bank

Note Press Control Staff Association of BNP for grant of

incentive bonus 100 % like unclassified workman. The list

of workmen is not received along with order of reference.

If affidavit of evidence of Shri A.B.Malviya, names of the

workers are given IC Sl.No.1 to 37, AIC- Sl.No. 1 to 14,

DTOs 41 to 61, Jr. Artist- Sl.No.62. DTO- 63 to 71,

storekeeper Sl.No.72, ASK Sl.No.73, 74, Canteen manager,

Canteen Supervisor 75, 76, DWE 77 to 92, DTO 93 to 94

and ASK DWE, BIK, BWE, DTO- 76 to 101. The workmen

working at DTO Junior Artist Store keeper, canteen

supervisor, BWE, ASK, BIK, DTO appears not employees

working in control section. The Ist party union also filed

affidavit of witness Shri P.K.Srinivasan giving name of all

those workers appears beyond the terms of reference. The

affidavit of evidence filed by both the witnesses have

narrated in detail about duties of junior checker. Inspector

Control, Assistant Inspector Control, manual duties, clerical

work, supervisory work, comparing the duties with junior

checker etc.In his cross-examination, Shri A.B.Malviya

says Group Incentive Scheme is implemented from 1-9-77.

Said scheme was implemented as per recommendations/

report submitted by M/S IBCON. As per said scheme,

workers were classified in different categories as per their

duties. Documents R-9 to 15 & 16 were produced on request

of the Union. This witness says his duties are to write

CRs, preparing gate passes on the applications. When he

enters the factory, his personal search is not carried. His

evidence about the duties of IC/AIC, Jr. checkers and

other categories of employees. Shri P.K.Srivastava in his

cross-examination says BNP has service manual. It was

not shown to the workers. He never demanded Bank Note

Press service Manual. He had not raised any objection to

the service manual. It was not shown to the workers. He

never demanded BNP Service Manual. He had not raised

any objection to the service manual. In Para-11 of his

affidavit, distribution of duties written by him as per his

experience. He denies that his affidavit of evidence is

prepared by his Advocate and he only signed on it. He

admits that SPM Hoshangabad and BNP Dewas are

different establishment. That supervisor is not working

on machine. The workers are working under him.

16.

Documents produced with list Page 14 related to

duties. The responsibilities of Head Checkers, Cage

Checkers, Sr. Checkers Grade I, Sr. Checker Grade II, Jur.

Checkers on machine duties of examiners duties of

counters are produced.

17.

To be precise, introduction of Group Incentive

scheme from 1-9-77 is not in dispute. Copy of the scheme

is produced at Page 10.24 to 10/31. In para 6(a) of Group

Incentive Scheme as categorized direct workers incentive

for control department was prescribed 60 %, 40 %, 60 % of

basic pay. The workers in essential direct workers workshop

incentive is prescribed 80 % for supervisory staff 50 %

etc. in cross-examination of the witness of Ist party, no

question is asked to the witness with regard to the incentive

prescribed under Group Incentive Scheme.

18.

IInd party filed affidavit of evidence Shri S.k.Mathur

and T.Ankey. they were not produced for cross-

examination. Management’s witness Shri D.L.Damor filed

affidavit of his evidence supporting whole contentions of

IInd party, he was also not produced for cross-examination.

Shri H.S.Kalota supported contentions of management in

affidavit of his evidence justified payment of incentive at

different rates considering categorization of the workers.

The witness of the management in his cross-examination

says that his affidavit is prepared as per his present

information. The contents of Para 5,11,13,15 are based on

record. he had seen Group Incentive Scheme. In 1977, there

was a settlement with the Unions. He had seen that

settlement. Sais settlement was arrived for increase in

production. The documents he saw are not produced on

record. he had not participated in settlement of 1977. After

said settlement, there were amendments time to time. He

did not recollect the dates of amendments. He claims

ignorance whether those amendments were produced on

record. he joined service on 2-2-1980 as Junior Machine

Assistant. He received benefit of incentive scheme till

1994. In December 1994, after selection by UPSC, he joined

Class I post. Thereafter he was not receiving incentive.

Before preparing his affidavit, he had not seen statement

of claim or Written Statement filed by the parties. That

BNP is commercial based because RBI values the note.

He was unable to tell whether the Press was working

profit and loss.

852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

19.

In his further cross-examination, management’s

witness says he knows the employees working in different

sections. The employees concerned with the dispute are

working in workshop, printing control. Workmen are

categorized as direct, indirect employees supervising the

work. The production involves team work of all sections.

The Inspector Dy.Technical Officer, Dy.Works Engineer,

store keeper, Canteen Manager treated as indirect workers.

He also agrees that indirect workers are not working. The

witness had denied that there is fix quota of work of junior

checker. He had also denied that duties of junior checker,

IC/AIC are similar.

20.

Management’s witness Shri K.K.Pandit filed

affidavit of his evidence giving details of working in BNP

involves various process that to boost production and to

help workers on Additional Monetary benefits Group

Incentive Scheme was introduced from 1-9-77. He has

carefully gone through the files related to claim of Ist party

for incentive payment. He had also gone through the

contentions of Written Statement of IInd party. That CGIT

Hyderabad in Award dated 28-12-98 in Case No. 35/96 held

Group C staff are not workman. Above witness of

management Shri K.K.Pandit has denied claim of Ist party

workers for 100 % incentive under Group Incentive Scheme.

21.

In his cross-examination, Shri K.K.Pandit says he

did not work in factory at any time. All the time he was

working in administrative office. Para 1 to 4 of his affidavit

are based on personal knowledge, rest on office record.

the documents referred in his affidavit are produced along

with Written Statement. That categorization of employees

direct, essential, indirect, non-essential was made as per

report of IBCON Committee as to time, motion of machines.

He admits that there was no participants of workman in

study report. Employees working in office were not referred

to IBCON Committee. However working in administrative

office upto supervisor are getting benefits of Group

Incentive Scheme. He was getting benefit of Group

Incentive Scheme. He was getting till he was working in

surplus category. In para17 of his cross, the witness says

canteen employees were in non-essential indirect staff and

getting benefit of incentive scheme from 1986 onwards.

He was unable to tell its exact percentage of incentive

paid to them. The staff working in dispensary are covered

in non-essential individual category. They are getting

benefit of incentive from 1986 onwards. Witness was unable

to tell the exact percentage. The staff working in said office

are covered in non-essential indirect category. They are

getting benefit of incentive 25 % from 1982. Staff working

in print control covered in essential direct category are

getting 100 % incentive. Staff getting in workshop, store

are covered in essential indirect category are getting 80 %

incentive. Witness admits reference 69/90 filed by the

association. The award was passed by this Tribunal. Said

award was confirmed by High Court and Supreme Court.

He admits that target provisions can be achieved if staff

work properly. He denies that they are getting in indirect

category. Witness admits unclassified staff were paid 50

% incentive. It was increased to 76 % in 1983. The witness

denies that for purpose of production, non-classified staff

are similar. Duties of supervisor staff are given in Para 11

of affidavit of Shri P.K.Srivastava are correct. They are not

doing manual work. The witness also did not agree that

unclassified workers are kept in direct category workers.

Factory Act applies to Bank Note Press. Employees

availing CL are paid 100 % incentive . Checker, Sr. Checker

were direct workers. He denies that IC/AIC are paid 100 %

incentive. All supervisory staff are paid 75 % incentive.

Copy of award in R/67/89 is produced at Exhibit W-1.

22.

The reference in said award was whether the demand

of workman working in BNP Dewas and represented by

Bank Note Mudranayala Shramik Sangh and Bank Note

Press office staff association for grant of incentive to office

canteen, dispensary and staff under Group Incentive

Scheme at par with retrospective effect from 1-9-77 is

effective. The reference was answered in favour of the

Union. Para-16 of the award finds- Union had proved that

there is arbitrary discrimination in respect of payment of

bonus to employees working in office in dispensary and

canteen. Management could not justify the non-payment

of bonus from section to staff on 1-1-78. Award is given in

favour of Union. The employees of BNP working in office

dispensary , staff canteen to the full benefit of Group

Incentive Scheme annexure A from 1-1-78 onwards. All the

arrears be paid to staff in 3 months from time of publication

of award. It is clear from award that the employees working

in office , dispensary and canteen were allowed full benefit

of incentive observing that the management had

discriminated them and said award was challenged by

management filing Writ petition 111/00. His Lordship whole

judgment dated 20-6-05 decided the matter. In ipara-21 of

the judgment, his Lordship reproduced ratio in case of

Union of India versus Chaju Ram reported in 2003(5) 568-

“ it is now well settled that a decision is an authority for

what it decides and not what can logically be deducted

there from. It is equally well settled that a little difference

in facts or additional facts may lead to a different

conclusion.” In Para 22 of the judgment their Lordship

held that the employees represented by Union working in

Estate, office staff and dispensary would be entitled to

the incentive bonus at par with canteen employees and

from the same date w.e.f. 1-11-86 and not from the initial

date of introduction of scheme. Said judgment was

challenged filing Writ Appeal No. 24/06 by Bank Note

press Staff Association. Said writ appeal was decided by

Lordship of the Division Bench. Their Lordship held we

are inclined to grant interest at the rate of 6 % per annum

for a period of three years on the accrued incentive bonus

as that would sub serve the cause of justice. To be precise,

the award was maintained in Writ Petition and in writ

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

853

appeal. The matter was also challenged by Special Leave

appeal which was dismissed by the Apex Court vide

judgment dated 17-2-90.

23.

As per judgment in R/67/89, the employees working

in state office, canteen etc are allowed full incentive

allowance working in those section were illegally

discriminated. The evidence discussed above shows that

IC/AIC are performing duties of supervisory working to

the workman involved in production. Their claim for

incentive allowance equal to the workers involved in

production appears well founded. Those employees

cannot be discriminated.

24.

Learned counsel for IInd party Shri Salunke

submitted written notes of arguments emphasizing that

the incentive scheme was introduced after study report

submitted by IBCON that the employees were categorized

considering nature of duties. In support of his argument,

counsel for IInd party relies on ratio held in

“Case of MP rural Agriculture Extension Officers

Association versus State of MP and another reported

in 2004STPL(LE)33162 SC. In Para 15, their Lordship

observed Article 14 forbids class legislation but

permits reasonable classification subject to the

conditions that it is based on an intelligible

differential and that the differentia must have a

rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.”

Ratio cannot be applied to present case as award

passed in R/67/89 Exhibit W-1 was allowing full incentive

allowance to employees has been confirmed.

25.

Management’ s witness Shri k.K.pandit in his cross-

examination says that employees of BNP were not

involved in study report submitted. Further reliance is

placed on ratio held in

Case of FCI and others versus Bhartiyia Khadya

Nigam Karmchari Sangh reported in 2012STPL (LE)

46064 SC their Lordship held the classification

adopted by the FCI is between an employee

obtaining a higher qualification after joining service

and an employee who already possess such

qualification before joining the service. As aforesaid,

the main purpose of this classification is to grant an

incentive to the employees already in service in FCI

to motivate them to acquire higher qualifications for

their own benefits.

The facts are not comparable to the present case

and the ratio cannot be applied to present case.

Next reliance is placed on State of Kerala and

another versus Naveena Prabhu and others reported

in 2009STPL(LE)41630 . Their Lordship dealing with

judicial review of policy decision by State Govt.

with regard to introduction of direct payment system

to the staff of Medical college and excluding the

staff of the hospital attached to the college not

challenged by staff of hospital.

The facts of present case are not comparable with

facts of above cited case. The ratio cannot be applied. For

the same reasons, ratio held in case of Ekta Shakti

foundation versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi cannot be applied

to case at hand.

26.

In view of award in R/67/89 Exhibit W-1 is confirmed

and 6 % interest is also awarded on the amount of incentive

claimed by employees in office staff canteen etc. I find no

reason to take different view. For above reasons, I record

my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

27.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The demand of workmen represented by the Bank

Note Press Control Staff Association of the Bank

Note Press, Dewas for grant of incentive bonus @

Rs.100% like unclassified workers is proper and legal

only for IC, AIC control staff.

(2)

The employees working in control section of BNP

IC/AIC shown at Sl.No. 1 to 37 and 1 to 40 in

affidavit of witness A.B.Malviya are entitled to 100%

incentive from date of order of reference i.e. 1-5-92

and allowance as per Group Incentive Scheme. Claim

of other employees shown in his affidavit is beyond

the terms of reference hence rejected.

IInd party is directed to pay the amount of incentive

allowance to those employees within 30 days from the

date of publication of award. In case of default, amount

shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award

till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 303-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Jh jaxfoykl

ft¯ux fLi¯ux ,oa oh¯ox feYl] dksbEcVksj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 49 ,oa 50@2013) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@211@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42011@212@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2015

S.O. 303.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 49 &

50/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure

854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Sri Rangavilas Ginning Spinning

and Weaving Mills, Coimbatore and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 12/02/2015.

[No. L-42011/211/2012-IR(DU),

No. L-42011/212/2012-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 23rd January, 2015

Present :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 49 and 50/2013

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10

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

the Managements of Sri Rangavilas Ginning Spinning and

Weaving Mills and their workman)

BETWEEN

The Secretary

: 1st Party/Petitioner Union

Coimbatore Erode

District Dravida Panchalai

Thozhilalar Munnetra

Sangam (MLF)

V.K.K. Menon Road

Sidhdhapudur

Coimbatore-641044

AND

Sri Rangavilas Ginning

: 2nd Party/Respondent

Spinning & Weaving Mills

333, Avinashi Road,

PO Box No. 1604

Peelamedu (Post)

Coimbatore-4

I.D. No.

Reference No.

Name of the I Party

Name of the II Party

Appearance for

No.

& Date

S/Sri

Workman

Respondent

49/2013

L-42011/211/2012-

The Secretary, Coimbatore M/s Rangavilas Ginning

M/s Ramapriya

M/s T.S. Gopalan

IR (DU)

Erode District Dravida

Spinning and Weaving

Gopalakrishnan

& Co.

dated 15.04.2013

Panchalai Thozhilalar

Mills, 333, Avinashi

Munnetra Sangam

Road, PO Box No. 1604,

(MLF), VKK Menon

Peelamedu (Post),

Road, Sidhdhapudur,

Coimbatore-4

Coimbatore-641044

50/2013

L-42011/212/2012-

The Secretary, Coimbatore M/s Rangavilas Ginning

M/s Ramapriya

M/s T.S. Gopalan

IR (DU)

Erode District Dravida

Spinning and Weaving

Gopalakrishnan

& Co.

dated 15.04.2013

Panchalai Thozhilalar

Mills, 333, Avinashi

Munnetra Sangam

Road, PO Box No. 1604,

(MLF), VKK Menon

Peelamedu (Post),

Road, Sidhdhapudur,

Coimbatore-4

Coimbatore-641044

COMMON AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide the above order of references referred

the IDs to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in the orders of reference

in the above IDs are as under:

ID 49/2013

“Whether the action of the management of Sri

Rangavilas Ginning Spinning and Weaving Mills,

Coimbatore in respect of not holding discussions

with petitioner unions viz. MLF, AITUC, ATP, HMS

and BMS for workload settlement is justified or not?

To what relief the petitioners unions are entitled to?”

ID 50/2013

“Whether the action of the management of Sri

Rangavilas Ginning Spinning and Weaving Mills,

Coimbatore in respect of not holding discussions

with petitioners unions viz. MLF, AITUC, ATP, HMS

and BMS for engaging workman workers during

third shift and introducing Contract Labour System

in the permanent vacancies is justified or not? To

what relief the petitioners union are entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 49 and 50 of 2013 and issued notice

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

855

to both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their

counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement

respectively.

Though there are several petitioners in the order of

reference only one of them filed Claim Statement in both

IDs.

The averments in the Claim Statement in ID 49/2013

are as below:

The Petitioner Union has large membership of Textile

Workers in Coimbatore District. Earlier the textile mills in

Coimbatore were mainly owned by private employers. They

were taken over by the National Textile Corporation after

they have become sick due to mismanagement. The

Respondent is one of the Mills taken over by the National

Textile Corporation. The issue of recognition of Trade

Unions operating in the National Textile Corporation came

up for consideration of the High Court of Madras in Writ

Petition No. 1440/2010. The Hon’ble High Court ordered

that recognition shall be decided through a secret ballot.

It was further directed that the unions which secure

minimum 10% votes in the secret ballot are to be recognized.

The secret ballot was held on 18.12.2010 and the petitioner

and other unions named in the order of reference

collectively secured 40.99% of the votes in the Respondent

Company. The petitioner has the second largest

membership in the Company. The union by name LPF which

has a membership of 160 workers in the Respondent

institution was called for negotiation in respect of the

workload issue. So also INTUC which has a membership

of only 6 also was called for negotiation. However, the

Petitioner Union which has a larger membership was not

invited for discussion. As per the judgment of the High

Court recognition is to be granted at the unit level and not

at the industry level. If a Union has secured minimum 10%

votes in a particular mill it should be granted recognition

in that particular mill. On the other hand if a union has

secured 10% of the overall votes but has not secured

minimum 10% votes in a particular mill it should not be

granted recognition in that mill where it has failed to secure

minimum 10% votes. If recognition was granted at the unit

level on the basis of the order of the High Court the

petitioner should have been recognized and should have

been called for discussion in respect of any issue

concerning the workers of the Respondent institution. In

fact, in the past, recognition has been accorded at the unit

level all along. In 2011 recognition was accorded at the

industry level or centralized level and not at the unit level.

This is arbitrary and unjust. Based on the discussions

with a minority unions like INTUC Union the Respondent

Management entered into a settlement under Section-18(1)

of the Industrial Disputes Act on 15.08.2012. That

settlement is not binding on non-signatory unions. The

settlement was subsequently taken up for conversion as

a settlement under Section-12(3) of the Industrial Disputes

Act and such a settlement was entered on 04.09.2012. The

settlement was brought before the conciliation Officer only

for the purpose of converting it as settlement under

Section-12(3) of the Act. The work load under settlement

dated 04.09.2012 is very high. The workers are finding it

difficult to meet the targets assigned to them to achieve

the high workload. An order may be passed holding that

the action of National Textile Mills Management, Southern

Region in not inviting the petitioner for discussion in

respect of workload settlement concerning the workers of

the Respondent mill is unjustified and that the petitioner

is entitled to reference of the dispute raised by it in respect

of workload for adjudication.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The Respondent is one of the 7 mills in Tamil Nadu

under the control of Southern Regional Office, National

Textile Corporation, Coimbatore. On 02.09.2010 the Madras

High Court has disposed of Writ Petitions 1440 and 5030

of 2010 holding that existing 10% membership for selecting

the negotiating unions form among the recognized unions

can be maintained, but any union commanding more than

10% membership may be given one more representative

for every 10% extra membership. It directed the National

Textile Corporation, Southern Regional Office, to conduct

an election covering all the 7 mills in Tamil Nadu. Election

was held on 18.12.2010 and four unions viz. LPF, NDLF,

CITU and INTUC secured more than 10% membership

and they were to be bargaining agents of the workmen at

the unit level and Regional level for the next three years.

The Respondent had discussions with the above unions

on the proposal for revision of work norms. An

understanding was reached revising the work norms and

minutes was prepared. However, some of the Unions

declined to sign a settlement. On 15.08.2012 settlement

was concluded with LPF and INTUC giving substantial

monetary increase in consideration of the commitment of

the workmen for higher norms. In order to make the

settlement binding on all the workmen the Respondent

sought the intervention of the Conciliation Officer.

Subsequently, the settlement was converted into one under

Section-12(3) of the ID Act. Five unions including the

petitioner gave representation on 03.05.2012 stating that

they were not invited for discussion before concluding

the settlement. The Conciliation Officer has submitted

failure report on this representation. The settlement dated

04.09.2012 have been fully implemented and the workmen

have received the monetary benefit in terms of the

settlement. So the dispute that was originally raised does

not survive for consideration. If the unions are aggrieved

by the settlement they should have challenged the terms

of the settlement. The settlement has been working

satisfactorily. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The petitioner in ID 49/2013 is the petitioner in ID

50/2013 also. The Respondent also is the same. In this ID

also it is claimed by the petitioner that in view of the order

of the High Court it should have been invited for discussion

in respect of the work load issue of engagement of

temporary workers, issue of engagement of women workers

in the third shift and bonus issue. The petitioner has

claimed an award holding that the action of the

Management in not holding discussion with the Petitioner

Union in respect of the issue of engagement of women

workers in the third shift and engagement of temporary

workers against permanent vacancies is unjustified and

to direct the Management to desist from such practice.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement in ID

50/2013 in tune with the Counter Statement filed in ID 49/

2013.

The issue arising for consideration in both the IDs

being the same, the two IDs were tried jointly, treating ID

49/2013 as the main case. Evidence was recorded in ID 49/

2013.

10.

The evidence in the two cases consists of oral

evidence of MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext.W15 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M24.

11.

The points for consideration in the two cases are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Management in not

holding discussion with the Petitioner Union is

justified or not?

(ii)

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

entitled?

The Points

12.

In ID 49/2013 the schedule is whether the action of

the Respondent in not holding discussion with the

Petitioner Unions regarding workload settlements is

justified or not. In ID 50/2013 the schedule of reference is

whether the action of the Respondent in not holding

discussion with the Petitioner Unions regarding engaging

women workers during third shift and introducing contract

labour system in permanent vacancies is justified or not.

In the Claim Statements in both IDs the prayer is an

extension of the order of reference. In 49/2013 the

petitioner wants an award holding that the action of the

National Textile Mills Management, Southern Region in

not inviting the Petitioner Union for discussion in respect

of workload settlement concerning the workers of the

Respondent is unjustified and consequently to hold that

the petitioner is entitled to reference of the dispute raised

by it in respect of workload for adjudication. In ID 50/2013

the prayer in the Claim Statement is much more elaborate

and extensive than what is given in the schedule of

reference. The prayer is to pass an award that the action

of the Respondent in holding discussion with Petitioner

Union in respect of the issue of engagement of women

workers in the third shift and the engagement of temporary/

non-regular workers against permanent vacancies is

unjustified and consequently to hold that the

Respondent’s practice of engaging temporary/non-regular

workers against permanent vacancies and of engaging

women workers in the third shift are unjust and to direct

the Management to desist from the said practice.

13.

On a combined reading of the two orders of reference

and the joint demands made by the five unions, it could be

seen that the reference is not specifically pertaining to the

demands made in Ext.M5 and Ext.M20. In Ext.M5 the letter

given by the five unions to the ALC (C), the demand is to

continue the existing settlement and to prevent the illegal

move of the Management for new workload settlement

with minority unions. Of course, there is the grievance

that the Management is neglecting the majority workers

and is negotiating with some minority unions. However,

the relief claimed is not that the Respondent should be

asked to have discussions with the Petitioner Union but

to continue the existing settlement and to prevent the move

of the Respondent for new workload settlement with

minority unions. Thus the issue as could be seen from

Ext.M5 is that the existing conditions regarding workload

should be retained. However, when it comes to the order

of reference the issue raised is something different. The

National Textile Corporation Ltd. is not seen made a party

to the Claim Statement even though the case of the

petitioner is that the NTC Management, Southern Region

did not invite them for any discussion. The National Textile

Corporation has given a reply to the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner stating that only four unions have been

recognized in the referendum conducted as directed by

the High Court and so they are not participating in the

negotiation involving the Petitioner Unions. The copy

of this reply is marked as Ext.M6. Similar letter is seen sent

by the Respondent also and is marked as Ext.M7. It could

be seen from Ext.M6 and Ex.M7 and also the orders of

reference that both references have arisen from the same

demands. In all these the numbers of the reference letters

given are the same. From Ext.M20 it is seen that on

03.05.2012 the date of Ext.M12 another demand letter was

also sent by the Petitioner Unions to the Labour

Commissioner. The demands of the Petitioner Union are

actually reflected in Ext.M20. In this it is stated that the

Management has terminated the permanent employees

under VRS, the Management has introduced contract

system illegally and the vacancies are being filled by

permanent employees and that the women workers who

are asked to work in the third shift are to be permanently

shifted to day shift. The prayers in the two Claim Statements

seem to have been moulded on the basis of Ext.M20. Thus

it could be seen that the terms of reference are somewhat

different from the demands made.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

857

14.

The Coimbatore Regional Mill Labour Union had

filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Madras

against the National Textile Corporation Ltd., Southern

Region represented by its Chief General Manager and some

unions. The members of the unions are employed in the

mills under the National Textile Corporation. The petitioner

is not a party to the Writ Petition. The Respondent also

does not seem to be a party though it is one of the 7 mills

coming under the National Textile Corporation Ltd. The

High Court of Madras by order dated 02.09.2010 directed

in the Writ Petition that the Corporation is to conduct

election in all the textile mills in Tamil Nadu for the purpose

of granting recognition to the unions. The Asstt.

Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore was directed to

supervise the elections. There is also a finding in the Writ

Petition that recognition should be given to a Trade Union

that secure votes representing 10% of the work force. If

the Union gets 20% votes then one more representative

to is to be permitted during the negotiation. Thus for every

10% votes the recognized union will have one

representation during the negotiation. Once the unions

are granted recognition by election that was to be valid

for three years.

15.

Election was conducted as directed and recognition

was granted to some of the unions. The percentage of

membership was calculated on the basis of number of

members for a union in all the 7 mills taken together. The

Petitioner Union has got more than 10% membership in

the Respondent Mill alone. However, in the absence of

considerable number of members in other mills it did not

come within the fold of above 10% when the membership

of all the mills were taken together. So the Petitioner Union

was not called for negotiation regarding the demands raised

by them. Negotiations were held with LPF, NDLF, CITU

and INTUC, the unions which obtained more than 10% of

membership. A settlement was entered into with two unions

on 15.08.2012. Later, the Respondent sought the

intervention of the Conciliation Officer to convert the

settlement into one under Section-12(3) of the ID Act.

Accordingly, the settlement became one under Section-

12(3) and thus binding on all other unions and workmen

who have not participated in the negotiation or had been

party to the settlement dated 15.08.2012.

16.

According to the Petitioner Union if election result

was declared at unit level rather than industry level, as

was done, the petitioner would have obtained an

opportunity to participate in the negotiation. The petitioner

has stated that the direction of the High Court was actually

to conduct election at unit level and give due recognition

to unions at unit level.

17.

Two contempt petitions were filed before the High

Court stating that though the order of the High Court is to

conduct unit level election, election was conducted for all

the mills together. In this contempt petition, an order was

passed on 08.10.2013. On the basis of the submission of

the Management that declaration of election at centralized

level was contrary to the order, the Court directed that the

error should be corrected and the declaration of the result

should be produced in Court. The case was posted to

another date for declaration of the result. Later the Election

Officer submitted in Court that declaration of result as

required was done and the same would be communicated

to the parties. Accordingly, the contempt petitions were

closed.

18.

It could be seen from the pleadings and documents

produced that negotiation was held with the

representatives of the unions who obtained above 10%

membership at centralized level and settlement was entered

into on 15.08.2012. This settlement was converted into

one under Section-12(3) under ID Act on 04.09.2012. Thus

these happened prior to the order passed by the High

Court in the contempt petitions asserting that election

should have been conducted at unit level and not at

centralized level. Though the understanding was that

election should be at unit level either because it is not

specifically stated in Ext.M1 order or because the order

was misread or misinterpreted election result was

declared at centralized level. Negotiation and execution

of the settlement were done before the order in the contempt

proceedings. The settlement has been implemented and

the workers have been drawing the benefit out of the same

also. Since declaration of the result was at centralized level

the petitioner was not invited for the discussion. The act

of execution of the settlement and drawing of benefits by

the workers could not be undone by this proceedings. It

would be beyond the order of reference.

19.

As seen from Ext.M12, Writ Appeals have been filed

against the Writ Applications and the Hon’ble High Court

has stated while issuing notice that election will be subject

to final outcome of the appeals. This is of course in respect

of the election that was to be held in 2014 after expiry of

the period of three years after declaration of the result of

previous election. So now the management and the unions

have entered the next stage so far as recognition of unions

is concerned. For this reason also it will not be proper to

give any relief to the petitioner.

20.

For foregoing reasons the references are answered

against the petitioners. An award is passed accordingly.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/

None

Petitioner Union

For the 2nd Party/

MW1, Sri N. Gunasekaran

Management

858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

05.09.1969

Settlement entered into between

the Managements of Textile Mills

in Coimbatore and various unions

Ex.W2

09.03.1972

Settlement entered into between

the Managements of textile Mills

in Coimbatore and various unions

Ex.W3

30.05.1972

Proceedings of the Commissioner

of Labour, Madras

Ex.W4

12.03.1993

Settlement entered into between

the Management of Sri Rangavilas

Mills and various unions

including the Petitioner Union

Ex.W5

28.05.2011

Letter given by the Petitioner

Union to the Respondent

Management

Ex.W6

20.02.2012

Letter given by the Petitioner

Union to the Respondent

Management

Ex.W7

05.04.2012

Letter given by the Petitioner

Union to the Respondent

Management

Ex.W8

13.06.2012

Letter given by the Respondent

Mills to the Asstt. Commissioner

of Labour (Central), Madurai

Ex.W9

09.08.2012

Letter of objections given by the

Petitioner Union and other unions

to the Assistant Commissioner of

Labour (Central), Madurai (Camp

Coimbatore)

Ex.W10 09.08.2012

Petition given by the Petitioner

Union and other unions to the

Asstt. Commissioner of Labour

(Central), Madurai

Ex.W11 15.08.2012

Settlement entered into between

the management of Sri Rangavilas

Mills and the LPF Union and

INTUC union under section 18(1)

of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947

Ex.W12 16.08.2012

Letter given by the Petitioner

Union to the Respondent

Management

Ex.W13 03.09.2012

Letter given by the Petitioner

Union and other unions to the

Regional Labour Commissioner,

Chennai

Ex.W14 04.09.2012

Settlement entered into under

Section-12(3) of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 between the

Management of Sri Rangavilas

Mills and LPF Union and INTUC

Ex.W15 08.10.2013

Order of the Honourable Madras

High Court in Contempt Petition

No. 1571 of 2010 and 155 of 2011

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

02.09.2010

Order of the Hon’ble High Court

in the Writ Petitions 1440 and 5030

of 2010 dated 02.09.2010

Ex.M2

19.12.2010

Election result dated on 19.12.2010

Ex.M3

19.12.2010

Certificate dated 19.12.2010 issued

to elected 4 unions

Ex.M4

List of 251 workmen who gave

declaration for accepting 18(1)

settlement 15.08.2010. Specimen of

7 workmen attached

Ex.M5

03.05.2012

Joint Claim / Letter filed by five

(5) Unions before Asstt. Labour

Commissioner (Central), Madurai

Ex.M6

11.05.2012

Reply by NTC Ltd. to ALC (C)

Ex.M7

13.06.2012

Reply by Rangavilas Ginning

Spinning & Weaving Mills,

Coimbatore to ALC(C), Madurai

Ex.M8

23.08.2012

Conciliation failure report by

ALC(C), Madurai

Ex.M9

21.03.2014

Proof Affidavit of WW1 – Mr. S.

Doraisamy in ID 61/2012 before

CGIT, Chennai

Ex.M10 13.06.2014

Settlement of WW1 – Mr. S.

Doraisamy in Cross-Examination

– ID 61/2012

Ex.M11 18.09.2014

Award of Hon’ble CGIT, Chennai

in ID 61/2012

Ex.M12 09.05.2014

Letter from Mr. C.V. Vijayakumar,

Advocate, Chennai – addressed

to NTC Ltd. – Reg. WA No. 466

and 467 of 2014

Ex.M13 08.01.2009

18(1) Settlement between eight

unions and the Management of

National Textile Corporation Ltd.

onGeneral Wage Revision to the

workers of NTC Unit mills in Tamil

Nadu (Tenure – 01.01.1994 –

31.12.1998)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

859

Ex.M14 15.08.2012

18(1) Settlement between the NTC

Management and two recognized

unions of Sri Rangavilas G.S. &

W. Mills (for five years from

17.08.2012)

Ex.M15 04.09.2012

12(3) Settlement between the NTC

Management and two recognized

unions on workload revision of

Sri Rangavilas G.S. & W. Mills (for

5 years from 17.08.2012)

Ex.M16 21.12.2012

Letter from NTC, SRO to Sri

Rangavilas G.S. & W. Mills –

approval for relieving seven

workers in mixing department

under Modified Voluntary

Retirement Scheme

Ex.M17 28.01.2012

Letter from NTC, SRO to Sri

Rangavilas G.S. & W. Mills –

approval for relieving five workers

in packing department under

Modified Voluntary Retirement

Scheme

Ex.M18 27.02.2012

Letter from NTC, SRO to Sri

Rangavilas G.S. & W. Mills –

approval for relieving twenty

workers in spinning cleaning

department under Modified

Voluntary Retirement Scheme

Ex.M19 -

List of Permanent workers in Sri

Rangavilas G.S. & W. Mills who

left under MVRS in Mixing, Cone

Packing and Spinning Cleaning

Departments

and

their

membership in their union

Ex.M20 03.05.2012

Joint claim statement filed by MLF,

AITUC, ATP, HMS and BMS

Unions before ALC (C), Madurai –

dispute raised under section 2(k)

of ID Act

Ex.M21 27.11.2012

Reply by NTC management

before ALC (C), Madurai against

the dispute raised under section

2(k) of ID Act.

Ex.M22 07.12.2012

Comments by the Sri Rangavilas

G.S. & W. Mill Management before

ALC (C), Madurai against the

dispute raised u/s 2(k) of ID Act.

Ex.M23 23.08.2012

Conciliation failure report by ALC

Issued on

(C), Madurai in Ref. No. M/8/33/

20.12.2012

2012-A/M (issued on 20.12.2012)

Ex.M24 12.06.2012

Proceedings before BIFR in MA

429 of 2012 and Case No. 501/08 –

NTC Ltd.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 304-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lhlh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 5@2007) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22013@1@2015&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2015

S.O. 304.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Hyderabad (Ref. No. 5/2007) as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of SCCL and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 13/02/2015.

[No. L-22013/1/2015-IR(C-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Dated the 9th day of December, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 5/2007

Between:

Sri Padala Satyanarayana,

S/o Rajam,

C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate,

Flat No. G7, Ground Floor,

Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,

Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad

...Petitioner

AND

The Chief General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Srirampur (P) Area,

Adilabad District.

The Colliery Manager,

IK-1A Incline,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Srirampur, Srirampur (P) Area,

Adilabad District

...Respondents

860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent :

Sri S.M. Subhani, Advocate

AWARD

Sri P. Satyanarayana, the workman filed this petition

under Sec.2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 against the

management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

seeking for declaring the impugned office proceedings

No.SRP/PER/35.A/02/5046 dated 22.11.2002 issued by the

first Respondent i.e., the General Manager of the

management is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the

same. Consequently directing the Respondent man, to

reinstate him into service duly granting all consequential

benefits such as continuity of service, back wags and

attendant benefits.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as

follows:

The Petitioner workman was appointed as badli filler

in M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in the year 1998

and he continued in the service without any adverse

remarks. While so, impugned proceeding No.SRP/PER/

35.A/02/5046 dated 22.11.2002 was issued alleging that

charge sheet No. IK-1A/2002/R.8/371 dated 6.2.2002 was

issued under company’s Standing Order No. 25.25 and

25.31 for habitual absenteeism from duty without leave or

without sufficient cause during the period from January,

2001 to December, 2001. The said proceeding also states

that the charge sheet was sent to the Petitioner’s house

and the same was returned undelivered as such, a paper

advertisement was issued advising the Petitioner to attend

for enquiry and that as per did not attend the enquiry on

the Scheduled date, an exparte enquiry was conducted

and he was dismissed from the service by the said office

order. The Petitioner was under going treatment in his

native village. He was not aware of either issuance of the

notice or it’s publication in the newspaper. He has also

not aware as to which address Respondent sent the

intimation. If really the Petitioner is in receipt of said

communication regarding enquiry or if he is aware of the

issuance of the paper publication he could not certainly

participated in the enquiry. He is not aware of the alleged

communication sent to his home address. He did not

receive any communication and the Respondents are put

to strict proof of their claim that they have sent the charge

sheet and show-cause notice to the correct address of the

Petitioner’s house. Petitioner has no knowledge about

the paper publication said to have been made for the

reason that he remained in bed at his native place, which

is a remote area and he was not able to move from the bed

and none of his family members are literates. Even

otherwise, Petitioner’s native place did not have any

circulation of Vaartha Telugu Newspaper. Therefore,

Petitioner could not observe the details of enquiry. As a

result of improper sending of notices, Petitioner could

not participate in the enquiry. Had Respondents followed

the rules scrupulously, Petitioner could have participated

in the enquiry or atleast he could have approached the

Respondents informing the factum of his ill-health and

also he could have made a request to postpone the enquiry.

He is the lone earning member of his family. As a result of

his dismissal from service he and his family members are

left with no source of livelihood. The contention of the

Respondents that there were no extenuating

circumstances to take a lenient view is also factually

incorrect. Having been appointed in the year 1998,

Petitioner has been serving the 1st Respondent company

sincerely and dedicatedly and his services have been

appreciated by one and all. Absenteeism due to sickness

ought not to have been treated as serious misconduct.

But for his sickness Petitioner could have been attended

to his duties regularly. Since there was no other person to

look after his health except his illiterate wife, at the place

of his work, he was to go to his native place where his

relatives were there to look after him. With the help of his

relatives too, he took treatment through conventional

modes and he became healthy. Assuming without

admitting that the charges levelled against the Petitioner

are correct. Even then imposition of punishment of

dismissal from service would be totally disproportionate

to the charges alleged. Petitioner requesting the court to

modify the punishment of dismissal to any other lesser

punishment by exercising powers conferred under Sec.11A

of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 thereby providing another

opportunity to the Petitioner, to secure bread to himself

and his family members, consisting of his ailing and old

aged father, mother, wife and three children.

Respondents filed their counter with the averments

in brief as follows:

Filing of this petition straight away without any

conciliation is not justifiable and correct. Petitioner by his

conduct accepted the misconduct of unauthorized

absenteeism, he filed this petition after a lapse of 3 years

10 months and 14 days from the date of passing of

dismissal order. Thus, there is delay and latches in filing

the petition. After conducting a detailed domestic enquiry,

duly following the principles of natural justice, the

impugned order was passed. Petitioner has put in only

62 musters during the calendar year 1998, 120 musters

during the year 1999; 131 musters during the year 2000

and only 03 musters during 2001. As such, charge sheet

has been issued against the Petitioner under company’s

Standing Order No. 25.25 and 25.31 which reads as follows:

“25.25-habitual late attendance or habitual absence

from duty without sufficient cause.

25.31-Absence from duly without sanctioned leave

or sufficient cause or over staying beyond

sanctioned leave.”

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

861

As he was no attending to his duties, charge sheet was

sent to his home address by Registered post

acknowledgement due, but it was returned undelivered

by the postal authorities. In order to give the Petitioner

fair opportunity, charge sheet cum enquiry notice was

published in “Vaartha” telugu daily news paper, dated

18.3.2002 advising the Petitioner to submit a detailed

explanation and to attend the enquiry on 28.3.2002.

Accordingly Petitioner has participated in the enquiry held

on 28.3.2002. He was given full and fair opportunity to

defend himself. Enquiry was conducted following the

principles of natural justice. After completion of the enquiry,

Enquiry Officer has submitted his report finding the

Petitioner as guilty of misconduct under Standing Order

No.25.25 and 25.31. A copy of the enquiry report and

enquiry proceedings was sent to his native address given

by him at the time of his appointment by registered post

acknowledgement due vide notice dated 3.5.2002, giving

an opportunity to make a representation if any against

the finding contained in the enquiry report within seven

days of receipt of the same. The said notice was returned

undelivered. As the Petitioner was not attending to his

duties, a paper publication dated 5.6.2002 was given in

“Vaartha” telugu daily news paper, stating that the

enquiry report was made available at the office of the

General Manager, Srirampur (P) area and he may receive

the same in person and make representation, if any within

one week from the date of receipt of the report of enquiry.

But the Petitioner did not turn up for taking the copy of

enquiry report nor did he submit any representation. As

the charges levelled and proved against the Petitioner were

serious in nature, the punishment warranted was that of

dismissal from service. Petitioner’s contention that he

was undergoing treatment in his native place or village

and was not aware of the charge sheet or paper publication

made by Respondents in newspaper are all incorrect.

Petitioner did not take any prior permission or leave from

the competent authorities prior to leaving headquarters.

He never informed the Manager regarding his sickness at

any point of time. If he was really fell sick he should have

reported at company’s hospital for treatment. There are

good number of medical facilities provided for the

employees and their families by the management. If the

Petitioner was really sick he would have availed the

services of said medical facilities. Petitioner’s contention

that as he could not observe the date of enquiry published

in Vaartha telugu daily news paper he could not attend to

the enquiry and he could not participated in it are all false.

After publication of the notice of enquiry Petitioner fully

participate din enquiry and deposed before the Enquiry

Officer. he admitted his guilt in the enquiry. The allegations

made in paras 4 and 5 are false. He did not produce any

witness/documentary evidence to support his case.

Petitioner was absent from duties for one and half years

continuously. His contention that punishment of dismissal

from service is too harsh, excessive and disproportionate

to the charges levelled and proved is not correct. Since

the beginning of his service he has been irregular to his

duties. He did not improve his attendance eve after issue

of charge sheet and he had put in Nil musters up to 9th

May, 2002. In the circumstances there were no extenuating

circumstances to take a lenient view of the matter, thus,

the impugned order was passed. Petitioner’s contention

that he served the company sincerely, dedicatedly and

his services were appreciated by every one is incorrect.

Even as per the mandate of the worker’s court, persons

who continuously absented themselves form duty for

long periods are not entitled to be continued in the service.

Petition is liable to be dismissed.

A memo has been filed for the Petitioner conceding

the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry conducted

in this case. In pursuance of the said memo and by virtue

of the order dated 22.7.2010 this court held the domestic

enquiry conducted in this case as legal and valid.

Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Points that arise for determination are:

I. Whether the impugned order No.SRP/PER/

35.A/02/5046 dated 22.11.2002 issued by the

1st Respondent is illegal, arbitrary and is liable

to be set aside?

II. To what relief the Petitioner is entitled to?

Point No.I :

It is an admitted fact that Petitioner has put in only

three musters during the calendar year 2001 as badli filler

of the Respondent company. It resulted into issuance of

the charge sheet dated 6.2.2002, alleging that Petitioner is

guilty of misconduct of habitual absenteeism without

reasonable cause and prior permission and that under

Clause 25.25 and 25.31 of Respondent company’s Standing

Order which reads:-

“25.25-habitual late attendance or habitual absence

from duty without sufficient cause.

25.31-Absence from duly without sanctioned leave

or sufficient cause or over staying beyond

sanctioned leave.”

Though Petitioner alleged in his petition very

seriously that the Departmental enquiry conducted

against him was not properly conducted stating that he

did not receive any notice of the enquiry at all and

therefore, he could not participate in the said enquiry,

thereafter he conceded to the validity of the domestic

enquiry by filing a memo which resulted into this forum

holding that the domestic enquiry conducted in this case

as legal and valid.

862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

As can be seen from the petition filed by the

Petitioner the entire petition is oriented against the manner

in which the domestic enquiry was held. But the fact

remains that the Petitioner got knowledge of the

Departmental enquiry initiated against him and fully

participated in the Departmental enquiry. He failed to

produce any evidence to prove that he suffered any

sickness which made him unable to move from the bed at

any point of time.

One important aspect to be noted in this case is that

Petitioner alleged in his petition that as he was confined

to bed he could not note the paper publications made

regarding the date fixed for Departmental enquiry and

therefore, he could not participate in it. Whereas he

conceded to the validity of the domestic enquiry after the

counter is filed in this case by the Respondents wherein it

is categorically stated that on noting the date of

Departmental Enquiry published in Vaartha telugu daily

news paper, Petitioner participated in the Departmental

Enquiry. Thus, it is very much clear that in all likelihood

Petitioner was not confined to bed at the relevant time as

alleged by him.

10.

It is also a fact which remains that during the

Departmental Enquiry and while he was making a statement

before the Enquiry Officer Petitioner claimed that he

suffered an underground accident and he was on sick

leave for a week and there after he remained absent from

duty due to his ill-health and family problems. This

statement has not been contradicted to for the

management, thus, it is to be taken that there is some

cause for the Petitioner to remain absent from duty. If

Petitioner is unable to attend the duty due to sickness, it

can not be said that it is not a sufficient cause. Since

Petitioner’s contentions regarding his sickness and family

problems are not contradicted to, respondent can not find

fault with the Petitioner for not producing any documents/

witnesses to prove the same. If his contentions were

contradicted to by subjecting him to cross examination

during Departmental enquiry, in all likelihood he might

have produced relevant evidence to prove his contentions.

Since his contentions were not contradicted to by not

subjecting him to cross examination, there would be no

need for him to produce any further evidence since

uncontradicted contentions are to be taken as admissions

on the part of the adverse party.

11.

In view of the fore gone discussion of the material

on record it can clearly be seen that there is some cause

for the absenteeism of the Petitioner. But it is an

unauthorized absenteeism since, he failed to take any leave

or permission either prior to or while availing the same.

Petitioner’s contentions that he was not in a position to

seek for leave/permission is not a sustainable contention.

He himself stated that he was on one week sick leave and

thereafter continued to be absent from duties.

12.

But since, the Respondent organization failed to

contradict the statement of the Petitioner that due to his

sickness and family problems he could not attend to his

duties, it can not be said that appropriate punishment to

be awarded to the Petitioner in this context is dismissal

from service, especially when it is the first and fore most

disciplinary proceeding initiated against the Petitioner by

the Respondent management. Petitioner ought to have

been given an opportunity to mend his ways by awarding

him lesser punishments which are also provided for the

misconduct of this nature in the Standing Order of the

Respondent company. If he failed to mend his ways and

again and again Departmental proceedings are constrained

to be initiated against the Petitioner, then, the question of

awarding punishment of removal from service, which is

capital punishment, will arise. Therefore, the impugned

order is liable to be set aside as the punishment awarded

is disproportionate to the proved charges as it is a first

instance of the misconduct charged and proved against

the Petitioner.

This point is answered accordingly.

13.

Point No. II :

In view of the finding given in Point No.I, Petitioner

is entitled to be reinstated into service, but he is liable for

alternative punishment to the misconduct owing to the

fact that he is absent from duty for substantial period i.e.,

more than one and half years continuously without any

leave/permission. Stoppage of three annual increments

without cumulative effect is sufficient punishment to be

awarded to the Petitioner. Considering the fact that he

caused substantial inconvenience and hardship to the

Respondent management due to his continuous

absenteeism which resulted into the impugned order and

since he did not attend the work in any manner for

substantial period, Petitioner is not entitled for any back

wages but he is entitled for other attendant benefits.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

In the result petition is allowed.

The Impugned office order No.SRP/PER/35.A/02/

5046 dated 22.11.2002 of the first Respondent wherein the

Petitioner has been dismissed from service is hereby set

aside. Petitioner shall be reinstated into service as badli

filler forth with. He is awarded with an alternative

punishment of stoppage of three annual increments

without cumulative effect. Petitioner is not entitled for

any back wages but he is entitled for all other attendant

benefits.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

863

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

Witnesses examined for the

for the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 13 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 305-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lhlh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

25@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22013@1@2015&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2015

S.O. 305.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Godavarikhani (IT/ID/25/2010) as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of SCCL and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 13/02/2015.

[No. L-22013/1/2015-IR(C-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

Present :

SRI G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 25 OF 2010

Monday, the 19th day of January, 2015

Between:-

Munimanda Rajamallu,

S/o. Ramulu,

Aged about 42 years,

Occ: Ex.Badli Filler,

E.C.No.2894617,

R/o.H.No.8-21,

CCC X-Road,

Amulya Internet,

PO: Naspur Village,

Mandal Mancherial,

Dist.Adilabad

...Petitioner

And

The Colliery Manager, SCC Ltd.,

Chennur 1- Incline, Chennur,

District Adilabad.

The General Manager, SCC Ltd.,

Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur,

Dist.Adilabad

...Respondents

This case coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of Sri S.Bhagavantha Rao, Advocate for the

petitioner and of Sri D.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the

Respondents; and having been heard and having stood

over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered

the following:-

AWARD

This petition is filed U/Sec. 2(A)(2) of I.D. Act

challenging the dismissal of the petitioner passed by the

respondents praying for his reinstatement into service with

continuity of service and full back wages.

Petitioner was dismissed from service by the

respondent vide office order dt.06-11-2002 after holding

domestic enquiry on the following charge.

CHARGE:-

“Habitually absence from duty without sufficient

cause may amount misconduct under 25.25 standing

orders of company during the period from January,

2000 to December, 2000”.

Petitioner challenges his dismissal on the following

grounds:-

The petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler on

30-03-1996 under dependent employment scheme

and worked upto 06-11-2002.

The services of the petitioner are governed by

various standing orders of company and the

petitioner was put in requisite musters in 1996-195

musters, 1997-211 musters, 1998-106 musters, 1999-

160 musters and 2000-27 musters. The petitioner was

issued charge sheet dt.10-02-2001 and he was

dismissed from on 6-11-2002.

The enquiry conducted by the respondents is null

and void. The respondents also did not conduct

enquiry properly.

Punishment of dismissal from service is extremely

harsh, highly excessive and shockingly

disproportionate.

Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In response to this challenge, respondents filed

counter justifying the dismissal of the petitioner. The

respondents company being mining industry is a Central

Government subject and the petitioner ought to have

approached the CGIT, Hyderabad. This petition is not

maintainable before this Court and is liable to be dismissed.

The petitioner being a chronic absentee was issued

charge sheet for putting only 23 musters in the year 2000.

The following attendance particulars of the petitioner

indicate the fact that the petitioner was not regular to his

duties and he had not put in required 190 musters during

the period from 1998-2002.

Sl.No.

Year

No. of musters.

1998

106

1999

160

2000

2001

-Nil-

2002

-Nil-

During the period from January, 2000 to December,

2000, the petitioner had put in only 23 musters. As the

above act amounted to misconduct under Standing Orders

Clause No. 25.25 of the company, the petitioner was charge

sheeted. After considering the documentary evidence and

other evidence on record, the enquiry officer submitted

his unbiased report holding that the petitioner is guilty of

misconduct under company standing orders. The

petitioner was issued show cause notice.

The respondent company after considering the past

record of the petitioner and on findings that there were no

extenuating circumstances for taking a lenient view was

constrained to dismiss the petitioner from service. The

respondents company conducted the enquiry proceedings

duly in accordance to the principles of natural justice and

law giving full opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore,

the respondents pray to dismiss the petition without

granting any relief to the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner filed Memo praying this

Tribunal to pass an award, U/Sec. 11-A of I.D Act.

Respondents filed written arguments.

During the course of hearing, Ex.W-1 to W-3 and

Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-13 are marked.

Heard both sides. Perused the material papers on

record.

10.

The consideration of respective contentions of the

parties the following points required to be determined:-

“Whether this Tribunal has got jurisdiction?”

“Whether the punishment of dismissal of the

petitioner is justified and proportionate?”

11.

POINT No. 1 : As per the Judgment of the Hon’ble

High Court reported in 1997 (III) LLJ (Supp.) 11 between

U. Chinnappa And Cotton Corporation of India, this Court

has got jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the

petitioner. Hence, the point is accordingly answered in

favour of the petitioner.

12.

POINT No. 2 : Charge sheet dt.10-2-2001 is marked

as Ex.M-1, which shows that the petitioner worked only

for 23 days and absented for 3 days during the year 2000.

In the reply to the charge sheet marked as Ex.M-2,

petitioner while admitting his absenteeism pleaded that

he suffered from back pain. Enquiry notices were returned

undelivered by the postal authorities under Ex.M-4 &

M-6. Paper publication of enquiry notice is marked as

Ex.M-7. But the petitioner did not turn up and did not

participate in the enquiry proceedings. Exparte enquiry

was conducted under Ex.M-6 and enquiry report is marked

as Ex.M-9. The show cause notice was also returned un-

served and it was published in the news paper under

Ex.M-12. Further the petitioner put-in –Nil- musters during

the years 2001 and 2002. Thus even after issuing charge

sheet, the petitioner did not choose to improve his

attendance and not at all attended to duties during the

subsequent years 2001 and 2002. The petitioner was

dismissed from service by order dt.6-11-2002 is marked as

Ex.M-13. After that he did not prefer any appeal and kept

quiet for nearly 8 years and raised the Industrial Dispute

in the year 2010.

13.

Coming to the inclination on the part of the petitioner

to get reinstated, he approached Tribunal nearly 8 years

after his dismissal from service. The record placed before

this court shows that the petitioner was given more than

sufficient opportunities to mend himself but he failed to

do so and put in –Nil- musters during the year 2001 and

2002. With regard to the reason for the poor attendance

of the petitioner during the year 2000, no material is

produced before this Tribunal about the back pain and ill-

health suffered by the petitioner and the treatment taken

by him. In the absence of any supporting evidence, the

plea of the petitioner can not be accepted. There is also

no explanation as to why the petitioner put in –Nil- musters

during the years 2001 and 2002. Therefore this is a clear

case where the petitioner was not inclined to attend duties

regularly and though the delay of 8 years is not a big

delay in approaching this Tribunal, it shows the nonchalant

attitude of the petitioner in asserting his rights.

14. Therefore viewed from any angle, the petitioner is

unable to make out that he was prevented from attending

duties because of reasons beyond his control. This is a

case where disinclination to attend duties is apparent.

Therefore, this Tribunal is compelled to hold that the

punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the

respondents is justified and that the petitioner is not

entitled to any relief. Hence, the petition is liable to be

dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

865

15.

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For workman

For Management

-Nil-

EXHIBITS

For workman:-

Ex.W-1

Dt.

30-03-1996

Office order (Appointment

order) x.copy

Ex.W-2

Dt.

08-11-2002

Dismissal order, x.copy

Ex.W-3

Dt.

—

Pay slip for the month of

October, 1996

For Management:-

Ex.M-1

Dt.

10-02-2001

Charge sheet, office copy

Ex.M-2

Dt.

17-02-2001

Reply to charge sheet

Ex.M-3

Dt.

14-07-2001

Enquiry notice

Ex.M-4

Dt.

20-07-2001

Undelivered returned postal

cover with ack.,

Ex.M-5

Dt.

24-10-2001

2nd notice for enquiry

Ex.M-6

Dt.

29-10-2001

Undelivered returned postal

cover with ack.,

Ex.M-7

Dt.

06-01-2002

Paper publication of enquiry

notice

Ex.M-8

Dt.

21-01-2002

Enquiry proceedings

Ex.M-9

Dt.

24-01-2002

Enquiry report

Ex.M-10 Dt.

07-02-2002

Show cause notice

Ex.M-11 Dt.

08-02-2002

Undelivered returned postal

cover with ack.,

Ex.M-12 Dt.

05-05-2002

Paper publication of show

cause notice

Ex.M-13 Dt.

06-11-2002

Dismissal order.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 306-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,u-,y-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 86@2012) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@163@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2015

S.O. 306.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 86/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of M/s. Neyveli Lignite

Corporation Ltd. and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 13/02/2015.

[No. L-22012/163/2012-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 30th January, 2015

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute Nos. 86/2012

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10

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

the Management of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. and

their workman)

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary

: 1st Party/Petitioner

NLC Podhu Contract

Union

Thozhilalar Sangam (CITU)

Central Bus Stand South Side

Neyveli-607801

AND

The Director/(HR)

: 2nd Party/Respondent

M/s Neyveli Lignite

Corporation Ltd.

Corporate Office

Neyveli-607801

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

M/s. Ajoy Khose, Advocates

Petitioner Union

For the 2nd Party/

M/s. N.A.K. Sarma,

Respondent

N. Nithianandam, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-22012/163/2012-IR (CM-

II) dated 07.11.2012 referred the following Industrial

Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the demand of the Union in seeking

regularization or at least enrolment in the Howsico’s

Society of S/Sri S. Aruldoss and P. Kanagavel is

justified? To what relief the concerned workmen is

entitled to?”

866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 86/2012 and issued notice to both

sides. Both parties entered appearance through their

counsel and filed claim and counter statement respectively.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder in reply to the Counter

Statement.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The Respondent is involved in mining of Lignite

and generation of Electricity through Thermal Power

Stations. The Respondent employs thousands of regular

employees as well as an equal number of contract

labourers. The work being carried out by the contract

labourers are incidental to the trade and manufacturing

process of the Respondent and it is perennial work. A

large number of contract labourers were absorbed as direct

and permanent workers. The Respondent is having

Corporate Office inside Neyveli Township. Though the

Respondent is employing permanent workers for sweeping

and cleaning for each unit and sections, there were no

employees to clean and to carry out work in the general

area of the Corporate Office. The agricultural lands and

house of Aruldoss and Kanagavel were acquired by the

Respondent for mining and other purposes. Both of them

were given employment by the Respondent in the year

1997 to carry out the work of cleaning and sweeping general

area of the Corporate Office. There were five more workers

who were employed in this manner. They were paid Rs. 20/-

per day initially. From 1998, they were paid @ Rs. 30/- per

day and from 1999 Rs. 40/- per day. Though in the year

2001 an official decision was taken to pay them @ Rs. 60/-

per day, payment @ Rs. 40/- per day continued even after

that. For 11-1/2 years they continued to get the very

same wages @ Rs. 40/- per day. They had been working

continuously for 13 years on the hope that they would be

made permanent. On 24.09.2010 they made a representation

to regularize their services. But the Respondent rejected

their request for regularization by order dated 01.03.2011.

After this the Petitioner Union took up their cause and

made a demand for permanent employment for these

workers. During the pendency of the conciliation

proceedings the Respondent denied employment to

Aruldoss and Kanagavel from 06.03.2011 orally, without

any notice. The Petitioner Union raised another industrial

dispute. The Respondent contended that the concerned

workmen were neither engaged as casual labourers nor as

contract labourers at any point of time. Since there were

no settlement over the demands, the Assistant Labour

Commissioner submitted his failure report and thereafter

the Government has referred the dispute. The action of

the Respondent in not regularizing the services of the two

workmen and not giving them permanency and absorption

and also their termination from service w.e.f. 05.03.2011 is

liable to be interfered. An order may be passed holding

that the action of the Respondent in not giving permanency

to the concerned workmen and terminating their service

w.e.f 05.03. 2011 during the pendency of the dispute is

unjustified and direction may be given to the Respondent

to reinstate the workmen w.e.f. 05.03.2011 with continuity

of service, backwages and other attendant benefits and

also to give them permanency and absorption from the

date of entry into service or at least from the date of

completion of 480 days in service.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as below:

The Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner is

frivolous and vexatious. A relief is sought on behalf of the

concerned individuals on a wrong assumption that they

were employed by the Respondent upto 05.03.2011. The

two individuals were neither engaged by private

contractors nor by any other contractors. They were

engaged from time to time and not continuously for doing

part-time job for short durations based on need for

performing sundry works such as cleaning, moving items,

etc. in Corporate Office of the Respondent intermittently

on job rate compensation. On rest of the days they were

gainfully employed elsewhere. No employer-employee

relationship existed at any time between the concerned

individuals and the Respondent. It is not admitted that

the concerned individuals were employed by the

Respondent between 1997 and 2011. The Petitioner Union

has no locus-standi to maintain the dispute, it being only

a fringe union and not at all representative of any group

or class of workmen of the Respondent. The Petitioner

Union is not a recognized one so far as Respondent is

concerned. The dispute of the two concerned individuals

is personal in nature. Only those individuals can raise

their dispute. In the absence of locus-standi for the

petitioner to maintain the dispute itself, the ID is liable to

be dismissed. The Respondent has a workforce of about

18,000 employees of which 14,000 are in workmen category.

The workmen are governed by the Certified Standing

Orders of the Respondent. The recruitment and service

conditions are governed by the rules and regulations of

the Respondent. The engagement of concerned

individuals was purely on need basis. There was no

appointment nor was their any termination on account of

this. They were not engaged even on part-time rate basis

for the last three to four years. The expression “Employed”

as contemplated in ID Act must have continuity of service.

The concerned individuals were never employed by the

Respondent. Since there is no employer-employee

relationship between the Respondent and the concerned

individuals also, the ID is liable to be dismissed. An order

may be passed accordingly.

In the rejoinder filed, the petitioner has denied the

contentions in the Counter Statement. It is also asserted

that both Arul Doss and Kanagavel were directly employed

by the Respondent and they are workmen within the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

867

meaning of Section-2(s) of the ID Act. It is further stated

that they were continuously employed on all working days

without any break. Payment was made to them once in a

fortnight based on the attendance separately maintained

for them. The work carried out by them was permanent in

nature, it is also stated.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WWs 1 and 2 and MW1 and documents marked as

Ext.W1 to Ext.W16 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M3.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the demand of the petitioner in seeking

regularization of Aruldoss and Kanagavel is

justified?

(ii)

To what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?

The Points

Though the Petitioner Union has raised the dispute

seeking regularization of two workmen viz. Arul Doss and

Kanagavel, it has come out in evidence that Kanagavel

died after the dispute was raised, even before the Claim

Statement was filed. So whatever is the relief, if any to

which Kanagavel is entitled could be only monetary in

nature, payable to his legal heirs.

It is the case of the Petitioner Union that Arul Doss,

Kanagavel and five other individuals were employed in

the general area of the Corporate Office of the Respondent

for sweeping and cleaning from the year 1997. It is stated

that though the other workers have left when their

aspiration for permanency in the establishment of the

Respondent did not materialize, Aruldoss and Kanagavel

continued to work under the Respondent for the paltry

amount of Rs. 40/- per day for almost 11.5 years. They

have given a representation to the Respondent to absorb

them in the establishment as permanent workers but this

representation was rejected on 01.03.2011. According to

the petitioner union it has taken up the case of the

concerned workmen and have raised the dispute before

the Asstt. Labour Commissioner on 07.02.2011. In its

Counter Statement the Respondent has raised a preliminary

objection that the petitioner has no locus-standi to raise

the dispute, it being a fringe union not recognized. There

is the evidence given by WW2, the Secretary of the Union

that the Union has a membership of about 2000. Ext.W16

is the resolution passed by the Petitioner Union to take up

the cause of the concerned workmen and to raise dispute

on their behalf. So the case of the Respondent that the

petitioner has no locus-standi to raise the dispute could

not be accepted.

10.

It has also been contended on behalf of the

Respondent that there is no evidence to show that the

concerned individuals were members of the Union at the

time when the dispute was raised and for this reason also

the petition is not maintainable. This contention is raised

based on the evidence given by Aruldoss examined as

WW1 that he joined the Petitioner Union in February, 2011

only. It is pointed out on behalf of the respondent that the

Petitioner Union has raised the dispute on 07.02.2011 and

there is nothing to show that Arul Doss has become a

member of the Union even prior to that. The counsel for

the Respondent has referred to Ext.W15 in which

photocopies of membership cards of several years are

produced. Referring to the answer given by WW1 that he

joined the Union in February, 2011 only the counsel has

tried to make out that all these are created for the purpose

of the case. However, on going through Ext.W15, I feel

that it could not be the case. The membership card of even

2012 is seen produced. Such cards for the years starting

from 1998 are there. WW2, the President of the Petitioner

Union has disclosed during his cross-examination that

Arul Doss has joined the Union in 1998 and has ceased to

be a member of the Union in 2004. Thus it could be seen

that Arul Doss might have rejoined the Union in 2011. Of

course, Ex.W15 reveals membership cards of the years

after 2004 also. Probably the year in which Arul Doss

ceased to be a member of the Union was wrongly given by

WW2. In any case there could be no doubt that the

photocopies of membership cards found in Ext.W15 are

genuine and the practice was to renew the membership

each year. When WW1 has stated that he has become the

member of the Union in February, 2011 it could only be the

month in which he rejoined the Union. At the worst it can

be that the petitioner has become a member of the Union

for gathering help for the purpose of raising the dispute.

Even in such case the Petitioner Union would have

obtained locus-standi to maintain the dispute. For this

reason also the contention that the Petitioner Union is not

entitled to prosecute the dispute is to be rejected.

11.

A contention has been raised on behalf of the

Respondent that the concerned individuals are not

workmen as defined in Section-2(s) of Industrial Disputes

Act at all. The case that is put forth is that they were only

being engaged occasionally on need basis and there was

never any employer-employee relationship between the

Respondent and the concerned persons. Even assuming

that the contention of the Respondent that the concerned

individuals were being engaged only occasionally, the

argument advanced on behalf of the Respondent could

not be accepted when the purport of the definition given

in Section-2(s) of the Act is taken into account. The Apex

Court has observed in the decision in DEVINDER SINGH

VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SANAUR reported in

2011 6 SCC 584 that for a person to fall under the definition

of the term workman under Section-2(s), the source of

employment, the method of recruitment, the terms and

conditions of employment/contract of service, the

quantum of wages/pay and the mode of payment are not

at all relevant. It was also observed that the definition of

workman does not make any distinction between full-time

868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and part-time employee or a person appointed on contract

basis. It was further held that there is nothing in the plain

language of Section-2(s) from which it can be inferred that

only a person employed on a regular basis or a person

employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the

one employed on temporary, part-time or contract basis

on fixed wages or as a casual employee or doing duty for

fixed hours is not a workman. It is the case of the

Respondent in the Counter Statement that the concerned

individuals were being engaged at times on need basis.

So, on the very basis of this admission it can be held that

the concerned persons come under the definition of

workman in Section-2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

12.

Now the question to be considered is whether the

case of the petitioner that the two workmen including WW1

were working in the Respondent establishment

continuously is correct? It is the case of the petitioner

that the concerned workmen started to work for the

Respondent in the year 1997. There were five other workers

also employed in the same year. They were carrying out

the cleaning, sweeping and other allied work in the general

area of the Corporate Office of the Respondent. Though

WW2, the President of the Union does not know much

about the nature of the employment of the two individuals,

there is the evidence of Arul Doss, who is examined as

WW1 revealing the details of work done by him. He has

stated that initially himself and others alongwith him were

paid @ Rs. 20/- per day only. From February, 1998 the

remuneration was enhanced to the rate of Rs. 30/- per day.

Thereafter, from February, 1999 they were being paid @

Rs. 40/- per day. He has stated in his affidavit that for 11.5

years from February, 1999 he was receiving @ Rs. 40/- per

day only as wages. He has stated that all of them were

employed for six days in a week but without any wages for

intervening holidays. He has stated that he used to work

from 0600 AM to 0100 PM in the Respondent

establishment. He used to be paid on a fortnightly basis.

Wages was paid on vouchers affixed with revenue stamps.

13.

On going through the documents marked on the

side of the petitioner it could be seen that the concerned

workmen were being employed on a regular basis. Of

course, the case of the petitioner is that the workmen in

question were employed from 1997. However, the

documents produced are pertaining to the period from

2000 only. Ext.W1 (series) are the orders sanctioning

temporary imprest for making payment to the labourers

who were engaged for cleaning the Corporate Office.

Alongwith some of these orders the names of the workmen

who received payment out of the temporary imprest also

are available. These contain the signature of the workmen

also. However, most of the orders of sanction are without

any such attachment. Certainly, these orders would not

show on behalf of which workers the temporary imprest

are opened. It has been pointed out on behalf of the

Respondent that the list of workers attached to the sanction

order though shows the amount received by them and

also shows the signature does not contain the signature

of any official on behalf of the Respondent. Certainly, this

is true in respect of some of them. However, on a perusal

of Ext.W1 (series) it could be seen that except for a few

at the beginning, the Officer of the Respondent has

signed the lists also. Pages 30, 32, 34, 37, 38, 40 and 44

contain the signature of an official of the Respondent. It

could also be seen that the amount released to the

concerned workers tally with the amount shown in the

sanction order. On going through Ext.W2 (series) it could

be seen that at the later stage signature of the official of

the Respondent is available in all the documents. In Ext.W2

(series), in the lists of workers with the heading “Labour

Payment” showing a specified period the signatures of

the concerned official are there. In all these documents

the name of WW1 and Kanagavel appear. Their signatures

appear on the revenue stamps affixed in the document.

Initially the number of days worked are not shown.

However, at the later stage these are also shown. From

03.02.2004 onwards (Page 97 of Petitioner’s document),

the number of days worked by each workman are also

given. As seen from Page-97 Arul Doss has worked for 15

days during the period from 16.01.2004 to 31.01.2004. Page-

99 reveals that Kanagavel has worked for 14 days and

Arul Doss for 15 days during the period from 01.02.2004 to

15.02.2004. Again, Page-101 reveals that Aruldoss has

worked for 12 days and Kanagavel for 9 days during the

period from 01.03.2004 to 15.03.2004. Again, during the

period from 16.02.2004 to 29.02.2004 Kanagavel has worked

for 14 days and Aruldoss 13 days (Page-103). Other

documents of similar kind also show that these two persons

were working for the ‘Respondent on a regular basis and

were receiving wages @ Rs. 40/- a day. Even though it is

the case of the Respondent that these workers were being

engaged on need basis and that also occasionally, the

documents speak otherwise. The orders sanctioning

opening of temporary imprest would reveal that this was

being done continuously on a fortnightly basis without

any break. All the imprest were for payment to the labourers

who were engaged for cleaning the Corporate Office. This

would show that it was not a case of occasional

engagement. On the other hand, the two workmen

concerned were being engaged on regular basis for the

work of cleaning the Corporate Office alongwith other

similar workers.

14.

The evidence given by MW1, the Deputy General

Manager examined on behalf of the Respondent also

reveal that the concerned workmen were being engaged

on a regular basis. In the affidavit filed by this witness,

she has of course stated that the concerned workmen were

engaged only intermittently for short durations and they

performed sundry work of non-recurring and non-regular

nature. However, it is clear from the admission brought

out during cross-examination of MW1 that these workmen

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

869

must have been working on a regular basis. She has

admitted during her cross-examination that Ext.W1 (series)

and Ext.W2 (series) are issued by the Corporate Office.

MW1 herself was working in the Corporate Office

from 2010. She has stated that though contract labourers

were engaged for doing the cleaning work in other

departments, there were no contract labourers deployed

for cleaning and sweeping work in the Corporate Office.

This would show that the cleaning and sweeping work of

the entire Corporate Office were being carried out through

casual workers like WW1, Kanagavel and others. MW1

has stated that those who are doing sweeping, cleaning

and scavenging work are to work for 8 hours. At the later

stage of the cross-examination she has admitted that apart

from cleaning and sweeping, WW1 was engaged for other

works also. This admission by WW1 justifies the case of

WW1 that apart from cleaning and sweeping work, himself

and others were engaged for the works such as moving

articles also. WW1 has of course stated during the cross-

examination that his cleaning and sweeping work will be

only for 2.5 hours. He has even stated that there will not

be the work of shifting of articles every day. In spite of

this it is clear that the engagement used to be for the

whole day for the reason that they are expected to do the

work of moving and shifting the articles also. This is clear

from the documents produced as well. The service of the

concerned workmen were required at the Corporate Office

on a regular basis and that is why they were engaged

daily. The documents reveal that the concerned workmen

were working under the Respondent until 2011 when the

Respondent stopped engaging them for the reason that

they have demanded regularization. MW1 has admitted

during her cross-examination that after the demand of the

workmen for regularization was rejected the Respondent

has stopped engaging them for work. So, it is very much

clear that the concerned workmen were continuously and

regularly engaged by the Respondent until the time when

they were denied work on account of their demand for

regularization. The nature of the work being cleaning and

sweeping mainly, the work is certainly perennial in nature

also.

15.

As already pointed out, MW1 has admitted during

her cross-examination that the concerned workmen were

denied work after their demand for regularization was

rejected on 01.03.2011. Even before this, on 07.02.2011

the petitioner union has taken the cause of the concerned

workmen and raised dispute before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner. So it is clear that the denial of work was at

the time when dispute was pending before the Assistant

Labour Commissioner. So the same is in violation of

Section-9A of Industrial Disputes Act. This amounts

to termination of service as laid down by the Apex

Court in the decision in SRI H.D. SINGH VS. RESERVE

BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in 1986 1 SCC

127. It was a case where the employee was provided

with work whenever work was available. The name of

the employee was struck off from the list of Mazdoors

kept by the Reserve Bank. The Apex Court has held that

deliberate refusal to engage the employee amounts to

unfair labour practice and striking off the name from the

roll amounts to termination from service. Undoubtedly the

denial of work to the concerned workmen by the

Respondent is in violation of Section-9A of the Industrial

Disputes Act. For this reason itself the workmen would be

entitled to reinstatement by the Respondent.

16.

The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the

restriction laid down by the decision in Uma Devi’s case is

not a bar for regularizing the concerned workmen. The

counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in

MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

CORPORATION AND ANOTHER VS. CASTERIBE

RAJYA PARIVAHAN KARAMCHARI SANGHATANA

reported in 2009 8 SCC 556 in which Uma Devi’s case has

been explained. In the above case the Apex Court has

observed that Uma Devi’s case is an authoritative

pronouncement for the proposition that the Supreme Court

and the High Courts should not issue directions of

absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of

temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad-hoc

employees unless recruitment itself was made regularly in

terms of constitutional scheme but the case does not

denude the industrial and labour courts of their statutory

power under Section-30 read with Section-32 of MRTU

Act to order permanency of workers who have been

victims of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer

under Item-6 of Schedule-IV of the Act where the posts on

which they have been working exist. Uma Devi case cannot

be held to have overridden powers of the Industrial and

Labour Courts in passing appropriate order under Section-

30 of the Act once unfair labour practice on the part of the

employer under Item-6 of Schedule-IV is established, it

was further held. The Apex Court has also observed that

employing badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue

them as such for years with the object of depriving them

of the status and privileges of permanent employees is an

unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under

Item-6 of Schedule-IV. Once such unfair labour practice

on the part of the employer is established the Industrial

and Labour Courts are empowered to issue preventive as

well as positive direction to an erring employer. Affirmative

action against the employer comprehends within its fold a

direction to the employer to accord permanency to

employees affected with such unfair labour practice, it

was further held.

17.

Of course, in the MSTC case referred to above the

Apex Court had been considering the relevant provisions

in Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and

Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, an enactment

of the State of Maharashtra. The counsel for the petitioner

has been trying to draw parallel between the Maharashtra

870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Act and the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment

(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981.

Section-3 of this Act provides that notwithstanding

anything contained in any law for the time being in force

every workman who is in continuous service for a period

of 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months in an

industrial establishment shall be made permanent. It has

been pointed out by the counsel that in spite of Uma Devi’s

case the provisions of the Maharashtra Act were given

effect to in MSTC case. According to the counsel, Section-

3 of the Tamil Nadu Act is not affected by the dictum laid

down in the Uma Devi case.

18.

Even without invoking the Tamil Nadu Act for

conferring permanency the case on hand can be disposed

based on the dictum laid down by the Apex Court. Even

though in the MSTC case dictum was laid down while

considering the Maharashtra Act, the power of the

industrial adjudicator under the Industrial Disputes Act

has been upheld by the Apex Court. The practice of

employing persons for years with the object of depriving

them of the status of permanent employees was deprecated

by the Apex Court as unfair labour practice. Under the

Industrial Disputes Act, Item-10 of Schedule-V describes

such practice as an unfair labour practice. The counsel for

the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Apex

Court in the decision in PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD.

VS. KAMLEKAR SHANTARAM WADKE AND OTHERS

reported in 1976 1 SCC 496 to stress on the power of the

industrial courts. It has been held in the above case that

the Labour Courts and Tribunals to whom the industrial

disputes are referred by the appropriate governments can

lay down new industrial policy for industrial peace and

order reinstatement of dismissed workman. This position

has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the decision in

HARINANDAN PRASAD VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF

INDIA reported in 2014 2 SCC (L&S) 408. Considering the

UP Power Corporation case reported in 2007 5 SCC 755

and MSTC case referred to earlier the Apex Court has

stated that the law laid down in these two cases are not

contradictory to each other. Referring to the MRTU Act

the Court has stated that the judgment in the Maharashtra

case was rendered under the Act and the specific

provisions of that Act were considered to ascertain the

powers conferred upon the industrial tribunal and the

labour court by the said Act. However, the Court has also

stated “at the same time it hardly needs to be emphasized

that the powers of the Industrial adjudicator under the ID

Act are equally wide. The act deals with industrial disputes

and provides for conciliation, adjudication and settlements

and regulates the rights of the parties and the enforcement

of awards and settlements and thus by empowering the

adjudicating authorities to give reliefs such as

reinstatements of wrongfully dismissed or discharged

workmen which may not be permissible in common law or

justified under the terms of contract between employer

and such workmen. The legislator has attempted to

frustrate the unfair labour practices and secure the policy

of collective bargaining as a road to industrial peace”.

Thus it could be seen that under the Industrial Disputes

Act the power of industrial adjudicator is wide enough

and it is very well entitled to order reinstatement or

regularization or grant any other relief as the circumstances

may require, within the parameters of the law.

19.

The concerned workman in the present case had

been working for the Respondent for years together

continuously and regularly without any break. It is clear

from the admission of MW1 that sanctioned posts were

there though appointment letters were not given to them.

MW1 has stated that upto 1990 only permanent workers

were doing sweeping, cleaning and scavenging work. There

is no case for the Respondent that the vacancies in such

posts were filled-up by permanent workers. So necessarily

the concerned workers must have been working on

sanctioned posts. The Apex Court has made a

distinction of irregular and illegal appointments in the

decision in STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS.

M.L. KESARI AND OTHERS reported in 2010 9 SCC 247.

It was held here that appointments of qualified persons

made against sanctioned posts without following process

of open competition are irregular appointments whereas

appointments made not against sanctioned posts or

appointments of unqualified persons are illegal

appointments. Referring to Uma Devi’s case it has been

held that only irregular appointees are entitled to

regularization in terms of the dictum laid down in Uma

Devi case. In the present case, necessarily the concerned

workmen must have been working on sanctioned posts.

There is no case for the Respondent that any qualification

has been prescribed for the post of cleaning and sweeping.

They must have been doing the work for years and years

together because they were competent to do the work.

The engagement in any case could not be termed illegal.

So the concerned workmen are entitled to regularization.

20.

The schedule of reference is only regarding

regularization. After the concerned workmen were denied

work the petitioner seems to have raised dispute again

but the Government has not referred the dispute. In any

case the question of reinstatement can be decided by this

Court since the denial of work was in violation of Section-

33(1) of the Act. It amounted to termination from

employment and the workmen are entitled to reinstatement

and regularization in service also.

21.

Kanagavel, one of the workmen concerned died after

the dispute was raised. So far as this workman is concerned

he would be deemed to have been regularized in service

from 07.02.2011, the date on which the dispute was raised.

He would be entitled to 50% of the salary payable to a

regular workman from this date until the date of his death

and other benefits if any due. The amount due to

Kanagavel is payable to his legal heirs. So far as Arul

Doss, the other workman is concerned, he shall be

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

871

reinstated and regularized in service w.e.f. 07.02.2011 within

one month of the date of the award. He would be entitled

to 50% of the salary payable to a permanent workman

working in the same cadre until the date of the award. In

case of failure to pay the amount within the prescribed

time the Respondent is liable to pay interest @ 9% per

annum.

22.

The reference is answered in favour of the petitioner.

An award is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/

WW1, Sri S. Aruldoss

Petitioner Union

WW2, Sri K. P. Madhakrishnan

For the 2nd Party/

MW1, Smt. Raja Meenakshi

Management

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

19.06.2000

Temporary Imprest of making

29.06.2000

payment to the labourers

05.06.2000

in Corporation Office

05.09.2000

01.07.2000

18.07.2000

03.08.2000

23.08.2000

Ex.W2

Labour payment of wages for the

period from 2001-2009

Ex.W3

Attendance Register

Ex.W4

Identity Card

Ex.W5

15.12.2010

Order in WP No. 23704/2010

Ex.W6

07.02.2011

Letter given to the 2nd Party to

the 1st Party Union

Ex.W7

01.03.2011

Letter given to the 1st Party

Ex.W8

12.03.2011

Dispute raised by the 1st Party

Union before the ALC

Ex.W9

27.08.2011

Counter Statement filed by the 2nd

Party before the ALC

Ex.W10 27.09.2011

Rejoinder filed by the 1st Party

Ex.W11 18.06.2012

Failure report

Ex.W12 07.11.2012

Order of Reference

Ex.W13 02.04.2013

Letter given by the Government

of India to the 1st Party

Ex.W14 -

Resolution

Ex.W15 -

Membership card photocopy

Ex.W16 -

Minutes (English Translation)

On the Management’s side :

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

19.02.2010

Representation of Mr. S. Aruldoss

to the 2nd Party

Ex.M2

01.03.2011

Reply to the representation by the

2nd Party

Ex.M3

01.03.2011

Reply to the representation by the

2nd Party.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 307-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ-lh-,y- ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 74@2005) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@222@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2015

S.O.

307.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 74/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern

Coalfileds Limited and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 13/02/2015.

[No. L-22012/222/2004-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 74 OF 2005

PARTIES:

The management of Chinakuri Mine No. II , ECL

Vs.

Sri Etwari Bhuiya

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management

Shri P. K. Das, Ld.

Advocate

For the union (Workman)

Shri Rakesh Kumar,

Gen. Secy, KMC

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

Dated : 15.12.2014

872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/

222/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 29.06.2005 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Chinakuri

No. II, Sodepur Area of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sri

Etwari Bhuiya form services w.e.f. 21.11.2003 is legal

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

entitled?”

Having received the Order No. L-22012/222/2004-

IR(CM-II) dated 29.06.2005 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 74 of

2005 was registered on 17.08.2005 and accordingly an order

to that effect was passed to issue notices through the

registered post to the parties concerned directing them to

appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents and a list

of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of

the said order notices by the registered post were sent to

the parties concerned.

On perusal of the case record I find that my

predecessor (Late J. K. Sen, the then Presiding Officer)

had reserved an award in this because Sri Rakesh Kumar,

General Secretary of the union submitted that the case

might be closed as the workman joined in service. Since

the workman has joined in service and no more interested

to proceed with the case further, the case is closed and

accordingly a ‘No Dispute Award’ may be passed.

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and same is passed as no

dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information

and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 308-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

45@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@147@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2015

S.O.

308.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 13/02/2015.

[No. L-20012/147/2011-IR(CM-I)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10

(1)(d) of the I.D.Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO. 45 OF 2012

PARTIES

The Vice President,

Janta Mazdoor Sangh, Vihar

Building, Jharia, Dhanbad

Vs.

General Manager,

Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL,

PO : Kusunda, Distt : Dhanbad.

Ministry’s Order No L-200I2/147/

2011-IR(CM-I) dt. 11.7.2012

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr. K. N. Singh, Ld. Adv.

Workman/Union

On behalf of the

Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld. Adv.

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 26th, Dec., 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10 (1)

(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. 20012/

I47/2011-IR(CM-I) dt. 11.7.2012.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of East

Bassuria Colliery in denial to pay compensation

benefit in respect of Late Sanichar Mandal, Ex.M/

Loader is far and justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled?”

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

873

The Union Representative did not appear nor any

document filed on his behalf. Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld.Advocate

for the OP/Management is present, though no documents

on behalf of the OP/Management filed.

Mr. D.K. Vema, Ld. Advocate drawing my attention

has submitted that the present reference is not

maintainable under the I.D. Act, 1947, as it directly relates

to an issue over non-payment of Compensation benefits

concerning the Late Sanichar Mandal, Ex. M/Loader which

comes under the provision of the Workmen’s

Compensation Act.,1923.

On perusal of the case record, I find that in fact the

Schedule to the Reference relates to non-payment of

compensation benefits regarding Late Ex./Loader,Sanichar

Mandal East Bassuria Colliery where he met an accident

on 11.10.2001 in harness, sustaining head injury and

multiple injuries, and in course of his treatment. he died on

19.12.2008. In view of the nature of the occurrence revealed

in the Written Statement filed on behalf of the Union

Representative concerned, it comes under the provision

of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.,1923. Under these

circumstances, it would be proper for dependant of the

deceased workman to seek compensation benefits under

the aforesaid Act. Hence, the Reference prima facie appears

to be unmaintanable under the I.D. Act.

Accordingly the case is disposed of as

unmaintainable before the Tribunal.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 309-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯lxkiqj

,;jykbZUl fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] eqacbZ ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 5@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 13@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@22@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2015

S.O. 309.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of

M/s. Singapore Airlines Limited and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 13/02/2015.

[No. L-11012/22/2011-IR(CM-I)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. l, MUMBAI

Present : JUSTICE S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-1/5 OF 2012

Parties :

Employers in relation to the management of Singapore

Airlines Limited

And

Their workmen

Appearances :

For the first party/

Mrs. Mitra Das, Adv.

Management

Ms. Jayeta Das, Adv.

For the second party/

Mr. M.B. Singh, Adv.

Union

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 26th day of November, 2014

AWARD

The present Reference has been made by the Central

Government by its order dated 10.1.2012, passed in exercise

of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1)

and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of Reference as per the

Schedule to the said order are as under:

“Whether the demands No.1 to 8 mentioned in the

charter of Demands dated 15.3.2010 by the Singapore

Airlines Employees Association, Mumbai against

the management of M/s. Singapore Airlines Limited

are legal, proper and justified? To what relief the

workmen concerned are entitled and from which

date?”

Pleadings have since been exchanged between the

parties. Documents on behalf of the parties have also been

filed. Hearing on the Interim Relief Application filed on

behalf of the second party/Union concluded on 8.8.2014

and the order was reserved.

On 25.11.2014, an application was filed on behalf of

the first party/Management, inter-alia, praying that the

matter be taken on Board. Accordingly by the order dated

25.11.2014, the case was directed to be put on 26.11.2014

alongwith record.

Accordingly, the case has come up today. Mr. M.B.

Singh, learned counsel for the second party/Union and

Ms. Jayeta Das, learned counsel for the first party/

Management are present.

An application has been filed today jointly on behalf

of the first party/management and the second party/Union.

It is, inter-alia, stated in the application that the Industrial

874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dispute referred for adjudication, in the present Reference

has been settled by the parties by Settlememnt dated

21.10.2014. It is, inter-alia, prayed in the application that

the Tribunal may pass an Award in terms of the Settlement

and dispose of the Reference as such. Copy of the said

Settlement dated 21.10.2014 is annexed with the application.

Ms. Jayeta Das, learned counsel for the first party/

Management and Mr. M.B. Singh, learned counsel for the

second party/Union state that in view of the averments

made in the aforesaid application, the present Reference

may be disposed of in terms of the Settlement dated

21.10.2014, copy whereof is annexed with the application,

and the Award be passed in terms of the Settlement.

Having regard to the averments made in the aforesaid

joint application filed today and in view of the statement

made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Industrial

Dispute forming the subject-matter of the Reference is

decided in terms of the Settlement dated 21.10.2004, copy

whereof is annexed to the aforesaid application.

The Reference is, therefore, answered by stating

that the Industrial Dispute forming the subject-matter of

the Reference is decided in terms of the Settlement dated

21.10.2014 arrived at between the parties, copy whereof

has been filed as annexure to the aforesaid application.

Award is passed accordingly. Settlement dated

21.10.2014, copy whereof has been filed alongwith the

aforesaid application, will form part of the Award.

Justice S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. l AT MUMBAI

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-5 OF 2012

Employers in Relation to the Management of

M/s. Singapore Airlines Ltd.

... First Party

V/s.

Their Workmen

... Second Party

Application for passing of award in terms of the settlement

MAY IT PLEASE THIS HON’BLE TRiBUNAL

The industrial dispute referred for adjudication in

the present reference has been settled by the parties vide

a settlement dated 21st October, 2014. Copy of the said

settlement is annexed hereto.

The parties therefore pray that the Hon’ble tribunal

be pleased to pass an award in terms of the settlement and

dispose of the reference as such.

Dated this 26th day of Naovember, 2014

—Sd—Illegible

Singpore Airlines Employees Association

—Sd—Illegible

Singpore Airlines Association

—Sd—Illegible

Advocates for the Workman

—Sd—Illegible

Advocates for the Employer

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT

Names of Parties :

Singapore Airlines Limited

The Taj Mahal Tower & Palace Hotel

Apollo Bunder

Mumbai 400 001

Singapore Airlines Employees Association

C/O Mr. Rodney Monteiro

Olar Co-op Housing Society

Flat No. 303, St Sebastian Road

Bandra

Mumbai 400 050

REPRESENTlNG THE EMPLOYER

David Lau

Singapore Airlines Ltd.

Mumbai

REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYEES

RoDney Monteiro

General Secretary

Singapore Airlines Employees Association

Mumbai

SHORT RECITAL

That Singapore Airlines Limited (hereinafter referred

to as “the Company”) received the Charters of Demands

dated 15 March, 2010 from the Singapore Airlines

Employees Association, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to

as “the Association”) for and on behalf its members, the

employees of Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore

Airlines Cargo Pt. Ltd. The Company, after making a

detailed study of the said demands, invited the Association

for negotiations. After holding negotiations on several

occasions on the said Charter of Demands, the Company

and the Association have arrived at an amicable settlement

on the following terms and conditions: -

PERIOD OF AGREEMENT

1.1

This Agreement shall come into effect on 01 April,

2010 and remain in force till 31 March, 2015

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SERVICE, SALARY,

ALLOWANCES AND OTHER BENEFITS

2.1

The general conditions of service, salary and

allowances, and other benefits shall be set out in

Parts One and Two of the Agreement.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

875

GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE

EXCLUSIVE SERVICE

1.1

An employee shall not, without the prior written

permission of the Company, be engaged in any

outside business or be employed in any capacity

for any period by any person, government

department, statutory board, firm, company or

organisation other than the Company.

1.2

If an employee’s family member(s) is engaged in

any business which has dealings with the

Company or any of it’s subsidiaries that could have

the effect of putting the employee in a position of

conflict of interest in the discharge of his duties

towards the Company, he must inform the

Company in writing as soon as possible.

PUBLICATIONS, INTERVIEWS, BROADCASTS,

ETC.

2.1

The consent of the Company must be obtained

before any employee may:

2.1.1

publish, or cause to be published or submit for

publication any article, book, letter or photograph;

2.1.2

give any interview or disclose any information for

publication;

2.1.3

broadcast or appear in television programmes;

2.1.4

deliver any lecture or speech;

2.1.5

exhibit or cause to be exhibited any cinematograph

film; or any matter which concerns his duties or

the business of the Company.

2.2

In the case of publication under clauses 2.1.1 to

2.1.5 not concerned with the Company, no mention

may be made by the employee of his title or position

in the Company, or his connection with the

Company.

PRIVILEGE TRAVEL

3.1

Employees may apply for privilege travel on the

Company services in accordance with the

Company regulations in force from time to time.

UNIFORM

4.1

Employees who are required to wear uniform during

duty hours will do so.

4.2

Uniform will be issued according to the Company’s

Uniform Manual and will remain the property of

the Company.

4.3

Employees are responsible for keeping their

uniform clean, presentable and in good condition.

4.4

Uniform shall not be worn when staff are off duty.

Staff may, however, wear the uniform while

travelling between their home and their place of

duty and vice versa.

4.5

Employees leaving the services of the Company

must return all items of uniform or pay the value of

the unexpired life of any article which may have

been lost. Such items may be deducted from the

final payments due on termination of employment.

PROBATIONARY PERIOD

5.1

The period of probation will be six months subject

to extension by the Company at its sole discretion

for a period of further three months. The total

period of probation shall not exceed nine months.

NOTICE FOR TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

6.1

Termination of employment may be effected by

either the Company or the employee in the following

manner:

6.1.1

During probation:

(i)

within the first three months of employment:

without notice;

(ii) after the first three months of employment : 14

days notice in writing or payment of 14 days

salary in lieu of notice; and

6.1.2

After confirmation:

(i)

one month’s notice in writing or by the

payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice.

MISCONDUCT/PUNISHMENT/DISMISSAL

7.1

Any of the following acts or omissions on the part

of any employee shall amount to misconduct;

7.1.1

wilful insubordination or disobedience, whether

or not in combination with another, of any lawful

and reasonable order of the superior;

7.1.2

going on illegal strike or abetting, inciting,

instigating or acting in furtherance thereof;

7.1.3

wilful slowing down in performance of work or

abetment or instigation thereof:

7.1.4

theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the

Company’s business or property;

7.1.5

taking or giving bribes or any illegal gratification;

7.1.6

habitual absence without leave or absence without

leave for more than 10 consecutive days or

overstaying the sanctioned leave without sufficient

grounds or proper or satisfactory explanation;

7.1.7

late attendance on not less than four occasions in

a month;

7.1.8

habitual breach of any law applicable to the

Company or any rules made there under;

7.1.9

collection without the· permission of the Company

of any money within the premises of the Company

876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

except sanctioned by any law for the time being in

force;

7.1.10 engaging in trade within the premises of the

Company;

7.1.11 drunkenness, riotous, disorderly or indecent

behaviour in the Company premises;

7.1.12 commission of any act subversive to discipline or

good behaviour in the Company premises;

7.1.13 habitual neglect of work or gross or habitual

negligence;

7.1.14 habitual breach of any rules or instructions for the

maintenance and running of any department, or

the maintenance of the cleanliness of any portion

of the Company premises;

7.1.15 habitual commission of any act or omission for

which a fine may be imposed under Payment of

Wages Act 1936.

7.1.16 canvassing for Union membership or the collection

of Union dues within the Company premises, except

in accordance with any law or with the permission

of the Company;

7.1.17 wilful damage to any Company property;

7.1.18 holding meetings in the Company premises,

without the prior permission of the Company or

except in accordance with any law for the time being

in force;

7.1.19 disclosing to any unauthorised person any

information in regard to the process of the

Company which may come to the possession of

the employee in the course of his work;

7.1.20 gambling within the Company premises;

7.1.21 smoking or spitting in the Company premises where

it is prohibited by the Company;

7.1.22 failure to observe safety instruction notified by

the Company or interference with any safety

device or equipment installed by the Company;

7.1.23 distributing or exhibiting within the Company

premises handbills, pamphlets and such other

things or causing to be displayed by means of

signs or writing of other visible representation on

any matter without prior sanction of the company;

7.1.24 refused to accept a charge sheet, order or other

conmunicatron served in acccordance with the

Standing Orders; and

7.1.25 unauthorised possession of any lethal weapon in

the Company premises.

Explanation: No act of misconduct, which is

committed on less than three occasions within the

space of one year, shall be treated as habitual.

7.2

An employee guilty of misconduct may be:

7.2.1

warned or censured; or

7.2.2

fined, subject to and in accordance with the

provision of the Payment of Wages Act 1936; or

7.2.3

suspended by an order in writing from the Company

for a period not exceeding four days; or

7.2.4

dismissed without notice.

7.3

No order under 7.2.3 shall be made unless the

employee concerned has been, informed in writing

of the alleged misconduct or given an opportunity

to explain the circumstances alleged against him.

7.4

No order or dismissal under 7.2.4 shall be made

except holding an enquiry against the employee

concerned in respect of the alleged misconduct in

the manner set out in clause 7.5.

7.5

An employee against whom an enquiry is proposed

to be held shall be given a charge sheet, clearly

setting forth the circumstances appearing against

him and requiring his explanation. He shall be

permitted to defend himself or shall be permitted

to be defended by an employee working in the

same department as himself or by any office bearer

of the Association. Except for reasons to be

recorded in writing by the Enquiry Officer, the

employee shall be permitted to produce witness in

his defence and cross examine any witness on

whose evidence the charges rest. A concise

summary of the evidence from both sides and the

employee’s pleas shall be recorded.

7.6

All proceedings of the enquiry shall be conducted

in English.

7.7

The enquiry shall be completed within a period of

3 months. Provided that the period of 3 months

may for reasons to be recorded in writing, be

extended to such further period as may be deemed

necessary by the Enquiry Officer.

7.8

An employee against whom any action is proposed

to be taken under clauses 7.2.2 to 7.2.4 may be

suspended pending the enquiry or for the period,

if any, allowed to him for giving his explanation.

The order of suspension may take effect

immediately on its communication to the employee.

7.8.1

Subject to the provision of the Payment of Wages

Act 1936, an employee who is placed under

suspension shall, during the period of suspension,

be paid a subsistence allowance at the following

rates:

(i)

for the first ninety days of the suspension

period, the employee will be paid on ½ of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

877

the basic salary and allowances. However,

the Shift Allowance and Uniform Laundry

Allowance will not be paid;

(ii)

If the enquiry gets prolonged and in case

the employee continues to be under

suspension for the period exceeding 90 days,

he will be paid ¾ basic pay and allowances.

However, the Shift Allowance and Uniform

Laundry Allowance will not be paid.

(iii)

If the enquiry is not completed within a period

of 180 days the employee will be paid full

basic pay and allowances. However, Shift

Allowance and the Uniform Laundry

Allowance will not be paid.

7.8.2

Provided that where the findings of the enquiry

officer show that such enquiry is prolonged beyond

a period of 90 days, or as the case be 180 days, for

reasons directly attributable to the employee, the

subsistence allowance to be paid per month shall

be for the period exceeding 90 days, or as the case

may be 180 days, be reduced to ½ basic pay and

allowances.

7.8.3

If, as a result of the enquiry held or explanations

tendered, it is decided not to take any action

against the employee under Clause 7.2 the

employee shall be deemed to have been on duty

and shall be entitled to full wages minus such

subsistence allowance as he may already have

drawn and to all other privileges for the full period

of suspension.

7.8.4

The payment of subsistence allowance under

Clause 7.8.1 shall be subject to the employee

concerned not taking up any employment during

the period of subsistence.

7.9

In awarding the punishment under this standing

order, the Company shall take into account the

gravity of the misconduct, previous record if any

of the employee, and any other extenuating or

aggravating circumstances that may exist.

7.10

If an employee refuses to accept a charge sheet

order or other communication served in accordance

with the Standing Order and provided that he has

been asked to accept the charge sheet in the

presence of at least 2 witnesses, he shall be told

verbally the time and place at which the enquiry

into his alleged misconduct is to be held, and if he

refuses or fails to attend at that time, the enquiry

shall be conducted ex-parte and the punishment

awarded shall take into account the misconduct

under Standing Order 22 thus committed.

7.11

An employee may be warned, censured or fined

for any of the following acts and omissions:

7.11.1 absence without leave without sufficient cause;

7.11.2 late attendance;

7.11.3 negligence in performance of duties; .

7.11.4 neglect of work;

7.11.5 absence without leave or without sufficient cause

from the appointed place of work;

7.11.6 entering or leaving, or attempting to enter or leave

the Company premises except by a gate or entrance

appointed;

7.11.7 committing a nuisance on the Company premises;

7.11.8 breach of any rule or instruction for maintenance

or running of any department.

Provided that no employee shall be fined, except

in accordance with the provisions of the Payment

of Wages Act 1936, where the provisions of the

said Act are applicable to him.

WORKING HOURS

8.1

The normal hours of work will not exceed thirty-

eight hours and forty-five minutes per week

excluding meal breaks. These hours of work will be

distributed over five days a week with two days in

each week being days off. It shall be the absolute

discretion of the Company to specify the exact

working hours, depending upon operational

requirements. In the case of employees working

on shift basis, the length of each working week

may vary according to the particular shift roster,

but on an average, each employee will be required

to complete 38 hours and 45 minutes over the course

of the complete shift cycle.

8.2

No employee shall be eligible to receive wages ‘if

he fails to report for duty for any reason other than

approved leave or paid holidays.

8.3

An employee will work in excess of the normal

working hours when required to do so by the

Company subject to the payment of Overtime for

the extended hours worked.

8.4

Overtime will be calculated at twice the basic hourly

rate of work The hourly rate will be calculated as

follows,

Basic Salary per month x 12 months

52 weeks x 38 hours and 45 minutes

8.5

Employees will be required to enter their starting

and finishing time of work, on each occasion, in an

attendance register kept for this purpose. Time in

excess of normal working hours has to be certified

in the register as being required for company duty

by the departmental head concerned.

878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8.6

Employees working in excess of half an hour from

their rostered time off, shall be entitled to overtime

payment from the rostered time off.

WORKING ON A WEEKLY DAY OFF

9.1

If an employee is required to work on his scheduled

day off, he will be given a day off in lieu within

21 days, If this is not possible, he will be paid

overtime at twice the basic hourly rate subject to a

minimum guaranteed four hours.

10.

WORKING ON PUBLIC/NATIONAL HOLIDAY

FALLING ON A OFF DAY

10.1

If an employee is required to work on his scheduled

off day which is also a Public/National holiday for

the station, he will be given two days off in lieu

within twenty-one days. If this is not possible, he

will be paid overtime at twice the basic hourly rate

for that day and be given a day off. Overtime will

be paid subject to a minimum guaranteed four

hours.

11.

WORKING ON PUBLIC/NATIONAL HOLIDAY

11.1

If an employee is required to work on a Public/

National holiday he will be given a day off in lieu

within twenty one days. If this is not possible he

will be paid overtime at twice the basic hourly rate,

subject to a minimum guaranteed four hours.

ROSTERED DUTIES

12.1

The roster will be published two weeks in advance

for a period of four weeks. It can, however, be

changed by giving twenty-four hours notice. For

operational exigencies for e.g. aircraft diversions,

or return to base, no notice of change need be

given.

12.2

There will be a minimum of twelve hours break

between shifts. If an employee is required to

report for duty before he has had this break of

twelve hours, he will be entitled for overtime payment

for the hours that fall short of the full break.

12.3

An employee who is required to work continuously

for 17 hours or more will be paid overtime for the

extended hours worked, be given a break of

12 hours and a compensatory off within 21 days.

13.

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS

13.1

Employees will be granted fifteen public holidays

in a calendar year. The list of public holidays will

be drawn up with the Association before the

commencement of the year. In case the Government

announces any additional holidays under the

Negotiable Instruments Act, employees will be

granted that holiday.

14.

ANNUAL LEAVE

14.1

Annual leave will be granted on the following basis

and will be taken in accordance with the following

regulations:

14.1.1 For employees with up to

17 working days

5 years service

14.1.2 For employees with more

20 working days

than 5 years service

14.1.3 For employees with more

23 working days

than 15 years service

14.2

Annual leave must be taken in the calendar year in

which it is earned. Leave not utilised by the end of

the calendar year will lapse unless it was not taken

at the Company’s request. In such cases and

provided prior approval is obtained from the

General Manager or State Manager, the leave may

be carried forward to the following year to be

cleared by 31 March.

CASUAL LEAVE

15.1

An employee will be entitled to paid Casual leave

up to 9 days in a calendar year, but not more than

2 days at a time.

15.2

Casual leave shall be non-cumulative and no leave

of any kind may be combined with Casual Leave.

15.3

Casual leave is intended to meet special or

unforeseen circumstances for which provision

cannot be made by exact rules.

15.4

The previous permission of the Department Head

must be taken in writing before Casual leave is

taken, but when this is not possible, information

should be given on the telephone.

16.

SICK LEAVE

16.1

An employee will be eligible for sick leave on full

salary up to a maximum of 12 working days in one

calendar year. Sick leave may be accumulated up

to a maximum of 90 working days.

16.2

Sick leave taken for two or more working days must

be supported by a certificate from the Company-

appointed doctor.

MATERNITY LEAVE

17.1

All female employees will be entitled to maternity

leave as per the provisions of Maternity Benefit

Act - 1961 and the amendments made to it thereafter.

MEDICAL TREATMENT (DOMICILIARY)

18.1

Employees can opt for one of two schemes:

18.1.1 Scheme 1 : Full reimbursement for the employee

only, for the cost of medical treatment received

from Company-appointed doctors.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

879

18.1.2 Scheme 2 : Reimbursement, for the employee,

spouse and dependent children, for the cost of

medical treatment received from Company-

appointed doctors subject to a maximum limit of

Rs. 8,500 per annum for staff, and Rs. 2,500 per

annum each for spouse and two dependent

children.

18.2

Medical treatment shall consist of consultation

fees, including specialist’s fees, the cost of any

tests/investigations required for the diagnosis of

the illness, and medicines prescribed by the

doctors. This will also include the Company-

appointed doctors’ visiting fees.

18.3

The employee shall exercise the option once a year.

Once exercised, the option cannot be changed for

a period of 12 months.

18.4

The Cornpany shall not be responsible for the

payment of any expenses arising from :

18.4.1 all medical, surgical, optical and dental appliances

including spectacles and eye glasses, dentures and

similar appliances;

18.4.2 pregnancy, confinement or miscarriage;

18.4.3 illness or disablement arising from attempted

suicide, the performance of an unlawful act,

provoked assault. the use ofdruqs other than those

prescribed by the Company’s doctor;

18.4.4 treatment of medicines where these become

necessary as a result of the misconduct or

negligence on the part of an employee or in the

case of an employee who refuses to undergo

treatment as prescribed by the Company doctor.

19.

DENTAL TREATMENT

19.1

Employees shall be reimbursed the cost of dental

treatment which they may receive from Company-

appointed dentists. This consists of consultation

fees, including specialist’s fees, the cost of any

tests/investigations required for the diagnosis of

the illness, and medicines prescribed by the dentist.

19.2

Dental treatment includes cleaning, scaling, filling,

extraction, root canal treatment, gum surgery etc.

It excludes capping, bridging, dentures and other

dental appliances.

20.

MEDICAL TREATMENT (HOSPITALISATION)

20.1

All employees are covered for hospitalisation by

an insurance policy with the premium of which will

be paid for by the Company. In the case of married

employees, the Company will pay fifty percent of

the premium for the employees’ spouse and

dependent children. The balance fifty percent will

be paid by the employee himself.

20.2

For employees in Grades Ill, the maximum sum

insured will be RS.200,000. With effect from the

next date of renewal the sum insured will increase

to RS.300,000 (subject to renewal of the policy by

the insurance company).

20.3

For employees in Grades IV and V, the maximum

sum insured will be Rs.250,000. With effect from

the next date of renewal of the said policies the

sum insured will be revised to Rs.350,000 (subject

to renewal of the policy by the insurance company).

21.

PERSONAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE

21.1

All employees are covered for hospitalisation by a

Personal Accident Insurance Policy, the premium

of which will be paid by the Company.

21.2

The sum insured for each employee will be twice

the annual salary of each. employee (at the time of

renewal).

22.

EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND

22.1

Employees who are members of the Employees’

Provident Fund will be eligible for the benefits as

per the rules of the Fund.

23.

RETIREMENT

23.1

The retirement age is 58 years for both male and

female employees.

PART TWO

SALARY, ALLOWANCES & OTHER SERVICE

CONDITIONS

SALARY SCALES

1.1

Salaries for each position will be paid in accordance

with the salary scales set out in Annexure 1,

ANNUAL INCREMENTS

2.1

Employees will be granted annual increments on

01 April each year, amounting to 4% of their basic

salary as at 31 March.

BASIC SALARY REVISION

3.1

Employees will be granted a Cost of Living

Adjustment (COLA) for the duration of this

agreement as per the table below:

Date

COLA

(% of 31 March basic pay)

01 April 10

9.85

01 April 11

8.71

01 April 12

8,31

01 April 13

11.06

01 April 14

9,95

3.2

The Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) will be based

on a weighted average of CPI of 05 on-line metros

880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(BOM, BLR, CCU, DEL & MM), using staff strength

as variable. .

TRANSPORT SUBSIDY

Transport subsidy will be paid as per the table below:

Grade

01 April 2010

01 April 2011 onwards

Town

Traffic

Town

Traffic

3550

6250

4250

7500

3680

6370

4400

7640

3800

6500

4550

7800

3900

6600

4680

7900

HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE :

5.1

Allemployees will be entitled io receive a House

Rent Allowance amounting to 10% of their basic

pay

SHIFT ALLOWANCE :

6.1

Employees who are rostered for shift duties will be

paid a single rate Shift Allowance with effect from

01 April 2010.

6.1.1

The Shift Allowance replaces the Night Shift

Allowance and the Work Through Break

Allowance, which will cease to be paid from the

same date.

6.2

The Shift Allowance will be paid on the following

basis:

6.2.1

FY1 0/11, FY11 /12 & FY12/13 : RS.1 000 per month

X 11 months for each year

6.2.2

Effective 01 April 13, the Shift Allowance will

increase to Rs.2,500 per month;

6.2.3

Effective 01 April 14, the Shift Allowance will

increase to RS.3,000 per month

UNIFORM LAUNDRY ALLOWANCE:

7.1

Effective 01 Aprii 2010, employees who are required

to wear uniforms will be paid a Uniform Laundry

Allowance of Rs.700 per month towards the cost

of laundering their uniforms.

7.2

Staff will not be paid the Uniform Laundry

Allowance when they are on annual leave.

ACTING ALLOWANCE

8.1

When an employee is absent for a period exceeding

5 working days, the Company may at its discretion

appoint an employee in a lower grade to act for the

absent employee. The junior employee will be

entitled to an Acting Allowance provided he takes

over the full responsibilities and duties of the senior

employee and acts for a period of at least 5

consecutive working days. The Acting Allowance

payable will be 6% of the junior employee’s

monthly basic salary pro-rated for the number of

days applicable.

BONUS

9.1

Employees will be paid an annual bonus in

accordance with the law.

10.

GRATUITY·

10.1

Gratuity will be payable to all employees as per the

provisions of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

and the amendments made thereafter.

11.

RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENT OF SALARY

AND ALLOWANCES

11.1

In the event of excess payment of salary and

allowances, owing to

11.2

Cashier error

11.3

Error in calculation

11.4

Sick leave and annual leave taken in excess of

entitlement the Company shall recover the same

from the employee’s future wages. However, the

deduction should be effected within 01 year from

the date of excess payment. ~

12.

CHANGES IN ALLOWANCES AND BONUSES

AND SUCH OTHER PAYMENTS AS REQUIRED

BY LEGISLATION

12.1

The Company agrees to make such changes to the

allowances, bonuses, and such other payments as

may be required by legislation.

12.2

In the event that an employee resigns from the

services of the Company he will receive arrears

which are due to him from the date of termination

of employment, in accordance with the law.

13.

EXISTING BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES

13.1

All existing benefits, privileges, payments and

allowances not covered in this Agreement in Parts

One and Two shall not be changed without prior

agreement with the Association in writing.

14.

GENERAL

14.1

The parties shall jointly file the present Settlement

Agreement before the Hon’ble Central

Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai with a

request to pass an award in I.D. Ref No. CGIT-1/5

of 2012 in terms of this Settlement Agreement.

14.2.1 The Association agrees not to make any other

demands other than those contained herein

pursuant to the Charter of Demand dated 15 March

2010, during the tenure of this agreement. The

demands which have not been settled by this

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

881

settlement and contained in the Charter of

Demands, are hereby withdrawn by the

Association.

This agreement is signed at Mumbai on the twenty-first

day of October Two Thousand and Fourteen.

David Lau

Rodney Monteiro

General Manager India

General Secretary

Singapore Airlines Limited

Singapore Airlines

(For & on behalf of the

Employees Association,

Employer)

(For & on behalf of

the Employees)

WITNESSES:

1 .

—Sd—Illegible

ANNEXURE 1

Salary Ranges with effect from 01 April 2010.

Salary Ranges

Grade

Title

(Rs/pm)

Min

Max

Office Helper

14,203

35,308

Clerk

17,717

44,293

Jr Agent/Clerk

(Customer Service,

22,519

56,300

Reservations, Accounts,

Sales & Marketing)

Agent

(Customer Service,

25,981

64,950

Reservations, Accounts,

Sales & Marketing)

Officer

(Customer Service,

33,085

82,700

Reservations, Accounts,

Sales & Marketing)

Salary Ranges with effect from 01 April 2013.

Jr Agent/Clerk

(Customer Service,

25,000

62,500

Reservations, Accounts,

Sales & Marketing)

Agent

(Customer Service,

33,000

82,500

Reservations, Accounts,

Sales & Marketing)

Officer

(Customer Service,

40,000

100,000

Reservations, Accounts,

Sales & Marketing)

Sr Officer

(Customer Service,

45,000

112,500

Reservations, Accounts,

Sales & Marketing)

ubZ fnYyh] 13 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 310-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fczfV'k ,;jost

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 100@2014) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@36@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2015

S.O. 310.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 100/

2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. British

Airways and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 13/02/2015.

[No. L-11012/36/2014-IR(CM-I)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Monday, the 8th December, 2014

Present :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 100/2014

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10

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

the Management of British Airways and their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri Ramesh Thangadurai

: 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Regional HR Management : 2nd Party/Respondent

British Airways

South Asia, DLF Plaza Tower

DLF City, Phase-I

Gurgaon-122022

882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearance :

For the 1 st Party/1st Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Respondent

None

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-11 012/36/2014-IR (CM.I)

dated 27.10.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of British

Airways regarding termination of the service of the

petitioner, Sri Ramesh Thangadurai is justifiable or

not? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled

to?

The petitioner has entered appearance in the ID on

notice.

The petitioner does not want to proceed with the ID

as a similar matter filed by him directly on the same subject

is pending before this Tribunal as ID 92/2014. The petitioner

has made endorsement to this effect. So there is no need

to proceed with this ID.

Accordingly the ID is closed. An award is passed to

this effect.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1 st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

None

Documents marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

On the Management’s side

EEx.No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 16 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 311-—Hkkjrh; jsy vf/fu;e] 1989 (1989 dk

24) dh /kjk 136 ds varxZr jsy deZpkjh (dk;Z ds ?akVs vkSj

foJke dh vof/) fu;ekoyh] 2005 ds fu;e 4(2) }kjk iznr

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Je ,oa

jkstxkj ea=kky; esa la;qDr lfpo] Jh euh"k xqIrk dks mDr fu;ekoyh

ds varxZr vihyksa dh lquokbZ djus ds fy, vihyh; izkf/dkjh ds

:i esa vf/lwfpr djrh gS A ;g ljdkjh jkti=k esa blds izdk'ku

dh rkjh[k ls izHkkoh gksxh A

¹iQk- la- tSM&20025@06@2006&lh,y,l&Iº

ckcw psfj;u] funs'kd

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2015

S.O. 311.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Rule 4(2) of Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period

of Rest) Rules, 2005 under Section 136 of the Indian Railways

Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), the Central Government hereby

notifies Shri Manish Gupta, Joint Secretary in the Ministry

of Labour and Employment as the Appellate Authority to

hear Appeals under the said Rules. This will take effect

from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

[F. No. Z-20025/06/2006-CLS-I]

BABU CHERIAN, Director

ubZ fnYyh] 16 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 312-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ohvkse usVoDlZ

fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ,.kkZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

12@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@181@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2015

S.O. 312.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D.Case No.

12/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Viom Networks Ltd.

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 13/02/2015.

[No. L-42012/181/2012-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

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

Presiding Officer

(Friday the 23rd day of January, 2015/03rd Magha 1936)

ID 12/2013

Workman

Ms. Dhanyamol

Ennakkal House, Edayakunnam

South Chittoor PO

ERNAKULAM - 682027

By Shri Adv.Renil Anto

Kandamkulathy

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

883

Managements

1. The Vice Chairman

Viom Networks Ltd.

Southern Park, Saket Palace

Saket

New Delhi-110017

2. The Circle Head

Viom Networks Ltd.

J & CO. Chamber

Manimala Road, Edappally

COCHIN -24

By M/s.Menon & Pai

This case coming up for final hearing on 21.01.2015

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 23.01.2015 passed

the following:

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section(l) 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-420 12/

181/20 12-IR(DU) dated 07.02.2013 referred the industrial

dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this

tribunal.

The dispute is:

“Whether the action of the management of Viom

Networks Ltd., in terminating the services of

Ms.Dhanyamol w.e.f.19.05.2012 is justified? To what

relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

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. Hence the compromise can be

accepted and 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.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

NIL

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

ID No. 12/2013

Smt Dhanyamol

Ennakkal House

Edayakunna

South Chitoor P.O

Kochi

... Workman

Vs.

The Vice Chairman,

Viom Networks Ltd,

South Park, Saket Palace,

New Delhi

...Management

The matter was taken up in Lok Adalat and the parties

agreed to settle the dispute on the followingterms:-

The management agrees to pay Rupees 83,088/-

towards the full and final settlement of the claim

raised in ID 12 of 2013 within three weeks from the

date of publication of award in the official gazette.

The workman agrees to accept the same as full and

final settlement and the workman also hereby

undertakes that she will not raise any claim relating

to the above industrial dispute now settled.

Dated this the 14th day of January, 2015.

Workman: Sd/-

Management: Sd/-

Counsel of Workman: Sd/-

Counsel for Management : Sd/-

Sd/-

Mediator

ubZ fnYyh] 16 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 313-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ohvkse usVoDlZ

fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ,.kkZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

11@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@182@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2015

S.O. 313.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D.Case No.

11/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Viom Networks Ltd.

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 13/02/2015.

[No. L-42012/182/2012-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

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

Presiding Officer

(Friday the 23rd day of January, 2015/03rd Magha 1936)

ID 11/2013

Workman

Smt. Shiji Mukesh

Raj Nivas

South Thamaraparambu

Kochi (Kerala)

By Shri Adv. Renil Anto

Kandamkulathy

Managements

1. The Vice Chairman

Viom Networks Ltd.

Southern Park, Saket Palace

Saket

New Delhi-110017

2. The Circle Head

Viom Networks Ltd.

J & CO. Chamber

Manimala Road, Edappally

Cochin -24

By M/s. Menon & Pai

This case coming up for final hearing on 21.01.2015

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 23.01.2015 passed

the following:

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (l) 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-42012/

182/2012-IR(DU) dated 07.02.2013 referred the industrial

dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this

tribunal.

The dispute is:

“Whether the action of the management of Viom

Networks Ltd., in terminating the services of Ms.

Shiji w.e.f.19.05.2012 is justified? To what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to?”

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. Hence the compromise can be

accepted and 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.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

NIL

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

ID No. 11/2013

Smt. Shiji Mukesh

Raj Nivas

South Thamaraparambu

Kochi

... Workman

Vs.

The Vice Chairman,

Viom Networks Ltd,

South Park, Saket Palace,

New Delhi

...Management

The matter was taken up in Lok Adalat and the parties

agreed to settle the dispute on the followingterms:-

The management agrees to pay Rupees 1,09764/-

towards the full and final settlement of the claim

raised in ID 11 of 2013 within three weeks from the

date of publication of award in the official gazette.

The workman agrees to accept the same as full and

final settlement and the workman also hereby

undertakes that she will not raise any claim in future

except as to payment of gratuity amount.

Dated this the 14th day of January, 2015.

Workman: Sd/-

Management: Sd/-

Counsel of Workman: Sd/-

Counsel for Management : Sd/-

Sd/-

Mediator

ubZ fnYyh] 16 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 314-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 109@05)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@29@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

885

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2015

S.O. 314.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 109/

05) of the Central Government Industrial 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 13/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/29/2005-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/109/05

Shri Anil Goswami

S/o Shri Dangiri Goswami,

H.No. Sachidanad Nagar,

Raisen Road,.

Bhopal

...Workman

Versus

Deputy General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Hamidia Road,

Bhopal (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of November, 2014

As per letter dated 29-9-05 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/

29/2005-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of

Dy.General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in

terminating the service of Shri Anil Goswami S/o

Dangiri Goswami w.e.f. 16-10-99 is justified? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 4/1 to 4/6. Case of workman is that workman was

engaged as temporary messenger at Chhola Road branch

from 15-10-84 to 19-1-1985. As per bipartite settlement

dated 17-11-87, the temporary employees working as

messenger, peon, sweeper etc. were to be given

opportunity for permanent absorption who had completed

240 days in 36 calendar months or worked for 270 days in

any calendar year or worked 70 days in 36 calendar months

during 1-7-75 to 31-7-88. It is submitted that workman had

worked 71 days in Chhola Road Branch. The advertisement

was issued on 1-8-88, workman had submitted application

for permanent appointment. He was called for interview

on 21-9-89 in Regional Office, Bhopal. He was interviewed

on said day. That he was included in the panel list. During

19-4-93 to 24-5-93, he was engaged in Vindyanchal branch

by the Bank. On the basis of his name in select list, he was

informed vide letter dated 19-1-94 about his appointment

in the bank.

Workman further submits that from 9-3-94 to 16-6-

94, he was engaged as messenger at Barkheda branch

Bhopal. From 23-1-95 he was engaged at Mahavir Nagar

Branch Bhopal but he was not given appointment letter.

As per letter dated 16-2-97, workman submitted application

for issuing interview call. Workman was informed that he

was interviewed in 1989. It was not necessary to again

interview him.

Workman submits that as per letter dated 7-2-97, he

was present for interview on 19-2-97. However workman

was not interviewed after asking some questions.

Workman is discontinued from 16-10-97. He was paid

amount of Rs. 11,295/-. Said amount was received by him

under protest. Workman submits that termination of his

service is illegal, for violation of bipartite settlement dated

17-11-87. His selection after interview dated 20-9-89 he

had worked in the Bank during the period 19-4-93 to 24-5-

93, 31-5-95 to 16-10-99 about 5 years. Workman completed

240 days continuous service. His services were terminated

forcibly is illegal. On such ground, workman prays for his

reinstatement with back wages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 10/1 to 10/

6 with its translation in Hindi at Page 9/1 to 9/12. IInd party

raised preliminary objection that representative of Union

Shri R. Nagwanshi is a dismissed employee of Bank is not

competent to raise dispute. IInd party further submits that

workman was engaged on contract basis for 71 days in

1984 to 1985 by Branch Manager, Mahaveer Nagar Branch.

Workman was engaged for 4 years, 8 months, 23 days as

per exigencies. Workman was paid wages allowances.

Workman is not covered as workman is not entitled to

status of regular employees. The discontinuation of

workman is not covered as retrenchment under Section

2(oo) of I.D.Act.

IInd party denied that workman completed 240 days

continuous service during any of the year. The services

of workman engaged on daily wages ended at end of the

day. Workman was at liberty to work anywhere as per

Bipartite Settlement dated 17-11-87, 16-7-88, 28-10-88, 9-1-

91. Workman was given opportunity for regular

appointment. Workman could not be given regular

appointment considering his working days were less.

Workman was found not suitable for appointment after

his interview. Reiterating above contentions, IInd party

submits that workman had worked only for 71 days, his

name was at lower stage of the list. Workman was given

886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

opportunity for interview as per above settlement. However

he could not be permanently appointed as name of

workman was at lower stage. Workman was paid

retrenchment compensation Rs. 2160/- in compliance of

Section 25-F. amount of Rs. 1503/- was paid considering

his working days. On above contentions, IInd party

submits that it has not committed any illegality in

discontinuing the workman. On such contentions, IInd

party prays for rejection of claim.

Workman filed rejoinder reiterating his contentions

in statement of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

“ Whether the action of the

Partly in

management of Dy.General

Negative

Manager, State Bank of India,

Bhopal in terminating the

service of Shri Anil Goswami

S/o Dangiri Goswami w.e.f.

16-10-99 is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

As per terms of reference, legality of termination of

services of workman is referred for adjudication. Terms of

reference donot include claim for regularization of

workman. Workman has contented that his services are

terminated illegally. He was forcibly terminated from service

paying amount of Rs. 1561/-. IInd party has pleaded that

workman was paid amount of retrenchment compensation

Rs. 2160/- and Rs. 1503/-. Thus payment of amount by

IInd party before termination of services of workman is

not in dispute.

10.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. He has

stated that as per bipartite settlement dated 17-11-87, he

worked for 71 days in the bank during 15-10-84 to 19-1-87.

He was called for interview on 21-9-89. He was interviewed

on the day after his name was included in panel list. After

4 years he was engaged in Vindyanchal branch on 19-4-93

as messenger. That he was engaged in Barkheda branch

of SBI as messenger from 9-3-94 to 16-6-94 and in Mahavir

Nagar branch from 23-1-95 till date of his discontinuation.

He was not called for interview on 19-2-97 for the reasons

that he was interviewed in the year 1989. In Para-15 of his

affidavit, workman has stated that forcibly retrenchment

compensation Rs. 11,295/- was paid to him by Cheque

No. 278028. He further states that employees working for

less period were continued in the bank. However said

evidence of workman finds no reference in his statement

of claim. The statement of claim filed by workman is silent

about continuing employees working less number of days

or violation of Section 25-G of I.D.Act. In para 17/3 of

statement of claim, workman has pleaded that employees

working less number of days were given appointments. In

his cross-examination, workman says during October 84

to January 85, he worked for 71 days. On its basis, he was

interviewed on 21-9-89, appointment letter was not given

to him. Employee working less number of days were given

appointment letters during 23-1-95 to 16-10-99, he worked

for 4 years, 8 months, 23 days. Even at that time,

appointment letter was not given to him as his name was

included he was not called for interview. He denies that he

was taken on work because of his acquaintance. Workman

admits receipt of retrenchment compensation Rs. 2160/-

and one months pay Rs. 1530/-. The evidence of workman

shows that he was paid retrenchment compensation and

pay in lieu of notice.

11.

Management’s witness Shri R.S.Mathur in his

affidavit of evidence supports contentions of management

that workman was working for 71 days, therefore he was

called for interview. Workman worked for 4 years, 8 months,

23 days form January 95 to October 99. The evidence of

management’s witness further shows workman was paid

amount of Rs. 11,295/- towards pay in lieu of notice and

retrenchment compensation. There is no cross-examination

on said point. Workman has pleaded and stated in his

evidence that employees working less number of days

were given appointments. Management’s witness in his

cross-examination claims ignorance whether seniority list

of retrenched employee was displayed on notice board.

Even pleading of IInd party on above point are silent.

During course of argument, learned counsel for IInd party

Mr. Tripathi pointed out my attention to Bipartite

Settlement Exhibit M-1 to M-6. Employees working

minimum 30 days aggregate in any calendar year after

1-7-75 or 70 days aggregate temporary service in any

continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-75 are

eligible for absorption for permanent appointment. The

workman fulfills above condition. The Bipartite settlement

further provides for conducting interviews. The names of

suitable candidates waitlisted in order of respective

categories A, B,C and length of aggregate temporary

service put in the bank between 1-7-75 till 31-12-87.

Workman was interviewed giving benefit of those

settlement. The select list is produced at Exhibit M-5. Name

of workman is included at Sl No. 428. Though workman

submits that employees having less number of working

days were appointed, list M-5 shows remarks of candidates

found suitable, any employee having less number of days

are not given appointment after Bhangwandas candidate

at Sl. No. 161. Therefore evidence of workman on above

point cannot be accepted. Workman has not produced

documents that employees with less number of working

days are given appointment in the Bank. Exhibit M-6 Para-

2(ii) provides similarly all daily wager/ casual labours

interviewed and found suitable for permanent appointment

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

887

will be empanelled/ wait listed category wise and in the

manner envisaged in the settlements (iii) both the panels/

waitlists will be merged in their respective categories and

a combined waiting list will be prepared. Where a temporary

employee and a daily wager/casual labour stand on equal

footing, the former will be waitlisted above the latter.

12.

Though evidence on record doesnot show

employee working less number of days in the select list is

appointed. Ist party workman is paid retrenchment

compensation and pay in lieu of notice. However seniority

list of retrenched employee was not displayed on notice

board.

Section 25 G of I.D.Act provides - Where any

workman in an industrial establishment, who is a

citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs

to a particular category of workmen in that

establishment, in the absence of any agreement

between the employer and the workman in this behalf,

the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman

who was the last person to be employed in that

category, unless for reasons to be recorded the

employer retrenches any other workman.

Rule 77 of I.D.Act provides- The employer shall

prepare a list of all workmen in the particular

category from which retrenchment is contemplated

arranged according to the seniority of their service

in that category and cause a copy thereof to be

pasted on a notice board in a conspicuous place in

the premises of the industrial establishment at least

seven days before the actual date of retrenchment.

The evidence of management’s witness is clear that

the seniority list of workman was not displayed on notice

board therefore retrenchment of Ist party workman is in

violation of Section 25-G read with Rule 77 of I.D.Act. For

above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 partly in

Negative.

13.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1,

termination of workman is illegal for violation of Section

25-G read with Rule 77 , question arises whether workman

is entitled for reinstatement with back wages. Workman

was paid retrenchment compensation and pay in lieu of

notice. However seniority list contemplates under Section

25-G read with Rule 77 was not displayed therefore the

termination of workman is found illegal. Part time employee

was given opportunity for permanent appointment.

Considering his number of working days, his name is

appearing at Sl. No. 428 in Exhibit M-5. All the employees

in select list could not be appointed. The list prepared

after interview was Waiting List. It doesnot give right for

appointment to all candidates in the list. The appointments

are given as per the seniority considering number of

working days. Shri R.Nagwanshi has submitted copies of

award passed in R/189/00, R/4/07, R/105/03, R/27/04. Each

case needs to be decided as per evidence on record

therefore copies of award submitted by Shri R.Nagwanshi

cannot be used for purpose of persuasion. Workman is

not entitled for reinstatement however for violation of

Section 25-G, termination of service of workman suffers

from illegality therefore compensation Rs. 50,000/- would

be reasonable. Accordingly I record my finding in Point

No.2.

14.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Dy.General

Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in terminating

the service of Shri Anil Goswami S/o Dangiri

Goswami w.e.f. 16-10-99 is illegal for violation of

Section 25-G read with Rule 77 of I.D.Act.

15.

IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 50,000/-

to the Ist party workman.

R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 315-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fjtoZ cSad

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 01@2012)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@96@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2015

S.O. 315.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Reserve

Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 13/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/96/2011-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 MUMBAI

Present : JUSTICE S.P.MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer

COMPLAINT NO. CGIT-1 OF 2012

(Arising out of Ref.CGIT-42 of 2011)

888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Parties :

Ramesh Babji Mhadlekar

……

Complainant

Vs.

Reserve Bank of India

……

Opposite Party

Appearances:

For the Complainant

None present

For the Opposite Party

None present

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 5th day of January, 2015

AWARD

It appears that the present Complaint under Section

33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed by the

Complainant on 25.4.2012 making various prayers as

mentioned in the said Complaint. By the Order dated

30.4.2012, notice was directed to be issued to the Opposite

Party to file Written Statement.

It is, inter-alia, stated in the Complaint that during

the pendency of Reference No.42 of 2011 in respect of

the Industrial Dispute raised by the Complainant under

Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the

Opposite Party served upon the Complainant, an eviction

notice dated 6.2.2012, under the Public Premises (Eviction

of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and the

Complainant was summoned to appear before the Estate

Officer on the date mentioned in the said notice; and that

the Opposite Party also by letter dated April 16, 2012

demanded Market Rent alongwith interest for the

occupation of Staff Quarters allotted to the Complainant

during the course of employment; and that the Opposite

Party failed to seek the relevant permission from the

Tribunal before commencing the above proceedings.

The Tribunal is informed by the Office that the

aforesaid Reference No.42 of 2011 was earlier pending

before this Tribunal, but subsequently the same was

transferred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

–cum- Labour Court No.2, Mumbai. The Office has further

informed that the said Reference has since been decided,

and the Award has been passed.

As regards the present Complaint, pleadings were

exchanged between the parties, and the evidence on behalf

of the parties was also led before this Tribunal. After the

closure of evidence on 5.2.2013, the case was fixed for

final arguments on 26.2.2013.

On 26.2.2013, Representatives for the parties were

present. The case was adjourned for arguments to

26.3.2013.

On 26.3.2013, the Complainant as well as the

Representative for the Opposite Party were present. The

case was adjourned to 16.4.2013 for arguments.

On 16.4.2013, the Complainant was present.

However, none was present on behalf of the Opposite

Party. The case was adjourned to 21.6.2013 for arguments.

On 21.6.2013, Representative for the Opposite Party

was present. However, none was present for the

Complainant. The case was adjourned to 6.8.2013 for

arguments.

On 6.8.2013, Representatives for the parties were

present. However the post of Presiding Officer of this

Tribunal was vacant. Therefore, the case was adjourned

to 1.10.2013 for arguments.

10.

On 1.10.2013, Representatives for the parties were

not present. The post of Presiding Officer of this Tribunal

was vacant. Therefore, the case was adjourned to

12.11.2013 for arguments.

11.

On 12.11.2013, Representatives for the parties were

not present. The post of Presiding Officer of this Tribunal

was vacant. The case was, therefore, adjourned to

27.12.2013 for arguments.

12.

On 27.12.2013, none was present on behalf of the

Complainant nor was anyone present on behalf of the

Opposite Party. Therefore, the case was adjourned to

11.2.2014 for arguments.

13.

On 11.2.2014, none was present on behalf of the

Complainant nor was anyone present on behalf of the

Opposite Party. The case was adjourned to 25.3.2014 for

arguments.

14.

The case was put up for arguments on 25.3.2014 and

thereafter on various dates as mentioned in the order

sheet but on none of the said dates, anyone was present

on behalf of the Complainant or on behalf of the Opposite

Party.

15.

The case was lastly put up on 17.11.2014. On the

said date again, none was present for the Complainant nor

was anyone present on behalf of the Opposite party. In

the circumstances, by the order dated 17.11.2014, the case

was adjourned to 5.1.2015 for arguments.

16.

Pursuant to the order dated 17.11.2014, the case is

put up today. Today again, none is present for the

Complainant nor is anyone present for the Opposite Party.

17.

In view of the above narration of facts, it is evident

that the Complainant is no longer interested in getting

any relief on the Complaint filed by him. No relief can,

therefore, be granted to the Complainant on the Complaint

filed by him under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

18.

Award is passed accordingly.

Justice S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

889

ubZ fnYyh] 16 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 316-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 110@2013)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@70@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2015

S.O. 316.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 110/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of State

Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 16/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/70/2013-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 110/2013

Reference No. L-12012/70/2013/IR(B-1)

dated 30/09/2013

Radhey Shyam Verma,

resident of 231, Rajiv Puram,

Gali No. 3&4, Phusgarh Road,

Karnal

...Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

State Bank of India,

Regional office (Haryana Region),

Chandigarh

...Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

None

For the Management

Sh. Ashu Gupta for

Shri S.K Gupta

AWARD

Passed On:-24.11.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No. L-12012/70/2013/IR(B-1) dated 30/09/2013

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India in removal of services of Shri Radhey

Shyam Verma, Ex-Sr. Assistant w.e.f. 14.11.2007 and

his signatures on his terminal dues was just and

proper? To what relief the said workman is entitled

to and from what date?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman for the last several hearing. It appears that the

workman is not interested to pursue the present reference.

In view of the above the present reference is disposed off

for want of prosecution.

3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the

Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

24.11.2014

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 317-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tEew ,.M

d'kehj cSad fy- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 992@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

16@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@30@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2015

S.O. 317.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 992/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of Jammu

and Kashmir Bank Ltd. and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 16/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/30/2000-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Case No. I.D. No. 992/2005

Registered on 16.9.2005

Sh. Lokinder Prasad, S/o Sh. Jagat Ram,

R/o H.No.2856, Sector 22C,

Chandigarh

...Petitioner

Versus

The Chairman,

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd.,

Central Office, Zum Zum Building,

Ram Bagh, Srinagar

The Senior Manager (Personnel),

J&K Bank Ltd., Zum Zum Building,

Ram Bagh, Srinagar

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. R.P. Rana Adv.

For the Management

Sh. A.P. Jagga Adv.

AWARD

Passed on- 7.10.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/

30/2000 IR(B-I) Dated 31.5.2000, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub-Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-

Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of Jammu

and Kashmir Bank Ltd., Srinagar in terminating the

services of Sh. Lokinder Prasad S/o Sh. Jagat Ram,

w.e.f. 20.5.1999 is just and legal. If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?”

The facts in brief are that the workman was

appointed as Waterman in May, 1982 and thereafter was

appointed as Peon-cum-watchman vide order dated

19.5.1984. The workman submitted a matriculation

examination certificate to get the promotion in the year

1988 and he was promoted as Assistant Cashier-cum-

Godown Keeper vide order dated 27.7.1996.

The management sent the Matriculation Certificate

for verification to the Bihar School Examination Board who

vide their letter dated 21.1.1997 informed that the certificate

was fake. A show-cause notice dated 16.6.1997 was served

on the workman for committing ‘gross misconduct’ by

submitting a fake certificate. Later on, the bank while

resorting to Clause 522(1) of the Shastri Award terminated

the services of the workman. Now according to the

workman, he initially submitted a certificate bearing Roll

No.7101 Serial No.185 issued by the Bihar School

Examination Board and which was found fake but

particulars were not mentioned correctly in the certificate

and he actually appeared under Roll No. 1204 Serial No.258

for passing the Matriculation Examination and the said

Board later on issued a mark sheet and a certificate as well

in his favour and he forwarded the copy of the same to the

management but the management without serving any

charge sheet and conducting any proper inquiry

terminated his service which are unlawful. The services

of a permanent employee cannot be terminated in such a

summary way.

According to the management, submission of the

Matriculation mark sheet in 1989, the workman was

promoted as Assistant Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper in

the year 1996 vide order dated 22.7.1996 and when the

Bihar Board of School Education informed vide his letter

dated 9.12.1998 that the certificate was fake, the

management invoked Clause 522(1) of the Shastri Award

and terminated his services which is legal and valid. That

the workman is responsible for his conduct and criminal

act for furnishing a fake certificate.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

In support of his case the workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating his case as

set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand management has examined Sh.

Ghulam Qadir Shah who filed his affidavit reiterating the

stand taken by the management in the written statement.

During the pendency of the reference, the workman

died on 8.8.2007 and his LRs i.e. his wife, two sons and a

daughter were brought on record vide order dated

15.11.2007.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Rana, counsel for the workman

and Sh. A.P. Jagga, counsel for the management and

perused the file carefully.

The admitted facts are that the workman was working

as Peon-cum-Watchman with the management on regular

basis. In the year 1988, he submitted a Matriculation

Certificate issued from the Bihar School Examination Board

to claim promotion of Assistant Cashier-cum-Godown

Keeper. Acting on this certificate, the workman was

promoted by the management vide order dated 27.7.1996.

At the same time, management sent a certificate for

verification to the Bihar School Examination Board who

vide its letter dated 21.1.1997 informed that the certificate

was fake. Consequently, the bank issued a notice dated

16.6.1997 informing the workman that he committed ‘gross

‘misconduct’ by submitting a fake certificate. According

to the workman, he got checked the record of the Bihar

School Examination Board and it was found that his roll

number was 1204 Serial No.258 and as such his roll number

was wrongly mentioned as 7101 in the certificate he initially

submitted to the bank. That he informed the bank about

this. There is a letter dated 26.3.1989 which was put to

management witness Sh. Ghulam Qadir Shah when he

appeared in the witness box but he did not deny that the

same was not of the bank. A perusal of this letter shows

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

891

that Branch Manager, Chandigarh forwarded the new

certificate submitted by the workman to the concerned

office along with the letter dated 22.3.1999. Thus the

workman brought it to the notice of the management that

a new certificate mentioning his correct roll number have

been issued by the Bihar School Examination Board but

instead of conducting any inquiry in pursuance of the

notice dated 16.6.1997 issued to the workman, the

management terminated the services of the workman vide

order dated 20.5.1999.

Learned counsel for the management has contended

that the workman submitted a fake certificate and the

management was empowered to terminate his services as

per Clause 522 appearing in Section IV of Chapter 25 of

the Shastri Award and being so, the termination order dated

20.5.1999 is legal and valid.

Chapter 25 of the Shastri Award deals with

recruitment, condition of service and termination of

employment etc. and Section III of the Chapter contain

Clauses 520 and 521 prescribing the procedure for taking

disciplinary action and inter alia provides that the

employee be supplied with a charge sheet and evidence

be recorded and workman be given an opportunity to

cross-examine the witness and thereafter findings with

grounds on which the same are based be recorded. But

Clause 522(1) provides for termination of the employment

and it reads as follow –

“In cases not involving disciplinary action for

misconduct and subject to clause (6) below, the

employment of a permanent employee may be

terminated by three months’ notice or on payment

of three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of notice.

The services of a probationer may be terminated by

one month’s notice or on payment of a month’s pay

and allowances in lieu of notice.

Thus an exhaustive procedure has been provided

under Clause 521 of the said Award for taking disciplinary

action including dismissal from service, whereas, a

summary procedure has been given in Clause 522 providing

that employment of a permanent employee can be

terminated by giving three months’ notice or payment

thereof. Though no reason is given for introducing this

clause, but it seems to be given effect to in the rare of the

rarest cases where the management finds the employee

totally unsuitable for it or whose presence is of great

inconvenience to the management. But the facts of the

present case do not call for such an action. The workman

submitted a certificate in the year 1988. He was promoted

on 22.7.1996 and he did not join on the promotional post.

He continued doing service till 1999 without causing any

hardship and prejudice to the interest of the bank. The

bank itself initially issued a show-cause notice for

committing ‘gross misconduct’ to the workman in the year

1997 and it is not clear why the management later on

changed its mind and resorted to Clause 522 of the Award

in the year 1999. It may also be added that the management

acted only on the basis of letter dated 21.1.1997 vide which

the concerned Board informed it that the certificate

submitted by the workman was fake. On the basis of the

simple letter, no action was required to be taken and the

management was required to get the certificate verified

after visiting the concerned office and recording the

statements of the concerned persons and more especially

when the workman brought to the notice of the

management that the particulars of the certificate were

mentioned wrongly and a new certificate has been issued

by the Board prior to the passing of the impugned order.

Considering all the circumstances, the bank was not within

its rights to invoke Clause 522(1) of the Award and to

terminate the services of the workman.

In result, it is held that action of the management in

terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 20.5.1999 is

illegal and the workman is entitled to all the pay and

allowances from the date of termination till his death. The

amount so accrued be paid to his LRs who have been

brought on record. They be also given pensionary benefits

of workman, if any admissible under the Rules. The bank

shall pay the amount within three months of the

publication of the Award failing which the LRs of workman

shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of six per cent

per annum on the arrears from the date of the award till

realization. The reference is accordingly answered in favour

of the workman. Let hard and soft copy of the award be

sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 318-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eè; jsyos ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 117@99) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@136@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2015

S.O. 318.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 117/

99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Central

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 12/02/2015.

[No. L-41012/136/98-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/117/99

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Moolchand, S/o Dangal,

C/o Gulabchand Raikwar,

West Bhanpur, Chhola Road,

Bhopal (MP)

...Workman

Versus

Divisional Railway Manager (P),

Central Railway, Habibganj,

Bhopal (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 24th day of November, 2014

As per letter dated 9-3-99 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-41012/

136/98-IR(B-I).The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of DRM,

Central Railway, Bhopal in terminating the services

of Shri Moolchand S/o Dangal w.e.f. 11-4-91 is

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

for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at page 4/1 to 4/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

working as Ggangman from 25-3-83 under PWI, Bhopal.

He worked under PWI from 25-3-83 to May 1985. The

workman was then transferred to Ganj Dasoda which falls

under the jurisdiction of AEN, Bhopal. Subsequently

workman was transferred to Vidisha, Bina, Baora. After his

transfer from Bina to Baora, Ist party workman fell sick

from 6-4-91 to 10-4-91. He was receiving treatment from

Railway Hospital, Bina. Mining Officer, Bina issued duty

certificate No. A-566614 dated 10-4-91. Ist party workman

reported on duty on 11-4-91 along with Medical Certificate

and submitted to Shri Rajput, PWI, Baora. It is submitted

that duty certificate was adduced by PWI Shri Rajput. He

abused workman in filthy language. Workman requested

several times to PWI Baora to permit him to resume duty

but PWI refused workman to resume duties. It is further

submitted by workman that he approached various

authorities. No sympathy was shown to him. He was not

permitted to join duty. He was issued any charge sheet,

DE was not conducted, he did not received any notice.

Even if any enquiry conducted it was behind his back.

Workman further submits that he was suffering from illness

from 6-4-91 to 10-4-91 for 4 days. He received treatment in

Railway Hospital. Duty certificate issued by Medical Officer

was torn by PWI. He was not permitted to join duty, the

punishment imposed against him is without any point on

his part. He has not committed any misconduct. He was

suffering from illness.

Workman further submits that order dated 7-9-98

punishment of reducing to lower stage of pay with

cumulative effect is illegal. He prays for setting aside said

order.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/6.

Preliminary objection is raised that punishment of reducing

workman to lower pay scale for unauthorized absence is

legal. Workman was absent unauthorisely from work. He

is not entitled to any relief. That workman was working as

MRCL under PWI, Shajapur from 4-2-90 to 8-11-91.

Workman remained unauthorisely absent . workman did

not come back to work till 18-11-91. Therefore charge sheet

was issued to him on 30-4-92. Form 5 & 7 were pasted on

notice board. Workman did not turnup. He remained

absent. Workman was not available despite of notices

therefore enquiry was conducted and removal order was

passed.

All adverse contentions of workman are denied by

IInd party. It is denied that workman was sick during period

6-4-91 to 10-4-91. That workman was under control of Chief

PWI, Shajapur. There is no nexus of the allegation made

by Ist party workman in respect of PWI Shri Rajpur. Ex-

parte enquiry was conducted against workman and

punishment of removal from service was imposed against

workman is illegal. Said punishment was modified and

workman was placed at lower stage of pay. Leniency was

shown to workman while imposing such punishment. IInd

party prays for rejection of claim.

Rejoinder is filed by workman reiterating his

contentions in statement of claim.

As per order dated 23-10-13, it was found that no

enquiry was conducted against workman. Case was

adjourned for evidence on the point of legality of

punishment. However IInd party has not adduced any

evidence. After order on preliminary issue , the parties

have not adduced any evidence.

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 punishment of

In Negative

reduction in lower stage of

pay scale with cumulative

effect revising order of removal

from service is proper and legal?

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

893

REASONS

As per order dated 23-10-13, it is found that no

enquiry was conducted by IInd party before imposing

punishment against workman. Initially the reference was

made w.r.t. legality of the action of the management of

DRM, C.Rly in terminating the services of workman. As

per Exhibit M-1, the punishment of removal from service

was revised to reduction in lower stage of pay scale with

cumulative effect. IInd party has not adduced any evidence

w.r.t. alleged unauthorised absence of workman from duty.

As per application dated 31-7-14, counsel for IInd party

submitted that Competent Authority vide letter dated

1-4-14 informed that relevant record of the case is not

available. Due to non-availability of record, no one is ready

to be present as witness on behalf of IInd party. In absence

of evidence, the initial punishment of removal from service

imposed against workman and reduction of said

punishment to reduction in lower stage of pay scale with

cumulative effect of workman cannot be said legal. For

above reasons, I record Point No.1 in Negative.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management imposing punishment

of removal from service of workman and revising

said punishment to reducing to lower stage of pay

with cumulative effect are illegal. Order dated 7-9-98

of reduction of pay to lower stage is quashed.

(2)

IInd party is directed to give consequential benefits

to the workman.

R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 319-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 29@2011) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@102@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2015

S.O. 319.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Uttar

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 16/02/2015.

[No. L-41011/102/2009-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : SHRI RAKESH KUMAR,

Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 29/2011

Ref. No. L-41011/102/2009-IR (B-I)

dated: 08.03.2011

BETWEEN :

Mandal Sangatan Mantri

Uttar Railways Employee Union

283/63, Kh Gadi Kannora (Premvati Nagar)

PO Manak Nagar

Lucknow

(Espousing cause of Shri Raja Ram)

AND

Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction)

Uttar Railway, Charbagh

Lucknow.

Deputy Chief Manager (Stores)

Northern Railway, Stores Depot

Alambagh, Lucknow.

AWARD

By order No. L-41011/102/2009-IR (B-I) dated:

08.03.2011 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 Mandal Sangatan Mantri,

Uttar Railways Employee Union, 283/63, Kh Gadi Kannora

(Premvati Nagar), PO. Manak Nagar, Lucknow and the Dy.

Chief Engineer (Construction), Uttar Railway, Charbagh,

Lucknow & Deputy Chief Manager (Stores), Northern

Railway, Stores Depot, Alambagh, Lucknow to this CGIT-

cum-Labour Court, Lucknow for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF MANAGEMENT OF

NORTHERN RAILWAY, LUCKNOW IN NOT

GIVING SHRI RAJA RAM, T.NO. 657 STATUS OF

TEMPORARY WORKER FROM THE DATE OF

COMPLETION OF 120 DAYS OF SERVICE IS LEGAL

AND JUSTIFIED? TO WHAT RELIEF THE

WORKMAN IS ENTITLED?”

The case of the workman’s union, in brief, is that the

workman, Raja Ram, has been engaged as casual labour

with in construction unit under opposite party No. 1 and

is presently working under opposite party No. 2. It has

894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

been alleged by the workman’s union that the workman

under dispute was to be given temporary status after

completion of 120 days of working as per P.S. N. 7850,

Master Circular 48/92 and Rule 2304, 2501 and 2511 of

Indian Railway Establishment Manual; but he was granted

temporary status after five years’ of his engagement, which

is not only unfair labour practice but also is against Article

21 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the workman’s union

has prayed that the workmen concerned be granted

temporary status from the date the has completed 120 days’

working with consequential benefits.

The management of the North Central Railways has

filed its written statement denying the allegations of the

workman’s union with submission that the workman under

dispute was initially engaged by them as Project Casual

Labour in Construction Unit with intermittent gap w.e.f.

09.10.74 and has been granted temporary status on

01.01.84 vide letter No. E(NG)II/84/CL/41 dated 11.09.86.

It has been submitted that the railway formulated a scheme

to provide the temporary status to Project Casual Labour,

circulated vide No. E(NG)II/84/CL/41 dated 1.6.84 as per

directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav &

others vs Union of India & others (1985) 2 SCC 648. The

management has submitted that as per modified date of

grant of temporary status, the workmen were screened

and posted accordingly; and is in fruitful employment of

the opposite party for last 20 years, thus, raising the

present industrial disputes after lapse of 20 long years

makes it time barred hence, not maintainable in the eye of

law. It is specifically submitted by the management that

the workman has been engaged as project casual labour

and as per existing Railway Rules 360 days’ continuous

service is required for grant of temporary status, therefore,

the claim of the workmen for grant of temporary status

after 120 days is not maintainable and liable to be rejected.

Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim

of the workman’s union be rejected being devoid of any

merit.

The workman’s union has filed its rejoinder wherein

apart from reiterating facts already mentioned in the

statement claim has submitted that the workman under

dispute has not been appointed in any project, therefore,

decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav case

(supra) is not applicable on him and he should be granted

temporary status after completion of 120 days of service.

The workman’s union has not filed any documentary

evidence in support of its claim; rather it has stated that

the Casual Labour Card in respect of the workman and his

Service Book, is with the employers, in original.

The management has filed photocopy of Casual

Labour Card and Service Book in respect of all the workman

alongwith its written statement.

The workman’s union has examined workman;

whereas the management examined Sri Sita Ram Sonkar,

APO in support of their claim. The parties availed

opportunity to cross-examine the each other’s witnesses

apart from putting oral arguments as well as written

arguments.

Heard learned authorized representatives of the

parties and perused entire evidence on record.

The authorized representative of the workman has

contended that the workman was not project Casual

Labour; rather they were Casual Labour engaged in

construction division/unit. Therefore, he was eligible for

grant of temporary status from the date he completed 120

days of service. The railway administration instead treated

him as project Casual Labour and granted him temporary

status after lapse of five years which is unfair labour

practice. It is also contended that the decisions of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indra Pal Yadav case (supra) is

not applicable on the workman. The workman’s union has

relied on:

(i)

Union of India vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-

Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar & another 2008(116)

FLR 1046.

(ii)

Union of India & others vs. Basant Lal & others

1992 SCC (L&S) 611.

(iii)

L. Robert D’Souza vs. Executive Engineer,

Southern Railway & another 1982 SCC (L&S) 124.

(iv)

N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy ACJ 1998

1347 SC.

(v)

Kuldeep Singh vs. GM, Instrument Design

Development and Facilities Centre & another

2011 (128) FLR 121.

(vi)

Din Mohammed (Dead) by LRs. vs. Union of India

& others 2002 (92) FLR 1216.

(vii)

The Union of India & another vs. Girja Shankar

& others 2003 (96) FLR 1094.

10.

In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the

management has contended that the workman has been

project Casual Labour in construction unit and worked

with intermittent gap and he was granted temporary status

as per Railway Board’s letter dated 01.06.84. It has been

submitted that the Railway Board vide its letter dated

11.09.86 modified the date of temporary status to the

workmen in view of decision given by Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Indra Pal Yadav case (supra). The management

has contended that the workman was not entitled for grant

of temporary status after completion of 120 days

continuous service since he was engaged as project Casual

Labour and as per existing Railway Rules, 360 days’

continuous services is required for grant of temporary

status to a project Casual Labour. The authorized

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

895

representative of the management has also contended that

the workman has turned up after lapse of more than

20 years and his cause is not tenable in the eye of law

being time barred. The management has relied on Inder

Pal Yadav & others vs. Union of India (1985) 2 SCC 648.

11.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival submissions of the learned authorized representatives

of the parties and scanned entire evidence on record in

light thereto.

12.

The workman has come up with a case that he has

been engaged as casual labour in the Construction Unit

of the Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction), Northern Railway,

Lucknow and he was entitled for grant of temporary status

on completion of 120 days of service under P.S. N. 7850,

Master Circular 48/92 and Rule 2304, 2501 and 2511 of

Indian Railway Establishment Manual; but the

management granted him temporary status after five years’

of their appointment, amounting to unfair labour practice.

The workman’s union has not filed any documentary

evidence in support of their case; rather it has pleaded

that the same is in power and possession of the Railways.

13.

The management of the Northern Railways, rebutting

the claim of the workman’s union has come up with a clear

cut case that the workman had been engaged as Project

Casual Labour and accordingly, he was entitled for grant

of temporary status on completion of 360 days continuous

service; and accordingly, he was granted temporary status.

Later on with the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Inder

Pal Yadav case (supra), the date of grant of temporary

status was modified vide Railway Board’s letter dated

11.09.86 whereby the workmen was given temporary status

from previous date. The management has also stressed

upon the facutm of delay in raising the present industrial

dispute after lapse of more than 20 years. The authorized

representative of the management has pointed out that

the workman is working with the railways for decades; but

neither he preferred any representation, on the issue; nor

moved to the court for redressal of his grievances. It is

also stressed by the management that the workman has

raised the present industrial dispute at a highly belated

stage without any explanation to the delay. It has also

been argued that though there is no limitation in the I.D.

Act, 1947; but the same should not be condoned for the

want of any explanation from the workman’s union. He

has also submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in number

of its verdicts has observed that Courts should exercise

their discretion, judiciously, while condoning the delay.

14.

The workman’s union has adduced evidence of the

workman who stated in his cross-examination that he had

been granted temporary status w.e.f. 1.1.84. The workman

admitted the photocopy of service record and Casual

Labour card, filed by the management, from paper No.

M-5/7 to 5/12.

15.

The workman has not filed any documentary proof

in support of their claim but has relied on the photocopy

of the service record and Casual Labour card of the

workman, filed by the management. The service record of

the workman shows the entry regarding grant of temporary

status to the workman of different dates and there after

grant of revised temporary status from different dates as

per Railway Board’s circular dated 11.9.86. The photocopy

of the Casual Labour card, filed by the management has

details regarding working of the workman with Permanent

Way Inspector (Construction) at different-different

stations.

Thus, both the parties have relied on the same set of

documents in support of their different stands.

16.

After going through the rival pleadings of the parties

and documentary and oral evidence relied upon by the

parties the bone of contention is as to whether the

workman was Project Casual Labour or just casual labour

engaged in the railway administration. Had they been

Project Casual Labour then the action of the management

was right and if they were Casual Labour on the rolls of

railways then they ought to have been granted temporary

status on completion of 120 days continuous service.

The burden that lied upon the workman’s union was

to come with the evidence that the workman was engaged

as casual labour and he completed 120 days continuous

service on this particular date, making him entitled for

grant of temporary status. Thus, it was for the workman’s

union to lead its evidence on two points firstly that the

workman was engaged as Casual Labour and secondly

that he completed 120 days’ of continuous working on

such and such date. But the workman failed to comply

with the above requirement. As it relied on the documentary

evidence i.e. Casual Labour card which was in power and

possession of the management for working detail; but when

the management filed the photocopy of the same then it

neither calculated the 120 days’ continuous working from

it nor disputed its genuineness. This goes to upheld the

stand taken by the management that the workman was

Project Casual Labour and accordingly he was granted

temporary status on completion of 360 days’ of continuous

working vide Railway Board’s letter dated 01.06.84 and

thereafter granted them revised temporary status from a

back date vide letter dated 11.09.86 as per guidelines of

Hon’ble Apex Court.

17.

The workman has relied on Union of India vs.

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar

& another which pertains to termination of services of a

workman in violation of provisions of Section 25 F, G & H

of the Act. However, the facts of the present case are

entirely different; hence not applicable in the present case.

The workman has also relied on Union of India & others

vs. Basant Lal & others 1992 SCC (L&S) 611; wherein the

896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a workman having

completed 120 days of working becomes entitled for

regularization as temporary worker and the Railway cannot

deny them the temporary status on the ground that they

had been appointed as causal labour on a project work

and not on construction work on open line and as such

they would acquire the temporary status only after

completing 360 days of service. But in the present case

the workman’s union failed to specify the date when the

different workmen completed 120 days’ of continuous

service, rendering them for grant of temporary status. The

workman’s union has also relied on L. Robert D’Souza vs

Executive Engineer, Southern Railway & another 1982 SCC

(L&S) 124 but the fact of the case law is entirely different

from the present case hence not applicable. Likewise the

facts of the case law relied upon by the workman in the

Union of India & another vs. Girja Shankar & others 2003

(96) FLR 1094, Kuldeep Singh vs. GM Instrument Design

Development and Facilities Centre & another 2011 (128)

FLR 123 and Din Mhammaed (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Union of

India & others 2002 992) FLR 1216 are quite different from

the facts of the present case hence not appreciable.

18.

It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality

of an action, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of

the action; and if no evidence is produced, the party

invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the present

case burden was on the workman’s union to set out the

grounds to challenge the validity of the action of the

management in not granting the temporary status to the

workman after completion of 120 days’ of continuous

working. For this the burden of proof was on the

workman’s union to come with the evidence, that the

workman under dispute has been engaged by the

management of Railways as Casual Labour and under

Rules they were entitled for grant of temporary status from

completion of 120 days services with the employers; but

the workman’s union has failed to discharge the burned

that lied upon them. The workman’s union made a pleading,

to explain the reason why it is not in position to file any

documentary evidence before this Tribunal, in their

statement of claim o the effect that the relevant document

in support of their claim i.e. Casual Labour Card is attached

in their Service Book. The workman’s union in its rejoinder

required the management to produce Casual Labour Card

in respect of the workman before this Tribunal, resultantly,

the management filed photocopy of Casual Labour Card

and Services Book in respect of the workman. The

workman’s union did not dispute the service details filed

by the management i.e. Casual Labour Card and extracts

of Service Book. Therefore, when the management has

field the photocopy of Casual Labour Card as desired by

the workman’s union then it was incumbent upon the

workman’s union to come forward and sort out the relevant

extract of the Casual Labour Card, which bears working

details i.e. working period and number of days, to show

that the workman completed 120 days of continuous on

such and such date and he was entitled for grant of

temporary status from such date. But the workman has

utterly failed to bring any evidence to the effect before

this Tribunal that the workman was engaged as Causal

Labour and that the workman was casual labour and it

also failed to specify the date as to when the workman

completed 120 days’ of continuous working, making him

eligible for grant of temporary status.

19.

On the contrary the management has come with a

clear cut case that the workman was engaged as Project

Casual Labour with Construction Unit. It is also contended

by the learned authorized representative of opposite party

that there are so many projects which go on with the

Construction Unit and the workmen were kept engaged in

different Projects. It is also specifically pleaded and

proved by the management that the workman was granted

temporary status vide Railway Board’s letter dated

01.06.84; but due to Supreme Court’s direction in Indra Pal

Yadav Case (supra), the Railway Board vide its letter dated

11.09.86, changed the date of grant of temporary status,

as per modified policy and accordingly, reduced the date

of Temporary Status through notice. The management

has filed photocopy of Service Record in respect of

workman, which bears entries regarding grant of temporary

status to the workman vide letter dated 22/25.02.85.

20.

The management has made a specific pleading to

the effect that the claim of the workman’s union is stale

one and time barred as the union has preferred the case

before this Tribunal after lapse of more than 20 years. The

workman’s union in rebuttal has submitted that there is no

provision regarding limitation in the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947; hence their claim is maintainable.

In this regard the workman’s union has relied on N.

Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ 1347;

wherein Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the matter

delay has observed that length of delay does not matter,

acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. But

the workman’s union has not given any explanation in its

pleadings as to what prevented them to raise an industrial

dispute at an early state. However, in the evidence it has

been stated that the workman/union wrote many letters to

the opposite parties and the same are pending with them;

although no copy of such letter/representation finds its

reference either on record or annexure with the affidavit.

Moreover, the management witness vide para 9 of his

affidavit has denied of submissions of any such

application by the workmen.

In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and

Sewerage Board & others vs. T.T. Murali Babu 2014 (141)

FLR 772, Honble Apex Court has observed as under:

“The Court should bear in mind that it is exercising

an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

897

Constitutional Court it has a duty to protect the

rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep

itself alive to the primary principle that when an

aggrieved person, without adequate reason,

approaches the Court at his own leisure or pleasure,

the Court would be under legal obligation to

scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should

be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in

the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay

and laches may be fatal but in most circumstances

inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the

litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay

reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant

– a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms,

namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time”

and second, law does not permit one to sleep and

rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring a hazard and

causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though

there has been four years’ delay in approaching the

Court, yet the writ Court chose not to address the

same. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize whether

such enormous delay is to be ignored without any

justification.”

Further, in Dr. Jawahar Lal Rohatgi Memorial Eye

Hospital vs. State of U.P. & others 2013 (138) FLR 11

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court upholding the action of

the State Government in denying the making reference of

case after 22 years held that it is not expedient for State

Government to refer against order of termination dated

26.6.1982 being old and stale case, where the workman

filed an application raising industrial dispute after 22 years

in 2004. Hon’ble High Court observed that there is nothing

to indicate as to why the workman could not approach the

authority under the ID Act.

Thus, from the face of record it is crystal clear the

workman did not bother to approach the management or

any legal forum for redressal of his grievances for more

than 20 years; and the explanation forwarded by the

workman’s union before this Tribunal is insufficient.

21.

Hence, from the facts and circumstances of the case

and law cited hereinabove; I am of considered opinion

that the action of the management of North Central Railway,

Allahabad/Kanpur in not giving temporary status to the

workman, Sri Raja Ram, from the alleged date of completion

of 120 days of service is neither illegal nor unjustified.

Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that the workman’s

union is not entitled to any relief.

22.

The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

23.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

06^th December, 2014.

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 320-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ

bankSj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 83@07)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@27@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2015

S.O. 320.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83/07)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank

of Indore and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 13/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/27/2007-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/83/07

Shri Shankarlal Dheever,

Ward No. 26,

Sudhabhau Thakre, Daldal shivni,

Near Govt. School, Mova,

Raipur, Chhattisgarh,

Raipur

...Workman

Versus

Assistant General Manager (Pancham),

State Bank of Indore, Zonal office,

National Highw, Telibandha,

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of November 2014

As per letter dated 20-8-07 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/

27/2007-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“ Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of Indore, Raipur in terminating the services

w.e.f. 25-5-06 of Shri Shanker Lal Dheever, instead of

regularizing his services is justified? If not, what

relief he is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of workman is that he was engaged

on daily wages on post of peon from 1-6-99. He was paid

wages Rs. 60, 70, 80, 90 per day. He worked with devotion.

He was paid wages for working days Monday to Saturday.

He was not paid wages for holidays. He completed 240

days continuous service during all the years till his services

were terminated from 25-5-06. He worked under Branch

Manager shri Khare, J.P.Monga, Chandrakant Pathak. He

raised dispute before ALC. After failure report submitted

to Govt., the dispute has been referred to this Tribunal.

Workman submits that as he completed 240 days

continuous service during each of the year, he is covered

as employee under Section 25 B of I.D.Act. Services are

terminated without notice, he was not paid retrenchment

compensation or salary in lieu of notice. Principles of last

come first go was not followed. He was not given

opportunity of re-employment. As such IInd party violated

section 25-F, G, H, N of I.D.Act. On such contentions,

workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at page 8/1 to

8/10. Preliminary objection is raised by IInd party that

reference is not tenable as workman was not appointed as

employee by the Bank. The appointment of staff is made

in the Bank as per the rules and circular issued by the

Bank. Branch Officer has no authority of appointing peon,

messengers, security guard. The employees working in

Bank i.e. sub Staff used to be transferred to other branches.

Workman was not appointed as peon/messenger. He was

not working in the Bank. Workman was engaged on daily

wages as per exigencies. He was doing work of sweeping,

cleaning for one or two hours in a day as casual employee.

He is not entitled to be regularized as messenger/peon. As

workman was not appointed by Bank as its employee,

there was not question of his termination of services by

the Bank.

IInd party denies that workman had completed 240

days continuous service during any of the year. There is

no employer employee relationship, provisions of ID Act

are not applicable. IInd party referred to ratio held in various

cases in support of its contentions that there is no

employer employee relationship and workman is not

entitled for regular appointment or reinstatement. Workman

is claiming employment in the Bank by back door entry.

Workman is not entitled to any relief. On such ground,

IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 9/1 to

9/3 reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of State Bank

of Indore, Raipur in terminating

the services w.e.f. 25-5-06 of

Shri Shanker Lal Dheever,

instead of regularizing his

services is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Though workman has raised objection to engage

legal practitioner by IInd party, said objection was not

pressed at time of hearing. The workman filed affidavit of

his evidence. Workman says he was continuously working

as peon from 1-6-90 to 2-4-06. He was working continuously

for more than 240 days. His services were terminated in

violation of Section 33 of I.D.Act. That daily wage

employee Shailendra, Smt. Saraswati Bai, Bharat, Subhash

Thakur were continued and his services were terminated

without notice or paying retrenchment compensation.

Workman was paid bonus of Rs. 9781/- for the period 99 to

2006. The termination of his services without notice or

payment of retrenchment compensation is illegal. In his

cross-examination, workman says he passed 8th standard.

He was working in State Bank of Indore, MG Road, Raipur

as peon. He was doing work of taking vouchers from

different tables. He worked under different Branch

Managers. As per workman, temporary peon is a person

who is not issued appointment order. He was working on

daily wages. He was paid wages at end of the week. He

was not interviewed. He did not face any examination. He

has not produced documents about his working.

Documents Exhibit W-1 to W-6 are admitted by the

management. Exhibit W-1 is cheque of Rs. 9781/- , Exhibit

W-2 , W-3 relates to payment of bonus to present workman.

As per Exhibit W-4, Asstt. General manager was directed

by ALC, Raipur to take action in the matter. Exhibit w-5 is

also letter issued by ALC, Raipur to Asstt. General manager

in the matter of payment of bonus. Exhibit W-6 is reply

submitted by IInd party before ALC, Raipur. It is submitted

by IInd party that workman was engaged on daily wages.

He was paid wages for the working days. Appointment

letter was not issued to him. Evidence of workman about

his working in the bank is supported by documents W-1,

W-2. Exhibit W-7 to 13 relates to details of the bonus paid

to workman.

9 Management’s witness Mahesh Upadhyay in his

affidavit of evidence has stated that workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service, he was not

appointed against vacant post. Workman was engaged as

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

899

per exigencies for cleaning, sweeping work for one hour

morning, one hour evening. Workman was not appointed

following recruitment rules. He is not entitled for

regularisation. However said witness was not produced

for his cross-examination, his evidence cannot be

considered.

10.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness

Anthony on the same point. Above management’s witness

in his cross-examination says he was not working in MG

Road during 1999 to 2006. His predecessor has filed

affidavit in this case on its basis he filed affidavit but his

affidavit is not identical. He has not produced any

documents in support of his evidence. He had not received

any information from Branch Manager. He claimed

ignorance about payment of bonus . When his attention

was pointed out to the document Exhibit W-1 to 4 received

under RTI Act, witness claimed ignorance that workman

was not appointed following recruitment rules.

Appointment letter was not given to him. Management’s

witness was unable to tell how weekly wages were

calculated. Witness of management admits that workman

was not given notice for retrenchment. Retrenchment

compensation was not paid to him.

11.

The evidence of workman is supported by

documents W-1 to W-4. Witness of management was not

working in the branch during 99 to 2006, he has no personal

knowledge about working of workman. He has not

produced any documents to show that workman was

engaged only for one to two hours for sweeping, cleaning

work. No suggestion is given to workman in his cross-

examination that he has not completed 240 days

continuous service during any of the year. Under such

circumstances, I find no cogent reason to disbelieve the

workman. Evidence on record is sufficient to hold that

workman was continuously working with IInd party more

than 240 days. His services are terminated without notice

in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act.

12.

Terms of reference relates to legality of termination

of service of Ist party workman instead of regularizing his

services. As per evidence on record and workman,

workman was working from 1-6-91 till discontinuation of

his service in 2006. No documents are produced by Ist

party under which workman is entitled for regularization.

Workman in his cross-examination admits he was not

interviewed, appointment letter was not given to him, he

not passed any test before he was engaged. However his

evidence is clear that he worked more than 240 days and

as such termination of his service is in violation of Section

25-F of I.D.Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in

Point No.1 in Negative.

13.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1,

termination of service of workman is illegal for violation of

Section 25-F of I.D.Act, question arises whether workman

is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Workman

was engaged on daily wages for about 6 years. The legal

position is settled that the employees working on daily

wages are not entitled for regularization/ reinstatement.

Relief for reinstatement of workman cannot be allowed. In

my considered view, considering working period,

appropriate compensation would be justified. Considering

period of working of workman for about 6 years,

compensation Rs. One Lakh would be reasonable.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

14.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of State Bank of

Indore, Raipur in terminating the services w.e.f.

25-5-06 of Shri Shanker Lal Dheever, instead of

regularizing his services is not proper.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. One

Lakh to the workman within 30 days from date of

publication of award.

In case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest

per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 321-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 101@2014)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@65@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2015

S.O. 321.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 101/

2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai 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 16/02/2015.

[No. L-12011/65/2014-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 3rd December, 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Industrial Dispute No. 101/2014

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10

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

the Management of State Bank of India and their workman)

BETWEEN :

Smt. D. Suganthi

: 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Deputy General Manager : 2nd Party/Respondent

State Bank of India

Administrative Unit, Kurinji Complex

State Bank Road

Coimbatore-641018

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Respondent

None

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/65/2014-IR (B.I)

dated 27.10.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the punishment of discharge from service

with superannuation benefits etc. imposed on Smt.

D. Suganthi by the Management of State Bank of

India, Coimbatore is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the petitioner is entitled?

On receipt of the notice the petitioner has entered

appearance. The petitioner has filed ID 79/2014 directly

before this Court claiming the same relief as in the schedule

of reference. Because of this the petitioner has decided

not to press this reference. She has endorsed on the file

that because of the pendency of ID 79/2014 she is not

proceeding with this matter. The reference is accordingly

closed.

An award is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 16 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 322-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ

gSnjkckn ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 69@2005)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12025@01@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2015

S.O. 322.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of State

Bank of Hyderabad and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 13/02/2015.

[No. L-12025/01/2015-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Dated the 29th day of December, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.I.D.No 69/2005

Between:

Sri Bhuraram,

S/o Babaram,

C/o A.P. Industrial Employees Union,

“House of Labour”, King Kothi Road,

Hyderabad –29

...Petitioner

AND

The Dy. General Manager,

Personal department,

State Bank of Hyderabad,

Gunfoundry Head Office,

Hyderabad .

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of Hyderabad,

Bellavista Branch, Somajiguda Branch,

Hyderabad

...Respondents

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

901

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

M/s. V. Viswanatham &

R. Dushyantala, Advocates

For the Respondent

M/s. Ch. Siva Reddy &

T.G. Prasad Reddy, Advocates

AWARD

This is a petition filed by Sri Bhuraram invoking

Sec.2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (who will be

referred to as workman) has filed this petition against the

Respondents seeking for passing an award directing the

Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service from

6.6.2005 with full back wages and all other attendant

benefits with continuity of service and to pay interest @

12% p.a. on the back wages and costs.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as

follows:

It has been stated by the Petitioner that he was

appointed by the Respondent as casual labour in May,

2001 and was posted under 2nd Respondent where the

Petitioner worked for more than 240 days continuously

without any break in that year on a wage of Rs.50/- per

day. The Petitioner has worked in that capacity for more

than 4 years but he was not made regular. When the

Petitioner insisted for regularization and asked for the

correct payment of wages then the services of the

Petitioner were terminated on 6.6.2005 without any written

order or following the due procedure. Before that the

Petitioner made a representation dated 19.5.2005 to

regularize his services and pay arrears of wages as per the

wages paid to the casual labourer of Kakatiyanagar branch

who raised ID No.35/2001 which was decided on 24.9.2002

and the casual labour of the Kakatiyanagar branch were

given wages as per rules and they were also paid arrears

of the wages. The Petitioner moved a petition to follow

the procedure of 1/3rd pay after two years one half of pay

after another two years and 3/4th pay after another two

years. The Petitioner further served a reminder on 31.5.2005

but no action was taken by the Respondent management.

The action of the management in orally terminating the

services of the Petitioner is illegal and against the principles

of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Hon’ble High Court

of A.P. in WP No.15555/93 directed the Respondent to

consider the cases of the Petitioners of that case. Another

WP No.18436/2004 decided on 11.10.2004, the Hon’ble

High Court of A.P., directed the Respondent to pass

appropriate order on the observations of the regular

employees. But the Respondent has not obeyed that order

also. Hence, this petition.

Respondents filed their counter with the averments

in brief as follows:

The Respondent management has filed counter

statement. They have challenged the maintainability of

the claim petition. The Respondent has submitted that

the Petitioner has not worked for more than 240 days. He

was not on the rolls of the bank as such, the question of

termination of the services did not arise, the allegation to

this effect is baseless and misconceived. The bank has

never engaged Petitioner in their employment nor the

vacancies were notified, the Petitioner was engaged for

casual work when his services were required by the bank.

He was never employed as regular or a full day worker. He

is not entitled for the benefit Sec.25F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, because he was engaged to work as

and when the bank required services of the Petitioner, he

was employed for that date only. The Petition has no

force and deserves to be rejected or dismissed. The

Petitioner can not claim any advantage from the order

passed in WP No.15555/93 or WP No.18436/2004 because

the Petitioner was not a party to this petition.

To substantiate the contentions of the Petitioner

WW1 was examined and Ex.W1 to W7 were marked. On

behalf of the management MW1 was examined and Ex.M1

to M6 were marked.

Heard the arguments of the either party. Written

arguments were also filed by the Petitioner and the same

are received and considered.

The Point that arise for determination is :

Whether the Petitioner is workman and whether

termination of his services is legal and justified? If

so, to what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

7. Point:

As far as the present dispute is concerned, through the

documents filed by Petitioner workman coupled with his

own oral evidence as WW1, Petitioner could establish

before this court that he has been working as casual labour

with the Respondent bank since May, 2001. Sri Ch. Surender

Raju, Chief Manager of the Respondent bank who has

been examined as MW1 could not deny regarding the

correspondence i.e., Ex.W2, W3, W5 and W6 when they

were confronted to him. Thus, it can safely be taken that

Petitioner has worked with the Respondent bank since

May, 2001 as casual labour and therefore, he is a workman

for all purposes. Contra contentions of the Respondent

are not acceptable.

10.

As can be gathered from the material on record,

Petitioner who applied for his absorption in bank’s regular

service by making applications time and again and whose

case has been recommended by the then Branch Manager,

as can be gathered from Ex.W2, W3. W5 and W6 has

raised an industrial dispute seeking for regularization of

his service with the Respondent bank by approaching

Assistant Labour Commissioner (C). Assistant Labour

Commissioner (C) has made efforts to conciliate the matter,

and evidently such conciliation proceedings failed.

902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

While things stood so, instead of regularising the

Petitioner’s services, the Respondent bank has chosen to

remove him from service abruptly w.e.f. 6.6.2005. Thereon

Petitioner is constrained to approach this forum by filing

this dispute seeking for his reinstatement into service.

12.

Evidently and admittedly there is no compliance of

Sec.25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while removing

the Petitioner from service. It is the contention of the

Respondent that since the Petitioner is not a workman

and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not apply to him,

there was no compliance of Sec.25F of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

13.

As already observed above, the material on record

clearly discloses that Petitioner has been in continuous

service as casual labour with the Respondent since May,

2001 and thus he is a workman. Thus, the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will apply to him. Therefore,

his retrenchment/removal from service without complying

with Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is certainly

illegal, unjust and arbitrary.

14.

It is the contention of the Respondent that the

principles laid down in the cases of Official Liquidator Vs.

Dayanand and others (2008) 10 SCC page 1 whereunder

principles laid down in the case of Umadevi Vs. State of

Karnataka (2006) 4 SCC page 1 has been upheld, are

applicable to the present case and that Petitioner is not

entitled for the relief sought for.

15.

In the above cited cases Hon’ble Supreme Court

has considered the acceptable mode of public employment

and non-acceptable regularization of services of the

persons who entered into the service by back door

methods, thereby defeating the opportunity of the general

public to compete for appointment to the said post etc..

Present dispute is an industrial dispute. Industrial Law is

totally different from Civil Law/Administrative Law.

Regularization of casual workman as regular workman

etc., are all governed by the industrial laws, rules and

various circulars issued by the government from time to

time touching this aspects. Public employment under Civil

Law/Administrative Law is totally different.

16.

Furthermore, in this case Petitioner is not seeking

for regularization of his services. What all he is

questioning is the correctness of abrupt termination of

his services when he questioned the inaction on the part

of the Respondent bank regarding his plea for

regularization of his services, that too without complying

with the Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

17.

In spite of their own admission in their counter that

“Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department

of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) had issued a

circular No.F-3/3/104/87-IR dated 6.8.1990, directing that

all recruitment of temporary employees in the clerical/

subordinate cadre shall be stopped forth with and that for

the staff which was then on the rolls of the Banks, they

shall be regularized as provided in the approach paper in

terms of the circular issued at that time.”, the Respondent

bank, evidently failed to take appropriate action, in

connection with the claims of the Petitioner.

18.

Anyway, the question whether Petitioner is entitled

for regularization of services or not is not the subject matter

in this petition. Even if the same is subject matter in this

petition, since it is an industrial dispute, the principles

laid down in the above cited cases are not applicable.

19.

For all the above referred reasons, the principles

laid down in the above cited cases relied upon by the

Learned Counsel for the bank are not helpful to his

contentions in this case.

20.

There are umpteen number of legal precedents laid

down by the Apex Court whereunder it is clearly laid

down that the workman who is removed from service

without complying with the mandatory conditions laid

down in Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is to

be ordered to be reinstated into service. Thus, the

Petitioner, who is found to be a workman, is entitled to be

reinstated into service of the bank w.e.f. 6.6.2005 with the

benefit of continuous service. As far as back wages are

concerned, since he did not render his service to the

bank, but not due to his own fault, he is entitled for at least

50% of the back wages which he would have earned but

for his removal from service.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result:

In the result, petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be

reinstated into service of the Respondent bank as casual

labour w.e.f. 6.6.2005 with continuity of service. He shall

be paid 50% of the back wages also, forth with.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

Witnesses examined for the

for the Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri Bhuraram

MW1 : Sri Ch. Surender Raju

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1 :

Copy of lr.No.PER/GR.VI/F.22/2279 from the

Personnel manager, Admn. to the Regional

Manager, for permanent absorption under ID

Act dt.11.3.1989

Ex.W2 :

Copy of lr. Dt.29.12.99 reg. Absorption of

temporary employees on consolidate wage

Ex.W3 :

Copy of Circular for payment of bonus

dt.5.6.2002

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

903

Ex.W4 :

Copy of proposal for appointment forwarded

to Head Office by the Respondent No.2

dt.1.7.2002

Ex.W5 :

Copy of lr. of Personnel department to all the

branch managers etc. directing to terminate

immediately dt.3.6.2005

Ex.W6 :

Copy of reply to WW1’s union President on

representation made bythe union dt.2.7.2005

Ex.W7 :

Copies of Petty cash vouchers

Documents marked for the Respondent :

Ex.M1 :

Copy of award of CGIT cum Labour Court,

Hyderabad dt.24.9.2002

Ex.M2 :

Copy of order in WP No.15555/1993 dt.28.3.97

Ex.M3 :

Copy of order in WP No.18436/2004

dt.11.10.2004

Ex.M4 :

Copy of lr. Of State Bank of Hyderabad head

office to Sri N. Rama Krishna dt.28.3.2005

Ex.M5 :

Copy of Lr. Of State Bank of Hyderabad to Sri

V.S. Krishnachary dt.28.3.2005

Ex.M6:

Copy of lr. Of State Bank of Hyderabad to Sri

K. Vijay Kumar dt.28.3.2005

ubZ fnYyh] 17 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 323-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj okf.kfT;d

izlkj.k lsok] vkWy bafM;k jsfM;ks iVuk ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua-

2] èkuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 142@1998) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@38@97&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2015

S.O. 323.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref. No. 142/

1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Commercial Broadcasting

Services, A.I.R., Patna and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 16/02/2015.

[No. L-42012/38/97-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947.

REFERENCE NO. 142 OF 1998

PARTIES :

Sh.Krishna Pratap,

C/o Flat No.231, Defence Colony,

Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna

Vs.

The Station Director,

Commercial Broadcasting Services,

A.I.R.,Patna,

Order No.L-42012/38/97/IR(DU)

dt. 1/16.04.1998

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr. Ajay Kumar, Rep. for the

workman/Union

workman

On behalf of the

Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld Advocate

Management .

State : Bihar

Industry : Information & Broadcasting

Dated, Dhanbad, the 16th January, 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10

(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-42012/38/97/IR (DU) dt.1/16.04.1998

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of

Commercial Broadcasting Services, All India Radio,

Patna in terminating the services of Shri Krishna

Pratap, Casual Announcer is justified and legal? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

Neither workman Krishna Pratap nor any witness

for his evidence is present and produced but

Mr.D.K.Verma, the Ld. Advocate for the OP/Management

is present as usual.

On perusal of the case record, it stands clear that

the case has all along been pending for the evidence of

workman since long i.e., 5.11.2013 as well as awaiting for

the receipt of the record from the office of ALC©, Patna;

thereafter despite several chances including last and final

chance, though the workman was instructed to file afresh

affidavied statement- in- chief or oral statement, following

the rejection of his affidavited evidence in the form of

application on 13.05.2014, yet even on two Regd. Notices

904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dt.10.08.2014 and 14.11.2014 for his evidence, as a last

chance, he failed to produce any evidence on his behalf.

This is the oldest case of the year 1998.The workman by

his such negligent conducts appears to be quite

uninterested or reluctant in pursuing his case up to its

finality.

Under these circumstances, it appears to be long

longer an Industrial dispute in the matter of termination of

the workman as the Casual Announcer. Hence, the case is

closed and accordingly an order of ‘No Dispute Award’ is

passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 324-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 961@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 16@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40011@31@2003&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2015

S.O. 324.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 961/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 16/02/2015.

[No. L-40011/31/2003-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CURN-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 961/2005

Registered on 15.9.2005

Sh. Raj Kumar, S/o Sh. Jhanda Ram

Village Khichian, Gurdaspur

...Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager, Telecorn,

BSNL, Pathankot

The Sub-Divisional Officer (Telecom),

BSNL, Gurdaspur

...Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. Charanjeet, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Anish Babbar, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 20.10.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40011/

31/2003-IR(DU) dated 30.12.2003, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-

section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL,

Gurdaspur in terminating the services of Sh. Raj

Kumar S/O Sh. Jhanda Ram instead of regularizing/

granting temporary status is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from

what date?”

In response to the notice, the workman appeared

and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was

employed as a casual mazdoor with respondent

management on 1.1.1987 and he served there till 30.6.1988.

He was relieved on 7.6.1988 with a direction to report for

duty to Assistant Manager, Projects, TCIL, New Delhi. He

was sent to Riyad City by the TCIL where the project was

to be executed and he remained on deputation with the

said firm till 30.8.1990. He was relieved on 30.8.1990 with a

direction to report at TCIL Headquarter at New Delhi. TCIL,

New Delhi sent him to SDO(T), Gurdaspur who refused to

take him back on duty. That his services were terminated

without paying him any retrenchment compensation or

service of notice and his termination is illegal.

It is also pleaded that the workman is entitled to the

grant of temporary status of casual worker as per the

scheme framed by the respondent management.

Respondent management filed written reply pleading

that the workman was employed from 1.1.1987 to 31.3.1987

and then 1.3.1988 to 30.4.1988 i.e. for a total period of 151

days for a particular job and on completion of the job, he

was provided with alternative work at TCIL where he

worked till 13.8.1990. That he was not an employee of the

respondent management when his services came to an

end. That no retrenchment compensation was to be paid

by the respondent management.

In support of its case, the workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the stand

taken by him in the statement of claim.

On the other hand, the management examined Sh.

Ramesh Kumar, who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand

of the management as taken in the written statement.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

905

It was argued by the learned counsel for the workman

that workman continuously worked with the respondent

management from 1.1.1987 to 30.6.1988 and the management

did not intentionally produce the record summoned from

it to conceal the fact that the workman actually worked

with it for the said period and since no retrenchment

compensation was paid to him at the time of the termination

of his services, his termination is illegal and void.

It may be added that the workman claimed that he

served the department from 1.1.1987 to 30.6.1988

continuously and this fact is controverted by the

management in the written statement where it is pleaded

that workman worked only for 151 days. The workman

himself placed on record a certificate WW1/4 in which the

total working days are mentioned as 151 corroborating

the case set up by the management and as such relying on

the document on which the workman himself relies, it

cannot be said that he continuously worked with the

management from 1.1.1987 to 30.6.1988.

The workman has again placed reliance on another

document dated 7.6.1988 WW1/1 vide which he was

relieved by the respondent management. It is mentioned

therein that the workman who is a daily-rated casual

mazdoor has been relieved of his duty w.e.f. 20.5.1988 in

pursuance of the selection made by the Assistant

Manager, Project, TCIL, New Delhi.

Thus the workman was working as a daily rated

casual mazdoor and was relieved from his duties on 7.6.1988

on being selected by TCIL. It is not disputed that TCIL is

not a part of the respondent management. It is the case of

the workman himself that he joined the TCIL who sent him

to Riyad where he worked and was relieved on 13.8.1990.

Thus, at the time when his services ended he was not an

employee of the respondent management but of TCIL who

is not a party in this case. Therefore he cannot say that his

services were terminated by the respondent management

and that too illegally and he is not entitled to claim relief

from respondent management. The reference is answered

accordingly. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent

to the Central Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 325-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsUæh; js'ke

cksMZ] ¯lgHkwe ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 47@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 16@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@249@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2015

S.O. 325.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref. No. 47/

2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Central Silk Board,

Singhbhum and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 16/02/2015.

[No. L-42012/249/99-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947

REFERENCE NO. 47 OF 2000

PARTIES

Sh. Janglo

Village Mangudih, PO: Kharsawan,

Singhbhum

Vs.

The Asstt. Director,

Central Silk Board, PO: Kharsawan,

Singhbhum

Ministry’s Order No L-42012/249/99/

IR(DU) dt. 02.03.2000

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

None

workman/Union

On behalf of the

Dr. Ram Kishore, Ld. Rep.

Management .

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Textile

Dated, Dhanbad, the 5th Jan., 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10 (1)

(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No L-

42012/249/99/IR(DU) dated 02.03.2000.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Basic

Seed Multiplication and Training Centre at

906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Kharasawan in terminating the services of Sh.Janglo,

workman w.e.f. 8/11/89 from the roll of BSM &TC is

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

None appeared for the workman nor any petition

filed by his any heir for his substitution since his death

earlier.Dr.Ram Kishore, the Scientist as the Representative

for the Management of the Central Silk Board is present.

On perusal of the case record, it is found that the

case has been pending for evidence of the workman, but

meanwhile it was informed by his villagers that the

workman had already died; since thereafter despite

Regd.Notices. none appeared for the substitution in place

of the deceased workman. The Instant reference relates to

an issue over the termination of the service of then

workman Janglo w.e.f. 08.11.1989.

Under these circumstances, the case is closed as

‘No Industrial Dispute’ now. Accordingly, an order is

passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 326-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj okf.kfT;d

izlkj.k lsok] vkWy bafM;k jsfM;ks] iVuk ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua-

2] èkuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 141@1998) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@40@97&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2015

S.O. 326.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref. No. 141/

1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Commercial Broadcasting

Services, A.I.R., Patna and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 16/02/2015.

[No. L-42012/40/97-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947

REFERENCE NO 141 OF 1998

PARTIES :

Smt. Shakuntala Kumai,

Road No.09, South Ashok Nagar,

Kankarbagh, Patna.

Vs.

The Station Director,

Commercial Broadcasting Services,

A.I.R.,Patna,

Order No.L-42012/40/97/IR(DU)

dated 1/16.04.1998

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr. Ajay Kumar, Rep. for the

workman/Union

workman

On behalf of the

Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld .Advocate

Management

State : Bihar

Industry : Information & Broadcasting

Dated, Dhanbad, the 16th Jan., 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No.L-42012/40/97-IR (DU) dated 1/16.04.1998.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of

Commercial Broadcasting Services, All India Radio,

Patna in terminating the services of Smt. Shakuntala

Kumari, Casual Announcer is justified and legal? If

not, to what relief the workwoman is entitled ?”

Neither workwoman Smt. Shakuntala Kumari nor any

witness on her behalf is present for her evidence but Mr

D.K.Verma Ld.Advocate for OP/Management is present.

On perusal of the case record, I find that this case

has all along been pending for evidence of the workwoman

since 12.03.2008 as well as awaiting for the records from

the ALC©, Patna and thereafter since 25.09.2013,for which

the workwoman’s evidence in the form of application

affidavited was rejected on 03.05.2014 with the direction

to file a fresh affidavited statement or her oral evidence

before the Tribunal. Since thereafter, despite two

Regd.Notices dtt.12.08.2014 and 14.11.2014 on her address

as noted in the Reference itself, she failed to appear for

her evidence till now even after a last chance. The Instant

Reference relates to an issue about her termination as

Casual Announcer .The workwoman by her own such

negligent acts prima facie appears to be uninterested or

reluctant to pursue the case for its finality .It is the oldest

case of the year 1998.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

907

Under these circumstances, the Instant case appears

to be no longer an Industrial Dispute. Accordingly it is

closed, and an order is passed to that effect.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 327-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsUæh; js'ke

cksMZ] ¯lgHkwe ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 49@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 16@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@251@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2015

S.O. 327.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Central Silk Board,

Singhbhum and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 16/02/2015.

[No. L-42012/251/99-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947

REFERENCE NO. 49 OF 2000

PARTIES

Sh. Mola Ram Sujui,

Vill:Mangudih, PO:Kuchai Arwa,

Singhbhum -833216

Vs.

The Asstt. Director,

Central Silk Board, PO: Kharsawan,

Singhbhum

Ministry’s Order No L-42012/251/99/

IR(DU) dt. 02.03.2000

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

None

workman/Union

On behalf of the

Dr. Ram Kishore, Ld. Rep.

Management .

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Textile

Dated, Dhanbad, the 5th Jan., 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10 (1)

(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-

42012/251/99/IR (DU) dt. 02.03.2000.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Basic

Seed Multiplication and Training Centre at

Kharasawan in terminating the services of Sh. Mola

Ram Sujui w.e.f. 8/11/98 is justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled?”

None appeared for workman Shri Mola Ram Sujui

nor any one on his behalf for his substitution in place of

the deceased workman since his death earlier, despite

Regd. Notices Dr. Ram Kishore, the Scientist as

Representative for the Management of the Central Silk

Board Kharsawan is present.

On the perusal of the case record, it stands clear that

not any heir of the deceased workman Mola Ram Sujui

appeared for his substitution. Under these circumstances

the case is closed as ‘No Industrial Dispute” existing, as

Babu Ram Sujui, the son of the deceased workman did not

appear despite several times for the substitution of his

father. Hence, it is passed an order of ‘No Dispute Award’.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 328-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2015 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSº ds micaèk

dukZVd jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

Ø-la- jktLo xzke

gkscyh

rkyqd

ftyk

dk uke

fuM+/V~Vk

tfM+xsugYyh

gksldksVs

cSaxywj :jy

fpDdgYywj

dlck

gksldksVs

cSaxywj :jy

¹la- ,l&38013@12@2015&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 328.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) 328of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

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

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2015 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Karnataka namely :—

Sl.

Name of the

Hobli

Taluk

District

No.

Rev. Village or

Municipal

Limits

Nidagatta

Jadigenahalli

Hoskote Bangalore

Rural

Chikkahallur

Kasaba

Hoskote Bangalore

Rural

[No. S-38013/12/2015-S.S.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 329-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2015 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSº ds micaèk

rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

dsUæ

{ks=k ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu

jktLo xkao

fr:usyosyh ftys esa

1- vfj;kdqye

iky;edksVS rkyqd

2- mrekikafMdqye

fr:usyosyh ds miuxj {ks=k

3- Ñ".kkiqje

¹la- ,l&38013@13@2015&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 329.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

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

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2015 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Tamilnadu namely :—

Centre

Area Comprising the

Revenue Villages of

Suburbs of Tirunelveli

1. Ariyakulam

Palayamkottai Taluk,

2. Uthamapandikulam

Tirunelveli District

3. Krishnapuram

[No. S-38013/13/2015-S.S.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 330-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2015 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSº ds micaèk

mÙkjk[k.M jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

Ø- jktLo xzke dk uke

jktLo

ftyk

la-

ijxuk

rglhy

1- dqavkokyk] MksbZokyk]

MksbZokyk

nsgjknwu

Hkkfu;okokyk] ckykokyk]

tkSyhxzkUV ,oa

feLljokyk[kqnZ

¹la- ,l&38013@14@2015&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 330.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

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

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2015 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Uttarakhand namely :—

Sl.

Name of the

Revenue

District

No.

Revenue Village

Pargana

Tehsil

Kuanwala, Doiwala,

Doiwala

Dehradun

Bhaniawala, Balawala

Jolly Grant and

Missarwalakhurd

[No. S-38013/14/2015-S.S.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

909

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 331-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2015 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSº ds micaèk

mÙkjk[k.M jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

Ø- jktLo xzke dk uke

jktLo

ftyk

la-

ijxuk

rglhy

1- MkaMky[kkSaM ,oa vkbZ-Vh-

nsgjknwu

ikdZ nsgjknwu ds varxZr

leLr {ks=k

¹la- ,l&38013@15@2015&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 331.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

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

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2015 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Uttarakhand namely :—

Sl.

Name of the

Revenue

District

No.

Revenue Village

Pargana

Tehsil

Danda Lakhound

Dehradun Dehradun

Dehradun

and all under IT

Park, Dehradun

[No. S-38013/15/2015-S.S.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 332-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2015 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSº ds micaèk

mÙkjk[k.M jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

Ø- jktLo xzke dk uke

jktLo

ftyk

la-

ijxuk

rglhy

1- vekÅ¡] ÅaphegqoV]

[kVhek

Å/e¯lg

[kVhek] [kkyhegqoV]

uxj

xkslhdqvk¡] pUnsyh]

pk:csVk] >udV]

ukSxokBXxw] igsfu;k]

HkwMkfd'kuh] eqMsyh

¹la- ,l&38013@16@2015&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 332.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

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

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2015 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Uttarakhand namely :—

Sl.

Name of the

Revenue

District

No. Revenue Village

Pargana

Tehsil

Amaun, Unchimahuvat,

Khatima

Udam

Khatima, Khalimahuvat,

Singh

Gosikuan, Chandeli,

Nagar

Charubeta, Jhankat,

Naugavathaggu,

Pahenia, Bhudakishni,

Mudeli

[No. S-38013/16/2015-S.S.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 333-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2015 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSº ds micaèk

dukZVd jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

Ø-la-

jktLo xzke dk uke

gkscyh

rkyqd

ftyk

xjx

/kjokM+

¹la- ,l&38013@17@2015&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 333.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

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

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2015 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Karnataka namely :—

Sl.

Name of the

Hobli

Taluk

District

No.

Rev. Village

or Municipal

Limits

Garag

Dharwad

[No. S-38013/17/2015-S.S.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 334-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2015 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSº ds micaèk

fcgkj jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

dze

jktLo xzke dk

gnoLr la-@

rglhy@

ftyk

la-

uke@{ks=

Fkkuk la-

rkyqd

lfdZV gkml jksM

236

idM+h

Hkkstiqj

idM+h pkSd

236

idM+h

Hkkstiqj

Mh-Vh-jksM

237

dLcs vkjk

Hkkstiqj

vkjk

237

dLcs vkjk

Hkkstiqj

f’koxat vkjk

237

dLcs vkjk

Hkkstiqj

dVhjk] vkjk

236

idM+h

Hkkstiqj

tsy jksM] vkjk

237

dLcs vkjk

Hkkstiqj

Ckl LVSaM ds

169

Ukoknk

Hkkstiqj

utnhd] vkjk

vkjk&iVUkk jksM

164

/kuiqjk

Hkkstiqj

10-

'kghn Hkou] vkjk

237

dLcs vkjk

Hkkstiqj

11-

nf{k.k jeuk jksM

237

dLcs vkjk

Hkkstiqj

12-

Ikjekj dkEIysDl]

237

dLcs vkjk

Hkkstiqj

vkjk

13-

panok eksM+] vkjk

236

idM+h

Hkkstiqj

14-

gkWfLiVy jksM] vkjk

237

dLcs vkjk

Hkkstiqj

15-

ckbZ ikl] liuk

237

dLcs vkjk

Hkkstiqj

flusek ds utnhd

16-

nf{k.k&iwoZ jeuk jksM]

237

dLcs vkjk

Hkkstiqj

vkjk

17-

Ikk.Ms; 'kkWfiax eksM+

236

idM+h

Hkkstiqj

vkjk

18-

Uk;h iqfyl ykbu]

236

idM+h

Hkkstiqj

panok eksM+

¹la- ,l&38013@18@2015&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 334.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

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

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2015 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Bihar namely :—

Sl. Name of the Revenue

Had Bast

Tehsil/Taluk

District

No. Village

No.

Thana No.

Circuit House Road,

236

Pakari

Bhojpur

Arrah

Pakari Chowk

236

Pakari

Bhojpur

D.T. Road, Arrah

237

Kasbe Arrah

Bhojpur

Arrah

237

Kasbe Arrah

Bhojpur

Sheogang, Arrah

237

Kasbe Arrah

Bhojpur

Katira, Arrah

236

Pakari

Bhojpur

Jail Road, Arrah

237

Kasbe Arrah

Bhojpur

Near Bus Stead, Arrah

169

Nawada

Bhojpur

Arrah Patna Road

164

Dhanpura

Bhojpur

10. Shahid Bhawan, Arrah 237

Kasbe Arrah

Bhojpur

11. South.Ramana Road

237

Kasbe Arrah

Bhojpur

12. Parmar Comples,

237

Kasbe Arrah

Bhojpur

Arrah

13. Near Chandwa More

236

Pakari

Bhojpur

14. Hospital Road, Arrah

237

Kasbe Arrah

Bhojpur

15. By Pass, Near Sapna

237

Kasbe Arrah

Bhojpur

Cenema, Arrah

16. South East Ramna Rd

237

Kasbe Arrah

Bhojpur

17. Pandey Shoping More, 236

Pakari

Bhojpur

Pakri Chowk

18. New Police Line,

236

Pakari

Bhojpur

Chandwa More

[No. S-38013/18/2015-S.S.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

911

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 335-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,u ,iQ jsyos

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 09@2010) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@70@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 335.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09/2010)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Guwahati as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of N.F. Railway

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 18/02/2015.

[No. L-41011/70/2010-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Present

: Sri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B., Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:

The Management of N.F.Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati.

-Vrs-

Workman Sri Bikash Sarkar, represented by the General

Secretary, Rail Mazdoor Union, Maligaon, N.F. Rly,

Maligaon, Guwahati.

Ref. Case No. 09 of 2010

APPEARANCES :

For the Management :

Mr. S.N. Choudhury, Advocate

For the Workman

Mrs. Maya Bora, Advocate,

Mr. M.K. Das, General

Secretary, RMU, Maligaon.

Date of Award : 23.01.2015

AWARD

This Reference is initiated on an Industrial Dispute

exists between the employers in relation to the

Management of N.F.Railway and their workman Sri Bikash

Sarkar, which was referred to by the Ministry of Labour,

Government of India, New Delhi vide their Order No.

L-41011/70/2010-IR(B-I); Dated: 17/06/2010. The Schedule

of the Reference as under:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of

N.F.Railway in crating less number of posts in

restructuring and thereby not allowing the promotion

of Sri Bikash Sarkar, workman to the next higher

grade w.e.f 16.5.1995 as per Railway Board

instructions is justified? If not,What relief the

workman concerned is entitled to?”

On receipt of the order of Reference from the Ministry

of Labour, Government of India this Reference Case has

been registered and notices were served upon both the

parties who appeared and contested the proceeding by

filing their claim statement/written statement and adducing

evidence along with documents.

The case of the workman, in nutshell, is that the

workman Sri Bikash Sarkar has been working as Chief

Office Superintendent/I ( in short COS) in the

establishment of Dy. Chief Engineer, Bridge Line,

Maligaon (in short Dy. C.E., BL, Maligaon) of N. F. Railway

under the control of Engineering Department headed by

its Principal Chief Engineer under the administrative

control of Chief Bridge Engineer, N.F.Railway, Maligaon

(in short CBE/MLG). The seniority of the workman’s unit

is looked after by the office of the Chief Personnel Officer,

N.F. Railway in the personnel matters. The workman joined

the Railway service on 20.11.1972 as Junior Clerk and

subsequently promoted as Senior Clerk, Head Clerk, Office

Superintendent-II and Office Superintendent-I, and

thereafter holding the post of Chief Office Superintendent

(COS) in the scale of Rs. 7450/- to Rs.11500/- revised to

Rs. 9300- 34,800/- and the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-. The

workman was promoted to Office Superintendent-II on

18.11.93 and he was looking for due promotion to OS-I in

due course. Consequent upon the implementation of the

Fifth Central Pay Commission’s recommendations, the

Government of India, Ministry of Railways, considered

the question of introduction of some new pay scales for

certain categories of staff and accordingly with the

approval of the President of India the Ministry of Railway

decided to introduce new pay scales in certain categories

of staff vide Railway Board Circular No. PC-V/98/I/11/18(A)

dated 10.05.1998 providing the introduction of new scales

of pay on functional basis in the ministerial cadre of Group

C including the Post of Chief Office Superintendent in the

process of new strength of each grade of the ministerial

cadre including OS-I was introduced through revised

percentage of the Book of Sanction for each grade and the

Railway Board Circular dated 10.5.98 as mentioned above

has been circulated to all concerned for necessary action

by the department. The Service hierarchy in the ministerial

cadre in the establishment of Dy. C.E, BL, Maligaon is as

under:

912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(In pre-revised scale of pay)

Entry grade:

Junior Clerk Scale 3050—4590

Next promotional grade

Senior Clerk Scale Rs. 4500—

7000.

Next promotional grade

Head Clerk Scale- Rs. 5000—

8000

Next promotional grade

Office Superintendent/II

Scale Rs. 5500—9000

Next promotional grade

Office Superintendent/I

Scale Rs. 6500—10500

Next promotional grade

Chief Office Superintendent

Scale Rs. 7450—11500.

This Circular dated 10.05.98 in its Annexure provided

for revised percentage of the Book of Sanction for creation/

abolition in number of post of Ministerial Cadres in the

table headed “ ALL DEPARTMENTS ( OTHER THAN

ACCOUNTS), Category: Ministerial Staff” which is

relevant in the Engineering Department in which the

establishment of Dy. C.E., Bridge Line, Maligaon falls. The

revised percentage of Book of Sanction is reproduced as

under :

“ ALL DEPARTMENTS (OTHER THAN ACCOUNTS)

Category : Ministerial Staff.

Designation

Pay scale

%tage

Remarks

Classification and

existing

revised

procedure for

Filling up of posts

Introduced now.

Junior Clerk

3050-4590

20%

Existing.

Sr. Clerk

4500-7000

35%

Existing.

Head Clerk

5000-8000

25%

Existing

Office Supdt.

Gr.II

5500-9000

12%

Existing

Office Supdt.

Gr.I

6500-10500

Existing

Chief Office

Supdt.

7450-11500

New Scale

Selection.”

The grades of Senior Clerk, Head Clerk and Office

Superintendent-I are non-selection grades and the grades

of Office Superintendent-II and Chief Office

Superintendent are selection grade and the selection posts

are filled up by positive act of selection on 1 vacancy : 3

candidate to be called for selection basis and the non-

selection posts are filled up by seniority-cum-suitability

on the basis of 1 vacancy:1 candidate to be called for

filling up the vacancy. In the year 1998 and 1999 the

workman was holding the post of Office Superintendent-

II which is the feeder grade for promotion to Office

Superintendent-I grade; and on introduction of the new

post of Chief Office Superintendent the revised number of

post of OS-I was allowed and opportunity occurred to the

workman to be considered for promotion to the OS-I under

the policy framed by the Railway Board. Further case of

the Union is that according to the Railway Board Circular

dated 10.5.98 the strength of the Post of OS-I in the revised

pay scale of Rs. 6500 -10500 was reduced from existing 8%

to 6% of the Book of Sanction as on 10.5.98 for all

department other than Accounts. But the said Circular

was not implemented in due time and manner of the office

of the Dy. CE, BL, Maligaon when the workman has already

put in regular and continuous service of more than the

residency period of two years in the feeder grade of OS-II

for promotion to OS-I.

The Union alleged that due to non implementation

of the Policy Circular in prescribed and permitted manner

of calculation of promotional vacancies for OS-I, the

Management instead of creating 5 numbers of posts of

OS-I maintained only 4 number of posts in the grade of

OS-I whereby the workman was deprived of being

considered for promotion to OS-I. The workman

represented his grievance before the Chief Personnel

Officer, N.F. Railway but to no avail. It is also mentioned

that the Book of Sanction for Ministerial Category in the

establishment of Dy. C.E., BL, Maligaon as on 10.5.98 stood

at 76 and hence, on the basis of the revised percentage as

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

913

per the Railway Board’s letter dated 10.5.98 for Chief Office

Superintendent at 2% of 76 the value becomes 1.52 (76 x

2% = 1.52) which being rounded off becomes 2 posts. The

revised percentage for grade of OS-I was 6% and thus 6%

of 76 is 4.56 ( 76 x 6% =4.56) which rounded off becomes 5

i.e. 5 posts of OS-I. Similarly the revised percentage for

the Grade of Office Superintendent-II was 12% and thus

12% of 76 is 9.12 (76 x 12 =9.12) which rounded off becomes

12 post of OS-II. It is further mentioned that in finalizing

the numbers of posts of these grades the benefit of

rounding off of 0.5 and above as 1 and the prescribed rule

of rounding off the fraction of 0.5 and above as 1 is

universal and also accepted by Indian Railway. But the

Management has not implemented the principle of this

rule in case of the workman. Thereafter the Union raised

the Industrial Dispute. It is also pleaded by the Union that

beyond the prescribed manner of calculation of number of

posts the management allotted higher number of post to

other grade of newly created Chief Office Superintendent

and existing grade of Senior Clerk excluding the Grade of

OS-I and the benefit of evaluating the fraction of 0.5 and

above as 01 was given in case of COS and Senior Clerk.

While the workman was fit for consideration for promotion

to OS-I against any vacancy in 1998 and the workman was

not eligible to be considered for promotion in OS-I in 1998

as there was no vacancy. The workman in spite of his

sincere effort in amiable settlement of the dispute by filing

representation before the Authority as well as on failure

of conciliation before the RLC ©, Guwahati this Industrial

Dispute was referred to by the Ministry. Hence, the union

pointed out that the Management committed error in law

as well as fact in denying the promotion of the workman

to OS-I by equitable rounding off of fraction to their nearest

whole number in the prescribed calculation of number of

post in each grade as per the revised percentage and the

Book of Sanction as on 10.5.98, violating the provision of

Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and against

the Rule of Natural Justice. As a result, the workman has

been deprived of the prospect of the carrier and monetary

benefit. As such, the Union prayed for granting relief to

the workman by directing the management to make

available one more post of OS-I with effect from 10.5.98 by

determining the number of post of OS-I as 05 post in

consequences of implementation of Railway Board Circular

dated 10.5.98 and to promote the workman to the post of

OS-I with effect from 10.5.98 with consequential and

incidental benefit of promotion, to correct all seniority list

where the workman has been given wrong seniority

position with direction to the Management to implement

the award of this Tribunal with effect from 10.05.98.

The Management, on the other hand, pleaded that

after restructuring of the post of Office Superintendent-I

was made as COS and OS-I distributing the existing 8% for

the OS-I post at 2% and 6%, and the 2% distribution of

total cadre strength comes to 1.52 posts for COS and 6%

as 4.56 post as 4.56 post. However, 1.52 post has been

made as 2 post 4.54 post made as 4 post with a view to

give one more staff the benefit of COS permanently by

keeping the OS-I post as 4. This was done beyond personal

consideration of individual staff but for the benefit of the

staff in general without changing the cadre strength. It is

also mentioned that the Board has directed that their

should not have been any change in other grades; and

that the policy circular dated 10.5.98 and clarification dated

25.5.99 implemented in the prescribed manner and the

promotional vacancies for COS and OS-I was created on

the basis of the prescribed percentage as per the Circular

and Clarification issued by the Board. The Management

denied the contention of the Union that the Management

deprived the workman from application of rounding off

rule in arbitrarily and for extraneous reasons. The workman

has admitted that BOS of Ministerial category in Dy. CE,

Bridge Line, establishment as on 10.5.98 stood as 76. As

per revised percentage the post of various category as

per the calculation of the Union comes to 77 which was

not possible. Thus the benefit of rounding off 0.5 and

above as 1 (one) was plied in all cases, where such fraction

of 0.5 or above or above across except in OS-I because of

clarification issued by the Railway Board vide their letter

No. PC-V/98/1/11/12 dated 25.5.99 which stated that the

number of post in the grade of 7450-11500 (COS) will be

worked out at 2% of the total sanctioned strength of

Ministerial staff as on 10.5.98 with corresponding reduction

in the grade 6500-10500/- i.e. O.S-I. The Board also

specifically mentioned that number of post in other grade

shall remain unchanged. As such, it is clear in the light of

the Railway Board’s letter dated 25.5.99 i.e. number of post

in new scale of COS in the grade 7450-11500 with

corresponding reduction in Grade 6500-10500 and without

affecting the number of post in other grades. On 10.5.98

the number of post in OS-I was 8% of 76 (sanctioned

strength) i.e. 6 post and for implementing Board order

number of post in new scale Rs.7450-11500/- of COS ( 2%

of 76 sanctioned strength) i.e. 2 posts were created and

number of post of OS-I after such creation was (6-2) i.e. 4

post by corresponding reduction and not disturbing

number of post in other grades. Further plea of the

Management is that the Railway Board’s Circular dated

10.5.98 introduced new scale of Pay on functional basis in

Ministerial Cadre of Group-C while introducing new pay

scale of COS the Board reduced the existing percentage of

OS-I from 8% to 6% and adjusted 2% against COS while

keeping the remaining percentage of other categories

intact. It is further stated that it is not the case of

upgradation as one new scale has been created on

functional consideration and in the light of the Board’s

914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Circular dated 25.5.99, the number of post in other grades

shall remain unchanged, and creation to be effected with

corresponding reduction in the grade Rs. 6500-Rs.10,500.

Thus the Railway has implemented the policy in the mode

and manner as prescribed by the Railway Board in the

Circular dated 10.5.98 and 25.5.99 and hence, the decision

of Management in creating 4 posts of OS-1 was correct

and no contrary to Circular or Rules and Provision framed

from time to time. As such, the relief as claimed by the

Union is not admitted.

The Union by filing additional written statement

pleaded that the Railway Board directed to create a new

pay scale for newly post of COS in the Ministerial Cadre

by reducing the post of OS-I from the existing 8% to 6% of

the BOS as on 10.5.98 for all departments other than

Accounts: and that the post of COS be maintained at 2%

of the BOS so that the reduction from 8% to 6% for the

OS-I is conducive for maintaining the existing BOS but

the Management abstained from adhering to the direction

and created lesser number of post in OS-I; and the

Management has avoided to apply rounding off of 4.56 as

5 whereas they have rounded off in all other categories of

COS, OS-II, Senior Clerk and Junior Clerk, and it is not

correct to hold that the Railway Board have directed that

there should not be change in the Grades other than COS

and OS-I because by the change the Railway Board mean

in this Circular was only in respect of percentage change

in the grade of COS and OS-I and other existing percentage

for remaining grades were to remain the same. But the

Management has twisted this direction of the Railway

Board to mean that no change in number of post in Grades

other than COS and OS-I was allowable. Further the number

of existing post in Grade of Head Clerk and Senior Clerk

were changed in implementing the said Circular of the

Railway Board dated 10.5.98, and this change affected the

existing number was not available in the implementation

of the Railway Board Circular dated 10.5.98. It is added

that this change is unavoidable as the upgradation scheme

and creation of new scales of COS was also involved with

10% of Head Clerk posts being filled up by upgradation of

10% Senior Clerk in their existing strength; and this rule of

rounding off is evident from Railway Board’s letter dated

15.12.64. The Union again stated that the contention of

the Management that the workman’s prayer for

restructuring/upgradation of implementation of the Circular

dated 10.5.98 in time would have let to 77 number of post.

But the Management wrongly and arbitrarily and for

extraneous reason have resorted to avoiding of the

principle of reducing the number of post in lower grade in

case any upgradation/creation of new grade leads to

excess over the BOS; and if that would not have been

done by the Management one post of Junior Clerk after

creation of 2% post of COS would be treated as surplus or

not to be filled up then the total number of posts would

have been remained as 76 which is shown in the table

given below:

Grades

Existing %

Nos. of Staff

Revised %

Nos. of staff

COS

—

1.52=2

OS-I

6.08=6

4.56=5

OS-II

12%

9.12=9

12%

9.12=9

Hd. Clerk

25%

19.0=19

25%

19.0=19

Sr. Clerk

35%

26.6=27

35%

26.6=27

Jr. Clerk

20%

15.2=15

20%

15.2=15

(-) 1

Total

100%

The Union, in order to establish their case, examined

2 witnesses namely Sri Pradip Kr. Saha, Joint. General

Secretary, RMU, Pandu as W.W.1 and the claimant/

workman Sri Bikash Sarkar, as W.W.2. While the

Management examined Sri Amit Kumar, Assistant

Personnel Officer, Engineering, Maligaon as MW.1.

Let me discuss the evidence of both the sides

alongwith the documents produced by them in order to

arrive at a decision on the dispute raised between the

parties.

According to the W.W.1 Sri P.K.Saha, the workman

joined the Railway service on 20.11.72 as Junior Clerk and

promoted as Senior Clerk, Head Clerk, OS-I, OS-II and COS

and retired from service as COS in the pay scale of Rs.7450-

11500/- from the establishment of Dy.CE, Bridge Line,

Maligaon. The workman was promoted to OS-II on

18.11.93, and in the year 1999 the workman was holding

the post of OS-II when the Railway Ministry decided to

introduce new pay scale in certain categories of staff as

recommended by Fifth Central Pay Commission and this

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

915

policy incorporated in Railway Board’s Circular No.PC-V/

98/I/11/18(A) dated 10.5.98 marked as Exhibit-1. As a result

of introduction of the new scale of pay in the Ministerial

Cadre in Group-C revised percentage of BOS for Ministerial

cadre was prescribed which was duly circulated by the

Railway for necessary action by the Departments and the

Annexure to the said Circular dated 10.5.98 provided for

revised percentage for BOS for creation/abolition in

number of post in various grades of Ministerial cadres

heading “ALL DEPARTMENTS (OTHER THAN

ACCOUNTS), Category: Ministerial Staff”. According to

the said Circular marked as Exhibit-1 the strength of the

posts of OS-I in the revised pay scale of Rs.6,500- 10,500/-

was reduced from existing 8% to 6% of the BOS as on

10.5.98 for all department other than Accounts but the

said Circular was not implemented in due time and manner

in the office of the Dy. C.E, Bridge Line, Maligaon and at

that time the workman Bikash Sarkar has already put in

regular and continuous service of more than the residency

period of two years in the Feeder grade of OS-II. He also

mentioned that due to non-implementation of the policy

Circular dated 10.5.98 in the prescribed and permitted

manner of calculation of promotional vacancy for OS-I on

the revised percentage, the Management did not revised

the BOS for operating 5 numbers of Post of OS-I but

maintained only 4 number of posts in the grade of OS-I,

and thereby the workman was deprived of being

considered for the promotion to the post of OS-I. The

W.W.1 also added that the BOS for Ministerial Category

in the establishment of Dy. C.D., Bridge Line, Maligaon as

on 10.5.98 stood as 76 and hence, on the basis of the

revised percentage vide Exhibit-1 for COS at 2% of the 76

the value becomes 1.52 (76 x 2% =1.52) which being

rounded off becomes 2 posts; and the revised percentage

for grade of OS-I was 6% i.e. 6 % of 76 is 4.56 (76 x 6%=4.56)

which is rounded off becomes 5 i.e. 5 Posts of OS-I.

Similarly revised percentage in the grade of OS-II was 12%

which comes to 9.12 which is rounded off as 12 posts of

OS-II. In case of Head Clerk the revised percentage was

25% and thus 25% of 76 is 19 i.e. 19 post of Head Clerk; in

case of Sr. Clerk the revised percentage was 35% i.e. 35%

of 76 is 26.60 ( 76 x 35%= 26.60) which rounded off becomes

27 posts of Sr. Clerk; and the bottom trade of Jr. Clerk the

revised percentage was 20% i.e. 20% of 76 is 15.20 ( 76 x

20% =15.20) which is rounded off as 15 posts of Jr. Clerk.

The W.W.1 pointed out that in finalizing the number of

post of these grades the benefit of rounding off of 0.5 and

above as 1 was applied in all cases where such a fraction

0.5 or above arose except in case of OS-I, and rounding

off all the fraction of 0.5 and above as 1 is universal and

also accepted by the Indian Railway including the present

Management as per the Ministry of Railways ( Railway

Board Circular No. PC-61/PC-5/MS-1 dated 15.12.1964 vide

Exhibit-10. He added that the case of the Union is for right

operation of posts in the grades and also for giving the

workman his promotion as OS-I, and the said establishment

had on Roll as on 10.5.98 only 4 numbers of OS-I within

the prescribed revised percentage of 6% though the

number should be 5 Posts of OS-I. But the Management

has been refusing to operate 5 numbers of OS-I though

there was no bar in doing so within the prescribed

percentage of OS-I by creating one number of post of OS-I

in addition to the existing 4 numbers of Posts. On the

other hand the Management going beyond the prescribed

manner of calculation of number of posts allotted higher

number of post but other grades of newly created COS

and existing grade of Senior Clerk excluding the grade of

OS-I from the due increase of one post in the grade; and

the benefit of evaluating the fraction of 0.5 and above as

one was given in case of COS and Sr. Clerk. As a result

when the workman was eligible to be promoted to OS-I in

1998 there was no vacancy. It is further mentioned that the

Railway Board directed that the Post of COS be maintained

at 2% of the BOS so that the reduction from 8% to 6% in

OS-I is conducive for maintaining the existing Circular

No.PC-V/98/I/11/12 dated 25.5.99 vide Exhibit-B. Yet the

Management abstained from adhering to this direction

and created lesser number of post of OS-I. In this

connection the workman collected information under RTI

Act, 2005 under No. RTI Cell/2007/1792 dated 12.5.2008

covering the formal reply signed by Dy. Director ( Pay

Commission) through his memo No. PC-V/2008/RTI/I. He

has proved the Exhibit-2 to the letter No.NFR/RTI Cell/

2013/5060 dated 20.12.2013 by which some copies of letters

forwarded to the workman; Exhibit-3 the letter No.W/G/

DCBR/16/RTI/Pt-585 dated 25.11.2013 issued by the Dy.

C.E, Bridge Line, Maligaon forwarding some documents

supplying information; Exhibit-4 letter No.EW/254/1/ PT.II

(loose) dated 18.05.07 regarding application of Sri Bikash

Sarkar for information under RTI Act, 2005; Exhibit-5 the

letter No.Z/RTI Act’05 (loose-XXXVIII) dated 30.04.2007

which is a letter from SDGM-cum-Appellate Authority,

N.F.Railway supplying the list of documents as information

the Dy. C.E, Bridge Line, N.F.Railway, Maligaon; and the

Exhibit-6 (5 pages) are pre page notes marked as PP-5, PP-

6, PP-9, PP-10, PP-11 of the office of the Dy. CE, Bridge

Line. He also proved the Exhibit-7 the certified copy of the

office note dated 4.2.03 and 21.3.03 on the pages No.PP/

22; the Exhibit-8 the zerox copy of the charge upgradation

of Ministerial cadre of Dy. C.E, Bridge line, Maligaon due

to introduction of new scale of Fifth Central Pay

Commission in terms of Board’s letter marked as Exhibit-1

and Exhibiut-9 is the memorandum of sanction to the

creation and abolition of post as per revised percentage

of the clerical cadre of Dy. C.E, Bridge Line, Maligaon.

In course of his cross-examination the W.W.1 stated

that the introduction of additional pay scale

recommendation of Vth CPC dated 10.5.95 was fully

implemented by the Railway, and as per Exhibit-1 the

restructuring of post has been decreased by 6% in stead

of existing 8% against the post of OS-I, while the said 2%

of the Post of OS-I has been redesignated as COS and the

quota of promotion was fixed at 2% for the post of COS.

He also said that on the basis of the existing total strength

916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of 76 number of post as per Exhibit-1 the number of post of

OS-I should have been 4.56 which comes to 5 numbers of

all the post of OS-I by rounding off.

The claimant/workman Sri Bikash Sarkar (WW.2)

stated that he was an employee of the establishment of

Dy. CE, Bridge Line, Maligaon, N.F.Railway and he retired

on superannuation on 31.8.12. He was promoted to OS-II

on 18.11.93 and was placed in third slot of seniority list of

OS-II as on 1.6.98 vide Memo No.EW/255/B/PT.V dated

23.4.98 ( Exhibit-11.). Thereafter he was promoted to OS-I

on 31.1.01 under Office order Nol.30/01 circulated vide

Memo No.EW/254/1/Pt.IX dated 31.10.01 issued by Dy.

CE, Bridge Line, Maligaon marked as ( Exhibit-12). He was

holding under the policy of restructuring of cadre as

adopted by Railway Board in 2003, the post of COS in the

scale of pay Rs. 7450- Rs.11,500/- ( revised to 9300-

Rs.34,800) and Grade Pay Rs.4600 at the time of his

retirement on superannuation. He also mentioned that he

had a long standing grievance regarding his promotion to

the grade of OS-I and then to COS in his seniority list and

an Industrial Dispute was raised by the Union for his

promotion as per the BOS for OS-I and then for OS-Ias per

the Circular issued by the Railway Board from time to time.

He claimed that he is entitled to the benefit of promotion

to the post of OS-I and then in course of Post of COS as

provided in the table headed “ALL DEPARTMENTS

(OTHER THAN ACCOUNTS), Category : Ministerial Staff”

in the policy Circular No. PC-V/98/1/11/18 (A) dated 10.5.98

issued by the Railway Board. He mentioned that 5 post of

OS-I and 2 post of COS were to be created in the

establishment of Dy. CE, Bridge Line and as he was holding

the post of OS-II in the year 99 and the BOS for the

Ministerial category in the establishment of Dy. CE, Bridge

Line, Maligaon as on 10.5.98 stood at 76. Thus the

percentage of BOS for OS-I in the scale of Rs. 6500 to

Rs.10,500 was revised from existing 8% to 6% of the BOS

in terms of Circular marked as Exhibit-1. Therefore on the

basis of the revised percentage for OS-I 6% of 76 arrived

at 4.56 (76 x 6%=4.56) which rounded off become 5 i.e. 5

post of OS-I but the Management created 4 post of OS-I

instead of creating 5 post. On the basis of the revised

percentage for COS 2 % of 76 arrived at 1.52 (76 x 2%

=1.52) which being rounded off becomes 2 i.e. 2 post of

COS. But this was not done in case of OS-I by similar

rounding off OS-I at 4.56 by rounding off it to 5 posts. The

W.W.2 pleaded that the Circular vide Exhibit-1 does not

provide for any variation in other ministerial grade of

OS-II, Head Clerk, Senior Clerk and Junior Clerk but the

management has increased the number of posts of Senior

Clerk by one post by resorting to rounding off 26.60 (6%

of BOS=76 x 35% = 26.60) to 27 posts of Senior Clerk. In

fact what was due to workman for his promotion to OS-I

was given away to the rank of Senior Clerk by means of

rounding off and thereby the workman was deprived of

getting promotion to OS-I on the date the vacancy should

have arisen out of creation of 5 post of OS-I or natural

waste in the incumbency in the grade of OS-1 and COS on

the date of the vacancy should have arisen. The incumbent

in the grade of OS-I as on 1.4.98 was shown in the seniority

list of OS-I published under memo No.EW/255/2 Pt V. dated

23.4.1998 ( vide Exhibit-13). He stated that the management

allotted higher number of post through the benefit of

evaluating the fraction of 0.5 and above as 1 in case of

COS and Sr. Clerk but it was not given in case of OS-I and

hence, the Railway Board Circular dated 10.5.98 (Exhibit-

1) was not implemented by the Management.

In course of his cross-examination the W.W.2 stated

that in para-11 of the claim statement the calculation

showing the total number of post on the basis of the BOS

and percentage of number of post to be promoted has

been prepared by him on the basis of the BOS and that he

had seen the BOS from the office which he was not

authorized to do as it is a confidential thing. He also

mentioned that he has shown a total number of strength

as 76 as per BOS as mentioned in para-11 of the claim

statement. He denied the suggestion tendered by the

Management that the total number of post shown as 76 is

not correct, and as per the Book of Sanction maintained

by the Railway the total number of Post was 75 at the

relevant time. He again mentioned that in para-11 of his

claim statement total number of post shown as COS-2

numbers, OS-I-5 numbers; OS-II 12 numbers; Head Clerk

19 numbers, Sr. Clerk 27 numbers; Junior Clerk 15 numbers

totaling 80, but in his evidence-on-Affidavit the total

number of posts shown as COS-2, OS-5, OS-II Nil, Head

Clerk- Nil, Sr. Clerk-27 numbers totaling 34 posts. He again

stated that as per Railway Board Circular dated 10.5.98

(Exhibit-1) the break up of the posts are as follows:

COS-2 posts i.e. 2%; OS-I –4 i.e. 6%; OS-II-9 i.e. 12%;

Head Clerk-19 i.e. 25%; Senior Clerk (Special pay Rs.70/-)

-3 posts; Senior Clerk-24 i.e. 35%; Junior Clerk-15 i.e.20%

totaling 76 post. He also denied the suggestion tendered

by the learned Advocate for the Management that the

number of Post of COS is 2; OS-I is 4; and that he is not

entitled to get promotion as COS after 2001 in terms of the

Circular dated 10.5.98 vide No.PC-V/98/1/2/12 dated 25.5.99

as he was promoted to OS-I on 31.1.01.

The Management in order to defend themselves

examined Sri Amit Kumar, Assistant Personnel Officer,

Engineering, Maligaon, Guwahati, who deposed that the

Railway Board vide Circular dated 10.5.98 (Exhibit-1)

introduced new scales of pay on functional basis in certain

categories and accordingly the new scale of pay was

introduced in Ministerial cadre of group-C. He also

mentioned that while introducing new pay scale of COS

the Railway Board reduced the existing percentage of OS-

I from 8% to 6% and provided 2% against COS while

keeping the remaining percentage of other categories intact

as per the Railway Board Circular dated 10.5.98 (Exhibit-1).

He stated that the sanction cadre strength of 10.5.98 was

76 in the establishment of Dy. CE, Bridge Line and the

break up of post has been shown as under:

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

917

Chief Office Superintendent-

Nil

Office Superintendent, Grade-I

Office Superintendent, Grade-II

Head Clerk

Senior Clerk

Junior Clerk

Total.

Subsequently the Railway Board vide letter No. PC-

V/98/I/II/12 dated 25.05.1999 marked as Exhibit-B had

clarified that5 number of post to be operated in the highest

grade of Ministerial Cadre i.e. Rs. 7450 to 11500/- will be

determined with reference to the sanctioned cadre strength

of Ministerial staff as on 10.5.98; otherwise, the number of

post in the grade of Rs.7450 to Rs.11500/- will be worked

out at 2% of total strength of sanction of Ministerial Staff

as on 10.05.98 with corresponding reduction in the grade

Rs.6500 to Rs.10,500; and the number of posts in other

grade shall remain unchanged. Therefore the clarification

given by Board’s letter dated 25.5.99 (Exhibit-B) it has

been made clear that the number of post of COS is to be

created 2% of the total strength i.e. 2% of 76 =1.52 rounded

off to 2 with corresponding reduction in the post of OS-I

(in the scale of Rs.6500 to Rs.10,500/-) i.e. 6-2=4.

Accordingly the management created the post of COS by

corresponding reduction in the post of OS-I and keeping

the number of post in other grades i.e. OS-II, Head Clerk,

Sr. Clerk, Jr. Clerk as per Board’s Circular ( Exhibit-1) in the

light of the Railway Board Circular marked as Exhibit-B, it

is clear that the number of post in the new scale to be

worked out in grade 6500/- to 10,500 without affecting the

number of post in other grades. The MW.1 also stated

that the promotion of half or more than half has been

rounded off of the next full numbers in working out the

post in higher grades as per extent instructions except in

OS-I because of the clarification issued vide Exhibit-B;

and that on 10.5.98 the number of post in OS-I in the scale

of Rs.6500 to Rs.10500 was (8% of 76) i.e. 6 posts and for

implementing Board’s order introducing new scale of COS

in the scale of Rs.7450 to 11500, 2 post were created (2%

of 76) and number of post of OS-I and corresponding

reduction become 4 posts (6-2) without disturbing the

number of post in other grades. As such, the management

has implemented the policy in the mode and manner as

prescribed in the Board’s Circular dated 10.5.98 and 25.5.99

and hence, the decision of the management in creating

4 posts of OS-I was correct and not contrary to the Circular

or Rules and Provision framed from time to time.

I have heard argument from both the sides at length.

On perusal of the evidence of W.W.1 and the W.W.2 it

appears that the workman Sri Bikas Sarkar joined the

Railway service on 20.11.73 as Junior Clerk and he retired

as Chief Office Superintendent on superannuation on

31.8.12 from the establishment of Dy. C.E., Bridge Line,

Maligaon, N.F.Railway. In the year 1998 the Railway Board

vide their Circular marked as Exhibit-1 introduced new pay

scale in certain categories of Group-C staff as recommended

by Fifth Central Pay Commission resulting in revision in

percentage of Book of Sanction of Ministerial grade, and

at that time the workman was holding the post of OS-II. As

per the Railway Board’s Circular marked as Exhibit-1 the

strength of the post of OS-I in the revised pay scale of

Rs.6500 to Rs.10500 was reduced from existing 8% to 6%

of the Book of Sanction as on 10.5.98 for all department

other than Accounts Deptts. But the said Circular was not

implemented in due time and manner in the office of the

Dy. CE, Bridge Line, Maligaon, for which the workman

deprived of getting the promotion to the post of OS-I as

alleged.

According to Annexure with the heading “ All

DEPARTMENTS (OTHER THAN ACCOUNTS), category

Ministerial staff” to the Railway Board Circular dated

10.5.98 (Exhibit-1 the revised percentage of the Book of

Sanction is as follows:-

Designation

Pay scale

Percentage

Remarks

Classification and

existing

revised

procedure for

Filling up of posts

Introduced now.

Junior Clerk

3050-4590

20%

Existing.

Sr. Clerk

4500-7000

35%

Existing.

Head Clerk

5000-8000

25%

Existing

Office Supdt.

Gr. II

5500-9000

12%

Existing

Office Supdt.

Gr. I

6500-10500

Existing

Chief Office

Supdt.

7450-11500

New Scale

Selection.

918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The plea of the Union is that at the time of

implementation of the Railway Board Circular marked as

Exhibit-1 the calculation of promotional vacancy for OS-I

on the basis of the prescribed revised percentage was not

done by the Management properly, and thereby the

Management did not revise the BOS for operating

5 numbers of post of OS-I but maintained only 4 number

of post in the Grade of OS-I. The Union pointed out that

the BOS in the Ministerial category in the establishment

of Dy. CE, Bridge Line, Maligaon as on 10.5.98 was 76 and

hence, on the basis of revised percentage as per the

Annexure to the Board’s Circular dated 10.5.98 as

mentioned above the post of OS-I was 6% of 76 i.e. 4.56

(76 x 6%=4.56) which rounded off becomes 5 i.e. 5 post of

OS-I while the Management is operating 4 numbers of

post of OS-I violating the universal and accepted number

of rounding off the fraction of 0.5 and above as one

depriving the workman from application of this rule

arbitrarily in violation of Ministry of Railway’s ( Railway

Board Circular No.PC-61/PC-5/MS-1 dated 15.12.1964,

(Exhibit-10) which provided that a fraction of half or more

than half may be rounded off to the next full number in

working out the post in higher grades under upgrading

order issued from time to time. It is also alleged that the

Management has created 2 posts of COS in the

establishment of Dy. C.E, Bridge Line, Maligaon on the

basis of 2% of the total strength (BOS) of Dy. CE, Bridge

Line, Maligaon calculating as (2% of 76 = 1.52) which was

rounded off 2 posts COS, and Thereby the Management

discriminated in calculating the Post of OS-I in revising

under the Railway Board Circular dated 10.5.98 keeping

the strength of the remaining cadres intact.

The Management, on the other hand, took the

defence that the Railway Board issued Circular dated

10.5.98 (Exhibit-1) introducing new scales of pay of

functional posts in certain categories and accordingly new

scale of pay was introduced in the Ministerial cadre of

Group-C under Dy. CE, Bridge line, Maligaon, and as per

the said Circular the Railway Board reduced the existing

percentage of OS-I from 8% to 6% and provided 2%

against COS while keeping the remaining percentage of

other categories intact as per the Railway Board’s Circular

dated 10.5.98. Subsequently the Railway Board issued

another Circular letter No.PC-V/98/1/II/12 dated 25.5.99

(vide Exhibit-B) clarifying that the numbers of posts to be

operated in the highest grade of Ministerial cadre i.e.

Rs.7450/- to Rs.11500/- will be determined with reference

to the sanctioned cadre strength of Ministerial Staff as on

10.5.98, otherwise the number of post in the Grade of

Rs. 7450/- to Rs.11500/- will be worked out at 2% of total

strength of sanctioned of Ministerial staff as on 10.5.98

with corresponding reduction in the grade of Rs.6500/- to

Rs.10,500/- and the number of post in other grade shall

remain unchanged. Accordingly the number of post of

COS was created on the basis of 2% of the total strength

i.e. 2% of 76 = 1.52 which is rounded off as two too with

corresponding reduction in the post of OS-I ( Scale

Rs.6500/- to Rs.10,500/-) without affecting the number of

post in other grades. Hence, the Management has

implemented the policy in the moot and manner as

prescribed in the Circular dated 10.5.98 and 25.5.99.

During argument Mr. M.K.Das, the General Secretary,

RMU, submitted that in the establishment of Dy. CE, Bridge

Line, Maligaon, N.F.Railway, the BOS (total strength of

other) was 76 and the Railway Board Circular marked as

Exhibit-1 was issued with a view to creation of new post

namely COS by curving out 2% of post from the existing

8% of post of OS-1 and hence, the effect would be

introduction of 2% of 76 post in the COS scale with

corresponding reduction of 2% post in OS-I. But the whole

operation of introduction of the new scale of COS the

implementation is to be confined to the COS and OS-I

leaving the strength of other grades untouched; and on

the cut off date i.e. 10.5.98 the workman was OS-II and by

the time it was implemented in the establishment, the

workman completed 2 years residency period OS-II to be

eligible for promotion to OS-I. He also added that with

reduction of the strength to 6% from OS-I the resultant

figure would be 6% of 76 sanctioned post of the Ministerial

cadre (i.e. 4.56 post) and rounding off it in terms of Exhibit-

10 the number of 4.56 post becomes to 5 posts while the

Management had been operating only 4 posts of OS-I and

refused to increase 64 post to 5 posts so that the workman

could be accommodated to OS-I on promotion upon

implementation of the Railway Board Circular dated 10.5.98.

Mr. Das further argued that the Management have

implemented the percentage at the rate of 2% in case of

COS while they have maintained 4 number of post of OS-I

violating the principle of the Railway Board Circular dated

10.5.98 and the principle laid down in calculating as regards

to creation of post in higher grades as per the Railway

Board Circular dated 15.12.64 and thereby the Management

deprived the workman in giving benefit of rounding off to

the post of COS and Senior Clerk.

Mr. S.N.Choudhury, learned Advocate for the

Management, assailing the argument of Mr. M.K.Das,

General Secretary, RMU, submitted that the Railway Board

vide their Circular dated 10.5.98 introduced new scale of

pay on functional posts in certain categories of Ministerial

cadre of group-C and the Management of N.F.Railway while

introducing new pay scale of COS reduced the existing

percentage of OS-I from 8% to 6 % and provided 2%

against COS keeping the remaining percentage of other

categories intact. He also pointed out that the Railway

Board vide their letter dated 25.5.99 (Exhibit-B) has made it

clear that the number of posts to be operated in the highest

grade of Ministerial cadre i.e. Rs.7450/- to Rs.11,500/- will

be determined with reference to the sanctioned cadre

strength of Ministerial cadre as on 10.5.98 i.e. 2% of total

sanctioned strength of Ministerial staff as on 10.5.98 with

corresponding reduction in the grade of Rs.6500/- to

Rs.10,500/- i.e the post of OS-I; and that the number of

posts in other grades shall remain unchanged. Accordingly

the Management has been operating 2% of total strength

of 76 number of post i.e. (2% of 76 = 1.52 rounded off to 2

(two) with corresponding reduction in the post of OS-I in

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

919

the scale of Rs.6500/- to Rs.10,500/- i.e. existing number of

post of 6 - 2=4. Mr. Choudhury, Learned Advocate for the

Management of N.F. Railway also pointed out that the

policy of rounding of ½ or more than ½ to the next full

numbers in working out the post in higher grades was

followed while calculating the number of post of COS but

the same instruction could not be followed because of

clear direction issued by the Railway Board vide their letter

dated 25.5.99 (Exhibit-B), that the post in higher grade is

to be created with corresponding reduction in the number

of post of OS-I and without affecting the number of post

in other grades. Hence, the Management has not

committed any irregularity or illegality in creating 2

numbers of posts of COS reducing two number of post of

OS-I.

The Ministry of Railways/Railway Board in

pursuance of the recommendations of Fifth Central Pay

Commission, have decided to introduce new scale in certain

categories as indicated in the Annexure to their letter No.

PC-V/98/1/II/18(A) dated 10.5.98 (Exhibit-1), with a view

to simplify the procedure & in this regard introduced new

scales of pay in accordance with the percentages/numbers

indicated in the Annexure and certain instruction has been

issued for the purpose of implementing this order which

has been reproduced below :-

“ Date of effect.

(a)

The number of posts to be operated in these scales

will be with reference to the sanctioned cadre strength as

on the date of issue of these orders. Staff who are placed

in the higher grades as a result of implementation of these

orders will draw pay in the respective higher grade with

effect from the date of issue of these orders.

Applicability to various Cadres

(b)

(i)

These orders will be applicable to regular cadres

on Open Line

Establishment

including

Workshops and Production Units and will

include posts of rest givers and leave reserves.

(ii)

These orders will not be applicable to ex-cadre

and work charged posts which will continue to

be based on worth of charge.

(iii)

These instructions will also not be applicable

to Construction Units and Projects.

Pay Fixation

(c)

Staff selected and posted against the higher grade

posts as a result of introduction of the new scales will

have their pay fixed under [Rule 1313 (R-II) (FR-22-I(a)1]

with the usual option for pay fixation as per extant

instructions.

Classification and filling up of the vacancies

(d)

The classification of the posts and other related

issues have been mentioned in the Annexure attached.

Minimum years of Service for promotion to new grade

(e)

The normal minimum eligibility condition of 2 years/

3 years service in the immediate lower grade, as appropriate

will apply as usual.

Basic functions, duties and responsibilities

(f)

Since the posts are being created on functional

considerations, such posts should be pin-pointed and

should include duties of higher importance. The benefit

will become admissible only to the duly selected staff, and

that too after they move to the pin-pointed posts.

Specific instructions given in the foot note of annexure

(g)

While implementing these orders, specific

instructions given as foot note, if any, against any category

in the enclosed annexure should be strictly and carefully

adhered to.”

The Annexure in heading “ALL DEPARTMENTS

(OTHER THAN ACCOUNTS) Category : Ministerial Staff”

to the aforesaid letter marked as Exhibit-1 appears to be

relevant in the instant reference since the dispute is

relating to the Ministerial Staff namely Junior Clerk, Sr.

Clerk, Head Clerk, Office Superintendent-II, Office

Superintendent-I, Chief Office Superintendent under the

Dy. CE, Bridge Line, which is shown below:

Designation

Pay scale

%tage

Remarks

Classification and

existing

revised

procedure for

Filling up of posts

Introduced now.

Junior Clerk

3050-4590

20%

Existing.

Sr. Clerk

4500-7000

35%

Existing.

Head Clerk

5000-8000

25%

Existing

Office Supdt.

Gr. II

5500-9000

12%

Existing

Office Supdt.

Gr. I

6500-10500

Existing

Chief Office

Supdt.

7450-11500

New Scale

Selection.

All Departments other than Accounts Category : Ministerial Staff :

920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

From the above statement annexed with the letter

marked as Exhibit-1 as mentioned above, it appears that as

per new pay scales in accordance with the recommendation

of Fifth Central Pay Commission the Ministry of Railway

has decided to introduce new scale of pay in accordance

with the percentages/numbers creating new post in higher

grades on functional consideration without affecting the

total strength. From the said Annexure it is clear that 2%

of the total strength of the BOS to be filled up against the

posts introduced due to introduction of new scales of

pay i.e. 2 numbers of posts of COS has been created while

the OS-I (Scale of Rs. 6500 to Rs.10,500/-) has been reduced

to 6% from 8% of the total strength keeping the percentage

and total strength of other posts such as Junior Clerk, Sr.

Clerk, Head Clerk, Office Superintendent-II, remaining the

same. Thereby due to reduction of 2% of the Post of OS-I

the number of 6 posts of OS-I in the establishment of

Dy.CE, Bridge line, Maligaon as on 10.5.98 has come down

to 4 & in order to comply with the clarification issued by

the Railway Board vide their letter dt. 25.5.99 marked as

Exhibit-B the Management of N.F.Rly. has ignored the

instruction contained in the Railway Board’s letter dt.

15.12.64 (Exhibit-10).

11.

The allegation of the Union is that the Management

of N.F.Railway committed illegality in calculating the

number of post of OS-I since they have reduced to the 4

number of post of OS-I from 6 number of post. The Union

also pointed out that in calculating the 6% of the existing

strength of 76 numbers of Ministerial staff which should

have been 6% of 76= 4.56 i.e. which rounding off should

be 5 and instead of operating 5 numbers of post of OS-I

the Management has provided 4 numbers of Post of OS-I

violating the universal principle of benefit evaluating the

fraction of 0.5 and above as 01 as well as the clarification

dated 15.12.64 by the Railway Board vide their letter marked

as Exhibit-10. It is also alleged by the Union that the

workman Sri Bikash Sarkar was OS-II at the time of

introduction of new scales of certain categories as on

10.5.98 and due to non-implementation of the said new

policy the workman was deprived of getting promotion to

the post of COS.

It is an admitted fact that there was 76 number of

Ministerial Staff under Dy. CE, Bridge Line, N.F.Railway,

Maligaon and after implementation of the Board’s Circular

marked as Exhibit-1 the total strength has been remain the

same and thereby created 2 numbers of post of COS (Scale

of Rs.7450- Rs.11500/-) decreasing 2 numbers of post of

OS-I from 6 to 4 numbers ( Rs.6500- Rs.10,500) without

changing the number of post in other grades. The Railway

Board Circular dated 10.5.98 ( Exhibit-1) has also made it

clear that the new scale of pay of COS ( Rs.7450- Rs.11500)

is to be created as 2% of the total sanctioned strength i.e.

2% of 76 = 1.52 rounding off 2 posts. Further the Railway

Board issued another Circular being No. PC-V/98/1/II/12

dated 25.5.99 marked as Exhibit-B wherein it has been

clarified that the number of post to be operated in the

highest grade of Ministerial Cadre i.e. Rs.7450- Rs.11,500

will be determined with reference to the sanctioned cadre

strength of Ministerial Staff as on 10.5.98 the number of

post in the grade of Rs.7450- Rs.11,500/- will be worked

out at 2% of the sanctioned strength of the Ministerial

staff as on 10.5.98 with corresponding reduction in the

grade of Rs.6500 to Rs.10,500; and the number of post in

the other grades shall remain unchanged. Thus it is clear

that the Management of N.F.Railway has rightly

implemented the Railway Board Circular marked as Exhibit-

1 and also followed the subsequent clarification issued

by the Railway Board vide their letter marked as Exhibit-B.

12.

On careful scrutiny of the Railway Board’s Circular

dated 10.5.98 (Exhibit-1) and the subsequent clarification

issued by the Railway Board vide Exhibit-B it is found that

the Railway Board has specifically mentioned that the

number of post in the Grade of Rs.7450 to Rs.11,500 (i.e.

the Post of COS) will be worked out at 2% of the total

strength of the Ministerial Staff as on 10.5.98 with

corresponding reduction in the grade of Rs.6500 to

Rs.10,500/- ( i.e. the post of OS-I), without changing the

number of Post in the other grades. In the instant case, the

strength of the staff of Dy, CE, Bridge Line, as on 10.5.98

was 76 including 6 numbers of post of OS-I. After

implementation of the policy of introduction of Additional

pay scale recommendation of Fifth Central Pay

Commission as per the instructions/clarifications contained

in Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-B the Management created 2 post

of COS (Scale of Rs.7450- Rs.11,500) and reduced 2 number

of post of OS-I ( Scale of Rs.6500 to Rs.10,500) keeping the

number of post in other grades unchanged. Further the

allegation of violation of the guidelines issued by the

Railway Board’s letter dated 15.12.64 marked as Exhibit-10

made by the Union also cannot be entertained since the

Railway Board in order to avoid to conflict in regard to the

percentage of rounding off the fraction issued clarification

vide their letter marked as Exhibit-B specifying the

percentage to be created for higher post i.e. COS reducing

the grade (scale of Rs.6500-Rs.10,500/-. It is also found

that the Management has followed the clarification

regarding computation of percentage issued by the

Railway Board vide their letter marked as Exhibit-10 in

creating 2 numbers of post of COS (Rs.7450-Rs.11,500/-),

while strictly followed the instruction/clarification in

reducing the 2 numbers of post of OS-I as per the Railway

Board Circular/clarification marked as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-

B; and the N.F.Railway is bound to follow the instruction

& clarification of their highest authority i.e. the Ministry

of Railway ( Railway Board). Thus it is clear that the

Management have not committed any illegality or

irregularity in implementing the new scale of pay in

accordance with the percentage/numbers creating new

posts in higher grade on functional consideration.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

921

13.

In view of my discussion and the finding arrived at

as above, it can safely be held that the Management of

N.F. Railway, Maligaon has not committed any illegality or

irregularity nor violated the principle of natural justice in

creating less number of posts in restructuring and thereby

not allowing the promotion of Sri Bikash Sarkar to the next

higher grade w.e.f. 16.5.95 as per the Railway Board

instructions. Accordingly this reference is decided in

affirmative against the Union.

Send the Award to the Ministry as per procedure.

L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 336-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 61@2012)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@11@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 336.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 61/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial 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 18/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/11/2012-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/61/2012

Shri Ashok Kumar Rajak,

S/o Shri Bhagwanlal Rajak,

R/o ward No.11, Maghaiya Mohalla,

Purana Bazar,

Bhitarwar,

Distt. Gwalior (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager

State Bank of India

Local Head Office,

Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 22nd day of January, 2015

As per letter dated 2-4-12 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/

11/2012-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether action of the management of Chief General

Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in terminating

the services of Shri Ashok Kumar Rajak S/o

Bhagwanlal Rajak from service w.e.f. 10-12-09 is legal

and justified? To what relief the workman is

entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim.

Management of SBI filed Written Statement and

documents.

Workman submitted application for withdrawal of

the case. He submits that department has given assurance

to fulfill his claim and nothing remain for decision. It is not

admitted by counsel for IInd party for want of information.

Above fact was brought to notice of workman. On that

workman as well as his counsel Shri R.K. Soni submits

that workman is ready to withdraw his claim

unconditionally. As such the dispute between parties is

not prosecuted by workman. Therefore the reference

stands disposed off as no dispute award.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 337-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 58@2007) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@99@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 337.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Uttar

922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 18/02/2015.

[No. L-41012/99/2007-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 58/2007

Ref. No. L-41012/99/2007 – IR (B-I) dated: 15.10.2007

BETWEEN :

Sri Suresh Chander S/o Late Lalla Nivasi

758, Back of Sabji Mandi

Mahavir Floor Mill, Bachhaarvan

Raibareli

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager

Northern Railway

Administrative Office, NE Rly.

Hazratganj

Lucknow

CORRIGENDUM

By order No. L-41012/99/2007 – IR (B-I) dated:

15.10.2007 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 Sri Suresh Chander S/o

Late Lalla Nivasi, 758, Back of Sabji Mandi, Mahavir Floor

Mill, Bachhaarvan, Raibareli and the Divisional Railway

Manager, Northern Railway, Administrative Office, NE Rly.,

Hazratganj, Lucknow for adjudication; and this Tribunal

adjudicated the said reference vide its award dated

10.07.2014; wherein some typographical error has been

committed in para 20, 9th line of the said award.

Therefore, following correction is being incorporated

in the award dated 10.07.2014 of this Tribunal:

“The name of the workman, mentioned as “Virendera

Kumar”, in 9th line of para 20 be read as “Suresh Chandra”.

LUCKNOW

22.12.2014

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 338-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksj oS'; cSad

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 99@2014)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@68@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 338.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 99/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Karur Vysa

Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 18/02/2015.

[No. L-12011/68/2014-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 13th January, 2015

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 99/2014

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10

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

the Management of Karur Vysya Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary

: 1st Party/Petitioner Union

Karur Vysya Bank

Employees Union

C/o Cooperative House,

New No. 5, 4th Street

Sourashtra Nagar

Choolaimedu

AND

The General Manager (HR) : 2nd Party/Respondent

Karur Vysya Bank

Central Office, Erode Road

Karur-639002

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

: M/s V. Ajoy Khose,

Petitioner Union

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

: M/s R. Jayaprakash,

Respondent

Advocates

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

923

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/68/2014-IR (B.I)

dated 27.10.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the Management of Karur

Vysya Bank regarding outsourcing of manpower for

night clearing of cheques in justified or not? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled?

On the receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 99/2014 and issued notice to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their

counsel.

The ID was being posted for filing of Claim Statement

by the Petitioner. On four hearing dates, the case was

postponed for the purpose of filing Claim Statement. But

so far Claim Statement has not been filed. On the last two

hearing dates, neither the petitioner nor his counsel were

present, nor was there any representation. The assumption

to be made is that the petitioner is not interested in

pursuing the case. So the proceedings is only to be closed.

The ID is closed. An award is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 339-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 88@13)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@41@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 339.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 88/13)

of the Central Government Industrial 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 18/02/2015.

[No. L-12011/41/2013-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/88/13

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmchari

Sangathan, F-1, Tripti Vihar,

Opp Engg. College,

Ujjain

...Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager

State Bank of India

Local Head Office,

Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 22nd day of January, 2015

As per letter dated 8-8-2013 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12011/

41/2013-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether Shri Ashok Kumar Rajak is entitled for

difference of wages from 8-4-92 to 10-12-09 as claimed

by Union?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim.

Management of SBI filed Written Statement and

documents.

Workman submitted application for withdrawal of

the case. He submits that department has given assurance

to fulfill his claim and nothing remain for decision. It is not

admitted by counsel for IInd party for want of information.

Above fact was brought to notice of workman. On that

workman as well as his counsel Shri R.K. Soni submits

that workman is ready to withdraw his claim

unconditionally. As such the dispute between parties is

924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

not prosecuted by workman. Therefore the reference

stands disposed off as no dispute award.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 340-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ

gSnjkckn ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 67@2005

,oa 39@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@223@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

la- ,y&12025@01@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 340.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/2005

& ID No. 39/2006) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management

of State Bank of Hyderabad and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 18/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/223/2005-IR (B-I),

No. L-12025/01/2015-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Dated the 29th day of December, 2014

COMMON AWARD

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE Nos.

L.C. 67/2005 and ID. 39/2006

Between :

Sri K. Santhosh Kumar,

S/o K. Satyanarayana,

C/o A.P. Industrial Employees Union,

“House of Labour”, King Kothi road,

Hyderabad –29

...Petitioner

AND

The Dy. General Manager,

Personal department,

State Bank of Hyderabad,

Gunfoundry Head Office,

Hyderabad .

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of Hyderabad,

Bellavista Branch, Somajiguda Branch,

Hyderabad

...Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

M/s. V. Viswanatham &

R. Dushyantala, Advocates

For the Respondent

M/s. Ch. Siva Reddy &

T. G. Prasad Reddy, Advocates

COMMON AWARD

Sri K. Santhosh Kumar invoking Sec.2A(2) of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (who will be referred to as

workman) has filed this petition against the Respondents

seeking for passing an award directing the Respondent to

reinstate the Petitioner into service from 6.6.2005 with full

back wages and all other attendant benefits with continuity

of service and to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the back

wages and costs.

While so a reference in ID No. 39/2006 has been

received by this forum from Government of India, Ministry

of Labour and Employment, New Delhi vide order No.L-

12012/223/2005-IR(B-I) dated 26.6.2006, whereunder, this

forum has been invited to give award on the question of,

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of Hyderabad, not regularising the services of

Sri K. Santosh Kumar, Casual Labour, is legal and

justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

By virtue of the order dated 11.9.2008, these two

cases i.e., LC 67/2005 and ID 39/2006 were clubbed

together and the proceedings were conducted commonly

for both these matters in LC 67/2005.

The claim statements filed by the Petitioner in ID

39/2006 and in LC 67/2005 are one and the same.

The averments made in the claim statement as well

as in the claim petition by the Petitioner in brief are as

follows:

It has been stated by the Petitioner that he was

appointed by the Respondent as casual labour in

September, 2001 and was posted under 2nd Respondent

where the Petitioner worked for more than 240 days

continuously without any break in that year on a wage of

Rs.50/- per day. The Petitioner has worked in that capacity

for more than 14 years but he was not made regular. When

the Petitioner insisted for regularization and asked for the

correct payment of wages then the services of the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

925

Petitioner were terminated on 6.6.2005 without any written

order or following the due procedure. Before that the

Petitioner made a representation dated 19.5.2005 to

regularize his services and pay arrears of wages as per the

wages paid to the casual labourer of Kakatiyanagar branch

who raised ID No.35/2001 which was decided on 24.9.2002

and the casual labour of the Kakatiyanagar branch were

given wages as per rules and they were also paid arrears

of the wages. The Petitioner moved a petition to follow

the procedure of 1/3rd pay after two years one half of pay

after another two years and 3/4th pay after another two

years. The Petitioner further served a reminder on 31.5.2005

but no action was taken by the Respondent management.

The action of the management in orally terminating the

services of the Petitioner is illegal and against the principles

of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Hon’ble High Court

of A.P. in WP No.15555/93 directed the Respondent to

consider the cases of the Petitioners of that case. Another

WP No.18436/2004 decided on 11.10.2004, the Hon’ble

High Court of A.P., directed the Respondent to pass

appropriate order on the observations of the regular

employees. But the Respondent has not obeyed that order

also. Hence, this petition.

The Respondent management has filed counter

statement with the averments in brief as follows:

They have challenged the maintainability of the claim

petition. The Respondent has submitted that the Petitioner

has not worked for more than 240 days. He was not on

the rolls of the bank as such, the question of termination

of the services did not arise. The allegation to this effect

is baseless and misconceived. The bank has never

engaged Petitioner in their employment nor the vacancies

were notified, the Petitioner was engaged for casual work

when his services were required by the bank. He was

never employed as regular or a full day worker. He is not

entitled for the benefit sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, because he was engaged to work as and when

the bank required services of the Petitioner he was

employed for that date only. The Petition has no force

and deserves to be rejected or dismissed. The Petitioner

can not claim any advantage from the order passed in WP

No.15555/93 or WP No.18436/2004 because the Petitioner

was not a party to this petition.

To substantiate the contentions of the Petitioner

WW1 was examined and Ex.W1 to W20. On behalf of the

Respondent bank MW1 has been examined and Ex.M1 to

M6 documents were marked.

Heard the arguments of the either party.

Point that arises for determination is:

Whether the Petitioner is workman and whether

termination of his services is legal and justified? If

so, to what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

9. Point:

As far as the present dispute is concerned, through

the documents filed by Petitioner workman coupled with

his own oral evidence as WW1, Petitioner could establish

before this court that he has been working as casual labour

with the Respondent bank since September, 2001. Sri Ch.

Surender Raju, Chief Manager of the Respondent bank

who has been examined as MW1 could not deny regarding

the correspondence i.e., Ex.W2, W3, W5 and W8 when

they were confronted to him. Thus, it can safely be taken

that Petitioner has worked with the Respondent bank

since September, 2001 as casual labour and therefore, he

is a workman for all purposes. Contra contentions of the

Respondent are not acceptable.

10.

As can be gathered from the material on record,

Petitioner who applied for his absorption in bank’s regular

service by making applications time and again and whose

case has been recommended by the then Branch Manager,

as can be gathered from Ex.W2 and W3, has raised an

industrial dispute seeking for regularization of his service

with the Respondent bank by approaching Assistant

Labour Commissioner (C). Assistant Labour

Commissioner (C) has made efforts to conciliate the matter,

and evidently such conciliation proceedings failed.

11.

While things stood so, instead of regularising the

Petitioner’s services, the Respondent bank has chosen to

remove him from service abruptly w.e.f. 6.6.2005. There on

Petitioner is constrained to approach this forum by filing

this dispute seeking for his reinstatement into service.

12.

Evidently and admittedly there is no compliance of

Sec.25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while removing

the Petitioner from service. It is the contention of the

Respondent that since the Petitioner is not a workman

and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not apply to him,

there was no compliance of Sec.25F of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

13.

As already observed above, the material on record

clearly discloses that Petitioner has been in continuous

service as casual labour with the Respondent since

September, 2001 and thus he is a workman. Thus, the

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will apply to

him. Therefore, his retrenchment/removal from service

without complying with Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 is certainly illegal, unjust and arbitrary.

14.

It is the contention of the Respondent that the

principles laid down in the cases of Official Liquidator Vs.

Dayanand and others(2008) 10 SCC page 1 whereunder

principles laid down in the case of Umadevi Vs. State of

Karnataka (2006) 4 SCC page 1 has been upheld, are

applicable to the present case and that Petitioner is not

entitled for the relief sought for.

15.

In the above cited cases Hon’ble Supreme Court

has considered the acceptable mode of public employment

926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and non acceptable regularization of services of the

persons who entered into the service by back door

methods, thereby defeating the opportunity of the general

public to compete for appointment to the said post etc..

Present dispute is an industrial dispute. Industrial Law is

totally different from Civil Law/ Administrative Law.

Regularization of casual workman as regular workman

etc., are all governed by the industrial laws, rules and

various circulars issued by the government from time to

time touching these aspects. Public employment under

Civil Law/Administrative Law is totally different.

16.

Further more, in this case Petitioner is not seeking

for regularization of his services. What all he is

questioning is the correctness of abrupt termination of

his services when he questioned the inaction on the part

of the Respondent bank regarding his plea for

regularization of his services, that too without complying

with the Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

17.

Inspite of their own admission in their counter that

“Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department

of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) had issued a

circular No.F-3/3/104/87-IR dated 6.8.1990, directing that

all recruitment of temporary employees in the clerical/

subordinate cadre shall be stopped forth with and that for

the staff which was then on the rolls of the Banks, they

shall be regularized as provided in the approach paper in

terms of the circular issued at that time.”, the Respondent

bank, evidently failed to take appropriate action, in

connection with the claims of the Petitioner.

18.

Anyway, the question whether Petitioner is entitled

for regularization of services or not is not the subject matter

in this petition. Even if the same is subject matter in this

petition, since it is an industrial dispute, the principles

laid down in the above cited cases are not applicable.

19.

For all the above referred reasons, the principles

laid down in the above cited cases relied upon by the

Learned Counsel for the bank are not helpful to his

contentions in this case.

20.

There are umpteen number of legal precedents laid

down by the Apex Court whereunder it is clearly laid

down that the workman who is removed from service

without complying with the mandatory conditions laid

down in Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is to

be ordered to be reinstated into service. Thus, the

Petitioner, who is found to be a workman, is entitled to be

reinstated into service of the bank w.e.f. 6.6.2005 with the

benefit of continuous service. As far as back wages are

concerned, since he did not render his service to the

bank, but not due to his own fault, he is entitled for atleast

50% of the back wages which he would have earned but

for his removal from service.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

In the result, petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be

reinstated into service of the Respondent bank as casual

labour w.e.f. 6.6.2005 with continuity of service. He shall

be paid 50% of the back wages also, forth with.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

for the Petitioner

for the Respondent

WW1: Sri K. Santosh

MW1: Sri Ch. Surender

Kumar

Raju

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1 :

Copy of identity card of WW1

Ex.W2 :

Copy of proposal for sanction consolidate

wage to give post of Peon on consolidate wages

Ex.W3 :

Copy of proposal for sanction of post of Peon/

Lunch Room Attendant/Water Boy on

consolidate wage to the AGM and DGM

Dt.22.5.2003

Ex.W4 :

Copy of Peon Delivery book dt.3.10.2001

Ex.W5 :

Copy of lr.No.PER/GR.VI/F.22/2279 from the

Personnel manager, Admn. to the Regional

Manager, for permanent absorption under ID

Act dt.11.3.1989

Ex.W6 :

Copy of lr. Dt.29.12.99 reg. Absorption of

temporary employees on consolidate wage

Ex.W7 :

Copy of Lr.No.F/Premises/1028 dt.25.10.2004

to the AGM, to create the post of sweeper cum

water boy

Ex.W8 :

Copy of Lr. No.F/Misc./1436 dt.21.3.2005 to

Sub-Post Master, APSEB, Vidyutsoudha to

hand over the cheque to WW1

Ex.W9 :

Copy of Lr. Dt.30.4.2005 By Respondent to the

Special Assistant, RTA Extn., Bellavista to send

cash remittance of Rs.50000/- through WW1

Ex.W10 :

Copy of Lr. Dt.20.5.2005By Respondent to the

Special Assistant, RTA Extn., Bellavista to send

cash remittance of Rs.1,10,000/- through WW1

Ex.W11 :

Copy of demand notice dt.19.5.2005 by WW1

to the Respondents for his promotion to next

grade

Ex.W12 :

Receipts of courier of Ex.W11 dt.19.5.2005

Ex.W13 :

Copy of Lr.dt.28.5.2005 By Respondent to the

Special Assistant, RTA Extn., Bellavista to send

cash remittance of Rs.10000/- through WW1

Ex.W14 :

Copy of circular dt.5.6.2002 No.PER/2002-2003/

15 directions by Head office to pay Bonus

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

927

Ex.W15 :

Copy of circular dst.3.6.2005 No.PER/GR/IV/

Misc./1297 issued by Head Office o all the

branches to terminate the candidates

Ex.W16 :

Copy of Lr. Dt.6.6.2005 by Respondent to the

Special Assistant, RTA Extn., Bellavista to send

cash remittance of Rs.1,00,000/- through WW1

Ex.W17 :

Copy of lr.From DGM/Per. & HRD to the State

President, A.P. Industrial Employees Union,

that the workman/Casual Labours are not the

workman under IDAct

Ex.W18 :

Copy of Lr. Dt.9.8.2005 By Respondent to the

Special Assistant, RTA Extn., Bellavista to send

cash remittance of Rs.50000/- through WW1

Ex.W19 :

Copy of application of WW1

Ex.W20 :

Copy of application of Sri Srinivas

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1 :

Copy of award of CGIT cum Labour Court,

Hyderabad dt.24.9.2002

Ex.M2 :

Copy of order in WP No.15555/1993 dt.28.3.97

Ex.M3 :

Copy of order in WP No.18436/2004

dt.11.10.2004

Ex.M4 :

Copy of lr. Of State Bank of Hyderabad head

office to Sri N. Rama Krishna dt.28.3.2005

Ex.M5 :

Copy of Lr. Of State Bank of Hyderabad to

Sri V. S. Krishnachary dt.28.3.2005

Ex.M6 :

Copy of lr. Of State Bank of Hyderabad to

Sri K. Vijay Kumar dt.28.3.2005

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 341-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 70@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@41@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 341.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 70/2006)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank

of Indore and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 18/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/41/2006-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/70/06

Shri Sudhir Kumar soni,

R/o Patel ward, Multai,

Distt. Betul (MP)

...Workman

Versus

General Manager,

State Bank of Indore, Head office,

5,Yyeshwant Niwas Road,

Indore

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of January 2015

As per letter dated 27-10-06 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/

41/2006-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, State Bank of Indore, Indore in terminating

the services of Shri Sudhir Kumar Soni w.e.f. 7-5-04

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

entitled for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page

2/1 to 2/5. Case of workman is that he was engaged by

IInd party on post of permanent peon from 25-7-01. He

was paid wages Rs. 50/- per day. The wages were increased

to Rs. 60/- per day. He was paid wages for 6 days in a week

excluding Sunday and holidays. He worked under Branch

Manager. That he completed 240 days continuous service.

He is covered as employee under Section 25 B of IDAct.

His services were terminated without notice, no

retrenchment compensation was paid to him. His services

were terminated in violation of Section 25-F, G,N of I.D.Act.

On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement

with back wages.

IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page 7/1

to 7/7 denying claim of workman. that State Bank of Indoroe

was established under Act of 1959. The Bank is governed

by circulars issued by State Bank of India and Reserve

Bank in the matter of recruitment of staff. Name of workman

was not sponsored through Employment Exchange.

Selection procedure was not followed for appointment of

workman. workman is claiming back door entry in the Bank.

Workman was engaged for cleaning work one hour before

opening of Bank and one hour after closing hours.

Workman was working for one or two hours in a day.

928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Workman was paid daily wages for his working days. He

not completed 240 days continuous service. Workman is

not eligible for appointment in Bank as peon. IInd party

has not violated Section 25-F of ID Act. IInd party has

referred to ratio held in various cases by Apex Court and

different High Courts contending that workman is not

eligible for regular appointment or reinstatement as he

was engaged on daily wages. On such contentions, IInd

party prays that reference be answered in its favour.

Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/3

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of General

Manager, State Bank of

Indore, Indore in terminating

the services of Shri Sudhir

Kumar Soni w.e.f. 7-5-04 is

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

Workman is not

is entitled to?”

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his service

for violation of Section 25-F, G, H of I.D.Act. Management

has denied material contentions of workman.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence stating that

he was working as peon with IInd party. He was paid

wages Rs. 50, 60 per day. His services were terminated

from 7-5-04. That he completed 240 days continuous

service. Workman was paid bonus for the year 2001 to

2004 Rs. 2849/-. His services were terminated in violation

of Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act. Workman was not present

for his cross-examination. Ist party workman produced

documents Exhibit W-1. Letter issued by LEO dated

13-4-06 – said document shows that during conciliation

discussion, Branch Manager had admitted that workman

was engaged by Bank for casual nature of work and

accordingly paid.

Management filed affidavit of witness Laxmishankar

Tiwari denying the workman was appointed as regular

peon. It is denied that workman was continuously working

from 25-7-01 to 7-5-04. The witness denied that workman

completed 240 days continuous service. The name of

workman was not sponsored through Employment

Exchange. At the time of engagement, rules about

recruitment were not followed. In his cross-examination,

management’s witness says he was not posted in Mullai

Branch during 2001 to 04. He had not discussed with

earlier Branch managers before filing affidavit. His affidavit

is filed on basis of record. Name of workman was not

sponsored through Employment Exchange. While

engaging workman, permission of Controlling Officer was

not obtained. The witness explained that workman was

not appointed. The letter of appointment was not given to

him. Muster roll was not maintained. Workman was paid

wages under vouchers Rs. 50-60 per day. Witness of

management claimed ignorance about documents referred

in his cross-examination.

Workman has not appeared for his cross-

examination, other witness is not examined in support of

his claim. The evidence adduced by Ist party is not

sufficient to prove that workman was working more than

240 days before termination of his services. In absence of

such evidence, workman cannot be allowed protection of

Section 25-F of I.D.Act. the termination of services of

workman cannot be said illegal. For above reasons, I record

my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of General Manager,

State Bank of Indore, Indore in terminating the

services of Shri Sudhir Kumar Soni w.e.f. 7-5-04 is

legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 342-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 45@2009)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@29@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 342.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 18/02/2015.

[No. L-12011/29/2008-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

929

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/45/2009

Date: 12.01.2015

Party No. 1

The Assistant General Manager,

Region-V, State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, S.V. Patel Marg,

Kingsway, Nagpur-1

Versus

Party No. 2

The Zonal Secretary,

State Bank Workers Organization,

542, Congress, Maharashtra,

Nagpur.

AWARD

(Dated: 12th January, 2015)

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 Region-V, State Bank of India and their

workman, Shri M.N. Pathak, for adjudication, as per letter

No.L-12011/29/2008-IR (B-I) dated 07.12.2009, with the

following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India in imposing punishment of dismissal on

Shri M.N. Pathak w.e.f. 12.07.2005 is justified? If not, to

what relief he is entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to

file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, in response to which, the workman

Shri M.N.Pathak , (“the workman” in short) through his

union, State Bank Workers Organization (“the union” in

short) filed the statement of claim and the management of

State Bank of India (“party no.1” in short) filed the written

statement.

The case of the workman as presented by the union

in the statement of claim is that the party no.1 is a statutory

Bank and provisions of the Act are applicable to it and the

service conditions of the employees of party No.1 are

governed by the provisions of Sastry Award, Desai Award

and the Bi-partite settlements signed by the management

with the Unions at national level and it is a registered

trade union of the award staff employees of party No.1

and the workman was its member and the workman was

appointed as an Assistant (Cash/Accounts) and while he

was working as a cashier at Amravati Branch of party No.1,

he was suspended from service by party No.1 from

15.06.1998 and there was a dispute regarding payment of

one cheque made by the workman and for that reason, the

party no.1 lodged a complaint at Amravati Police Station

on 12.06.1998 against the workman and criminal case no.

51/1999 was registered against the workman by the police

and the said case was decided by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Amravati and while the investigation and trial

of the criminal case was in progress, party No.1 initiated

simultaneously disciplinary action against the workman

and accordingly, charge sheet containing 14 charges

under the Sastry Award was served on the workman on

13.05.2000 and the said charge sheet was amended by the

Disciplinary Authority on 17.10.2000 and departmental

inquiry was ordered and the Inquiry Officer made a farce

of enquiry and ultimately submitted his findings on

09.01.2002 and based on the findings of the Inquiry Officer,

the Disciplinary Authority awarded the punishment of

dismissal without notice upon the workman vide order

dated 15.09.2005 and the Central Government initially

declined to make the reference for adjudication, but as per

the direction of the Hon’ble High Court, Mumbai in the

writ petition filed by it, the reference was made by the

central government.

It is further pleaded by the union on behalf of the

workman that the allegations made against the workman

were regarding payment of a cheque for rupees three lacks,

drawn on the account maintained at Amravati Branch of

party No.1 on 08.06.1998 and the workman was duty bound

to effect the payment of the said cheque to the customer,

when the same had come to his counter for payment and

therefore, no misconduct can be construed for performance

of such duty and as per the allegations, the said cheque

was found to be a fraudulent one and the entire

responsibility was unduly fixed on the workman and the

workman had followed all the required procedure without

any apparent lapse on his part for making payment of the

cheque and the payment was made by him as per rules

and if the cheque was found to be a fraudulent cheque,

then the same was nothing short than an occupational

hazard and the workman could not have been held to be

responsible for the same and the departmental enquiry

conducted by the party No.1 was not fair and therefore

the same was invalid, as because, though party No.1 had

lodged the F.I.R. against the workman, the party No.1

without waiting for the final result of the criminal case and

within a period of one year, started the departmental

enquiry in complete violation of the provisions of clause

521 (2) and (3) of the Sastry Award and the workman was

acquitted in the criminal case No. 51/1999 by the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Amravati on 02.12.2008 and the

departmental enquiry was invalid, as because, amendment

to the original charge sheet was unduly made during the

process of the departmental enquiry and on 26.12.2001,

the Enquiry Officer allowed the management to examine

the witnesses, in absence of the workman, even though,

protest was made in that regard and the Enquiry Officer

instead of recording the statement of the witnesses,

accepted the previously written note and the evidence

was therefore, a tutored one and not natural and affidavit

without oath of the witnesses was taken on record, leading

questions were allowed to be asked to the witnesses

against the principles of natural justice, unauthenticated

930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

document was allowed to be placed on record and without

allowing the cross-examination of the first witness for the

management by the defence representative, the second

witness was allowed to enter into the witness box, to suit

the management and after completion of evidence from

the side of the management, no opportunity or time was

given to the workman to produce witnesses in his defence

and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and

non application of mind is writ large on the face of the

findings of the Enquiry Officer and the reasoning given

by the Enquiry Officer are casual and mechanical and not

based on evidence on record and principles of probability

were not considered in favour of the workman and the

enquiry was against the principles of natural justice.

Prayer has been made for the reinstatement of the

workman in service with continuity and full back wages.

Party No.1 in the written statement has pleaded inter-

alia that the workman was working at Amravati Branch as

an Assistant(cash), when the charge sheet came to be

issued against him and on 08.06.1998, the workman made

payment of Rs.3,000,00/- (Three lacks) for encashment of

the cheque of one Mr. H.P. Das, whose account did not

exist at the said branch and the workman committed various

acts of misconduct as mentioned in the charge sheet, while

making such payment and the workman was issued with a

charge sheet dated 13.05.2000, informing him of his

committing various misconducts and in all, 14 charges

were levelled against him and the workman received the

charge sheet and the departmental enquiry was conducted

on various dates and the workman was duly represented

by his defence representative in the enquiry and the

workman attended the enquiry personally in all the sittings

of the enquiry except one sitting and fully participated in

the enquiry, but he refused to cross-examine the witnesses

examined by the management in the enquiry and the

workman approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central) on 20.07.2001, for keeping the disciplinary

proceedings in abeyance till the outcome of the criminal

case and the A.L.C. recorded the failure of conciliation on

09.10.2001 and sent the failure report to the Central

Government and the workman also filed Writ Petition No.41/

2002, before the Hon’ble High Court, challenging its action

of continuing the departmental enquiry against him and

the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on

19.03.2002 and Government of India vide letter dated

11.03.2002 refused to make a reference stating that there is

no legal bar for both proceedings, disciplinary and criminal

to go on simultaneously and the workman challenged the

said order by filing writ petition no. 1404/2002, before the

Hon’ble high Court on 09.04.2002 and the said writ petition

was allowed on 22.08.2002 by the Hon’ble high Court,

directing the Central Government to make the reference

and accordingly, the reference was made by the union of

India to this tribunal and the same was registered as

reference case No. CGIT/NGP/180/2002 and the schedule

of the said reference was “Whether the action of the

management of the State Bank of India in issuing charge

sheet and going ahead with the departmental enquiry

simultaneously with trial case for the same reason in respect

of Shri M.N. Pathak is justified or not? If not, what relief

the disputant concerned is entitled to?” and in the said

reference, award was passed by this Tribunal on 11.05.2005,

holding that the action of the bank was justified and did

not violate Section 521(3) of Sastry Award and the Hon’ble

High Court did not grant stay to the departmental enquiry

initiated against the workman by it and the Presenting

Officer presented his brief on 29.12.2001 and though the

defence representative was advised to submit his written

brief by 04.01.2001, he did not submit his brief and the

Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 09.01.2002 to

the Disciplinary Authority and as no stay was granted

against the Bank to proceed with the departmental enquiry

against the workman, the Disciplinary Authority issued

the show cause notice dated 15.01.2003 to the workman

along with the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer,

proposing the punishment of “dismissal without notice”

through its Amravati Branch, but surprisingly, after going

through the show cause notice, the workman refused to

accept the same on 17.01.2003 and therefore, it sent two

of its employees, Shri Madhav Bhagwat and Shri Ramesh

Khandpasole on 20.01.2003 to the house of the workman

to serve the notice, but the family members of the workman

informed them about the absence of the workman from the

house and they also refused to receive the notice and as

the workman avoided to receive the show cause notice,

the notice was pasted on the front door of his house on

21.01.2003 in presence of the official of the bank and the

show cause notice along with the enquiry report was sent

to the workman by speed post with AD on 20.01.2003, but

the workman avoided to receive the same and for that, it

(Bank) published a notice in the daily news paper

published from Amravati, namely “Hinusthan” dated

22.01.2003 and by the said notice, the workman was directed

to collect the show cause notice either from the Disciplinary

Authority or from Amravati Branch and finally, the workman

received the show cause notice on 24.01.2003, but he did

not give any reply to the same and as such, final order was

passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 12.07.2005 and

the workman filed an appeal against the order of

punishment before the Appellate Authority and the

Appellate Authority, after giving personal hearing to the

workman along with his defence representative, passed

the final order dated 15.09.2005, dismissing the appeal.

It is further pleaded by the party No.1 that five

witnesses were examined by the Bank in the departmental

enquiry and though sufficient opportunities were given

to the workman for their cross-examination, the workman

refused to cross-examine them and he also failed to adduce

any evidence in his defence and the workman was given

every opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry and

copy of the enquiry proceedings on each and every date

of the enquiry was given to the workman and after closure

of the evidence, the copy of the prosecution brief was

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

931

given to the workman and he was given time to submit his

defence brief, but he did not file the same and though the

workman received the second show-cause notice and the

copy of the enquiry report, he did not file any reply to the

same and the Disciplinary Authority after considering the

materials on record of the enquiry, passed the final order

and it had complied with all the principles of natural justice,

while conducting the departmental enquiry against the

workman and the Enquiry Officer has given justifiable

reasons for holding all the charges except one to have

been proved against the workman and having regard to

the gross misconduct committed by the workman, the

Disciplinary Authority has rightly passed the final order

of dismissal of the workman from services without notice

and the punishment commensurate with the gross

misconduct committed by the workman and the same is

not shockingly disproportionate.

It is also pleaded by the party No.1 that as the issue

of continuance of the departmental enquiry and criminal

prosecution simultaneously has already been decided in

favour of the Bank, the contention raised by the union in

that regard is liable to be rejected and the charges in the

disciplinary proceedings and in the criminal case against

the workman were not the same and similar and the

departmental enquiry commenced on 07.09.2000 and the

enquiry officer submitted his report on 09.01.2002 and order

of punishment was passed on 12.07.2005 and the trial of

the criminal case began on 05.08.2002 and judgment was

passed on 02.12.2008 and much before the trial of the

criminal case began, the evidence in the disciplinary

enquiry was already completed and the workman is not

entitled to an relief.

No rejoinder has been filed by the union on behalf

of the workman.

As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from

service as a punishment in the departmental enquiry held

against him, the validity or otherwise of the departmental

enquiry was taken up for consideration as a preliminary

issue and by order dated 23.09.2014, the departmental

enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be

legal, proper and in accordance with the principles of

natural justice.

At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that the charge sheet

was submitted against the workman for making payment

of one cheque by him as the cashier, while working at

Amravati branch and for the same reason, party No.1 also

lodged a police complaint at Amravati police station on

12.06.1998 against the workman and police registered

Criminal case no. 51/1999 and the workman was tried in

the said criminal case and was acquitted by the chief

Judicial Magistrate, Amravati and while the investigation

and trial of the said criminal case was in progress, the

party No.1 initiated the departmental enquiry for

commission of the alleged misconduct under the Sastry

Award, without waiting for the result of the criminal case,

in contravention of clause 521 of the Sastry Award and as

such, the entire action taken in the departmental enquiry

including the imposition of the punishment on the

workman is illegal.

It was further submitted by the learned advocate for

the workman that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are

perverse and non-application of mind is writ large on the

face of the said findings and the reasons given by the

Enquiry Officer in support of his findings are casual and

mechanical and the findings are not based on the evidence

on record and the principles of probability have not been

considered in favour of the workman and the charges have

not been proved beyond the shadow of doubt and as the

punishment imposed against the workman is based on

such perverse findings, the same is not sustainable.

It was also submitted by the learned advocate for

the workman that the workman was working as a cashier

and he was duty bound to make the payment of the cheque

in question to the customer, when the same had come to

his counter for payment and making payment of the

cheque cannot be construed as commission of any

misconduct and as per the allegation in the charge sheet,

the cheque of Rs.3,000,00/- was found to be a fraudulent

cheque and the entire responsibility was unduly fixed upon

the workman, even though, it was not the duty of the

workman to verify the genuineness of the cheque or

passing of the same for payment and the payment of the

cheque was made by the workman by following all due

procedure and as per rules and the workman did not commit

any misconduct and the workman has only been awarded

the punishment of dismissal from service, which is illegal

and unjustified and the punishment imposed against the

workman is shockingly disproportionate and require

interference by the Tribunal under section 11-A of the Act

and the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service

with continuity and full back wages.

In reply, the learned advocate for the party No.1 in

the written notes of argument has submitted that by order

dated 23.09.2014, the Tribunal has already held that the

departmental enquiry conducted against the workman to

be legal, proper and in accordance of the principles of

natural justice and the workman was acquitted by the

criminal Court by giving him the benefit of doubts and the

charges in the criminal case and in the departmental enquiry

initiated against the workman were not similar and the

same, but totally different from each other and therefore.

The acquittal of the workman in the criminal case cannot

affect the already concluded disciplinary enquiry and no

benefit can be granted to the workman in this reference,

basing on such acquittal.

In support of the submissions, reliance was placed

by the learned advocate for the party no.1 on the decision

of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8513/

2012(The Deputy Inspector General of Police vs.

S.Samuthiram.)

932

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It will not be out of place to mention here that at the

time of deciding the preliminary issue of the fairness of

the departmental enquiry, the question of the acquittal of

the workman in the criminal case was already considered

and answered against the workman. So, there is no need

to reiterate the said question by the party No.1.

It was further submitted by the learned advocate for

the party No.1 that in the departmental enquiry held

against the workman, both oral and documentary evidence

were adduced by the Bank and such evidence went

unchallenged and the Enquiry Officer has given cogent

and justifiable reasons in support of his findings, basing

on the evidence on record of the enquiry and the Enquiry

Officer has held the charge no.13 not to have been proved

against the workman and this shows that the Enquiry

Officer was unbiased and the workman in his evidence

has admitted that he had no enmity with the Enquiry Officer

did not have any personal bias against him and there was

enough material on the record of the enquiry to hold the

charges to have been proved against the workman and

therefore, the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be

said to be perverse and the Bank has lost confidence in

the workman and the punishment awarded to the workman

is proportionate to the gross misconduct committed by

him and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

In support of the submissions, the learned advocate

relied on the decisions reported in (2011) 4 SCC-585 (State

Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs Nemichand), (2006) 2 SCC-

263 (T.N.C.S Corporation Vs K. Meerabai), 2003 LAB IC

281 (AP) (The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Vs

Rachonanda), AIR 2003 SC-1571 (Chairman and Managing

Director, United Commercial Bank Vs P.C. Kakkar), AIR

2003 SC 1463 (Regional Manager, UPSRTC Vs Hotilal),

(2006) 7 SCC 218 (State Bank of India Vs Ramesh Dinkar

Pende), 2012 AIR SCW-5835 (Avinash Sadashiv Vs Union

of India) and (2013) 2 SCC-740 (State Bank of India Vs

Narendra Kumar Pandey).

At the outset, it is necessary to mention that the

issue regarding initiation of the departmental enquiry

during the pendency of the criminal case against the

workman had been raised by the learned advocate for the

workman at the time of consideration of the preliminary

issue of fairness of the departmental enquiry and as per

order dated 23.09.214, it was held that as in reference case

No. CGIT/NGP/180/2002, the issue of simultaneous

initiation of the departmental enquiry and criminal case

against the workman had been considered by the Tribunal

and answered in the Party No. 1, by order dated 11.05.2005,

holding that due to simultaneous initiation of the

departmental enquiry and criminal case, there was no

violation of clause 521(3) of Sastry Award, there was no

scope for reconsideration of the same. Hence, the

submissions made by the learned advocate for the

workman in that regard in fairness of thing is to be

mentioned and rejected.

10.

Before delving into the merit of the matter, I think it

proper to mention the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble

Courts, in some of the decisions cited by the learned

advocate for the Party No. 1, in regard to the power and

jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere in the matter of the

findings and punishment imposed in the departmental

proceedings.

In the decision reported in (2011) 4 SCC-584 (supra),

the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that:

Domestic/Departmental enquiry-Judicial review of

findings of disciplinary authority-Scope-Restated-Held,

courts will not interfere except where findings are based

on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse-Test of

perversity i.e. whether authority concerned could have

reasonable arrived at such conclusion or finding based

on material on record is to be applied-Court will interfere if

principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have

been violated or if order is arbitrary, capricious, malafide

or based on extraneous considerations.

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

When considering whether punishment of

termination from service imposed upon a bank employee

is shockingly excessive or disproportionate to gravity of

proved misconduct, loss of confidence in employee is an

important and relevant factor. Bank is justified in

contending that not only employees who are dishonest,

but those who are guilty of gross negligence, are not fit to

continue in its service.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

Labour Law-Domestic/Departmental inquiry-

Criminal Proceedings-Acquittal in criminal trial-Effect of,

on previously concluded departmental proceedings-

Different standard of proof in-Held, subsequent acquittal

by Criminal court willnot in any way render completed

disciplinary proceedings invalid nor affect validity of

finding of guilt or consequential punishment.”

In (2006)2 SCC-255(supra), the Hon’ble Apex court

has held that:

“Labour Law-Departmental/Domestic enquiry-

Penalty/Punishment-Scope of judicial review of –

Sympathy or generosity, if a ground-Where the employee

was found guilty of misappropriating the employer

corporation’s fund, the primary factor to be taken into

consideration was the loss of confidence and not the

amount of money misappropriated-hence not withstanding

that there was no such allegation against that employee in

the past, held, the punishment of dismissal from service

imposed by the employer could not be interfered with by

the court on ground of sympathy or generosity. In view of

the position of trust occupied by the delinquent, further

held, the matter required to be dealt with rather firmly and

not leniently.”

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions reported

in Air 2003 SC 1571(supra) have held that:

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

933

“The court should not interfere with the

administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or suffers

from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the

conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance

of logic or moral standards. The court would not go into

the correctness of the choice made by the administrator

open to him and the court should not substitute its decision

to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is

limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and

not in the decision.”

11.

Now, the present case in hand is to be considered

with the touchstone of the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions cited by the learned

advocate for the Party No.1.

On perusal of the materials on record, it is found

that the evidence adduced by the management in the

departmental enquiry remained unchallenged, as the

workman did not challenge the same by making cross-

examination of the witnesses examined by the party No.1,

even though, he attended the enquiry and was given the

chance of cross-examination. The workman also did not

adduce any evidence in his defence. It is found from the

record that this is not acase of no evidence or that the

findings of the Enquiry Officer are totally against the whole

body of evidence on record of the departmental enquiry.

The findings of the Enquiry Officer are very detailed, well

considered and well reasoned. The findings of the Enquiry

Officer are based on the evidence on record of the enquiry.

The findings of the Enquiry Officer are also not as such,

which cannot be arrived at by a prudent man on the basis

of the evidence on record of the enquiry. Hence, the

findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be

perverse.

12.

So far the proportionality of the punishment is

concerned, it is to be mentioned that the workman has

been found guilty of committing grave misconduct of

forgery, fraud and other misconducts in a properly

conducted departmental enquiry. So, the punishment of

dismissal from service passed against the workman cannot

be said to be shockingly disproportionate. In view of the

position of trust occupied by the workman, there is no

question of dealing with his case leniently and to interfere

with the punishment. Hence it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of State Bank of India

in imposing punishment of dismissal on Shri M.N. Pathak

w.e.f. 12.07.2005 is justified. The workman is not entitled

to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 343-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

971@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&23012@55@1998&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O.

343.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 971/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Bhakra Dam Nangal Township, Ropar and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 18/02/2015.

[No. L-23012/55/1998-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 971/2005

Registered on 15.9.2005

The Secretary Legal,

Nangal Bhakra Mazdoor

Sangh (INTUC), Nangal Township,

District Ropar

...Petitioner

Versus

The Chief Engineer,

Bhakra Dam, Nangal Township,

Distt.Ropar

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar AR.

For the Management

Sh. S.K. Goyal, Law Officer.

AWARD

Passed on-26.9.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/

55/98/-IR(CM-II) Dated 17.2.1999, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub-Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-

Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the Bhakra Beas

Management Board Chandigarh in denying the

demand of Nangal Bhakra Mazdoor Sangh for

opportunity of re-employment to the Rainy Seasonal

Staff of previous Rainy Seasons and making fresh

934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

recruitment of Rainy Seasonal Staff every year is

just and legal? If not, what relief the concerned

workmen and union are entitled?”

In response to the notice, the Union submitted

statement of claim pleading that the management selected

workman for short period i.e. for a rainy season through

the Employment Exchange by conducting an interview

and Trade Test and did not employ the workman who

already worked in the previous year. That this practice of

the management is illegal. This practice is being carried

out just to accommodate the near and dear ones. That the

management has not re-employed the persons who served

for long years.That the persons who already worked

during the rainy season are entitled to be employed in the

next rainy season.

Management filed written reply pleading that the

management operate discharge sites and wireless stations

to have a water control data and during the lean period the

same is managed by the regular staff. But during rainy

season, additional staff is engaged for a period of 89 days

from July to September by holding fresh interview by the

selection committee from the candidates sponsored by

the employment exchange. In view of this procedure, the

workman are selected. That there is no dispute between

the parties and the reference has been wrongly made.

Parties were given opportunities to lead their

evidence.

Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar, AR of the workman appeared

in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the

stand taken by the Union.

On the other hand, management examined Malkiat

Singh who filed his affidavit supporting the case of the

management.

It was contended by Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar, AR of

the workmen-Union that during rainy season the workmen

are employed whose names are sponsored by the

employment exchange and that too after conducting an

interview; and the persons who worked during the previous

rainy season are not employed and this practice is illegal.

It was stated that a seniority list has already been

prepared of the persons who are engaged during the rainy

season and they are called for interview and as such there

is no dispute between the parties for not engaging the

persons who had worked during the previous rainy

season. A letter dated 20.9.2004 passed by the Special

Secretary, Bhakra-Beas Management Board has been

placed on filed. This is reproduced as follow:-

“Some of the persons employed on daily basis for

seasonal works under the administration of Chief

Engineer/Bhakra Dam had filed a writ petition for

regularization of their services. The Hon’ble Punjab

and Haryana High Court Chandigarh vide order

dated 20.1.2004 has directed the respondent

management i.e. BBMB to frame a seniority list of

seasonal workers and engage them on seasonal

works as per seniority without calling upon them to

apply afresh every year. The Court has further

directed that the employees who have been working

for long periods, some arrangements should be made

to give them some security of tenure or other service

benefits as per the decision to be taken by the

respondents within a reasonable time.

In view of above you are requested to maintain the

seniority of the daily workers engaged seasonally and to

call the candidates as per seniority list for interview/trade

test for their engagement in each season by sending call

letters to the individuals and pasting the notice at discharge

site offices so as to give an extensive publicity. Further at

the time of filling up of posts of different categories though

Centralized Staff Selection Committee the candidates as

per seniority list may be called for interview/trade test and

due weightage of past experience be given to these persons

engaged seasonally by giving relaxation in age of one

year for the services rendered for minimum 89 days in

each calendar year subject to maximum relaxation of five

years.”

Thus the dispute regarding engaging of seasonal

workers in the subsequent rainy season was already raised

and the competent authorities have already ordered to

maintain a seniority list and to call the candidates for

interview and test as per the seniority for engaging them

in the rainy season by sending them call letters and also

pasting a notice in the area. In view of the letter passed in

pursuance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court, no

fresh direction can be given to the respondent management

to give opportunity of re-employment to rainy season staff

of the previous rainy season.

It is also clear from the order dated 20.9.2004 that

the names of the workmen are not required to be sponsored

by the employment exchange and they were to be called

directly by the management for engagement.

It is contended by the Authorized Representative

that this reference was made in the year 1999 and since the

workmen were not re-employed during the subsequent

rainy seasons, they are entitled to the arrears of pay.

Simply on the basis of this argument no order can be

passed regarding payment of back wages as there is

nothing on the file that which of the competent employees

who were engaged during one rainy season were not

engaged in the subsequent rainy season and as such the

contention raised is of no force.

In result, the reference is answered in view of the

said letter dated 20.9.2004 as reproduced above. Let hard

and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

935

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 344-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

509@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&23012@49@1998&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 344.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 509/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 18/02/2015.

[No. L-23012/49/1998-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 509/2005

Registered on 22.8.2005

Sh. RoshanLal, S/o Sh. Kahnu Ram,

C/o Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar,

Vice President, Pb, INTUC, 211-L,

Brari, PO Partap Nagar,

Tehsil Anandpur Sahib

Distt-Ropar

...Petitioner

Versus

Chief Engineer System Operation,

BBMB, Sector 19B,

Madhya Marg,

Chandigarh

...Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. R.K. Singh, A.R

For the Management :

Sh. Ravinder Sharma, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 13.10.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/

49/98/ IR(CM-II) Dated 17.2.1999, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-

section (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the Chief Engineer, System

Operation Bhakra Beas Management Board,

Chandigarh and Resident Engineer, Dehar Power

House Division, Bhakra Beas Management Board

(Power Wing) salappar Township in terminating the

services of Sh. Roshan Lal S/o Sh. Khanu Ram w.e.f.

31.3.93 and 31.5.95 and not re-engaging him while

retrenchees of Beas Construction Board were given

employment is just and legal? If not, to what relief is

the workman concerned entitled?”

In response to the notice, the workman appeared

and submitted of claim pleading that he was employed 10/

1986 to 5/1995 with notional breaks in service. That he

has completed more than 240 days of service in a calendar

year. That the management absorbed some retrenched

employees in the year 1993 and on that account his services

were terminated which is illegal and he is deemed to be in

regular service.

Respondent management filed written reply pleading

that workman worked as a daily labourer and he did not

complete 240 days in any calendar year. That he was

disengaged on completion of the seasonal work and he is

not entitled to any relief.

Parties were given opportunity to lead its evidence.

Today the case was fixed for arguments. The A.R.

of the workman made a statement not pressing the reference

at this stage. His separate statement has been recorded.

In view of his statement, the reference is answered

being not pressed by the workman and hence, he is not

entitled to any relief. The reference is answered

accordingly.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 345-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

1335@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&23012@1@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 345.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1335/

936

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 18/02/2015.

[No. L-23012/1/2006-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 1335/2007

Registered on 14.9.2007

Sh. Shiv Kumar, S/o Sh. Rakha Ram,

R/o Qr. No. P-2/364, Jari Colony,

Pandoh, Tehsil Sadar,

Mandi (HP)

...Petitioner

Versus

The Chief Engineer, BBMB,

Sundernagar, District Mandi (HP)

Mandi

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

Ex parte

For the Management :

Sh. Ravinder Rana, Law Officer

AWARD

Passed on 28.10.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/

1/2006 (IR(CM-II)) Dated 7.9.2007, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-

section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of BBMB,

Chandigarh in terminating the services of Sh. Shiv

Kumar w.e.f. 18.10.1996 without any notice and

payment of retrenchment compensation is legal and

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

and from which date?

Notice was given to the workman who appeared

through counsel but none appeared on his behalf on

23.7.2014 and the workman was proceeded against ex parte.

He did not file statement of claim despite availing several

opportunities.

Since the workman has not filed any statement of

claim, this reference is answered as a ‘no claim’ reference

and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 346-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

1564] 1571@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&23012@3@2008&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 346.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1564,

1571/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

management of Bhakra Beas Management Board, BBMB

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 18/02/2015.

[No. L-23012/3/2008-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 1564/1571 of 2008

Registered on 3.11.2008

Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar,

Legal Secretary, BBMB Regular

Technical Employees Union #211-L,

Brari, PO Partapnagar,

Nangal Dam, Ropar

...Petitioner

Versus

The Chairman,

Bhakra Beas Management Board,

System Operation, Sector 19-B,

Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

The Chief Engineer, BBMB,

Bhakra Dam, Nangal Township,

Nangal, Ropar

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

Sh. R.K. Parmar AR

For the Management

Sh. S.K. Goyal, Law Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

937

AWARD

Passed on 25.9.2014

This Award will dispose of ID No.1564 of 2008 and

1571 of 2008 in which the same references are made.

Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/

3/2008-IR(CM-II) Dated 23.10.2008, read with Corrigendum

No.L-23012/3/2008-IR(CM-II) dated 24.11.2008 by

exercising its powers under Section 10 sub- section (1)

Clause (d) and sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this

Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of BBMB

by granting Sh. Sulekh Chander from Carpenter Grade

II to Carpenter Grade I by order dated 27.12.2006

w.e.f. 12.7.1995 without grant of financial benefits

from retrospective effect is legal and justified? To

what relief is the workman concerned entitled?”

The appropriate Government again made similar

reference vide Notification No. 23012/3/2008-IR(CM-II)

dated 24.11.2008

In response to the notice, the workman appeared

and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was

appointed as Carpenter Grade II on 2.5.1985 with the

respondent management. The management promoted Sh.

Keshav Nanga and Gurdev Singh as Carpenter Grade I

vide order dated 7.2.2000 and they were junior to him. On

his representations, he was promoted vide order dated

27.12.2006 with deemed date of promotion as 12.7.1995,

but without consequential benefits of pay, arrears etc.

That he is entitled to get the pay scale and the arrears

thereof w.e.f. 12.7.1985 when he was deemed to be

promoted as Carpenter Grade I.

The management filed written reply pleading that

the seniority of industrial workers was being maintained

in two different groups i.e. Group No.1 and Group No.2.

That the seniority of the workman was maintained in Group

I; whereas of Keshav Nanga and Gurdev Singh was

maintained in Group II. In view of the BBMB Class III and

Class IV Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of

Services) Regulations, 1994 an integrated cadre was

created and since the workman was senior, he was placed

above Keshav Nanga and Gurdev Singh and he was

promoted as Carpenter Grade I on ad hoc basis vide order

dated 27.12.2006 with deemed date of promotion as

12.7.1995 i.e. from the date of promotion when the persons

junior to him were promoted. That the workman was

granted pay scale on completion of 9/16 years of services

and he was already drawing pay in the pay scale or Rs.5125-

8275 when he was promoted whereas the pay scale of

Carpenter Grade I is Rs. 3870-7250. That he was not entitled

to any step-up in the pay scale of Carpenter Grade I and

accordingly, the same was not given to him.

The management has examined Sh. R.K. Singla who

filed his affidavit reiterating the case of the management.

I have heard Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar AR of the

workman and Sh. S.K.Goyal, Law Officer for the

management.

The admitted facts are that the workman was

appointed as Carpenter Grade II on 2.5.1985 and he was

promoted as Carpenter Grade I on 27.12.2006 w.e.f.

12.7.1995. The only dispute is whether he is entitled to the

arrears of pay etc. from the deemed day of promotion. It

was argued by the AR of the workman that since the

workman was promoted as Carpenter Grade I from

12.7.1995, he is entitled to get the pay and allowances

accordingly. The Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with a

similar case where retrospective promotion was granted,

observed in para 5 of the judgment titled Union of India

Vs. B.M. Jha reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases

(L&S) 399 as follow:-

“We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. It

was argued by learned counsel for the respondent

that when a retrospective promotion is given to an

incumbent, normally he is entitled to all benefits

flowing therefrom. However, this Court in State of

Haryana Vs. OP Gupta and followed in AK Soumini

Vs. State Bank of Travancore has been the view that

even in case of a notional promotion from

retrospective date, it cannot entitle the employee to

arrears of salary as the incumbent has not worked in

the promotional post. These decisions relied on the

principle of “no work no pay”. The learned Division

Bench in the impugned judgment has placed reliance

on State of AP Vs. KVL Narasimha Rao. In our view

the High court did not examine that case in detail. In

fact in the said judgment the view taken by the High

Court of grant of salary was set aside by this Court.

Therefore we are of the view that in the light of the

consistent view taken by this Court in the

abovementioned cases, arrears of salary cannot be

granted to the respondent in view of the principle of

“no work no pay” in case of retrospective promotion.

In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the

Hon’ble Apex Court, it cannot be said that the workman is

entitled to the financial benefits with retrospective effect

i.e. from 12.7.1995 and as such the action of the

management in not granting the benefit is legal and valid

and the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference

is accordingly answered against the workman. Let hard

and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 347-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh-ih-MCY;w-Mh-

938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

1272@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@125@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O.

347.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1272/

2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

CPWD and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 18/02/2015.

[No. L-42012/125/2005-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 1272/2006

Registered on 9.8.2006

All India CPWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sanghathan (Regd)

through Zonal Secretary CPWD

Store Building Sector 7B,

Chandigarh.

Sh. Gopal Jha, Chowkidar

C/O All India CPWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sangathan (Regd)

through Zonal Secretary, CPWD

Store Building, Sector 7B,

Chandigarh

...Petitioner

Versus

The Union of India

Through the Secretary

to Government of India,

Ministry of Personnel,

Public Grievance and Pensions,

Department of Personnel & Training,

North Block, New Delhi.

Director General of Works, CPWD,

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

The Executive Engineer,

Chandigarh Central Division II CPWD,

Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9A

Chandigarh

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

Sh. S.D. Sharma, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Anish Babbar, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 22.9.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/

125/2005-IR(CM-II) Dated 31.7.2006, by exercising its

powers under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and

sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of CPWD,

Chandigarh in not regularizing the services of Sh.

Gopal Jha, w.e.f. 14.4.1981 and action of not extending

consequential benefits is legal and justified? If not,

to what relief he is entitled to?”

In response to the notice, the workman (claimant

No.2) appeared and submitted statement of claim pleading

that he joined the management as Baildar on Muster Roll

on 14.4.1981. His services were regularized w.e.f. 12.10.1990.

That he is entitled to regularization of services with effect

from the day he joined as Baildar on muster roll i.e. 14.4.1981

in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Surinder

Singh Vs. CPWD reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 584

and he is also entitled to all the consequential benefits like

increment, uniform allowance, medical facilities etc. and

counting of service for the grant of promotion and service

benefit of 12 years/24 years w.e.f. 14.4.1981. That the action

of the management in not regularizing the services w.e.f.

14.4.1981 is illegal.

Respondent filed written reply pleading that the

Hon’ble Apex Court passed the order for payment of equal

pay for equal work and the same has been given to the

workman from the date of his appointment. That the

Hon’ble Apex Court only advised the Government to take

appropriate action to regularize the service of daily-rated

workers who were working continuously for more than six

months. In pursuance of the said order, the Government

of India framed policy and when the post was created the

services of the workman were regularized w.e.f. 12.10.1990.

That he is not entitled to claim allowance etc. prior thereto.

That he is not entitled to regularization of service w.e.f.

14.4.1981.

In the rejoinder, the workman reiterated his case as

set out in the claim petition and further pleaded that the

Directorate of Horticulture regularized the services of

workers immediately and even the service of Sob Nath

and Krishan Pal were regularized w.e.f. 18.2.1986 and

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

939

5.12.1988. That he is also entitled to for regularization of

services from the date he joined the service i.e. 14.4.1981.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

In support of its case, Sh. Gopal Jha (claimant No.2)

appeared in the witness box and filed his affidavit

reiterating the case as set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand the management has examined

Sh. Jaswant Singh, Executive Engineer who filed his

affidavit reiterating the stand as taken in the written

statement.

I have heard Sh. S.D. Sharma, counsel for the

workman and Sh. Anish Babbar, counsel for the

management.

Learned counsel for the workman carried me through

the judgment of Surinder Singh’s case (supra) and

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court asked the

Government to regularize the services of temporary daily

wagers from the date of their appointment, and as such,

the workman is entitled for regularization of services w.e.f.

14.4.1981, when he joined the management as Baildar. He

has further carried me through the copy of the judgment

passed in LPA No.622 of 2001 decided on 10.4.2013 titled

The Director General of Works Vs. Regional Labour

Commissioner and Others and submitted that the judgment

of Surinder Singh’s case (supra) has been implemented

and the workers have been paid the arrears of pay etc.,

and as such, the present workman is also entitled to the

regularization of the services from the date of his initial

appointment.

Opposing this contention it was argued by the

learned counsel for the management that the Hon’ble

Supreme Court issued directions to pay the same salary

and allowances to all the daily-rated employees as are

paid to regular and permanent employees and that

direction have been complied with. He has further

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court only asked the

government to initiate action to regularize the services of

those employees who have been in continuous

employment for more than six months on the date of the

judgment. In pursuance of this order of the Apex Court,

the Government initiated action and when the post was

created, the service of the workman was regularized w.e.f.

12.10.1990 and workman cannot claim regularization of his

services w.e.f. 14.4.1981 as no such direction was issued

by the Hon’ble Apex Court for the regularization of the

services of the daily-rated workers from the date of their

initial appointment.

I have considered the respective contentions.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Surinder Singh Vs.

CPWD reported in AIR 1986 Supreme court 584 observed

as follow:-

“We allow both the writ petitions and direct the

respondents, as in the Nehru Yuvak Kendras case

(supra) to pay to the petitioners and all other daily

rated employees, to pay the same salary and

allowances as are paid to regular and permanent

employees with effect from the date when they were

respectively employed. The respondents will pay

to each of the petitioners a sum of Rs.1000/- towards

their costs. We also record our regret that many

employees are kept in service on a temporary daily

wage basis without their services being regularized.

We hope that the government will take appropriate

action to regularize the services of all those who

have been in continuous employment for more than

six months.

A perusal of the order shows that the Hon’ble Apex

Court directed the Government to pay the same salary and

allowances to daily-rated employees as are paid to regular

and permanent employees w.e.f. the date when they were

employed. It further observed that the Government would

initiate action to regularize the services of the workmen

who have been in continuous employment for more than

six months. The Hon’ble Apex Court did not direct the

Government to regularize the services of the daily-rated

employees from the date of joining the service and the

Government was only directed to pay them the same salary

and allowances as are paid to regular and permanent

employees with effect from the date when they were

employed.

The Government issued Office Order dated 7.6.1988

Annexure-2 giving the guidelines in view of the

observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court for absorbing the

casual workers against regular post and again the

department issued directions for the regularization of the

services of eligible muster roll workers vide letter dated

25.8.1988 Annexure-A3. It is the definite case of the

respondent management that after following the guidelines

and instructions, the posts were created and on receipt of

the post; the service of the workman was regularized w.e.f.

12.10.1990. Thus, the department regularized the service

of the workman when the post was created and it is nowhere

the case of the workman that the post was existing on the

day he was initially appointed as Baildar i.e. 14.4.1981.

The workman has relied on a list of the employees prepared

by Horticulture Department as well as Annexure A11 and

A12 vide which Sob Nath and Krishan Pal was granted

appointment to contend that other employees were

regularized immediately after the pronouncement of the

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court but he was denied

the benefits for regularization of services w.e.f. 14.4.1981.

Suffice it to say that nothing has come on the file that

present workman is similarly placed as the employees find

mentioned in Annexure A10 or in Annexure A11 and A12

and therefore he cannot claim parity with them, as much

as there is nothing on the file that any post was existing

940

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

on the day i.e. 14.4.1981 when the workman is claiming

regularization of services. The case of Director General of

Works (supra) is not applicable as in that case the only

question involved was regarding the calculation of arrears

of pay etc. in pursuance of the judgment of Surinder

Singh’s case (supra).

Thus, services were rightly regularized when the

post was sanctioned and the action of the management in

not regularizing services of workman w.e.f. 14.4.1981 is

legal and justified and he is not entitled to any relief. The

reference is accordingly answered against the workman.

Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 348-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh-ih-MCY;w-Mh-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

1274@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@128@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 348.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1274/

2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

CPWD and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 18/02/2015.

[No. L-42012/128/2005-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 1274/2006

Registered on 9.8.2006

All India CPWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sanghathan (Regd)

through Zonal Secretary CPWD

Store Building Sector 7B,

Chandigarh.

Sh. Naval Kishore, Chowkidar

C/O All India CPWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sangathan (Regd)

through Zonal Secretary, CPWD

Store Building, Sector 7B,

Chandigarh

...Petitioner

Versus

The Union of India

Through the Secretary

to Government of India,

Ministry of Personnel,

Public Grievance and Pensions,

Department of Personnel & Training,

North Block, New Delhi.

Director General of Works, CPWD,

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

The Executive Engineer,

Chandigarh Central Division II CPWD,

Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9A,

Chandigarh

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. S.D. Sharma, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Anish Babbar, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 23.9.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/

128/2005 IR(CM-II)) Dated 31.7.2006, by exercising its

powers under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and

Sub Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of CPWD,

Chandigarh in not regularizing the services of Sh.

Naval Kishore Singh, w.e.f. 12.6.1984 to 23.3.1993

and action of not extending consequential benefits

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is

entitled to?”

In response to the notice, the workman (claimant

No.2) appeared and submitted statement of claim pleading

that he joined the management as Baildar on Muster Roll

on 12.6.1984. His services were regularized w.e.f. 23.3.1993.

That he is entitled to regularization of services with effect

from the day he joined as Baildar on muster roll i.e. 12.6.1984

in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Surinder

Singh Vs. CPWD reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 584

and he is also entitled to all the consequential benefits like

increment, uniform allowance, medical facilities etc. and

counting of service for the grant of promotion and service

benefit of 12 years/24 years w.e.f. 12.6.1984. That the action

of the management in not regularizing the services w.e.f.

12.6.1984 is illegal.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

941

Respondent filed written reply pleading that the

Hon’ble Apex Court passed the order for payment of equal

pay for equal work and the same has been given to the

workman from the date of his appointment. That the

Hon’ble Apex Court only advised the Government to take

appropriate action to regularize the service of daily-rated

workers who were working continuously for more than six

months. In pursuance of the said order, the Government

of India framed policy and when the post was created the

services of the workman were regularized w.e.f. 23.3.1993.

That he is not entitled to claim allowance etc. prior thereto.

That he is not entitled to regularization of service w.e.f.

12.6.1984.

In the rejoinder, the workman reiterated his case as

set out in the claim petition and further pleaded that the

Directorate of Horticulture regularized the services of

workers immediately and even the service of Sob Nath

and Krishan Pal were regularized w.e.f. 18.2.1986 and

5.12.1988. That he is also entitled to for regularization of

services from the date he joined the service i.e. 12.6.1984.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

In support of its case, Sh. Naval Kishore Singh

(claimant No.2) appeared in the witness box and filed his

affidavit reiterating the case as set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand the management has examined

Sh. B.S. Sandhu, Executive Engineer who filed his affidavit

reiterating the stand as taken in the written statement.

I have heard Sh. S.D. Sharma, counsel for the

workman and Sh. Anish Babbar, counsel for the

management.

Learned Counsel for the workman carried me through

the judgment of Surinder Singh’s case (supra) and

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court asked the

Government to regularize the services of temporary daily

wagers from the date of their appointment, and as such,

the workman is entitled for regularization of services w.e.f.

12.6.1984, when he joined the management as Baildar. He

has further carried me through the copy of the judgment

passed in LPA No. 622 of 2001 decided on 10.4.2013 titled

The Director General of Works Vs. Regional Labour

Commissioner and Others and submitted that the judgment

of Surinder Singh’s case (supra) has been implemented

and the workers have been paid the arrears of pay etc.,

and as such, the present workman is also entitled to the

regularization of the services from the date of his initial

appointment.

Opposing this contention it was argued by the

Learned Counsel for the management that the Hon’ble

Supreme Court issued directions to pay the same salary

and allowances to all the daily-rated employees as are

paid to regular and permanent employees and that

direction have been complied with. He has further

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court only asked the

Government to initiate action to regularize the services of

those employees who have been in continuous

employment for more than six months on the date of the

judgment. In pursuance of this order of the Apex Court,

the Government initiated action and when the post was

created, the service of the workman was regularized w.e.f.

23.3.1993 and workman cannot claim regularization of his

services w.e.f. 12.6.1984 as no such direction was issued

by the Hon’ble Apex Court for the regularization of the

services of the daily-rated workers from the date of their

initial appointment.

I have considered the respective contentions.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Surinder Singh Vs.

CPWD reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 584 observed

as follow:-

“We allow both the writ petitions and direct the

respondents, as in the Nehru Yuvak Kendras case

(supra) to pay to the petitioners and all other daily

rated employees, to pay the same salary and

allowances as are paid to regular and permanent

employees with effect from the date when they were

respectively employed. The respondents will pay

to each of the petitioners a sum of Rs.1000/- towards

their costs. We also record our regret that many

employees are kept in service on a temporary daily

wage basis without their services being regularized.

We hope that the Government will take appropriate

action to regularize the services of all those who

have been in continuous employment for more than

six months.

A perusal of the order shows that the Hon’ble Apex

Court directed the Government to pay the same salary and

allowances to daily-rated employees as are paid to regular

and permanent employees w.e.f. the date when they were

employed. It further observed that the Government would

initiate action to regularize the services of the workmen

who have been in continuous employment for more than

six months. The Hon’ble Apex Court did not direct the

Government to regularize the services of the daily-rated

employees from the date of joining the service and the

Government was only directed to pay them the same salary

and allowances as are paid to regular and permanent

employees with effect from the date when they were

employed.

The Government issued Office Order dated 7.6.1988

Annexure-2 giving the guidelines in view of the

observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court for absorbing the

casual workers against regular post and again the

department issued directions for the regularization of the

services of eligible muster roll workers vide letter dated

25.8.1988 Annexure-A3. It is the definite case of the

respondent management that after following the guidelines

and instructions, the posts were created and on receipt of

the post; the service of the workman was regularized w.e.f.

942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

23.3.1993. Thus, the department regularized the service of

the workman when the post was created and it is nowhere

the case of the workman that the post was existing on the

day he was initially appointed as Baildar i.e. 12.6.1984.

The workman has relied on a list of the employees prepared

by Horticulture Department as well as Annexure A11 and

A12 vide which Sob Nath and Krishan Pal was granted

appointment to contend that other employees were

regularized immediately after the pronouncement of the

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court but he was denied

the benefits for regularization of services w.e.f. 12.6.1984.

Suffice it to say that nothing has come on the file that

present workman is similarly placed as the employees find

mentioned in Annexure A10 or in Annexure A11 and A12

and therefore he cannot claim parity with them, as much

as there is nothing on the file that any post was existing

on the day i.e. 12.6.1984 when the workman is claiming

regularization of services. The case of Director General of

Works (supra) is not applicable as in that case the only

question involved was regarding the calculation of arrears

of pay etc. in pursuance of the judgment of Surinder

Singh’s case (supra).

Thus, services were rightly regularized when the

post was sanctioned and the action of the management in

not regularizing services of workman w.e.f. 12.6.1984 is

legal and justified and he is not entitled to any relief. The

reference is accordingly answered against the workman.

Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 349-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh-ih-MCY;w-Mh-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

1275@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@126@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 349.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1275/

2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

CPWD and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 18/02/2015.

[No. L-42012/126/2005-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 1275/2006

Registered on 9.8.2006

All India CPWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sanghathan (Regd)

through Zonal Secretary CPWD

Store Building Sector 7B,

Chandigarh

Sh. Raj Kumar Singh S/o

Sh. Chhotey Singh, Chowkidar

C/O All India CPWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sangathan (Regd)

through Zonal Secretary, CPWD

Store Building, Sector 7B,

Chandigarh

...Petitioner

Versus

The Union of India

Through the Secretary

to Government of India,

Ministry of Personnel,

Public Grievance and Pensions,

Department of Personnel & Training,

North Block, New Delhi

Director General of Works, CPWD,

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi

The Executive Engineer,

Chandigarh Central Division II CPWD,

Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9A,

Chandigarh

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

Sh. S. D. Sharma, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Anish Babbar, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 22.9.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/

126/2005 IR(CM-II)) Dated 31.7.2006, by exercising its

powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and

Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of CPWD,

Chandigarh in not regularizing the services of

Sh. Raj Kumar Singh,w.e.f. 7.5.1985 and action of

not extending consequential benefits is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?”

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

943

In response to the notice, the workman (claimant

No.2) appeared and submitted statement of claim pleading

that he joined the management as Baildar on Muster Roll

on 7.5.1985. His services were regularized w.e.f. 15.4.1993.

That he is entitled to regularization of services with effect

from the day he joined as Baildar on muster roll i.e. 7.5.1985

in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Surinder

Singh Vs. CPWD reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 584

and he is also entitled to all the consequential benefits like

increment, uniform allowance, medical facilities etc. and

counting of service for the grant of promotion and service

benefit of 12 years/24 years w.e.f. 7.5.1985. That the action

of the management in not regularizing the services w.e.f.

7.5.1985 is illegal.

Respondent filed written reply pleading that the

Hon’ble Apex Court passed the order for payment of equal

pay for equal work and the same has been given to the

workman from the date of his appointment. That the

Hon’ble Apex Court only advised the Government to take

appropriate action to regularize the service of daily-rated

workers who were working continuously for more than six

months. In pursuance of the said order, the Government

of India framed policy and when the post was created the

services of the workman were regularized w.e.f. 15.4.1993.

That he is not entitled to claim allowance etc. prior thereto.

That he is not entitled to regularization of service w.e.f.

7.5.1985.

In the rejoinder, the workman reiterated his case as

set out in the claim petition and further pleaded that the

Directorate of Horticulture regularized the services of

workers immediately and even the service of Sob Nath

and Krishan Pal were regularized w.e.f. 18.2.1986 and

5.12.1988. That he is also entitled to for regularization of

services from the date he joined the service i.e. 7.5.1985.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

In support of its case, Sh. Raj Kumar (claimant No.2)

appeared in the witness box and filed his affidavit

reiterating the case as set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand the management has examined

Sh. Jaswant Singh, Executive Engineer who filed his

affidavit reiterating the stand as taken in the written

statement.

I have heard Sh. S.D. Sharma, counsel for the

workman and Sh. Anish Babbar, counsel for the

management and also perused the written arguments

submitted on behalf of workman in this case.

Learned counsel for the workman carried me through

the judgment of Surinder Singh’s case (supra) and

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court asked the

Government to regularize the services of temporary daily

wagers from the date of their appointment, and as such,

the workman is entitled for regularization of services w.e.f.

7.5.1985, when he joined the management as Baildar. He

has further carried me through the copy of the judgment

passed in LPA No.622 of 2001 decided on 10.4.2013 titled

The Director General of Works Vs. Regional Labour

Commissioner and Others and submitted that the judgment

of Surinder Singh’s case (supra) has been implemented

and the workers have been paid the arrears of pay etc.,

and as such, the present workman is also entitled to the

regularization of the services from the date of his initial

appointment.

Opposing this contention it was argued by the

learned counsel for the management that the Hon’ble

Supreme Court issued directions to pay the same salary

and allowances to all the daily-rated employees as are

paid to regular and permanent employees and that

direction have been complied with. He has further

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court only asked the

Government to initiate action to regularize the services of

those employees who have been in continuous

employment for more than six months on the date of the

judgment. In pursuance of this order of the Apex Court,

the Government initiated action and when the post was

created, the service of the workman was regularized w.e.f.

15.4.1993 and workman cannot claim regularization of his

services w.e.f. 7.5.1985 as no such direction was issued by

the Hon’ble Apex Court for the regularization of the

services of the daily-rated workers from the date of their

initial appointment.

I have considered the respective contentions.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Surinder Singh Vs.

CPWD reported in AIR 1986 Supreme court 584 observed

as follow:-

“We allow both the writ petitions and direct the

respondents, as in the Nehru Yuvak Kendras case

(supra) to pay to the petitioners and all other daily

rated employees, to pay the same salary and

allowances as are paid to regular and permanent

employees with effect from the date when they were

respectively employed. The respondents will pay

to each of the petitioners a sum of Rs.1000/- towards

their costs. We also record our regret that many

employees are kept in service on a temporary daily

wage basis without their services being regularized.

We hope that the Government will take appropriate

action to regularize the services of all those who

have been in continuous employment for more than

six months.

A perusal of the order shows that the Hon’ble Apex

Court directed the Government to pay the same salary and

allowances to daily-rated employees as are paid to regular

and permanent employees w.e.f. the date when they were

employed. It further observed that the Government would

initiate action to regularize the services of the workmen

who have been in continuous employment for more than

six months. The Hon’ble Apex Court did not direct the

944

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Government to regularize the services of the daily-rated

employees from the date of joining the service and the

Government was only directed to pay them the same salary

and allowances as are paid to regular and permanent

employees with effect from the date when they were

employed.

The Government issued Office Order dated 7.6.1988

Annexure-2 giving the guidelines in view of the

observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court for absorbing the

casual workers against regular post and again the

department issued directions for the regularization of the

services of eligible muster roll workers vide letter dated

25.8.1988 Annexure-A3. It is the definite case of the

respondent management that after following the guidelines

and instructions, the posts were created and on receipt of

the post; the service of the workman was regularized w.e.f.

15.4.1993. Thus, the department regularized the service of

the workman when the post was created and it is nowhere

the case of the workman that the post was existing on the

day he was initially appointed as Baildar i.e. 7.5.1985. The

workman has relied on a list of the employees prepared by

Horticulture Department as well as Annexure A11 and A12

vide which Sob Nath and Krishan Pal was granted

appointment to contend that other employees were

regularized immediately after the pronouncement of the

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court but he was denied

the benefits for regularization of services w.e.f. 7.5.1985.

Suffice it to say that nothing has come on the file that

present workman is similarly placed as the employees find

mentioned in Annexure A10 or in Annexure A11 and A12

and therefore he cannot claim parity with them, as much

as there is nothing on the file that any post was existing

on the day i.e. 7.5.1985 when the workman is claiming

regularization of services. The case of Director General of

Works (supra) is not applicable as in that case the only

question involved was regarding the calculation of arrears

of pay etc. in pursuance of the judgment of Surinder

Singh’s case (supra).

Thus, services were rightly regularized when the

post was sanctioned and the action of the management in

not regularizing services of workman w.e.f. 7.5.1985 is legal

and justified and he is not entitled to any relief. The

reference is accordingly answered against the workman.

Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 350-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh-ih-MCY;w-Mh-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

1282@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@183@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 350.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1282/

2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

CPWD and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 18/02/2015.

[No. L-42012/183/2005-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 1282/2006

Registered on 13.9.2006

All India CPWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sanghathan (Regd.)

through Zonal Secretary CPWD

Store Building Sector 7B,

Chandigarh.

Sh. Satish Kumar S/o

Sh. Gopal Das, Beldar

C/o All India CPWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.)

through Zonal Secretary, CPWD

Store Building, Sector 7B,

Chandigarh

...Petitioner

Versus

The Union of India

Through the Secretary

to Government of India,

Ministry of Personnel,

Public Grievance and Pensions,

Department of Personnel & Training,

North Block, New Delhi.

Director General of Works, CPWD,

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

The Executive Engineer,

Chandigarh Central Division II CPWD,

Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9A,

Chandigarh

...Respondents

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

945

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. S. D. Sharma, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Anish Babbar, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on-23.9.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/

183/2005-IR(CM-II) Dated 23.8.2006, by exercising its

powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and

Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of CPWD,

Chandigarh in not regularizing the services of

Sh. Satish Kumar, Beldar w.e.f. 4.3.1981 to 12.1.1993

and action of not extending consequential benefits

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is

entitled to?”

In response to the notice, the workman (claimant

No.2) appeared and submitted statement of claim pleading

that he joined the management as Baildar on Muster Roll

on 4.3.1981. His services were regularized w.e.f. 13.1.1993.

That he is entitled to regularization of services with effect

from the day he joined as Baildar on muster roll i.e. 4.3.1981

in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Surinder

Singh Vs. CPWD reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 584

and he is also entitled to all the consequential benefits like

increment, uniform allowance, medical facilities etc. and

counting of service for the grant of promotion and service

benefit of 12 years/24 years w.e.f. 4.3.1981. That the action

of the management in not regularizing the services w.e.f.

4.3.1981 is illegal.

Respondent filed written reply pleading that the

Hon’ble Apex Court passed the order for payment of equal

pay for equal work and the same has been given to the

workman from the date of his appointment. That the

Hon’ble Apex Court only advised the Government to take

appropriate action to regularize the service of daily-rated

workers who were working continuously for more than six

months. In pursuance of the said order, the Government

of India framed policy and when the post was created the

services of the workman were regularized w.e.f. 13.1.1993.

That he is not entitled to claim allowance etc. prior thereto.

That he is not entitled to regularization of service w.e.f.

4.3.1981.

In the rejoinder, the workman reiterated his case as

set out in the claim petition and further pleaded that the

Directorate of Horticulture regularized the services of

workers immediately and even the service of Sob Nath

and Krishan Pal were regularized w.e.f. 18.2.1986 and

5.12.1988. That he is also entitled to for regularization of

services from the date he joined the service i.e. 4.3.1981.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

In support of its case, Sh. Satish Kumar (claimant

No.2) appeared in the witness box and filed his affidavit

reiterating the case as set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand the management has examined

Sh. Jaswant Singh, Executive Engineer who filed his

affidavit reiterating the stand as taken in the written

statement.

I have heard Sh. S.D. Sharma, counsel for the

workman and Sh. Anish Babbar, counsel for the

management.

Learned counsel for the workman carried me through

the judgment of Surinder Singh’s case (supra) and

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court asked the

Government to regularize the services of temporary daily

wagers from the date of their appointment, and as such,

the workman is entitled for regularization of services w.e.f.

4.3.1981, when he joined the management as Baildar. He

has further carried me through the copy of the judgment

passed in LPA No.622 of 2001 decided on 10.4.2013 titled

The Director General of Works Vs. Regional Labour

Commissioner and Others and submitted that the judgment

of Surinder Singh’s case (supra) has been implemented

and the workers have been paid the arrears of pay etc.,

and as such, the present workman is also entitled to the

regularization of the services from the date of his initial

appointment.

Opposing this contention it was argued by the

learned counsel for the management that the Hon’ble

Supreme Court issued directions to pay the same salary

and allowances to all the daily-rated employees as are

paid to regular and permanent employees and that

direction have been complied with. He has further

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court only asked the

Government to initiate action to regularize the services of

those employees who have been in continuous

employment for more than six months on the date of the

judgment. In pursuance of this order of the Apex Court,

the Government initiated action and when the post was

created, the service of the workman was regularized w.e.f.

13.1.1993 and workman cannot claim regularization of his

services w.e.f. 4.3.1981 as no such direction was issued by

the Hon’ble Apex Court for the regularization of the

services of the daily-rated workers from the date of their

initial appointment.

I have considered the respective contentions.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Surinder Singh Vs.

CPWD reported in AIR 1986 Supreme court 584 observed

as follow:-

“We allow both the writ petitions and direct the

respondents, as in the Nehru Yuvak Kendras case

(supra) to pay to the petitioners and all other daily

946

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

rated employees, to pay the same salary and

allowances as are paid to regular and permanent

employees with effect from the date when they were

respectively employed. The respondents will pay

to each of the petitioners a sum of Rs.1000/- towards

their costs. We also record our regret that many

employees are kept in service on a temporary daily

wage basis without their services being regularized.

We hope that the Government will take appropriate

action to regularize the services of all those who

have been in continuous employment for more than

six months.

A perusal of the order shows that the Hon’ble Apex

Court directed the Government to pay the same salary and

allowances to daily-rated employees as are paid to regular

and permanent employees w.e.f. the date when they were

employed. It further observed that the Government would

initiate action to regularize the services of the workmen

who have been in continuous employment for more than

six months. The Hon’ble Apex Court did not direct the

Government to regularize the services of the daily-rated

employees from the date of joining the service and the

Government was only directed to pay them the same salary

and allowances as are paid to regular and permanent

employees with effect from the date when they were

employed.

The Government issued Office Order dated 7.6.1988

Annexure-2 giving the guidelines in view of the

observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court for absorbing the

casual workers against regular post and again the

department issued directions for the regularization of the

services of eligible muster roll workers vide letter dated

25.8.1988 Annexure-A3. It is the definite case of the

respondent management that after following the guidelines

and instructions, the posts were created and on receipt of

the post; the service of the workman was regularized w.e.f.

13.1.1993. Thus, the department regularized the service of

the workman when the post was created and it is nowhere

the case of the workman that the post was existing on the

day he was initially appointed as Baildar i.e. 4.3.1981. The

workman has relied on a list of the employees prepared by

Horticulture Department as well as Annexure A11 and A12

vide which Sob Nath and Krishan Pal was granted

appointment to contend that other employees were

regularized immediately after the pronouncement of the

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court but he was denied

the benefits for regularization of services w.e.f. 4.3.1981.

Suffice it to say that nothing has come on the file that

present workman is similarly placed as the employees find

mentioned in Annexure A10 or in Annexure A11 and A12

and therefore he cannot claim parity with them, as much

as there is nothing on the file that any post was existing

on the day i.e. 4.3.1981 when the workman is claiming

regularization of services. The case of Director General of

Works (supra) is not applicable as in that case the only

question involved was regarding the calculation of arrears

of pay etc. in pursuance of the judgment of Surinder

Singh’s case (supra).

Thus, services were rightly regularized when the

post was sanctioned and the action of the management in

not regularizing services of workman w.e.f. 4.3.1981 is legal

and justified and he is not entitled to any relief. The

reference is accordingly answered against the workman.

Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 351-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj t- uoks- fo- ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1279@2006) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@137@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 351.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1279/

2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 18/02/2015.

[No. L-42012/137/2005-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 1279/2006

Registered on 9.8.2006

Sh. Gurandita Singh,

S/o Sh. Bharpur Singh,

C/o Trade Union Council,

Patiala, Punjab

...Petitioner

Versus

The Director,

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,

A-39, Kailash Colony, New Delhi.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

947

The Deputy Director,

NavodayaVidyalaya Samiti,

Regional Office, Sector 42-A,

Chandigarh.

The Principal, JNV,

Village Teona Pujariana,

District Bathinda,

Punjab

...Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Ex parte

For the Management :

Sh. D.R. Sharma, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on-14.10.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/

137/2005-IR(CM-II) Dated 27.7.2006, by exercising its

powers under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and

Sub Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti in terminating the

services of Sh. Gurandita Singh, Ex-LDC w.e.f.

30.4.2001 without complying with the provisions of

Section 25 F, G and H of the I.D. Act is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled and from which date?”

In response to the notice, the workman appeared

and submitted statement of claim pleading that he worked

with the management from 9.10.1998 to 29.4.2001 as LDC

at village Teona. His services were terminated on 30.4.2001

without serving any notice or paying him compensation.

He was drawing Rs. 2243/- per month. That Sh. Ram Janam

who was junior to him was kept in service. That his

services were terminated in violation of Section 25F, G and

H of the Act and he is to be reinstated in service.

Management filed written reply pleading that

workman was engaged on daily wage basis and he did not

work continuously. That he was not appointed on regular

basis and he cannot claim the protection of the provisions

of the Act. That the workman raised a demand notice in

March, 2005 whereas, his services came to an end on

30.4.2001 and as such the claim is barred by delay.

Parties were given opportunities to lead their

evidence.

In support of his case the workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as

set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand the management has examined

Sh. K.K. Gautam who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand

taken by the management in written statement.

The workman was proceeded against ex parte vide

order dated 17.9.2014.

I have heard Sh. D.R. Sharma, counsel for the

management and perused the file.

The definite case of the workman is that he worked

with the management from 9.10.1998 to 29.4.2001

continuously as LDC. The management did not deny this

fact and rather pleaded that he was engaged intermittently

as per requirement of the work and he did not work

continuously. The management has examined Sh. K.K.

Gautam but he did not prove any record to establish that

the workman was engaged as per requirement and he did

not attend to the duties regularly. There is no denial of the

fact that workman was not appointed as per rules and

regulations governing the institution and therefore it

cannot be said that he was appointed on regular basis.

However he worked continuously with the management

from 9.10.1998 to 29.4.2001 and his services were terminated

on 30.4.2001.

Again it is not disputed that he was not served with

any notice and any retrenchment compensation was paid.

Thus, the termination of his services is in violation of the

Section 25F of the Act. As per letter dated 7.5.2003 the

institution has framed rules for recruitment of its employees

including LDC and since the earlier appointment of the

workman was also not as per rules, he cannot be reinstated

in service. The only option left is to pay him

compensation. According to him his last drawn salary

was Rs.2243/-. Considering the length of service and the

period lapsed, he is awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as just

compensation for retrenchment of his services.

In result, it is held that the action of the management

in terminating the services of the workman without

complying with the provisions of Section 25F is illegal and

unjust and he is entitled to compensation of Rs.100000/-.

Respondent management would pay him the awarded

amount within three months of the publication of the award

failing which he will be entitled to the interest at the rate of

6 per cent per annum till realization. The reference is

accordingly answered in favour of the workman. Let hard

and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 352-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ih- th- vkbZ-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

916@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@200@2003&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

948

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 352.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 916/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

PGIMER, Sector-12 and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 18/02/2015.

[No. L-42012/200/2003-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 916/2005

Registered on 13.9.2005

Sh. Bahadur Singh, S/o Sh. Bant Singh,

C/o Sh. H.S. Hundal & P.B. Sharma,

Auth. Rep. Chamber No.112,

Distt. Courts Complex,

Sector 17, Chandigarh

...Petitioner

Versus

The Director, PGI,

Postgraduate Institute of

Medical Education & Research,

Chandigarh

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. T.S. Saldi, Adv.

For the Management :

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on-27.10.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/

200/2003-IR(CM-II) Dated 29.7.2004, by exercising its

powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and

Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of PGI,

Chandigarh in terminating the services of Sh.

Bahadur Singh, Ex-Electrician w.e.f. 31.8.2001 is legal

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

entitled?”

In response to the notice, the workman submitted

statement of claim pleading that he was appointed as

Electrician on daily wage basis from 1.9.2000 to 30.11.2000

with the respondent management. Thereafter, break was

given and he was re-appointed from 1.3.2001 to 30.5.2001.

It is pleaded that on 1.6.2001, he was asked to serve the

management under a fictitious name. He worked with the

management under the name of Harnek Singh from 1.6.2001

to 31.8.2001 when his services were terminated. That he

attended the complaints concerning electricity of various

departments under his own name as mentioned in the

complaint register. That an unfair labour practice was

adopted by the Department. That his termination being in

contravention of the provisions of the Act is illegal and he

is to be reinstated in service with full back wages.

The respondent management filed written statement

pleading that workman was employed on need basis and

for 89 days from 1.9.2000 to 30.11.2000. He was again

engaged for the period 1.3.2001 to 31.5.2001. That he did

not complete 240 days continuous service with the

management. He was simply a daily wage labourer and he

cannot claim benefit of the provisions of the Act. All

other assertions that he was forced to work under the

fictitious name of Harnek Singh were denied.

Parties were given opportunities to lead their

evidence.

In support of his case workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit supporting the averments

as contained in the claim petition.

On the other hand the respondent has examined Sh.

Jai Dev who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand of the

respondent management.

I have heard Sh. T.S. Saldi, counsel for the workman

and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.

It was argued by the learned counsel for the workman

that workman worked under his real name from 1.3.2001 to

30.5.2001 and he worked under the fictitious name from

1.6.2001 to 31.8.2001 and the same is evident from the

complaint register when he attended the complaints under

his real name and the practice adopted by the management

is unfair labour practice and since termination of his

services is in violation of the provisions of the Act, he is

to be reinstated in service.

I have considered the contention of the learned

counsel.

It may be added that the management has

categorically pleaded that the workman was engaged on

need basis and only for 89 days from 1.9.2000 to 30.11.2000

and then for 1.3.2001 to 30.5.2001. The workman while

appearing in the witness box admit that he was engaged

for 89 days from 1.3.2001 to 30.5.2001. When it was so, the

question of asking to work under some fictitious name

with the respondent management do not arise at all. The

workman claimed that he worked under fictitious name

with the management from 1.6.2001 to 31.8.2001 but nothing

has come on file to prove that he received any salary for

the said period from respondent management even in his

fictitious name. He did not examine any of the co-employee

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

949

to lend corroboration to his statement that he actually

worked with the respondent management from 1.6.2001 to

31.8.2001. Thus it cannot be said from the mere assertion

of the workman that he worked with the respondent

management from 1.6.2001 to 31.8.2001 under some

fictitious name or the management adopted some unfair

labour practice.

Since the workman was engaged for a specific period

i.e. for 89 days from 1.3.2001 to 30.5.2001, the termination

of his services do not fall within the definition of

‘retrenchment’ as his services came to an end on the expiry

of the contract between him and the management and his

termination cannot be held as illegal and unjustified. In

result, the reference is answered that termination of the

services of the workman is legal and justified and he is not

entitled to any relief. Let hard and soft copy of the award

be sent to the Central Government for further necessary

action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 353-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh-ih-MCY;w-Mh-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

1276@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@130@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 353.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1276/

2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

CPWD and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 18/02/2015.

[No. L-42012/130/2005-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 1276/2006

Registered on 9.8.2006

All India CPWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sanghathan (Regd)

through Zonal Secretary CPWD

Store Building Sector 7B,

Chandigarh.

Sh. Jagdish Chand, Chowkidar

C/O All India CPWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sangathan (Regd)

through Zonal Secretary,

CPWD Store Building, Sector 7B,

Chandigarh

...Petitioner

Versus

The Union of India Through

the Secretary to Government of India,

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance

and Pensions, Department of

Personnel & Training, North Block,

New Delhi.

Director General of Works, CPWD,

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

The Executive Engineer,

Chandigarh Central Division II CPWD,

Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9A,

Chandigarh

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. S.D. Sharma. Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Anish Babbar, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on-23.9.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/

130/2005-IR(CM-II) Dated 31.7.2006, by exercising its

powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and

Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of CPWD,

Chandigarh in not regularizing the services of Sh.

Jagdish Chand Verma, w.e.f. 28.4.1982 to 17.2.1993

and action of not extending consequential benefits

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is

entitled to?”

In response to the notice, the workman (claimant

No.2) appeared and submitted statement of claim pleading

that he joined the management as Baildar on Muster Roll

on 28.4.1982. His services were regularized w.e.f. 17.2.1993.

That he is entitled to regularization of services with effect

from the day he joined as Baildar on muster roll i.e. 28.4.1982

in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Surinder

Singh Vs. CPWD reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 584

and he is also entitled to all the consequential benefits like

increment, uniform allowance, medical facilities etc. and

counting of service for the grant of promotion and service

950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

benefit of 12 years/24 years w.e.f. 28.4.1982. That the action

of the management in not regularizing the services w.e.f.

28.4.1982 is illegal.

Respondent filed written reply pleading that the

Hon’ble Apex Court passed the order for payment of equal

pay for equal work and the same has been given to the

workman from the date of his appointment. That the

Hon’ble Apex Court only advised the Government to take

appropriate action to regularize the service of daily-rated

workers who were working continuously for more than six

months. In pursuance of the said order, the Government

of India framed policy and when the post was created the

services of the workman were regularized w.e.f. 17.2.1993.

That he is not entitled to claim allowance etc. prior thereto.

That he is not entitled to regularization of service w.e.f.

28.4.1982.

In the rejoinder, the workman reiterated his case as

set out in the claim petition and further pleaded that the

Directorate of Horticulture regularized the services of

workers immediately and even the service of Sob Nath

and Krishan Pal were regularized w.e.f. 18.2.1986 and

5.12.1988. That he is also entitled to for regularization of

services from the date he joined the service i.e. 28.4.1982.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

In support of its case, Sh. Jagdish Chand Verma

(claimant No.2) appeared in the witness box and filed his

affidavit reiterating the case as set out in the claim petition.

The evidence of the management was closed by

order vide order dated 23.7.2014.

I have heard Sh. S.D. Sharma, counsel for the

workman and Sh. Anish Babbar, counsel for the

management and also perused the written arguments

submitted on behalf of workman in this case.

Learned counsel for the workman carried me through

the judgment of Surinder Singh’s case (supra) and

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court asked the

Government to regularize the services of temporary daily

wagers from the date of their appointment, and as such,

the workman is entitled for regularization of services w.e.f.

28.4.1982, when he joined the management as Baildar. He

has further carried me through the copy of the judgment

passed in LPA No.622 of 2001 decided on 10.4.2013 titled

The Director General of Works Vs. Regional Labour

Commissioner and Others and submitted that the judgment

of Surinder Singh’s case (supra) has been implemented

and the workers have been paid the arrears of pay etc.,

and as such, the present workman is also entitled to the

regularization of the services from the date of his initial

appointment.

Opposing this contention it was argued by the

learned counsel for the management that the Hon’ble

Supreme Court issued directions to pay the same salary

and allowances to all the daily-rated employees as are

paid to regular and permanent employees and that

direction have been complied with. He has further

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court only asked the

government to initiate action to regularize the services of

those employees who have been in continuous

employment for more than six months on the date of the

judgment. In pursuance of this order of the Apex Court,

the Government initiated action and when the post was

created, the service of the workman was regularized w.e.f.

17.2.1993 and workman cannot claim regularization of his

services w.e.f. 28.4.1982 as no such direction was issued

by the Hon’ble Apex Court for the regularization of the

services of the daily-rated workers from the date of their

initial appointment.

I have considered the respective contentions.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Surinder Singh Vs.

CPWD reported in AIR 1986 Supreme court 584 observed

as follow:-

“We allow both the writ petitions and direct the

respondents, as in the Nehru Yuvak Kendras case

(supra) to pay to the petitioners and all other daily

rated employees, to pay the same salary and

allowances as are paid to regular and permanent

employees with effect from the date when they were

respectively employed. The respondents will pay

to each of the petitioners a sum of Rs.1000/- towards

their costs. We also record our regret that many

employees are kept in service on a temporary daily

wage basis without their services being regularized.

We hope that the government will take appropriate

action to regularize the services of all those who

have been in continuous employment for more than

six months.

A perusal of the order shows that the Hon’ble Apex

Court directed the Government to pay the same salary and

allowances to daily-rated employees as are paid to regular

and permanent employees w.e.f. the date when they were

employed. It further observed that the Government would

initiate action to regularize the services of the workmen

who have been in continuous employment for more than

six months. The Hon’ble Apex Court did not direct the

Government to regularize the services of the daily-rated

employees from the date of joining the service and the

Government was only directed to pay them the same salary

and allowances as are paid to regular and permanent

employees with effect from the date when they were

employed.

The Government issued Office Order dated 7.6.1988

Annexure-2 giving the guidelines in view of the

observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court for absorbing the

casual workers against regular post and again the

department issued directions for the regularization of the

services of eligible muster roll workers vide letter dated

25.8.1988 Annexure-A3. It is the definite case of the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

951

respondent management that after following the guidelines

and instructions, the posts were created and on receipt of

the post; the service of the workman was regularized w.e.f.

17.2.1993. Thus, the department regularized the service of

the workman when the post was created and it is nowhere

the case of the workman that the post was existing on the

day he was initially appointed as Baildar i.e. 28.4.1982.

The workman has relied on a list of the employees prepared

by Horticulture Department as well as Annexure A11 and

A12 vide which Sob Nath and Krishan Pal was granted

appointment to contend that other employees were

regularized immediately after the pronouncement of the

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court but he was denied

the benefits for regularization of services w.e.f. 28.4.1982.

Suffice it to say that nothing has come on the file that

present workman is similarly placed as the employees find

mentioned in Annexure A10 or in Annexure A11 and A12

and therefore he cannot claim parity with them, as much

as there is nothing on the file that any post was existing

on the day i.e. 28.4.1982 when the workman is claiming

regularization of services. The case of Director General of

Works (supra) is not applicable as in that case the only

question involved was regarding the calculation of arrears

of pay etc. in pursuance of the judgment of Surinder

Singh’s case (supra).

Thus, services were rightly regularized when the

post was sanctioned and the action of the management in

not regularizing services of workman w.e.f. 28.4.1982 is

legal and justified and he is not entitled to any relief. The

reference is accordingly answered against the workman.

Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 354-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ-lh-vkbZ- ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 43@2010) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22011@13@2010&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2015

S.O. 354.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2010)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Food

Corporation of India, Prehari Security and Detective

Services Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 18/02/2015.

[No. L-22011/13/2010-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 43/2010

Registered on 28.6.2010

Sh. Tejinder Kumar, S/o Sh. Sher Chand,

H.No.323, Gali No.4, Ramdev Nagri,

Abohar, Distt. Ferozepur

...Petitioner

Versus

The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

District Office, Malwal Road,

Ferozepur City, Punjab.

The Managing Director,

Prehari Security and Detective Services, Pvt., Ltd.,

Jallowkhanna Chowk, Kapurthala.

The General Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Regional Office, Punjab Region,

Sector 31-A, Bay No.34 to 38,

Chandigarh, Punjab

...Respondents

Appearances :

For the workman

Sh. Harpal Singh, Adv.

For the Management :

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on-16.10.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22011/

13/2010-IR(CM-II) Dated 15.6.2010, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-

section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the contract between the management of

FCI, Ferozepur and the Contractor namely M/s

Prehari Security and Detective Services Ltd., is sham

and bogus?

Whether the demand of Sh. Tejinder Kumar S/o Sh.

Sher Chand for reinstatement with full back wages

and to treat him as regular employee of the FCI is

legal and justified?

To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?”

952

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In response to the notice, the workman appeared

and submitted statement of claim that he was appointed

on 1.4.1993 as Security Guard at FCI Godown, Abohar,

where he worked till 10.8.1998 when his services were

terminated illegally. He has further pleaded that his

attendance was marked by the staff of the FCI who used

to pay him salary. The disciplinary action and control also

vest with the FCI. That the termination of his services is

illegal and he be reinstated in service with back wages.

Respondent management filed written reply pleading

that the work of Security Guard is not of a regular nature

and it was only seasonal which was being given by the

management to the contractor to provide labourer. It was

given to different agencies and it was given to Bright

Security Service, Amritsar in the year 1991. FCI used to

make payment to the contractor who in turn was making

the payment to the labourers. That the workman is not an

employee of the FCI.

Parties were given opportunities to lead evidence.

In support of his case, the workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as

set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand the management examined Rahul

Chandan who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand taken

by the respondent management in the written statement.

I have heard Sh. Harpal Singh, counsel for the

workman and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the

management.

It was contended by the learned counsel for the

workman that workman was appointed by the FCI who

used to pay him salary and his attendance was also marked

by the employees of the FCI who was also deducting

Rs.100/- every month from his pay and as such, he is an

employee of the FCI who used to exercise full control over

him and the contract entered into between the FCI and the

Bright Security Service is a sham transaction.

It may be added at the outset that no appointment

letter was issued to the workman and he was not engaged

as per any Rules and Regulations of the management for

recruitment. On mere assertion of the workman, it cannot

be said that he was an employee of the respondent

management. He did not produce or prove any record on

the file that his presence was ever marked by the employees

of the respondent management and it also used to pay

him any salary or was exercising any control over him.

When he was not paid any salary by the management, it

cannot be said that he was ever an employee of the

respondent management. No doubt, the Court can see

whether the contract entered into between the management

and the contractor is a sham transaction, but no

circumstance has come on the file to establish that contract

was just a camouflage and the workman was actually

employed by the FCI. Thus, in the absence of any cogent

and convincing evidence, it cannot be held that workman

was ever appointed by the FCI. Being so, it cannot be

said that the contract between the agency and the

respondent management was a sham transaction and that

too without the impleading of the agency as a party in the

reference and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

In result, the reference is answered that the contract

between the respondent management and the contractor

was not a sham transaction and since he was not an

employee of the respondent management, it cannot be

said that his services were terminated by it and he is not

entitled to any relief and the reference is answered

accordingly.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 355-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 47@2001)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@171@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2015

S.O. 355.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/2001)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Union Bank

of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/171/2000-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/47/2001

Shri Ramesh Kumar Rekwar,

S/o D.L.Rekwar,

House No. 61-Purana, 73- Naya,

Vehicle Estate, Madai,

Jabalpur

...Workman

Versus

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

953

Dy. General Manager,

Union Bank of India,

Regional Office,

Russel Chowk,

Jabalpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 13th day of November 2014

As per letter dated 19/22-2-2001 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/

171/2000-IR(B-II) . The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Union

Bank of India, Regional Office, Jabalpur (MP) in

denying to regularize and in terminating the services

of Shri Ramesh Kumar Rekwar S/o Late Damrilal w.e.f.

9-8-99 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the

disputant is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Case of Ist party workman is that in 1986, M/S

Tornado Enterprises, Jabalpur failed to repay loan taken

from IInd party. As said industry was closed, for

supervision of machines and other articles, Ist party

workman was engaged as watchman. He was paid Rs.500/

- per month. Appointment was made orally. Ist party

workman continued to work as watchman till 8-8-99. He

served with devotion, he was working more than 12 hours

per day. His service record was excellent. Any complaint

was not submitted against him. The services of workman

were terminated without notice, he was not paid

retrenchment compensation. Workman had submitted

applications for his regularization. He was assured that

the matter would be placed in meeting before Higher

Authorities. Instead of regularizing his services, he was

terminated. On such ground, workman is praying for

reinstatement with back wages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at page 4/1 to 4/12

denying claim of workman. IInd party denied appointment

of Ist party workman at any time in City Branch, Jabalpur.

There is no employee employer relationship. The

recruitment of watchman are made from Arm Guards

appointing ex-serviceman after notifying vacancies. The

vacancies are also notified in Employment Exchange. For

appointment of Security Guard, armed licence is required,

such procedure was not followed in case of workman.

IInd party reiterated that workman was not its employee,

he was employee of M/S Tornado Enterprises. Bank

obtained judgment and decree from the Court of District

Judge against M/S Tornado Enterprises. The said owner

of unit handed over the possession of the unit to the Bank

and after obtaining permission from the Competent

Executing Court, said unit was sold to M/S Frontier Motors

and possession was given to them on 3-8-99. Ist party

workman as watchman mostly may be entitled to received

compensation amount payable under Section 25 FF of

I.D.Act from M/S Tornado enterprises. That Ist party

workman was working in M/S Tornado Enterprises prior

to handing over it to the Bank by owner of the unit. Any

small scale industrial unit was given security by its owner

till the same was sold. Reiterating above contentions, IInd

party submits that workman was not its employee. There

is no employer employee relationship. There was no

question of issuing notice or payment of retrenchment

compensation.

It is further submitted that M/S Frontier Motors did

not continue services of workman. He was disengaged

from service. IInd party could not be held responsible for

it. That Branch Manager is not empowered to appoint

watchman, security guard or armed guard. The post of

security guard is a trust post and they are appointed strictly

by adopting recruitment rules. It is denied that workman

was working more than 30 years and arbitrarily his services

were terminated by IInd party. On such ground, IInd party

prays for rejection of claim.

Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 6/1 to

6/6 reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of Union Bank

of India, Regional Office,

Jabalpur (MP) in denying to

regularize and in terminating

the services of Shri Ramesh

Kumar Rekwar S/o Late Damrilal

w.e.f. 9-8-99 is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

The terms of reference relates to denying

regularisation of Ist party workman and legality of

termination of his service from 9-8-99. IInd party had denied

appointment of workman. The employer employee

relationship is denied. It is contented that workman was

employee of M/S Tornado Enterprises. The Bank had

advanced loan to it and as loan was not repaid, the

properties of M/S Tornado Enterprises were sold.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting

contentions in statement of claim. That he was engaged

by IInd party in July 1989. He was paid Rs. 500/- per month.

He was working as watchman. He continued to work till

8-8-99. His services were discontinued without notice,

retrenchment compensation was not paid. From re-

954

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

examination of workman, documents Exhibit W-5 to W-9

are proved. Watchman in his cross-examination says that

application Exhibit W-5 was submitted to Branch Manager

about his grievance for less payment. That no appointment

order was given to him where Rasid and Chhotelal were

working, he also worked at same place. From 1989 to 2000,

he was working in the branch of the Bank. He was working

as watchman. He was paid Rs. 500/- per month under

voucher. He and Rasid were paid under the same voucher.

He submitted 3-4 applications for regularization of service.

He denies that he was not working in the Bank.

Management’s witness Arun Kumar Bhole filed

affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions in Written

Statement of IInd party denying workman was engaged

by the Bank as Security Guard. His evidence is devoted

about eligibility, qualification for appointment of security

guards. Names are called from Employment Exchange etc.

workman was not appointed by the bank. He was employee

of M/S Tornado Enterprises. Said unit had failed to repay

loan taken from Bank, unit was sold. Workman was not

holding gun licence. He was not eligible for appointment

as security guard. Management’s witness in his cross-

examination says workman was not appointed as watchman

in 1979. The witness of management denied that workman

was engaged as security guard in the branch. He denies

workman was paid Rs. 500/- per month for 10 years.

Witness was recalled for cross-examination, witness

admitted copy of judgment in Civil Suit No. 437/A/94-

Exhibit M-1. The rules about recruitment are not produced.

He denies suggestion that for denying claim of workman,

he says that workman was employee of M/S Tornado

Enterprises.

10.

The documents produced by workman are admitted.

In Exhibit W-1 there is clear reference that unit of M/S

Tornado Enterprises was taken over by the Bank. Two

watchman were working in said unit. The letter was

addressed to Asstt. Engineer, Public Health Criminal Sub

Division. In W-2 admitted by IInd party, there is clear

reference that two watchman were appointed at unit of

Tornado Enterprises and antisocial elements have broken

locks admitted to commit theft of property. In W-3, reference

is found that two watchman were appointed by Bank in

the unit of M/S Tornado Enterprises attempt to commit

theft was made. Those documents are dated 29-05-86,

5-5-95, 26-8-95 clearly shows that watchman were working

in unit of M/S Tornado Enterprises. In W-3, it is clearly

mentioned that those watchman were appointed by the

Bank. Vide application Exhibit W-5, W-6 workman had

requested for his regularization. Exhibit W-8 workman

issued notice through the counsel. The evidence of

workman is supported by Exhibit W-1 to W-3. The

management’s witness in his cross-examination says that

he has not produced documents about recruitment policy.

Evidence of management’s witness is not corroborated

by documents. On the other hand, copies of judgments in

Civil Suit No. 430-A/94 shows that said suit was filed by

Bank for recovery of Rs. 24,69,699.90 against M/S Tornado

Enterprises. Said suit was decreed exparte. Bank was

permitted to sale property of M/S Tornado Enterprises.

The permission was granted by Court. However the

documents relating to sale of property to Tornado

Enterprises on record rather the property was sold in 1999.

IInd party has not produced documents about taking over

property of M/S Tornado enterprises and its conditions.

No evidence is adduced that workman was appointed by

M/S Tornado Enterprises and its salary from 1989 till

August 1999 was aid by Tornado Enterprises. Thus it is

clear that the evidence of workman is corroborated by

documentary evidence that he was appointed as watchman

by IInd party and paid Rs. 500/- per month. His services

are terminated without notice, no retrenchment

compensation is paid to him. Therefore I record my finding

in Point No.1 in Negative.

11.

Point No.2- As per my finding on Point No.1, services

of workman are terminated without notice in violation of

Section 25-F. workman was working from 1989 to 1999 for

about 11 years. Considering the wages paid to workman,

he was not appointed following recruitment rules,

reinstatement of workman would not be justified.

Reasonable compensation would be justified. In my

considered view, workman was paid Rs. 500/- per month.

He worked for about 11 years, compensation Rs. One Lakh

would be reasonable. 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 Union Bank of

India, Regional Office, Jabalpur (MP) in denying to

regularize and in terminating the services of Shri

Ramesh Kumar Rekwar S/o Late Damrilal w.e.f.

9-8-99 is not legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.One

Lakh to workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 356-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 46@2001)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

955

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@170@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2015

S.O. 356.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2001)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Union Bank

of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/170/2000-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/46/2001

Shri Roshan Ara, Khalid Jaki,

Munia Aktar, Miun Alam, Aryan Aktar

& Sadf, LRs of

Shri Abdul Rasid, S/o Lae Abdul Hamid,

House No. 300, Saree Market,

South Milonianj,

Jabalpur

...Workman

Versus

Dy.General Manager,

Union Bank of India,

Regional Office,

Russel Chowk,

Jabalpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 13th day of November 2014

As per letter dated 19/22-2-2001 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/

170/2000-IR(B-II) . The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Union

Bank of India, Regional Office, Jabalpur (MP) in

denying regularization and terminating the services

of Shri Abdul Rasid S/o Late Abdul Hamid w.e.f.

9-8-99 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the

disputant is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Case of Ist party workman is that in 1986,

M/S Tornado Enterprises, Jabalpur failed to repay loan

taken from IInd party. As said industry was closed, for

supervision of machines and other articles, Ist party

workman was engaged as watchman. He was paid Rs. 500/-

per month. Appointment was made orally. Ist party

workman continued to work as watchman till 8-8-99. He

served with devotion, he was working more than 12 hours

per day. His service record was excellent. Any complaint

was not submitted against him. The services of workman

were terminated without notice, he was not paid

retrenchment compensation. Workman had submitted

applications for his regularization. He was assured that

the matter would be placed in meeting before Higher

Authorities. Instead of regularizing his services, he was

terminated. On such ground, workman is praying for

reinstatement with back wages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at page 4/1 to 4/12

denying claim of workman. IInd party denied appointment

of Ist party workman at any time in City Branch, Jabalpur.

There is no employee employer relationship. The

recruitment of watchman are made from Arm Guards

appointing ex-serviceman after notifying vacancies. The

vacancies are also notified in Employment Exchange. For

appointment of Security Guard, armed licence is required,

such procedure was not followed in case of workman.

IInd party reiterated that workman was not its employee,

he was employee of M/S Tornado Enterprises. Bank

obtained judgment and decree from the Court of District

Judge against M/S Tornado Enterprises. The said owner

of unit handed over the possession of the unit to the Bank

and after obtaining permission from the Competent

Executing Court, said unit was sold to M/S Frontier Motors

and possession was given to them on 3-8-99. Ist party

workman as watchman mostly may be entitled to received

compensation amount payable under Section 25 FF of

I.D.Act from M/S Tornado enterprises. That Ist party

workman was working in M/S Tornado Enterprises prior

to handing over it to the Bank by owner of the unit. Any

small scale industrial unit was given security by its owner

till the same was sold. Reiterating above contentions, IInd

party submits that workman was not its employee. There

is no employer employee relationship. There was no

question of issuing notice or payment of retrenchment

compensation.

It is further submitted that M/S Frontier Motors did

not continue services of workman. He was disengaged

from service. IInd party could not be held responsible for

it. That Branch Manager is not empowered to appoint

watchman, security guard or armed guard. The post of

security guard is a trust post and they are appointed strictly

by adopting recruitment rules. It is denied that workman

was working more than 30 years and arbitrarily his services

were terminated by IInd party. On such ground, IInd party

prays for rejection of claim.

956

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 6/1 to

6/6 reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.

Workman died during pendency of reference and LRs are

brought on record.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of Union Bank of India, Regional

Office, Jabalpur (MP) in denying

regularization and terminating the

services of Shri Abdul Rasid S/o

Late Abdul Hamid w.e.f. 9-8-99 is

legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

The terms of reference relates to denying

regularisation of Ist party workman and legality of

termination of his service from 9-8-99. IInd party had denied

appointment of workman. The employer employee

relationship is denied. It is contented that workman was

employee of M/S Tornado Enterprises. The Bank had

advanced loan to it and as loan was not repaid, the

properties of M/S Tornado Enterprises were sold.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting

contentions in statement of claim. However before his

cross-examination, he died. The LRs of workman are

brought on record. Roshan Ara, widow of deceased

workman filed affidavit of her evidence. She has stated

that her husband was working as watchman with the Bank

form 1986. He was paid Rs. 500/- per month. His services

were discontinued on 8-8-99. Her husband was working

12 hours a day. Her husband was educated upto 11th

standard. He was holding qualification for appointment

as watchman. Her affidavit is also devoted about loan

taken by Tornado Enterprises and civil suit filed by Bank.

The unit was closed, loan amount was not paid.

Applications were submitted for regular appointment. In

her cross-examination, widow of deceased workman says

she had visited Milouniganj Bank of the branch with her

husband. Her husband was not working in Tornado

Enterprieses. Her husband was engaged by Bank.

Appointment order was not given to him. She denied that

her husband was working as watchman with M/S Tornado

Enterprises.

Management’s witness Arun Kumar Bhole filed

affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions in Written

Statement of IInd party denying workman was engaged

by the Bank as Security Guard. His evidence is devoted

about eligibility, qualification for appointment of security

guards. Names are called from Employment Exchange etc.

workman was not appointed by the bank. He was employee

of M/S Tornado Enterprises. Said unit had failed to repay

loan taken from Bank, unit was sold. Workman was not

holding gun licence. He was not eligible for appointment

as security guard. Management’s witness in his cross-

examination says from August 2012, he is working as Chief

Manager at Jabalpur. He admits Exhibit W-5. No document

is produced to show that deceased workman was working

in M/S Tornado Enterprises. Document referred in his

affidavit is not produced. The rules about appointment of

watchman are not produced. He claims ignorance about

application submitted by workman for regularization of

his service. The documents produced by workman are

admitted. Exhibit W-1,2 letter dated 29-5-86 find clear

reference that two watchman worked t unit of M/S Tornado

Enterprises. W-3 finds that two watchman were appointed

by Bank. Antisocial element had tried to commit theft in

the unit. The report was submitted to police requesting to

take action. The evidence of widow of workman is

supported by those documents. No documents are

produced by management’s witness regarding

appointment of workman by M/S Tornado enterprises, the

workman was paid by said unit from 1986. The evidence

clearly shows that workman was working in industrial unit

of M/S Tornado enterprises taken over by the Bank for

recovery of loan. The unit was sold in 1999. Workman was

terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation was

not paid to him therefore termination of service of deceased

workman is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. For

above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Negative.

10.

The documents produced by workman are admitted.

In Exhibit W-1 there is clear reference that unit of M/S

Tornado Enterprises was taken over by the Bank. Two

watchman were working in said unit. The letter was

addressed to Asstt. Engineer, Public Health Criminal Sub

Division. In W-2 admitted by IInd party, there is clear

reference that two watchman were appointed at unit of

Tornado Enterprises and antisocial elements have broken

locks admitted to commit theft of property. In W-3, reference

is found that two watchman were appointed by Bank in

the unit of M/S Tornado Enterprises attempt to commit

theft was made. Those documents are dated 29-05-86,

5-5-95, 26-8-95 clearly shows that watchman were working

in unit of M/S Tornado Enterprises. In W-3, it is clearly

mentioned that those watchman were appointed by the

Bank. Vide application Exhibit W-5, W-6 workman had

requested for his regularization. Exhibit W-8 workman

issued notice through the counsel. The evidence of

workman is supported by Exhibit W-1 to W-3. The

management’s witness in his cross-examination says that

he has not produced documents about recruitment policy.

Evidence of management’s witness is not corroborated

by documents. On the other hand, copies of judgments in

Civil Suit No. 430-A/94 shows that said suit was filed by

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

957

Bank for recovery of Rs. 24,69,699.90 against M/S Tornado

Enterprises. Said suit was decreed exparte. Bank was

permitted to sale property of M/S Tornado Enterprises.

The permission was granted by Court. However the

documents relating to sale of property to Tornado

Enterprises on record rather the property was sold in 1999.

IInd party has not produced documents about taking over

property of M/S Tornado enterprises and its conditions.

No evidence is adduced that workman was appointed by

M/S Tornado Enterprises and its salary from 1989 till

August 1999 was aid by Tornado Enterprises. Thus it is

clear that the evidence of workman is corroborated by

documentary evidence that he was appointed as watchman

by IInd party and paid Rs. 500/- per month. His services

are terminated without notice, no retrenchment

compensation is paid to him. Therefore I record my finding

in Point No.1 in Negative.

11.

Point No.2- As per my finding on Point No.1, services

of workman are terminated without notice in violation of

Section 25-F. Workman was working from 1986 to 1999 for

about 13 years. Considering the wages paid to workman,

he was not appointed following recruitment rules,

reinstatement of workman would not be justified.

Reasonable compensation would be justified. In my

considered view, workman was paid Rs. 500/- per month.

He worked for about 13 years, compensation Rs. One Lakh

would be reasonable. 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 Union Bank of

India, Regional Office, Jabalpur (MP) in denying to

regularize and in terminating the services of Shri

Abdul Rasid S/o Late Abdul Hamid w.e.f. 9-8-99 is

not legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.One

Lakh to the LRs of workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 357-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks cSad ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 234@99) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@64@99&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2015

S.O. 357.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 234/

99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of UCO Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 19/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/64/99-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/234/99

Shri Sive Singh Yadav,

Qr. No. 28, SAF Colony,

Double Storey, Opp. Post Office,

Army Bazari Kampoo,

Lashkar,

Gwalior

...Workman

Versus

The Asstt. General Manager,

UCO Bank, Zonal office,

E-5, Arera Colony,

Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of November, 2014

As per letter dated 18-6-99 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/

64/99-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Asstt.

General Manager, UCO Bank in terminating the

services of Shri Shiv singh Yadav w.e.f. 15-10-98 is

justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled

for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 2/

1 to 2/3. Case of Ist party workman is that he was appointed

as peon from 25th April 96 at Extension Counter SAF

attached to UCO Bank, Nayabazar branch on daily basis.

He was continuously working on said post till 14-10-98.

He further submits that he was paid wages Rs. 20,25,30,35

per day. The wages as per rules comes Rs.90/- per day

were not paid to him. He had requested many times for

payment of wages as per rules. the officers of IInd party

were annoyed and terminated his services from 15-10-98.

Workman raised dispute.

958

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ist party workman further submits that he had

completed 240 days continuous service during 12

preceding months before termination of his services. His

services are terminated without notice, retrenchment

compensation was not paid to him. On such ground,

workman prays for his reinstatement with back wages.

IInd party management filed Written Statement at

page 7/1 to 7/4. IInd party raised preliminary objection

that reference is not tenable as Ist party was never

employed by the Bank. Workman was engaged on daily

wages, the procedure for recruitment was not followed

while engaging workman on daily wages. He was not

appointed against vacant post. Workman was doing work

of casual nature. The wages were paid at market rate.

There is no employer-employee relationship. Ist party is

not covered as workman. His engagement came to end at

end of day. His discontinuation doesnot amount to

retrenchment.

IInd party further submits that Ist party workman

was not continuously working. He has not completed 240

days continuous service. The allegation with respect to

nonpayment of wages as per rules has been denied. IInd

party reiterates that engagement of workman was of casual

nature. Workman was not under control and supervision

of Bank. On such grounds, IInd party prays for rejection

of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of Asstt. General Manager,

UCO Bank in terminating the

services of Shri Shiv Singh

Yadav w.e.f. 15-10-98 is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his service

for violation of section 25-F of I.D.Act, his services were

terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation was

not paid to him though he had completed more than 240

days continuous service preceding his termination. Above

contentions of workman are denied by the management. It

is denied that workman had completed 240 days

continuous service preceding 12 months of his termination.

Employer employee relationship is also denied. Workman

was engaged casually.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting

his contentions in statement of claim that he was

continuously working from 25-4-96 to 14-10-98. Then

Branch manager orally terminated his services from

15-10-98. He was not served with notice. Retrenchment

compensation was not paid to him. List of retrenched

employee was not displayed on notice board. Reason for

termination was not informed. In his cross-examination,

workman says that he had not received appointment letter.

He was appointed in place of Harcharan Singh therefore

he believed his appointment was regular. He was not told

period of his appointment. He was continuously working.

From re-examination of workman, documents Exhibit W-1,

W-2(1) to (27) vouchers are proved. In his further cross-

examination, workman says he had passed 8th standard.

Work of peon/sweeper was taken from him. He was paid

Rs.30/- per day. Other persons engaged in the Bank were

paid Rs.90/- per day. That he was doing all kinds of work

in the branch.

Management’s witness Shri Ramdin Verma

supported contentions of management in Written

Statement. That workman had not completed 240 days

continuous service preceding his disengagement.

Workman was engaged on daily wages. He was not

terminated. That old records about payment of

contingency expenses, vouchers are not in possession of

the Bank. The Bank has no record about engagement of

workman. He was never appointed against regular vacant

post as per recruitment rules. Any attendance register,

muster roll was not maintained. Said witness was not

produced for cross-examination.

10.

Rather affidavit of evidence of Shri R.K. Misuriya is

filed on same lines. Documents Exhibit M-1 to M-4 are

proved from his evidence. Those documents are relating

to recruitment policy. Management’s witness in his cross-

examination says during 25-4-96 to 15-10-98, he was posted

at Gwalior. That from 1-1-98, he was transferred to Ujjain.

He was never posted at extension branch Nayabazar, SAF

extension counter. He claims ignorance where workman

was engaged. That he is giving evidence as per documents.

That workman was working for 1-2 hours a day but

documents in that regard are not available. Said information

was received by him from other staff members. Wages

were paid under vouchers, its record are not available in

the Bank. After internal audit, vouchers used to be

destroyed. Management’s witness denies that after

discontinuation of workman, other persons were engaged

in his place. That regular peon was already working any

post is not vacant. Workman was not paid retrenchment

compensation. Termination notice was not given to him.

11.

Learned counsel for IInd party Shri Bhattacharya

submits that workman has not proved 240 days continuous

service, even if vouchers 2/1 to 2/27 are accepted. The

chart of working days as per the vouchers is submitted by

workman claiming that from November 1997 to October

1998, workman had worked for 278 days. Even I calculated

the working days shown in the chart. The working days

from 17-11-97 to October 98 comes more than 240 days.

Thus evidence of workman is supported by documentary

evidence Exhibit 2/1 to 2/27- payment vouchers. Workman

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

959

was not served with notice. He was not paid retrenchment

compensation.

12.

Learned counsel for IInd party Shri Bhattacharya

emphasized that workman has not completed 240 days

continuous service. In support of argument, reliance is

placed on ratio held in various cases-

Range Forest Officers Vs. S.T.Hadimani reported in

2002-SCC(L&S) 367, their Lordship dealing with

ownus and manner of proof held it was for the

claimant to lead evidence. Case of Karur Vysys Bank

Employees Union Versus Presiding Officer CGIT and

another reported in 1988 LAB.I.C.1746, their Lordship

held failure of employee to prove that he worked for

240 continuous days in a year provision of Section

25-F not attracted. In case of Surendranagar District

Panchayat versus Dahyabhai Amarsingh reported

in 2006-SCC9 L&S) 38, their Lordship held facts that

must be proved by workman to claim protection

under Section 25-F burden of proof lies on workman.

In present case evidence of workman is corroborated

by document Exhibit 2/1 to 2/27. The evidence is clear

about completion of 240 days continuous service

therefore ratio held in all above cited cases cannot be

beneficially applied to present case. Workman is terminated

without issuing notice, retrenchment compensation is not

paid to him, termination of services of workman is illegal.

For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Negative.

13.

Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No.1,

termination of service of workman is in violation of Section

25-F , as such question arises whether workman is entitled

for reinstatement with back wages. The evidence on record

shows workman worked for approximately 2 ½ years , he

was not appointed following recruitment process.

14.

Learned counsel for workman Shri Praveen Yadav

submitted copy of award in Case R/87 to 91 of 2000. The

facts in those cases were entirely different. The workmen

in those cases were engaged on monthly pay with

admissible DA, they were working from 91 to 99 for more

than 7 years. Ist party workman was engaged on daily

wages for about 2 ½ years therefore the award submitted

by counsel for Ist party cannot be followed for any

purpose.

15.

Learned counsel for IInd party Shri Bhattacharjee

submits that workman was not appointed following

recruitment rules, he is not entitled for reinstatement/

regularization.

Reliance is placed on award in R/157/01 and ratio

held in case of Pankaj and others versus State of

Jammu and Kashmir and others reported in

2004(9)SRJ103. The principles laid down are no

person illegally appointed or appointed without

following procedure prescribed under law should

be continued in service. Reliance is also placed in

case of State of Secretary, State of Karnataka and

others versus Umadevi (3) and others.

In present case, violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act

is established. However Ist party workman was engaged

on daily wages without following recruitment policy Exhibit

M-1 to M-4. Therefore reinstatement of workman would

not be appropriate. Considering the working days and

wages paid to workman in my considered view,

compensation Rs. 75,000/- would be proper. Accordingly I

record my finding in Point No.2.

16.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Asstt. General

Manager, UCO Bank in terminating the services of

Shri Shiv Singh Yadav w.e.f. 15-10-98 is not proper

and legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 75,000/-

to workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 358-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 13@98)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@286@97&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2015

S.O. 358.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/98)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Central

Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/286/97-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

960

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/13/98

Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu,

S/o Phoolchandra Sahu,

R/o Shakti Nagar,

Bareli, Distt. Raisen (MP)

...Workman

Versus

Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office, E-3/50, Arera Colony,

Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of January, 2015

As per letter dated 6-8/1/98 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/

286/97-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri

Santosh Kumar Sahu w.e.f. 1-9-96 is legal and

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

entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at page 3/1 to 3/2. Case of workman is that he was appointed

on post of peon at Bareli branch, Distt. Raisen of IInd

party on 1-1-1990. His appointment was not following the

rules. He worked with devotions. He was orally terminated

on 1-9-96 without assigning any reasons. That he was

doing cleaning work from 8 AM and in the evening till the

branch was closed. No charge sheet was issued to him.

He was not given opportunity of hearing before

termination of his service. He completed 240 days

continuous service preceding 12 months of his termination.

After termination of his service, IInd party engaged other

persons who is still working. That termination of his

service is illegal. On such ground workman prays for his

reinstatement with back wages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/4.

IInd party submits that the dispute doesnot exist between

parties. Workman was engaged from 1-1-190 at Bareli

branch as peon, working for 78 days. Workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service. It was not

necessary to give reason for termination of workman. The

engagement of workman was for specific period. It is

denied that workman was doing cleaning work from 8 AM

and evening till the branch was closed. IInd party submits

that workman was engaged on contract basis. After end

of the period of engagement, his services automatically

ended. Workman worked for 78 days in 1990, 9 days in

1991, 60 days in 1992, 31 days in 1993, 42 days in 1995 and

33 days in 1996 as peon and 40 days as sweeper. Provisions

of Section 25-F of ID Act are not applicable. Workman is

not eligible for appointment as regular peon. All adverse

contentions of workman are denied. IInd party prays that

reference be answered in its favour.

Workman filed rejoinder at Page 6/1 to 6/2 reiterating

his contentions in statement of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of Central Bank of India in

terminating the services of Shri

Santosh Kumar Sahu w.e.f. 1-9-96 is

legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his service

for violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. Management of

IInd party had denied all contentions of workman. Workman

filed affidavit of his evidence. He has stated that he was

appointed as peon on 1-1-90 in Bareli branch, Distt. Raisen.

After his interview, he worked with devotion. His services

were orally terminated from 1-10-96 without giving any

reasons. No charge sheet was issued to him, no enquiry

was conducted against him. He was not paid retrenchment

compensation. He completed 240 days continuous service.

Retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. He was

continuously working since his initial appointment. Notice

of termination was not given to him. After termination of

his service, IInd party engaged other persons. In his cross-

examination, workman says appointment letter was not

given to him. He denies that he was engaged for work as

per exigencies. He was paid wages under vouchers at end

of the month. He was paid wages for his working days. He

was not signing muster roll. His signatures were obtained

on some other small register in office of IInd party. He

denies that he not completed 240 days continuous service.

Termination order in writing was not given to him. Workman

had submitted application for production of documents

IInd party has not produced any documents.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of its witness

Shri B.L. Shrawan but said witness was not produced for

cross-examination therefore evidence of management’s

witness cannot be considered. I find no reason to

disbelieve evidence of workman that he completed 240

days continuous service. Management failed to produce

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

961

documents called by workman filing application. Evidence

of workman clearly shows that he was working as peon

from 1-1-90 to 1-9-96 for more than 6 years. His services

are terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation

is not paid to him. Therefore termination of service of

workman is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. For

above reasons I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Negative.

Point No.2- As per my finding on Point No,1, services

of workman are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of

I.D.Act, question arises whether workman should be

allowed reinstatement with back wages. Workman in his

cross-examination says he was not given appointment

letter. His signatures were not taken on muster roll. He

was signing on some other small register. Workman had

not produced any document about his appointment was

made after following selection process. Therefore the

reinstatement of Ist party workman would not be justified.

Learned counsel for workman Shri Srivastava relies

on ratio held in

Case of Deepali Gundu Surwase and Kranti Junior

Adhyapak and others reported in 2013(139)FLR 541.

The careful reading of above cited case shows that

the employ was dismissed conducting enquiry. The

case before their Lordship was not related to violation

of Section 25-F of ID Act therefore the ratio cannot

be applied to present case.

10.

Learned counsel for workman Shri R.C.Srivastava

also relies on ratio held in

Case of Director General Department of Sports and

Youth Affairs, Haryana and another Vs. Naresh Pal

and others reported in 2014(141)395. Divisional

bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court

considering non-compliance of Section 25-F

workman completing 240 days service, termination

without compliance of Section 25-F. the Labour Court

ordered reinstatement with continuity of service with

50 % back wages was upheld.

The facts of present case are not comparable. In

present case, the workman was paid wages under

vouchers. He was not signing muster register, he was

signing on small register in token of his attendance. Those

facts cumulatively shows that workman was not regular

employee and therefore ratio held in the case cannot be

applied to present case. Considering length of service of

workman, in my considered view, compensation

Rs.1,50,000/- would be appropriate. Accordingly I record

my finding in Point No.2.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Central Bank of

India in terminating the services of Shri Santosh

Kumar Sahu w.e.f. 1-9-96 is not proper.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs. 1,50,000/- to the workman within 30 days from

the date of publication of award.

In case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest

per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 359-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 57@99)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@34@98&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2015

S.O. 359.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/99)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab

National Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19/02/2015.

[No. L-12011/34/98-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/57/99

General Secretary,

Association of Punjab National

Bank Employees Central Office,

37, Bakshi Gali,

Indore

...Workman/Union

Versus

Regional Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Napier Town,

In front of Home Science College,

Wright Town, Jabalpu

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of January, 2015

As per letter dated 13-1-99 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

962

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12013/

34/98-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Punjab

National Bank in appointing Ku. Madhu Sinha, Teller

as Head Cashier Category “C” and not appointing

Shri T.S.Bawa to that post is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the said workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 4/1 to 4/3. Workman submits that he joined Punjab

National Bank at Shuivpuri branch as clerk on 4-9-81. On

his request, he was transferred to Satna branch and joined

said branch on 18-9-84. On 26-8-87, vacancy of Head

Cashier Cat-C occurred in Satna Branch. As per promotion

policy ad settlement, workman Bawa was eligible for

promotion of Head cashier Cat-“C”. That employee

working as Teller cannot be taken for the post of Head

Cashier Cat “C” violating settled position. Miss Madhulata

Sinha working as Teller was wrongly posted as Head

Cashier Cat “C” on 26-8-87. That Bawa, workman used to

be allowed to officiate as Head cashier Cat “C”. It is

submitted that denial of workman to the post of Head

cashier Cat “C” was confirmed by Regional Manager

Jabalpur. Workman then taken matter with Regional

Manager of the Bank vide representation dated 18-12-93,

28-12-93. His representations were not considered. It is

reiterated that Miss Madhulata Sinha was working as Teller

was illegally posted as Head Cashier Cat “C” at the relevant

time, workman was working as Sr.most clerk-cum-cashier.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/7.

Preliminary objection is raised by IInd party that workman

is not member of the Association. Union was not

authorized to raise dispute. General secretary of Union is

not competent to raise dispute on behalf of Union. The

dispute raised by workman suffers from delay and latches.

It is submitted that Bawa joined as clerk-cum-cashier at

Satna branch on 18-9-84 on transfer. Vacancy of Head

cashier Cat “C” arose in Satna branch on 26-8-87. That

Miss Madhulata Sinha was senior most in the branch.

Workman was allowed designation of Teller in place of

Miss Madhulata Sinha. She was posted as Head cashier

Cat “C”. The post of Teller become vacant. During absence

of Miss Madhulala, workman used to officiate post of

Head Cashier Cat “C”. From 1-1-1993, he was not allowed

to officiate the post of Head Cashier Cat “C” as it came to

the knowledge of Regional Office that Tellers are not

eligible for officiating post of Head Cashier Cat “C”. it is

reiterated that in 1993, when post of Head Cashier Cat

“C”fell vacant, workman was working as Teller therefore

he could not be appointed on said post. It is submitted

that Shri Sinha was wrongly given promotion. She was

designated as Teller at that time.

That service conditions of Bank employees are

covered by awards, bipartite settlement, Chapter V deals

with special allowance related matters applicable to staff.

It is further submitted that the Bank had signed settlement

dated 16-6-73 with employees federation. The Head Cashier

in branch office controlling strength 2,3,4, cashier in cash

section shall be paid allowance of Head Cashier Cat “C”

on basis of seniority in town as unit. That employees

working as Teller are excluded for posting as Head Cashier

Cat “C” as per settlement dated 30-9-82. It is further

submitted that Ist party workman Bawa joined Bank as

cashier-cum-clerk in Shivpuri on 4-7-81. That the vacancy

of Head cashier Cat C also occurred on 24-12-93. At that

time, Bawa was working as Teller. He was not eligible for

the post of Head Cashier Cat “C”. The claim of Ist party

workman for post of Head Cashier Cat “C” from 24-12-93

is denied. IInd party prays that Union raised dispute to

cause harassment to the management by misusing legal

process. On such grounds IInd party prays that reference

be answered in its favour.

Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 10/1 to 10/6

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of Punjab National Bank in

appointing Ku. Madhu Sinha, Teller

as Head Cashier Category “C” and

not appointing Shri T.S.Bawa to that

post is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Workman raised dispute regarding denial of post of

Head Cashier Category “C” to him and posting Miss

Madulata as Head Cashieir Cat “C” from 26-8-87. Ist party

workman also relies on policy that Teller cannot be posted

as Head cashier Cat “C”. Miss Madhulata was working as

Teller when she was posted as Head Cashier Cat “C”.

management did not dispute that employee working as

Teller cannot be posted as Head cashier Cat “C”

Management had committed wrong while posting Miss

Madhulala as Head Cashier Cat “C”.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting

his claim. That he joined Satna Branch on 18-9-84. The

post of Head Cashier Cat “C” fell vacant at Satna branch.

As sr. most clerk covered cashier, he should have been

posted on said post as per Circular No. 672/82. However

Miss Madhulata was working as Teller was posted from

16-8-87. When again post of Head Cashier Cat-C fell vacant

on 24-12-93, he was not posted. He was victimized, he was

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

963

subjected to mental harassment by the management. In

his cross-examination, Ist party workman says that he was

transferred to Satna Branch. The post of Head Cashier

Cat-C carries extra allowance. Miss Madhulala was posted

on said post from 1987. When she was on leave, he was

officiating said post. That he was posted as Teller from

1987. He was working as CTO equivalent to Teller. As per

settlement, posts were absorbed and Teller was converted

to CTO. He did not recollect date of settlement. Workman

claims ignorance of settlement dated 30-9-82.

Witness No.2 Baldev Prasad Union President in his

affidavit of evidence has stated that he is working

President of the Union and Union raised dispute as per

instructions received from Central Office. In his cross-

examination, he says original resolution is not produced.

No documents are supported by him. that he is office

bearer of the Union. The document on record Page 12/6 is

letter given by General secretary about office bearer of the

Union, name of witness is appearing as Working President.

Workman himself as participated in reference proceeding.

He has filed affidavit of his evidence therefore

management’s objection to the reference cannot be

accepted.

10.

Management’s witness Shri Jagannath Simhachalam

in his affidavit says Bawa joined Satna branch on 18-9-84,

vacancy of Head cashier arose on 26-8-87. Miss Madhulala

Sinha due to her posting as Head Cashier, Cat-C, vacancy

of Teller arose, it is clear from his evidence in cross-

examination that circular dated 26-3-81 employee working

as Teller cannot be posted as Head Cashier Cat “C”. his

further cross-examination shows town seniority is

considered for promotion to Head Cashier Cat “C”. Head

Cashier Cat C is selected excluding employee working as

Teller. The circular is produced at Exhibit W-R. Miss

Madhulata was having designation of Teller when she

was posted as Head Clerk-cum-Cashier Cat “C”. he further

admits that Miss Madhulala working as Teller who have

been excluded for promotion to the post of Head Cashier

cat C. the evidence of management’s witness itself gives

blow to the case of management that Madhulata was

working as Teller when she was posted as Head Cashier

Cat “C”. The Circular Exhibit W-1 clearly excludes Tellers

for posting to the post of Head Cashier Cat “C”. Madhulata

was illegally promoted to said post and the workman was

denied said post in violation of the circular.

11.

Therefore at time subsequent vacancy in 1993,

workman was working as Teller. It was the reason he was

not posted as Head Cashier Cat “C”. In 1987, he was

discriminated and Miss Madhulata was promoted to said

post discriminating the workman. in 1993, management

denied said post to the workman pointing out exclusion of

Teller for promotion to the post of Head Cashier Cat “C”.

his discrimination started at the time of first denial of

promotion in 1987 and it was perpetuated in 1993 again.

During course of argument Shri A.K. Shashi was fair in

submissions that as per circular dated 30-9-82, Madhulata

was wrongly given posting of Head Cashier Cat “C” .

When she was working on allowance carrying post of

Teller, she was not entitled to post of cashier. However

wrong action was committed by management, it could not

be perpetuated in 1993 when post again fell vacant. The

argument advanced cannot be accepted wholly as wrong

committed by management while posting Madhulata as

Head cashier Cat C in 1987, workman was illegally

discriminated. The initial illegalities cannot be a ground

for denying relief claimed by workman.

12.

Shri A.K.Shashi, Advocate relies on ratio held in

“Case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd versus

K.P.Madhavankutty reported in AIR 2000 SC 839.

The facts of the case before their Lordship were

different. Employees dismissed from service after

enquiry, remedy of appeal availed by them

unsuccessfully after 7 years, the employees

complaining of discrimination on ground that two

other dismissed employees were reinstated by Bank.

In present case, workman was denied promotion to

the post of Head Cashier Cat C in 1987 and he continued

to submit representations even after the post fell vacant

in 1993, therefore the ratio cannot be applied to the present

case.

Next reliance is placed on ratio held in case of Post

Master General, Kolkata and others versus Tutu Das

reported in 2007(5) SCC 317. The ratio held in the

case relates to illegal grant of regularization to

similarly situated person doesnot create entitlement

to regularization.

The ratio cannot be applied to present case as facts

are not comparable.

13.

Considering the evidence discussed above and

circular Exhibit W-1, Miss Madhulata was promoted to

the post of Head Cashier Cat C discriminating the workman.

The action of the management cannot be said proper and

legal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1

in Negative.

14.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1, Ist

party workman was discriminated. The illegality started in

1987, consequently workman was posted as Teller and

subsequently working as DTO. Discrimination against

workman cannot be sustained. Workman deserves posting

as Head Cashier Cat “C”. However as workman was not

actually working, benefit of difference of allowance cannot

be allowed. Accordingly I record my finding on Point No.2.

15 In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Punjab National

Bank in appointing Ku. Madhu Sinha, Teller as Head

Cashier Category “C” and not appointing Shri

T.S.Bawa to that post is not legal and proper.

964

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2)

IInd party is directed to give deemed posting of

Head Cashier Cat-”C” to workman from 26-8-87, the

date from which Miss Madhulata Sinha was posted

as Head cashier. Difference be paid to workman

within 30days of publication of award.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 360-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 52@04)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@14@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2015

S.O. 360.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/04)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Central

Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/14/2004-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/52/04

Shri Asharam Prajapati,

S/o Kishan Prajapati,

Vill Harakheda, Tehsil Berasia,

Bhopal

...Workman

Versus

Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office, Arera Hills,

Jail Road, Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 20th day of January 2015

As per letter dated 31-5-04 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/

14/2004-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Regional

Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office,

Bhopal in terminating the services of shri Asharam

Prajapati S/o Shri Kishan Prajapati w.e.f. 11-4-2001

is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled

for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page

3/1 to 3/4. Case of workman is that he was regularly

working with IInd party from December 97. He was paid

Rs. 3548.60 per month inclusive of DA, Basic Pay, HRA,

CCA allowance. He was working till 11-4-01. His services

were abruptly dispensed because of arbitrary decision

taken by the management of Central Bank. He submits

that he is qualified for post of peon. Despite there was

vacancy of sanctioned post of peon in the Bank. His

services were discontinued. That he worked more than

280 days in a year. His service record was unblemished.

Termination of his service is in violation of Section 25-F of

ID Act. Workman was illegally retrenched without

complying provisions of ID Act. Workman submits that

he is unemployed after termination from service. He claims

reinstatement with back wages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/8.

IInd party submits that workman was very appointed as

peon in the Bank. There is no employer employee

relationship between parties. The claim of workman is

vague and it deserves to be rejected. It is denied that

workman was peon on daily wages from Dec-97 to 11-4-

01. It is denied that workman was paid monthly salary of

Rs.3548.60. it is denied that sanctioned post was lying

vacant in shahapura branch. Workman was not appointed

as peon. There was no question of termination of his

service. Workman was engaged as casual labour in Bank.

His services were of casual nature as and when required.

The working days are shown in Para-18 of the Written

Statement. Workman had worked total 175 days from 1997

to 2001. He had not completed 240 days service. The

contentions in statement of claim are wrong. IInd party

prays for rejection of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the manage-

In Affirmative

ment of Regional Manager, Central

Bank of India, Regional Office,

Bhopal in terminating the services

of shri Asharam Prajapati S/o

Shri Kishan Prajapati w.e.f. 11-4-2001

is justified?

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

965

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

Workman is

entitled to?”

not entitled

to any relief.

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his service

for violation of of Section 25-F of ID.Act. IInd party denied

regular appointment on sanctioned post of the workman it

is case of IInd party that workman was engaged on casual

basis as and when required. Workman filed affidavit of

his evidence. He has stated that he was continuously

working with IInd party from Dec-97 to 11-4-01. He was

paid monthly salary Rs.3548.60. he was orally discontinued

from service in violation of provisions of ID Act. In his

cross-examination workman says he studied 8th standard.

He submitted his affidavit in Hindi was prepared by his

Advocate. He had not appeared in any examination for his

appointment, his name was enrolled in employment

exchange office but his name was not send to Employment

Exchange. Workman re-affirms that he was paid monthly

salary. Appointment letter was not given to him. Workman

admits that he was engaged by management on contract

basis. He did not recollect who had got him employed in

the Bank. He denies that he worked only for 175 days in

the Bank.

Management’s witness Shri A.K.Jain filed affidavit

of his evidence on the basis of documents seen by him.

He has denied that workman was engaged as peon from

Dec-97 to 11-4-01. The payment of monthly salary

Rs. 3548.60 is also denied. As per record, workman had

worked for total 175 days. Workman was working for 1-2

hours in a day. Workman was not employed following

selection process. In his cross-examination, management’s

witness says he was not posted in the Shahpur branch

during Dec-97 to 11-4-01. It is denied that workman was

working in said branch during above said period. He claims

ignorance whether workman was paid Rs.3548.60 per

month. He filed affidavit of his evidence on the basis of

documents. Management’s witness denies documents

shown in his cross-examination. The evidence of workman

and management’s witness is on oath. Workman has not

produced any documents, any co-employee is not

examined. The onus lies on workman to prove 240 days

continuous service during Dec-97 to 11-4-01. The evidence

of workman is not supported by documents or evidence

of co-employ is not sufficient to prove his claim. Therefore

I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Bhopal in

terminating the services of Shri Asharam Prajapati

S/o shri Kishan Prajapati w.e.f. 11-4-2001 is proper

and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 361-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk cSad ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 14@2010) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@103@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2015

S.O. 361.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2010)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Dena Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 19/02/2015.

[No. L-12011/103/2009-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/14/2010

The Vice President,

Bank Employees Federation Chhattisgarh (BEFI),

Central office, C/o Dena Bank,

Gudhiari Branch,

Raipur

...Workman/Union

Versus

The CMD,

Dena Bank Head Office,

Dena Corporate Centre,

C-10, S-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra East,

Mumbai

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5th day of January 2015

As per letter dated 15-1-2010 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12011/

103/2009/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Dena

Bank in punishing Shri Brij Mohan Chaudhary, Dena

Bank Durg Branch with punishment of stoppage of

one increment with cumulative effect vide order No.

966

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

RA.KSHE.KA/KARMIK/864 dated 25-8-03 of AGM

and Disciplinary Authority Den Bank is justified.

whether the action of the management in not giving

the post of clerk on the plea of his misconduct and

punishment imposed is justified. What relief he is

entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party filed statement of claim. He is

proceeded exparte on 5-9-12.

IInd party filed exparte Written Statement. It is

submitted by IInd party that dispute raised by workman

relates to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect

vide order dated 25-8-03. That workman was given

opportunity of filing statement of claim but he has failed

to submit his statement of claim. That workman is in habit

of disobeying orders of his seniors. Chargesheet was

issued to him on 10-3-00. That he committed in-disciplined

act disobeying orders of his officers, damaging image of

Bank and habitually committing such acts. Reply by

workman was not found satisfactory. Shri R.B.Sharma was

appointed as Enquiry Officer and this was informed to

Shri Brij Mohan Choudhary vide order dated15-2-02. Shri

S.K.Saniyal was engaged as Defence Representative

enquiry was conducted on various dates. Details given in

Para-6 of the Written Statement. Enquiry Officer submitted

his report on 2-1-2013 holding workman guilty of charges.

Report was sent to workman. he submitted representation

on 18-2-03. Workman was granted personal hearing.

Punishment of stopping one increment was imposed.

Appeal preferred by workman was rejected. That workman

had appeared for promotion from subordinate cadre to

clerical cadre on 10-3-02. Workman passed in promotion

test. His result was kept in abeyance till enquiry was

completed and punishment imposed vide memo dated

28-8-03 for his act of gross misconduct committed and

charges framed against him. Accordingly promotion of

workman stands cancelled vide order dated 17-7-02.

Punishment is imposed as charges against workman are

proved in Enquiry Proceedings.

The points which arise for my consideration and

determination are as under. My findings are recorded

against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i)

whether the action of the manage-

In Affirmative

ment of Dena Bank in stopping

of one increment with cumulative

effect vide order dated 25-8-03 in

not giving the post of clerk on

the plea of his misconduct and

punishment imposed is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

Workman is

entitled to?”

not entitled

to any relief.

REASONS

Despite of notices issued to workman, he failed to

submit his statement of claim. Workman has proceeded

exparte on 5-9-2012. Management filed affidavit of witness

Shri Ashok Kumar Verma giving details of enquiry

conducted against workman. the evidence of

management’s witness is unchallenged. I find no reason

to disbelieve his evidence. The record of Enquiry

Proceedings is produced at Exhibit M-1 to M-17. Workman

has failed to participate in reference proceeding. Therefore

his contentions cannot be accepted. For above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Dena Bank in

stopping of one increment with cumulative effect

vide order dated 25-8-03 in not giving the post of

clerk on the plea of his misconduct and punishment

imposed is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 362-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 157@2000)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@166@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2015

S.O. 362.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 157/

2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Central

Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19/02/2015.

[No. L-12011/166/2000-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/157/2000

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

967

General Secretary,

Daily Wages Bank Employees Association,

Hardev Niwas,9, Sanwer Road,

Ujjain

...Workman/Union

Versus

Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office,

6/3, Race Course Road,

Indore

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of November, 2014

As per letter dated 22-8-00 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12011/

166/2000/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India in terminating Shri Mukesh Kalsekar

w.e.f. 17-3-99 and denied to regularize his services is

legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim at Page

4/1 to 4/4. Case of workman is that he was engaged as

peon by IInd party from 29-9-85. He worked with devotion.

He was called by management in his cabin and told that

there should not be record of his working more than 60

days in a year. That he had worked for 60 days, in future

whenever appointments are made for permanent post, he

will be called. That he was again called through peon on

26-4-87. Workman worked for 60 days from 27-4-87 to

25-1-88. During 1985-86 & 87-88, he worked 70 days, 60

days with IInd party. In 1991, he was engaged for 60 days

as peon. On 14-3-93, he was called for test conducted for

appointment of permanent post. He was interviewed on

12-7-93. His name was included at Sl. No. 6 in the panel

list. Workman has given details of his working days on

pay scale and daily wages in para-14 of his statement of

claim.

Workman submits that sometimes he was paid wages

Rs.45/-, 60/-. He was not paid bonus under Section-8 of

Payment of Bonus Act.

Workman further submits after his name was

included in Waiting List, he was engaged time to time for

16-60 days. He was paid wages Rs. 45-60. On 28-8-87, he

has submitted representation to ALC, Bhopal for payment

of bonus amount. During conciliation proceedings, IInd

party submitted that the waiting list have been deemed

alive. The certificate of 290 days working was submitted

by workman. He has also offered not to claim back wages

if he reinstated in service. Workman submits that he

completed 240 days continuous service till period 20-8-87

to 17-3-99. On such ground, workman prays for

appointment of permanent post, reinstatement with back

wages, recovery of bonus from IInd party.

For appointment on permanent post and recovery

of bonus is beyond the terms of reference. The terms of

reference relates only to legality of his termination.

IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page 7/1

to 7/3. IInd party has denied workman was working for 60

days intermittently a pleaded. Workman was engaged

only on daily wages. It is denied that workman had

completed 240 days continuous service alleged by

workman. It is denied that workman had completed 299

days working during 97-98. Workman is not entitled to

bonus. On such ground, IInd party prays for rejection of

claim.

Workman filed rejoinder at page 8/1 to 8/3 reiterating

its contentions in statement of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

“Whether the action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of Central Bank of India in

terminating Shri Mukesh Kalsekar

w.e.f. 17-3-99 and denied to regularize

his services is legal and justified?

(ii) If so, to what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Terms of reference relates to legality of termination

of workman and denying regularization. Workman filed

affidavit of his evidence. Workman has stated that he

worked for 60 days each in 85, 86 & . he was called for

written test on 14-3-93. He was interviewed on 12-7-93, his

name was included in panel at Sl. No.6. he was continuously

working more than 240 days during 20-8-97 to 18-3-99.

Management remained absent and failed to cross-examine

workman. His evidence remained unchallenged.

Management failed to adduce any evidence. Workman

has produced certified copies of order sheet in R/27/04,

certified copy of Exhibit W-1 in R/11/04. Certified copies

of Exhibit W-2 to W-5 in R/11/04. Exhibit W-2 shows marks

allotted for test. Exhibit W-1 shows eligibility of part time

employees working 90 days during 1982 to 1990. Certified

copy of Exhibit w-4 shows name of Ist party workman

appearing at Sl. No. 6. The evidence of workman is

corroborated by those documents. Certified copies of

conciliation proceedings in R/11/04 is also produced.

Considering unchallenged evidence of workman and failure

of IInd party to adduce evidence, I donot find reason to

discard evidence of workman. After name of workman was

968

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

included in select list at Sl.No.6, management has advised

why the workman was not given permanent appointment.

The reasons for termination of workman are not disclosed.

Workman has completed 240 days continuous service

during 20-8-97 to 18-3-99. His services are terminated

without notice, retrenchment compensation is also not

paid to him. Said act of the management of IInd party is in

violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. For above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

10.

Point No.2- The termination of services of workman

is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. In view of my

finding on Point No.1, name of workman was included in

panel list at Sl. No.6. workman was entitled for permanent

appointment as per bipartite settlement. Instead of

regularizing his services, IInd party had terminated service

of workman without notice, no retrenchment compensation

is paid to him. Evidence of workman is silent what he is

doing after termination of his service, how he is

maintaining his family. Management has also not

participated in the reference. No evidence is adduced by

management on the point of gainful employment of

workman. Workman cannot be allowed to take advantage

of backwages. Only reinstatement of workman would be

appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Central Bank of

India in terminating Shri Mukesh Kalsekar w.e.f.

17-3-99 and denied to regularize his services is not

legal and proper.

(2)

IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with

continuity of service in terms of settlement dated

24-12-90. However workman would not be entitled

to back wages.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 363-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk cSad ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 247@97) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@399@89&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2015

S.O. 363.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 247/

97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Dena Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 19/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/399/89-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/247/97

Vice President,

M.P.Bank Employees Association Union,

C/o State Bank of Indore Branch

T.T.Nagar,

Bhopal

...Workman

Versus

Regional Manager,

Dena Bank, Regional Office,

Kukreja Bhawan, 107,

Barsaiya Road,

Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 26th day of November, 2014

As per letter dated 10-2-97 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/

399/89/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Dena

Bank in debarring Shri S.K.Gaur to appear in

promotion test and stoppage of two increment with

cumulative effect and one increment with non-

cumulative effect is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the said workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 6/1 to 6/13. Terms of reference relates to legality of

punishment – stoppage of two increments with cumulative

effect and one increment without cumulative effect. The

punishments were imposed holding enquiry on 3

chargesheets issued to workman dated 21-12-82, 20-9-85

and 11-10-85. Applicant’s case is he was selected and

appointed as cashier cum clerk in IInd party No.2 in June

1978. His services are covered by Bipartite settlements.

On 21-12-1982, chargesheet was issued to him while he

was working as cashier incharge temporarily at T.T.Nagar,

Bhopal. Filing reply to chargesheet, he denied allegations

against him. Shri Vijay was appointed as Enquiry Officer.

He submitted findings that charges were proved without

proper reasons. On report of Enquiry Officer, penalty of

warnings and stoppage of two increments was imposed

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

969

on 24-8-84. In appeal preferred by workman said

punishment was modified to stoppage of one increment

without cumulative effect. Workman was not allowed to

appear promotion test to Officer Grade I held in January

1985.

Workman further submits that second chargsheet

was issued to him on 20-9-85 alleging disorderly and

indecent behavior by him with Shri L.P.Joshi Personal

Officer. Tampering of Attendance register was also alleged.

He submitted reply to said chargesheet on 4-9-85. Instead

of considering his explanation, enquiry was conducted n

mechanical manner. Enquiry Officer submitted his report

on 11-2-1987 holding that charges were proved against

him. Workman submits that enquiry were not properly

conducted. The findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse.

He was not supplied list of documents causing prejudice

in his defence.. Enquiry Officer was biased. Workman

further submits that he was served another chargesheet

on 11-10-1985 alleging willful insubordinate reasonable

orders of the management ritious and indecent behavior

in premises of Bank on 1-10-85. Workman submitted reply

denying the charges. Formal enquiry was conducted and

Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Copy of report of

Enquiry Officer was not supplied to him. Workman

submits that enquiry was not properly conducted. He was

not supplied list of documents. In chargesheet, findings

of Enquiry Officer are perverse. In view of report of Enquiry

Officer, punishment of stoppage of two increments with

cumulative effect was imposed on 26-5-87.

Workman preferred appeal on 19-11-87 without

proper consideration, the penalty was imposed against

him. Order of punishment are illegal and unjustified and

deserves to be set-aside. Workman has reiterated he has

not supplied copies of relevant documents, list of

witnesses. The enquiry was not conducted as per

procedure prescribed in bipartite settlement. Workman

suffered prejudice in his defence. Workman has also

contented violation of Article 309 to 311 of the Constitution.

Disciplinary Authority did not assign any reasons for his

conclusions while imposing punishment. Statements of

witnesses reveal charges have not been established.

Findings of Enquiry Officer are based on conjuctures and

surmises. On such ground, Ist party workman prays for

setting aside the punishment of stoppage of increment

imposed against him.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to

9/14. IInd party submits that workman was terminated

during his probation period on 26-10-78 for various

irregularities committed by him at Khandwa branch. On

undertaking submitted by workman, he was re-appointed

on 20-11-78. It is submitted that chargesheet dated 21-12-

82 was issued to workman for late attendance on 29-11-82

and leaving cashier’s key in drawer of cashier’s cabin

alleged to be gross negligence. Shri S.L.Vijay was

appointed as Enquiry Officer. Workman had participated

in Enquiry Proceedings. On 27-8-84, punishment of

warning of charge No.1 and stoppage of two increments

for charge No.2 was imposed. In appeal, said punishment

was modified to stoppage of one annual increment without

cumulative effect as per order dated 18-1-85.

2nd chargesheet was issued to workman on 20-9-85

for heated argument with Personal Officer Shri L.P.Joshi

and created riotous, disorderly and indecent scene in the

premises of the Bank, 3rd was tampering with attendance

denied charges against him filing reply. Shri A.A.Parikh

was asstt. Regional manager appointed as Appointing

Officer and Shri R.C.Gupta as Presenting Officer. Workman

submitted application for change of Enquiry Officer,

disposed as per order dated 10-1-96. Enquiry Officer was

disposed as per order dated 10-1-96. Enquiry Officer

submitted report that charges against workman are proved.

3rd charge was issued to workman on 11-10-85 for

allegation of willful insubordination and disorderly

behavior on 1-10-85. Shri Parikh was appointed as Enquiry

Officer and Shri L.P.Joshi, Presenting Officer. Enquiry

Officer submitted report charges against workman are

proved. Punishment on both chargesheets were imposed.

That stoppage of one annual increment each for charges

leveled in both chargesheet. Thus stoppage of two

increments was imposed. IInd party submits that enquiry

was properly conducted. Workman is habitual in

disobeying the orders of his superior. Punishment of

stoppage of increment is proper and legal. All adverse

contentions of workman are denied. It is further submitted

that in case DE is found vitiated, management be permitted

to prove misconduct leading evidence in Court. It is

reiterated that all charges were issued properly, enquiry

was properly conducted. It is denied that documents or

list of witnesses were not supplied to workman. It is prayed

that reference be answered in favour of management.

As per order dated 3-12-12, enquiry w.r.t. chargesheet

dated 21-12-82 was found legal and enquiry w.r.t.

chargesheet dated 20-9-85, 11-10-85 found illegal.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the charges against

In Affirmative

workman in chargesheet dated

21-12-82 are proved?

(ii)

Whether management of IInd

In Affirmative

party proves misconduct alleged

in chargesheet dated 20-9-85,

11-10-85?

970

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iii)

Whether rejection of permission

In Affirmative

to appear in promotion test of

workman is legal?

(iv)

If so, to what relief the workman

Workman is

is entitled to?”

not entitled

to any relief.

REASONS

10.

As discussed above, the terms of reference and

pleadings in statement of claim and Written Statement

submitted by parties clearly shows that the punishment

of stoppage of increment imposed on workman in

pursuance of chargesheet issued to him dated 21-12-82,

20-9-85 & 11-10-85. The enquiry w.r.t. chargesheet dated

21-12-82 is found legal and proper. Therefore the question

arises whether the charges alleged against workman are

proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings or findings

of Enquiry Officer are perverse. For deciding above

question, evidence in Enquiry proceedings needs to be

considered. Workman has produced documents at Exhibit

W-1 to W-14. Management also filed documents M-1 to

M-29 is filed. The evidence of management’s witness Shri

N.P.Arora in Enquiry Proceedings at Page 18 onwards. At

page 19, said witness says since they were waiting for

Shri S.K.Gaur, Mr. D.K.Rathore, Daily wages subordinate

informed us that you can open the cash as the keys re

lying in the drawer of the cash cabin. Shri S.K.Gaur

workman came and he opened the same. His evidence is

further clear that on said day. Shri S.K.Gaur reported at

10.45 AM. The witness had come to office at 10.15 AM.

The evidence of said witness that workman had come to

office at 10.45 AM, the key of cashiers cabin were lying in

drawer is not shattered in his cross-examination. The

evidence of management’s witness is clear that workman

started shouting and abused that he will set him right.

That the workman was asked for his explanation. He

endorsed copy of Exhibit M-3 to Regional Office. The

witness did not remember whether workman submitted

any explanation. His cross-examination of said witness

clearly shows that they observed time of coming to every

employee that he was in branch premises at his seat, he

had come at 10.15 AM. That Mr. Rathore was asking to

find out the keys. That they were anxiously waiting for

workman since they were in hurry to open cash. Workman

was not asked why he came late. The evidence of

management’s witness V.S.Sood at Page 27 onwards

corroborates evidence of Shri N.P.Arora. that the workman

was late. He attended office at 10.45 AM. The witness had

put remark in muster roll in that respect. His further

evidence shows that workman was working as cashier

cum clerk on said date. That cashier was responsible to

keep keys of the safe in his custody. That the safe was

opened in morning at 10.AM. on 29-11-82, it was opened

at 10.45 AM. His evidence on material point is not shattered

in his cross-examination. Said witness in his cross-

examination says on 29-11-82 cash transaction started at

10.45 AM. Evidence of Defence Witnesses who tried to

support contentions of workman cannot be accepted

rejecting evidence of the management’s witnesses. For

above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1in

Affirmative.

11.

Point No. 2, 3- As discussed above, separate

chargesheet were issued to workman on 21-12-82, 20-9-85

& 11-10-85 regarding ritious indecent behaviour of

workman and tampering register. The enquiry w.r.t. those

chargesheet is held vitiated therefore the evidence in

Enquiry Proceedings couldnot be considered for deciding

whether charges against workman in respective

chargesheet was proved. Management filed affidavit of

evidence of witness Shri L.P.Joshi. the management’s

witness Shri L.P.Joshi says he had given evidence in DE

against workman on 23-8-85. Workman was worked as

cashier cum clerk in Regional Office, FCI, Bhopal. Workman

come to him requesting no objection certificate to be

produced. At about 4.30 PM, he informed workman that

certificate can be issued after due verification of particulars

mentioned in the certificate and it will take time. Workman

was irritated because he wanted certificate immediately.

The witness further says workman again came at 5.15P.M

and he was not satisfied with the designation clerk cum

cashier. Though according to the witness, it was the same

thing. An employee in clerical cadre is given dual

designation. Witness further says workman started

shouting, arguing. The witness told him that he worked in

so many places and public sector industries but he never

came across such a behaviour of a clerk to his officer. He

shouted few words “ aise officeron ko to jute marna

chahiye”. The witness tried to physically assault and

therefore I intended to call police for my safety but

dropped the idea on the suggestion of my fellow

colleagues. The witness says that he being personnel

officer in the region is supposed to mark timing of the late

comers as well as leave in the attendance register. Shri

Gaur did not turnup to office on 5th, 10th, 21st as late as

12.30 PM and on 22nd, he did not report up to 11.45 AM.

Keeping in view sufficient leave in his credit, he marked

him leave on 5th, 10th & 21st. he marked his attendance

on the above dates overwriting the timing on the marking

of leave. He also remained on leave on 24th August 1985.

Management witness in his cross-examination says he

retired as DGM on 31-10-2010. At that time, workman was

posted at Bhopal. Despite arose in respect of issuance of

NOC for outside job. That the NOC was issued after

verifying contents on same day. Copy of NOC was kept

on record. he did not see it before preparing this affidavit.

In his further cross-examination, management’s witness

did not remember whether he submitted complaint in writing

as incident was very old. He did not filed his complaint on

record. though NOC was issued to workman, he did not

join service at other place. The evidence of management’s

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

971

witness that workman had abused by saying “Aise

officeron ko to jute marna chahiye” is not shattered. I find

no reason to disbelieve his evidence.

12.

Workman has submitted affidavit of his evidence

on the point that he was not supplied documents, no

opportunity was given of personal hearing relates to

finding on preliminary issues. However in his cross-

examination, the workman says he was denied promotion

to appear in test for promotion to officer grade. Relevant

circular is produced by workman dated Exhibit W-14.

Clause 12.2 provides- “Any employee who has been

punished for gross misconduct under the provisions

of the bipartite settlement shall not be eligible for

promotion for a period of three (3) years from the

date of such punishment after the expiry of which

he will have to reappear for the next written trade

test.”

For reasons discussed above, I find no substance

in the contentions of workman.

Learned counsel for Ist party Shri Pathak during

course of argument referred to ratio held in case of

S.K.Singh versus Central Bank of India reported in

1996(6) SCC 415. Said citation is not made available

for my perusal.

Learned counsel for IInd party Shri A.K.Shashi on

the point of powers of Labour Court under Section

11-A of I.D.Act relies on ratio held in case of

Managing Director, Balasheb Desai Sahakari

S.K.Limited versus Kashinath Ganapati Kambale

reported in 2009(2) SCC 288. Their Lordship held

Labour Court exercising its jurisdiction under the

Act is entitled to consider whether punishment

awarded is wholly disproportionate to the delinquent

employee or not. Discretion vested in it must be

exercised in a judicious manner.”

In present case, the charges against workman in all

3 chargesheets are proved. Considering the proves

charges, workman tampered attendance register, he was

late in attendance, he left cash cabin key in the drawer.

The punishment of stoppage of increments modified in

appeal cannot be said disproportionate. Therefore I record

my finding in Point No.2,3,4 in Affirmative.

13.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(i)

The action of the management of Dena Bank in

debarring Shri S.K.Gaur to appear in promotion test

and stoppage of two increment with cumulative

effect and one increment with non-cumulative effect

is legal and proper.

(ii)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 364-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eè; jsyos ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 94@98) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@232@97&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2015

S.O. 364.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 94/98)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Central

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19/02/2015.

[No. L-41012/232/97-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/94/98

Shri Ramcharan,

S/o Hazari Lal,

Nai Basti, Nanak Ward,

Gali No.2,

Bina (MP)

...Workman

Versus

The Asstt. Engineer (M),

Central Railway,

Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11th day of November, 2014

As per letter dated 28-5-98 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-41012/

232/97-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of AEN(M),

Central Railway, Bhopal in terminating the services

of Shri Ramcharan S/o Hazarilal w.e.f. 16-6-90 on the

basis of fake card is justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled for?

972

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at page 2/1 to 2/5. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

working in Railway since 1980. In 1988, he was working as

MRCL under PWI, Central Railway Bhopal. Chargesheet

was issued to him on 29-10-88. His services were terminated

on the ground that he secured appointment producing

false service card. Workman challenged his termination

filing petition OA No. 297/91 before CAT Jabalpur. By

judgement dated 4-4-96, order of his termination was

quashed and the matter was remitted back to the

department for enquiry.

It is further submitted that enquiry was conducted

against him contrary to principles of natural justice. He

was removed from service. Appeal preferred by him was

rejected. The order of unishment of removal is illegal.

party workman submits allegation against him that

he secured appointment order producing false Card No.

263460 Shri K.P. Sharma was examined as management’s

witness in enquiry. Said witness has not produced one

LTI Register in which left hand thump impression of casual

labour is to be obtained. In said register, his thump

impression was not available. It was further alleged that

workman had not worked under PWI Satna in 1988

therefore Service card no. 207777 produced by him was

alleged to be false. According to workman, finding of

Enquiry Officer is perverse. The entries in record shows

he was working under PWI, Sagar, Loco Foreman, Bhopal,

IOW Bina. The management’s witness says that workman

was not working at Satna at relevant time. He has no

knowledge about the facts and circumstances of the case.

It is further contented that enquiry was not properly

conducted. He was not given proper opportunity for his

defence. Enquiry was conducted in hectic manner. On

ground, workman prayed for his reinstatement with back

wages from 16-6-90.

IInd party management filed Written Statement at

Page 3/1 to 3/4 denying claim of the workman. IInd party

submits that workman be directed to prove his casual

service card was genuine. It is reiterated that the workman

should prove from his office, service card was issued. The

enquiry conducted against workman was proper. Principles

of natural justice were followed. There is sufficient

evidence to show that the service card produced by

workman for securing employment was false. For proved

charge against workman, punishment of removal was

imposed against him. The punishment is illegal. The ground

taken by workman about enquiry proceeding are after

thought. It is submitted that if enquiry is found vitiated,

management be allowed to prove misconduct adducing

evidence.

As per order dated 1-5-2013, enquiry conducted

against workman was found illegal. Management was

permitted to prove misconduct in Court. Considering

pleadings on record and findings on preliminary issue,

the points which arise for my consideration and

determination are as under. My findings are recorded

against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the management IInd

In negative

party proves that service card

produced by workman for securing

employment in Railway was fake/

false?

(ii) Whether action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of AEN(M), Central Railway,

Bhopal in terminating the services

of Shri Ramcharan S/o Hazarilal

w.e.f. 16-6-90 on the basis of fake

card is justified?

(iii) If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order

REASONS

Enquiry conducted against workman was found

vitiated. Management was permitted to prove misconduct

in Court. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Iqbal

Khan. Witness of management says that service card

263460 was not issued by Railway. On the basis of said

card, workman had secured employment as casual labour.

The person to whom service card is issued was required

to deposit 1 Re at Railway Station counter, receipt for said

amount is received. After such receipt was shown to PWI,

service card used to be issued to him. The service card

263460 was not issued by PWI, Satna.

In his cross-examination, management’s witness

says he was conversant with the enquiry conducted

against workman. He was writing Enquiry Proceedings.

He admits that original service card 263460 was not

deposited. It is not produced on record. Exhibit M-6 is

zerox copy of the service card. MRCL Card used to be

printed at Bicola Mumbai. He denies that genuiness of the

service card issued to workman can be verified from

Mumbai Office. No enquiry was made from Mumbai Office

about service card no. 263460. The witness of the

management denied that verification of original card was

not made from Satna office. Witness further says that card

was printed in 1980, enquiry was made about it and the

card was found bogus. Workman was issued chargesheet

Exhibit M-1. Any complaint was not received against

workman that the card of workman was bogus. The entire

evidence of management’s witness shows about the

verification of service card was made. Evidence of

management’s witness is silent who had made enquiry

and found the service card issued to workman was bogus.

Management’s witness has not made such enquiry. What

was the evidence for holding that card no. 263460 was

bogus. In absence of such evidence, charge against

workman cannot be proved. In written notes of argument

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

973

submitted on behalf of workman, it is submitted that the

evidence is not sufficient to prove charge.

Learned counsel for IInd party Mr. Shailesh Mishra

during course of argument submits that chargesheet

Exhibit M-1 was issued to workman , any appointment

order was not given to him. Management’s witness Iqbal

Khan has given procedure how service card used to be

issued. His evidence on point is not challenged. Workman

has not adduced any evidence as to who had issued

service card in question.

10.

The chargesheet is issued to workman for allegation

that he secured employment on bogus service card

therefore IInd party management is required to prove the

charge. The burden cannot be placed on workman to prove

that service card issued by him is genuine. Argument

advanced by IInd party cannot be justified. For reasons

discussed above, I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Negative.

11.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1,

charges against workman about securing employment in

Railway by producing fake service card is not proved

therefore removal of workman from service cannot be

sustained. The order of removal from service/ termination

of workman is illegal. Accordingly I record my finding in

Point No.2.

12.

Point No.3- The termination/ removal of workman

from service is illegal. The question is whether workman is

entitled for reinstatement with backwages from date of

his initial termination i.e. 16-6-90. The reference is made on

25-5-98 workman first challenged order of his termination

before CAT is not in dispute. The coy of judgment in

Original Application 297/91 is produced on record. CAT

set-aside order dated 16-6-90 and department was allowed

to complete enquiry within 3 months following the

procedure. The question of backwages was to be decided

after final order was passed in enquiry. In view of above

facts, the claim of back wages of workman deserves to be

considered from date of his termination i.e. 16-6-90.

Workman has adduced evidence in the case on the point

of preliminary enquiry. In Para-15 of his affidavit, workman

says he was unemployed after his termination. He has no

means of livelihood. The evidence of management’s

witness is silent about gainful employment of workman.

However evidence of workman is silent that since his

termination in 1990, how he was maintaining his family.

Considering above aspects, reinstatement of Ist party

workman with 25 % back wages would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

13.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of AEN(M), Central

Railway, Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri

Ramcharan S/o Hazarilal w.e.f. 16-6-90 on the basis

of fake card is not legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with

25 % back wages.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 365-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ

bankSj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 229@98)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@61@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2015

S.O. 365.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 229/

98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank

of Indore and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/61/98-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/229/98

General Secretary,

Daily wages Bank

Employees Association,

9, Sanwer Road,

Ujjain

...Workman/Union

Versus

Managing Director,

State Bank of Indore,

SBOI, Head Office, 5, Y.N.Road,

Indore

...Management

974

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of January, 2015

As per letter dated 15-10-88 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/

61/98-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the management of Managing Director,

State Bank of Indore in terminating Shri Rajiv Marmat

w.e.f. 3-3-97 and not regularizing him is justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman, General Secretary , Daily

Wages Bank Employees Union Shri Ram Nagwanshi

submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1 to 2/3. Case of

Union is that he was engaged as peon in IInd party Bank

from 6-9-94. He was working from 10.30 AM to 6 PM. His

service record was excellent. His services were

discontinued from 3-3-97 without issuing notice. That he

completed 240 days service. As such he is covered as

employee under Section 25 B of I.D.Act. IInd party violated

provisions of Section 33 of ID Act by terminating his

services during pending conciliation proceedings before

ALC. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. His

services were terminated without notice in violation of

Section 25-F of ID Act. Principles of first come last go was

not followed. IInd party thereby committed violation of

Section 25-G of ID Act. After termination of his services,

IInd party engaged other persons for same work. Workman

was not given reinstatement of workman with back wages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at page 5/1 to 5/7.

IInd party submits that statement of claim is not signed

and verified by Shri Rajiv Marmat, workman, rather it is

signed and verified by Shri Ram Nagwanshi. It cannot be

said statement of claim as provided under ID Act. The

claim is not tenable. So called General Secretary of the

Union has not submitted any documents authorizing him

to raise dispute by the Union passing any resolution.

Union at Ujjain is not competent to raise dispute of

employees working at Indore. How Union got authority to

raise dispute is not explained in statement of claim. The

claim is not tenable. It is submitted that dispute is not

existing against Managing Director who is impleaded as

party in the reference. It is bad from misjoinder of parties.

IInd party further submits that workman was not

working from 8 AM to 10 AM or 10.30 AM to 6 PM. There

was no question of his working with devotion without

any grievances. Workman was intermittently engaged for

filling work. His appointment ended after period of his

engagement. It is denied that IInd party violated provisions

of Section 33 of ID Act by terminating services of workman.

IInd party submits that workman had not completed 240

days continuous service. There is no question of violation

of Section 25-F,G,N of I.D.Act. There is no question of

violation of Section 25-F, G, N of I.D.Act. IInd party has

not violated said provisions of Section 25-F or any

provisions of Sastry Award. IInd party has rules for

appointment of staff. Workman was not appointed

following conciliation process. He was not appointed

following selection process by the Bank, no appointment

order was issued to him. workman was engaged as per

exigency of work. After completion of work, his services

were discontinued. There was no question of any

retrenchment compensation or issue notice. On such

contentions, IInd party prayed that reference be answered

in its favour.

Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page7/1 to 7/2

reiterating contentions in statement of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the management of

In Negative

Managing Director, State Bank

of Indore in terminating Shri Rajiv

Marmat w.e.f. 3-3-97 and not

regularizing him is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order

REASONS

Ist party workman is challenging termination of

workman for violation of Section 25-F, G, H, N of I.D.Act.

IInd party had denied his claim contending that workman

had no completed 240 days continuous service. He was

intermittently engaged for cleaning work as per exigencies.

Though contentions are raised about locus of Union in

raising dispute, said point was not pressed at the time of

argument.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting

his claim. Though he was working in IInd party Bank as

permanent peon from 6-9-94. He was working on daily

wages. He was paid Rs.30/- per day. He completed 240

days continuous service. His wages were paid under

voucher. The documents are with the Bank. His services

were terminated without notice. He was not paid

retrenchment compensation. In his cross-examination,

workman says he was working in Bank of Indore at

Patrakar Colony. There were two regular employees Rawan

Verma and Lashkar. He had not appeared for examination

of recruitment Board. He was interviewed by Branch

Manager Brahma Swaroop. He was doing work of

supplying drinking water and taking files to the respective

places. He claims ignorance whether he was paid salary in

pay scale of regular peon. The regular peon was not paid

salary at Rs. 30/- per day. He denies that he was engaged

only for 2-3 hours in a day. He passed 10th standard.

Appointment letter was not given to him.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

975

Management filed affidavit of witnesses Arun Kumar,

Rajesh Gupta but they did not appeared for their cross-

examination. Management’s witness Paresh supported

contentions of IInd party in affidavit of his evidence. He

denied contentions of workman about continuously work

from 6-9-94 to 3-3-97. The witness of management says

that workman was engaged one hour morning one hour

evening daily on daily wages. Workman was not appointed

following recruitment rules. Management’s witness in his

cross-examination says that he was not posted in Patrakar

colony branch of the Bank during 1994 to 1997. He denied

copies of vouchers shown to him, no documents are

produced in support of his affidavit. Any procedure for

selection was not followed before workman was engaged.

Permission of Superior Officers was not taken. Muster

under voucher. This documents are not produced.

Management’s witness was unable to tell for how many

days and what rate wages were paid to the workman. That

workman was not issued notice, retrenchment

compensation was not paid to him before termination of

his service. At present cleaning work in the branch is

carried by outsourcing through contractor. The

management’s witness was not working in branch during

relevant period. He has no personal knowledge. His

affidavit is filed on basis of record though those documents

are not produced. In cross-examination of workman, it was

suggested that he was working for 2-3 days but

management witness stated that workman was working

for one hour morning and one hour evening. The wages

were paid to workman under voucher, those documents

are not produced by management. on the other hand,

workman produced large number of zerox copies of

vouchers. However those vouchers are not proved by

adducing proper evidence. IInd party has filed annexure

alongwith Written Statement showing payment of amount

to workman during 10-3-94 to 1-3-97. However no evidence

is produced by management for how many days the wages

were paid. If evidence of workman and management’s

witness is carefully appreciated, the witness of management

has no personal knowledge. I find no reason to discard

evidence of workman that he was continuously working

with IInd party. His services are terminated without notice.

Workman was not paid retrenchment compensation. The

evidence clearly on record shows that though workman

completed 240 days continuous service before his

termination, he was not paid retrenchment compensation.

Notice of termination was not issued to him. IInd party

has terminated services of workman filing provisions of

Section 25-F of I.D.Act. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

10.

In view of my finding on Point No.1, services of

workman are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.

Act, question arises whether he is entitled for reinstatement

with back wages. The evidence in cross-examination of

workman shows that he had not appeared for any

examination, he was not issued appointment letter, he was

working on daily wages. He was paid wages Rs. 30/- per

day. Workman was working from September, 94 to 3-3-97

for about 3 ½ years. Considering the nature of his

employment on daily wages for about 3 ½ years, relief of

reinstatement with back wages would not be justified. in

my considered view, compensation Rs. 75,000/- would be

appropriate considering workman was working about 3 ½

years. Accordingly I record point No.2.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Managing Director,

State Bank of Indore in terminating Shri Rajiv Marmat

w.e.f. 3-3-97 and not regularizing him is not legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs. 75,000/- to workman within 30 days from the

date of publication of award.

In case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest

per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 366-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mseq ikuk {ks=kh;

xzkeh.k cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 169@99)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@611@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2015

S.O. 366.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 169/

99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Damua

Panna Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 19/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/611/98-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/169/99

976

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Shri Prahalad Namdev,

S/o Shri Paramulal Namdev,

R/o Piparia,

PO Jaitpur Kopara,

Tehsil Devari,

Sagar (MP)

...Workman

Versus

The President,

Damua Panna Kshetriya Gramin Bank,

Head Office,

Naya Bazar No.2, MP,

Damua

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of January, 2015

As per letter dated 22-4-99 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/

611/98/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of President,

Damua Panna Sagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank Damua,

MP in not regularizing the services of Shri Prahlad

Namdev, S/o Shri Paramulal Namdev, Ex-peon and

terminating the services w.e.f. 4-8-97 is legal and

justified. if not, to what relief the concerned workman

is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page

4/1 to 4/2. Case of workman is that he was appointed as

peon in IInd party Bank from 24-4-85 at Kopra Branch.

That he was continuously working more than 240 days

prior to his termination on 3-8-87. That his services were

terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. It

amounts to retrenchment. That he was not paid

retrenchment compensation before termination of his

services. That provisions of Section 25-F, G, H of I.D.Act

were not followed by IInd party while terminating his

services. On such ground, workman submits termination

of his service is illegal. He prays for regularisation of his

service with consequential benefit.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/6.

IInd party submits that the Bank was running branch at

Kopra. The said branch was closed in 1994 on shifting to

Devri. That Ist party workman was engaged on daily wages

in said branch. He was intermittently working during 1985

to 1987. Workman was not appointed on regular basis

following rules. Branch Manager was not authorized to

make regular appointment. That Branch Managers are

authorized to engage persons on daily wages to meet

day to day working requirements. Workman was engaged

on daily wages during 1985 to 1987. He was paid wages at

admissible rates. That in 1985, workman had worked for

181 days, and 125 days in 1986, 10 days in 1987. Workman

had not completed 240 days continuous service. Workman

himself did not come for work after 3-8-87. His non-

engagement doesnot amount to retrenchment. The

contract of service had come to end. Non-engagement of

workman is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act. It

is reiterated that there were no sanctioned posts of

messengers. In most of the branches, Branch Manager

and cashier used to handle the transaction. Workman was

not appointed following recruitment process. NABARD

had issued instructions dated 9-5-96 restricting regular

recruitment of messengers. That workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service. He is not covered

under Section 25-B of I.D.Act. Workman is not entitled to

protection of IDAct. On such grounds, IInd party prays

that award be answered in its favour.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of President, Damua Panna

Sagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank Damua,

MP in not regularizing the services

of Shri Prahlad Namdev, S/o Shri

Paramulal Namdev, Ex-peon and

terminating the services w.e.f.

4-8-97 is legal and justified.

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

orders

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his service

for violating Section 25-F of I.D.Act. That while

discontinuing his services, provisions of Section 25-G, H

of I.D.Act were not followed. Incidentally workman pleaded

that he completed more than 240 days continuous service

before his non-engagement. IInd party denied that

workman completed 240 days continuous service and

therefore he is not entitled to protection under Section

25-F of I.D.Act.

In his affidavit of evidence, workman reiterates that

he was continuously working from 24-4-85 to 3-8-87. He

completed 240 days continuous service. His services were

terminated without notice. He was not paid retrenchment

compensation. In his cross-examination, workman says

that he was appointed on regular post. Appointment letter

was not issued to him. He submitted application in the

Bank. The vacant post were shown. The post was not

advertised. In next breath, he says he had submitted

application, he was working from 1985 to 87. He was orally

terminated on 4-8-87. The branch was shifted from Kopra

to Devri. That he has produced copy of his application

and legal notice. After discontinuation of his service, the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

977

Bank had appointed other persons. He did not recollect

the date. The evidence of workman that he was

continuously working from 24-4-85 to 31-8-85 was not

challenged in his cross-examination. No suggestion is

given to him that he has not completed 240 days service.

Management’s witness Madhav Khare tried to

support contentions of IInd party that workman was

engaged purely on daily wages. He did not come to work

after 3-8-87. In para-4 of his affidavit, management’s

witness has given working days of workman 181 days in

1985, 125 days in 1986, 10 days in 1987. That workman had

not completed 240 days continuous service. He was not

covered under Section 25-B of I.D.Act.

Management’s witness in his cross-examination

says he had not seen original register of Exhibit M-1.

Entries in Exhibit M-1 were not recorded in his presence.

Exhibit M-1 is register of daily expenses. There is no

column about payment. It shows working days of

employees and payments made to them. During 1985 to

1987 he was posted in Shivpuri. During 86-87, he had not

seen workman Prahlad and others appearing in Exhibit M-1.

That Branch Manager is not competent to employ daily

wage employees. No letter is produced on record. While

coming for his evidence, he has not seen register about

payment of wages to daily wage employees. Witness says

such register is not available in Bank. That he had not

gone through record of Branch Office. He seen record

before submitting his affidavit. The witness was unable to

tell details of the record. The workman has produced Exhibit

W-1. Management has produced Exhibit M-1. The

calculation of working days of workman in M-1 are 181

days in 1985, 125 days in 1986, 10 days in 1987. M-2

produced by management is applications submitted to ALC

for raising dispute. The working days shown in Exhibit W-1,

workman was continuously working from 24-4-85 to

25-11-85. In cross-examination of workman, he was not

suggested that he himself left the work after 3-8-87.

Whatever documents workman could secure he has

produced on record. if evidence of workman is appreciated

with evidence of management’s witness he has no personal

knowledge about working of workman. he has not seen

doesnot say that the record is destroyed or lost. Rather

the management’s witness has produced Exhibit M-1. It

shows that the relevant record was available with the Bank.

Therefore I do not find reason to disbelieve evidence of

Ist party workman. His evidence is not shattered that he

was continuously working till 3-8-87. In my considered

view, if evidence of workman is supported by part of

documents is relied, evidence of workman can be accepted

that he completed 240 days continuous service. His services

were terminated without notice, he was not paid

retrenchment compensation therefore termination of

services of workman is in violation of Section 25-F of

I.D.Act. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Negative.

Point No.2- Termination of service of workman is in

violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. In view of my finding

in Point No.1 question arises whether workman is entitled

for reinstatement with back wages. The evidence in cross-

examination is clear that he was not interviewed. He was

engaged on daily wages. Workman was working from

24-4-85 to 3-8-87 for more than 2 years. Workman

considered legal position that daily wagers are not entitled

for reinstatement. In my considered view, compensation

Rs. 60,000/- would be appropriate. I record my finding in

Point No.2 accordingly.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of President, Damua

Panna Sagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank Damua, MP in

not regularizing the services of Shri Prahlad Namdev,

S/o Shri Paramulal Namdev, Ex-peon and terminating

the services w.e.f. 4-8-97 is not legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs. 60,000/- to the workman within 30 days from the

date of award.

In case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest

per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 367-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ

gSnjkckn ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 10@2012)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12025@01@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2015

S.O. 367.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of State

Bank of Hyderabad and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 19/02/2015.

[No. L-12025/01/2015-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

978

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 13th day of August, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 10/2012

Between:

Sri S. Rajababu,

S/o Sammaiah,

C/o M/s. G. Vidyasagar,Advocates,

719, Sri Venakteswara Temple Lane,

Chikkadpalli,

Hyderabad – 500 020

...Petitioner

AND

The Disciplinary Authority/Chairman,

Deccan Grameena Bank,

(Sponsored by State Bank of Hyderabad)

HO: H.No. 2-1-520, 2nd floor,

Vijaya Sri Sai Calestria,

St. No.9, Sankarmuth Road,

Hyderabad – 500 044.

The Deputy General,

State Bank of Hyderabad,

Deccan Grameena Bank,

Head Office,

Hyderabad

...Respondents

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

M/s. G. Vidya Sagar, K. Udaya

Sri, P. Sudheer Rao & D. Suni

Kumar, Advocates

For the Respondent

M/s.A. Krishnam Raju,

G. Dinesh Kumar &

N.S. Reddy, Advocates

AWARD

This is a petition filed by the Petitioner Sri S. Raja

Babu, under Sec.2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 against the

management of M/s. Deccan Grameena Bank and

numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D.No. 10/2012 and notices

were issued to the parties.

Petitioner has filed this petition questioning his

removal from service vide order dated 29.3.2011 and

Appellate Order dated 3.8.2011 by the Respondent without

following the procedure, seeking for reinstatement with

all consequential benefits.

Respondent has filed counter statement stating that

Petitioner was chargesheeted for certain irregularities and

after conducting due enquiry he was removed from service.

As such, the petition be dismissed.

The case is posted for arguments on the question

of validity of domestic enquiry conducted by the

management against the Petitioner.

At this stage, Petitioner filed a memo stating that

during pendency of the proceedings of the present dispute,

the conciliation officer conducted joint meetings, but the

management has not come forward for amicable settlement.

The conciliation officer has forwarded his failure report to

the Government of India and after receipt of the same the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi has referred the matter to this Tribunal and the

same was numbered as ID 22/2014 on the file of this

Tribunal. In the circumstances, Petitioner intends to

withdraw the present LC No.10/2012 with a liberty to

prosecute the ID No. 22/2014.

In view of the memo filed by the Petitioner workman

withdrawing his case, ‘Nil’ award is passed as claim is

withdrawn.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

Witnesses examined for the

for the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 368-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 91@2001)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@153@91&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2015

S.O. 368.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 91/2001)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bhubanswar as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of State

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

979

Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/153/91-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri Pradeep Kumar, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 91/2001

L-12012/153/91 - IR(B.III), dated 28.08.1991

Date of Passing Award –19th Day of January, 2015

Between:

The Regional Manager,

1st Party Management

State Bank of India, Region-1,

Regional Office, Near Capital

Thana,Unit-1 Bhubaneswar,

Odisha

(And)

Shri S.N. Dora, Ex-C.C.T.,

2nd Party Workman

C/o-Kamala Kanta Panda,

Plot No. 152, Chintamaniswar

Colony, Bhubaneswar,

Odisha

Appearances :

M/s. Jagannath Pattnaik,

For the 1st Party

Advocate

Management

Shri S.N. Dora

For himself the

2nd Party Workman

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

& Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between the employer in relation to the Management of

The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Region-1,

Bhubaneswar, Odisha, and their workmen Shri Satya

Narayan Dora in exercise of the powers conferred under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act vide their Letter

No. L-12012/153/91 - IR(B.III), dated 28.08.1991 to the

Tribunal for adjudication. The dispute as referred to has

been mentioned under the schedule of the order of

reference which is quoted below.

“Whether the action of the Regional Manager, State

Bank of India, Bhubaneswar in dismissing Shri Satya

Narayan Dora C.C.T. from service with effect from

17.2.1990 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled to ?”

In his claim statement the 2nd party workman

contends that he had joined as a Clerk-cum-Typist in the

State Bank of India on 18.01.1979 and thereafter he was

transferred and posted at places like Nabarangpur,

Sakhigopal and at Puri. At Puri he joined in the Temple

Road Evening Branch of the State Bank of India on

18.10.1983. While serving there he was placed under

suspension on the advise of the C.B.I., Bhubaneswar in

relation to a case involving fraud of bank’s money. The

Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar

framed necessary charges against the 2nd party workman

in an illegal and unjustified manner in the false allegation

that he had committed the said fraud in corrupt collusion

with one Shri Raj Kishore Barik, the messenger of the bank,

by fabricating the “Mail Transfer” issued from Kolkatta

Branch and for transferring the amount to a fictitious

account opened in the name of one Shri Manoj Kumar

Das. In the above enquiry the management with an ill

intention declared the workman as guilty and dismissed

the workman from services with effect from 17.02.1990. It

is alleged by the 2nd party workman that the above enquiry

was not conducted fairly in as much as he was not provided

with sufficient opportunity to defend himself and as such

the action of the management is liable to be set aside.

The 1st party management of State Bank of India

filed his written statement denying therewith the averments

of the workman, Shri Dora. Three issues were framed by

the learned Odisha Industrial Tribunal, Bhubanesar on

10.02.1992. The issues are:-

(1)

Is the domestic enquiry conducted against

the workman fair and proper?

(2)

Is the action of the Regional Manager, State

Bank of India in dismissing the workman from

service w.e.f. 17.02.90 legal and justified?

(3)

To what relief, the workman is entitled to?

The 1st party management of State Bank of India

have examined 06 (six) witnesses on their behalf and proved

certain documents marked as Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 14/1. On

the other hand, the 2nd party workman has examined has

examined himself as the workman witness and proved

certain documents marked as Exhibit A to Exhibit G.

The matter followed a final order on 18.10.1997

wherein the enquiry conducted against the workman was

declared to be not fare & proper and the 1st party

management was permitted to examine it’s additional

witnesses, if he so chosen to justify the order of dismissal

passed against the workman. But, without examining his

further witness, the 1st party management preferred O.J.C.

16529/97 before the Hon’ble Odisha High Court, wherein

the Hon’ble Court upheld the order passed by the Industrial

Tribunal on 18.10.1997 and remanded the matter to the

Tribunal with permission to the 1st party management to

examine additional witness, if any. But, the 1st party

980

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management did not examine any further witness and simply

wanted to finish up the case by advancing arguments and

filed his written arguments. The 2nd party workman also

filed his written notes of arguments.

Accordingly, my predecessor passed an award on

21.04.2009, directing the 1st party management to reinstate

the workman in his former post and to pay 50% of his back

wages to him alongwith all service benefits. Aggrieved

with the same, the 1st party management again preferred

W.P.(C) No. 19687/2009 before the Hon’ble Odisha High

Court wherein the observations made by the Hon’ble Court

are as follows.

“In the aforesaid view of the matter, this court sets

aside the order of the Tribunal directing

reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages

without interfering with the finding on the

preliminary issue and remits the matter back to the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal –cum-

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar to pass order afresh

taking into consideration all evidences led by the

parties before the Tribunal including those in relation

to the merits of the charge, after arguments from the

parties. No party is permitted to lead any further

evidence.”

In view of the orders of the Hon’ble Court, I have

heard the oral arguments from the side of both the

1st party management of State Bank of India and the 2nd

party Workman Shri Satya Narayan Dora, perused the

record alongwith all the evidences led by the parties.

FINDINGS

Issue No. 1

The Tribunal took up issue No. 1 relating to the

propriety of the Domestic Enquiry as preliminary issue

and came to held in its order dated 18.10.1997 that the

enquiry conducted against the workman was not fare and

proper. The Hon’ble Odisha High Court also did not

interfere into the legality and propriety of the above order.

Therefore, I found no infirmity in declaring the Domestic

Enquiry conducted against the 2nd party workman by the

1st party management as not fair and proper. Thus, issue

No. 1 is answered against the 1st party management, State

Bank of India.

Issue No. 2

From the documents available on record and the

oral arguments submitted by the parties, it is ascertained

that the matter involvers three branches of the 1st party

management, State Bank of India. One at it’s Kolkatta

branch, the second one is it’s main branch at Puri and the

third one is the Temple Road branch at Puri. The disputant

workman was a Clerk-cum-Typist in the Puri Temple Road

Branch. In the Puri Temple Road Branch of the

management, one Shri Prabhakar Mallick (in short “Shri

Mallick”) was the regular branch manager and Shri R.R.

Pattanaik (in short “Shri Pattanaik”) was the accountant

who used to function as the branch manager (in charge) in

the absence of the regular branch manager.

10.

The fictitious account holder Shri Manoj Kumar Das

(in short “Shri Das”) opened up his savings bank account

in the Puri Temple Road Branch and just after one month

he transferred his account to the Puri Main branch of the

1st party management. On both the days the regular

branch manager, Shri Mallick was absent in the branch.

Hence, the application of Shri Das was duly considered,

verified and signed/recommended by Shri Pattanaik as the

branch manager (In charge) and after that the savings

bank account was opened with initial deposit of Rs. 100/-.

Similarly, on the date of application of Shri Das for transfer

of his savings bank account to the Puri Main branch, due

to the absence of Shri Mallick, the application of Shri Das

was duly considered and recommended for the transfer of

his savings bank account from the temple road branch to

puri main branch by Shri Pattnaik. In this connection, the

activities of Shri Mallick sheds doubt on his integrity as

on both the days of such transactions of Shri Das,

Shri Mallick was absent.

11.

Again, it is ascertained that opening up of a savings

bank account and it’s transfer to any other branch is no

way concerned with the business of clerks. It is the

business of the concerned officer of the bank, generally

the branch manager on whose recommendations and

instructions the account is opened up and subsequently

transferred to other branch if so required by the bank

customer. The disputant workmen Shri Satya Narayan

Dora (in short “Shri Dora”) was a clerk –cum- typist (in

short “C.C.T.) in the Puri Temple Road branch. He has not

done anything on the opening of the savings bank account

of Shri Das and later on transfer of the same to the Puri

Main branch except asking Shri Das to meet the branch

manager to materialize his requests as has been done by

the counter clerks of the bank.

12.

Regarding the matter of Mail Transfer Advice (in

short “MTA”), the same relates to two branches of the

1st party management. One is it’s branch at Kolkatta and

the other is Puri Main branch. But, Shri Dora was not an

employee of any of these two branches. Hence, the matter

of MTA is no way concerned with the disputant workman

Shri Das as he was an employee of a different branch.

13.

It is an admitted fact that on the complaint of Shri

Mallick before the C.B.I., Bhubaneswar, the C.B.I. advised

the bank to suspend Shri Dora. Later on taking the same

plea, the 1st party management leveled charges against

Shri Dora and accordingly initiated the departmental

proceedings against him. The f1st party management also

dismissed Shri Dora hurriedly as if they were in the malafide

intention of closing down the matter of irregularity without

waiting for the final order of the learned C.B.I. Court. The

C.B.I. Court in it’s final order, discharged the accused for

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

981

want of sufficient evidence. It seems, the 1st party

management in an ulterior motive to patch up their mistakes

of irregularities, transferred their liabilities by loading the

same upon the innocent workman Shri Dora. Also, in this

way it appears that the 1st party management has exercised

the employer’s rights in a colourable manner and victimized

Shri Dora by making him a scape goat.

14.

In so far as the evidences adduced by the witnesses

both in the domestic enquiry conducted by the 1st party

management and in the proceedings of the Industrial

Tribunal, no prima facie evidence is adduced against

Shri Dora. Shri Dora also not found guilty in the C.B.I.

investigation. The 1st party management took action

against the disputant workman Shri Dora relying only on

the report of the finger print expert Shri V.G.S. Bhatnagar.

The finger print expert was functioning in his Kolkatta

office and during his examination as management witness

No. 2 he failed to prove his manner of investigation/

excamination before the Tribunal on the ground that he

did not have the required instruments with him. This is of

no excuse as when his report was liable to dismiss the

workman from his services, he ought to have come

prepared to prove his investigation/examination.

15.

The 1st party management have not taken steps for

investigating the acts/integrity of it’s officers like

Shri Mallick who had remained absent on the transaction

days of Shri Das. Since, Shri Pattanaik who had

recommended for opening and transfer of the account of

the fictitious account holder Shri Das, as a branch manager

(in charge), his acts/integrity must also had to be

investigated. Therefore, the involvement of the 1st party

management through their officers like Shri Mallick in the

matters of opening a fictitious savings bank account in

the name of Shri Manoj Kumar Das and the transaction of

fraudulent Mail Transfer Advice, cannot be ruled out. But,

without taking any action against any of his officers, the

1st party management preferred to kill the services of an

innocent workman like Shri Dora in an illegal and unjust

manner which seems to have been done only to protect/

safeguard their officers. On the above counts, the 1st

party management is not legal and justified in imposing

the punishment of dismissal from service of the workman

Shri Dora with effect from 17.02.1990. Thus, issue No. 2 is

answered against the 1st party management, State Bank

of India.

Issue No. 3

16.

The 2nd party workman Shri Dora has lost his social

status and his family devastated due to the above illegal

acts of the 1st party management. Also, had Shri Dora

continued in his service, he would have become a senior

officer of the bank by the time of his retirement and could

have earned a huge amount of money towards his pay and

allowances & other service benefits. Therefore, in view

of the above findings, I feel it proper to award

compensation in favour of Shri Dora alongwith other reliefs.

Accordingly, the 1st party management is ordered to pay

an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs)

only towards compensation to Shri Dora. Further, the 1st

party management is ordered to pay 50% of back wages to

the 2nd party workman Shri Dora with effect from the date

of his dismissal, that is 17.02.1990 till the date of his

retirement on superannuation, that is 28.02.2013. The

1st party management of State Bank of India is to

implement the award within three months from the date of

publication of this award in the Gazette of India failing

which the management shall pay interest @ 12% per annum

simple interest to Shri Dora.. Thus, issue No. 3 is answered.

17.

The reference is answered accordingly in favour of

the 2nd party workman Shri Satya Narayan Dora.

Dictated and corrected by me.

PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 369-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksudu jsyos

dkiksZjs'ku fy- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

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

30@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@15@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2015

S.O. 369.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Konkan

Railway Corporation Ltd. and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 19/02/2015.

[No. L-41012/15/2011-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

DATED : 5th DECEMBER 2014

PRESENT : Shri S N NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

C R No. 30/2011

982

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

I Party

Shri Ganesh B, S/o Shri Krishnaiah Sheregar,

Bande Baindnoor Post, Kundapur Taluk,

Udupi District-576 124.

II Party

The Chief Personnel Officer,

Konkan Railway Corporation Limited,

Belapur Bhavan, Sector II,

CBD Belapur,

Navi Mumbai-400 614.

Appearances :

I Party

Shri D R Vishwanath Bhat, Advocate

II Party :

None

AWARD

The Central Government vide order No. L-41012/15/

2011-IR(B-I) dated 11.07.2011 in exercise of the power

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Konkan

Railway Corporation Limited in imposing the penalty

of removal from service on Shri Ganesh B. Vide their

order dated 09/10/2009, is legal and justified? To

what relief the workman is entitled?”

On receipt of the reference while registering it in CR

30/2011 when notices were issued to both the parties

Sh. D R V Bhat, Advocate on 08.11.2011 filed vakalat for

the I Party and also the claim statement, whereas, on that

day Sh. Abshik Mali Patil, Advocate who undertaken to

file vakalat for the II party and to file counter statement

subsequently inspite of affording three opportunities did

not avail the same and ultimately on 27.02.2012 taking that

II Party is not interested to appear and oppose the

reference the matter was posted for evidence of the I party.

The I party in his claim statement who asserts that

he having been adopted by Sh. Krishnaiah Sheregar and

Smt. Savithri after following the due legal process and

that the 23 cents of land belonging to Smt. Parameshvari

Sheregarthi was acquired by the Konkan Railway

Coporation who was the mother of Sh. Krishnaiah Sheregar

and in view of the employment circular of the II Party that

the Land Losers would be provided with an employment

with the II Party he was appointed as Trackman after due

verification of the records vide order dated 25.04.2005 and

he was discharging his duties with utmost devotion and

sincerity and on 30.04.2005 he was issued with a charge

sheet that his brother Sh. Umesh B already being appointed

his appointment is liable to be cancelled and enquiry was

constituted to enquire into the allegations and the Enquiry

Officer without providing him list of documents, witnesses

and statement of witnesses and following the principles

of natural justice and without giving him an opportunity

to cross-examine the management witnesses concluded

the enquiry and Disciplinary Authority illegaly Dismissed

him from service w.e.f. 09.10.2009 and requested to

reinstate him into the service, with continuity of service,

back wages and all other consequential benefits while filing

the affidavit swearing to those facts and examining himself

on oath as WW 1 (M) got exhibited Ex W-1 to Ex W-40 the

detailed description of which are narrated in the Annexure

and as inspite of giving opportunity to the II Party to

cross-examine him the same was since not availed he was

discharged from cross-examination.

With the above pleadings/claim statement, oral and

documentary evidence placed on record for the I Party his

learned advocate urged that his assertion in the claim

statement and evidence left uncontroverted and

unchallenged the action of the management has to be held

as illegal and unjustified.

On appreciation of the averments made in the claim

statement, oral and documentary evidence adduced by

the I party with the arguments addressed by his counsel

the reference is allowed and I party is ordered to be

reinstated with 50% of the Back wages, continuity of

service and other consequential benefits that he would

have received in the absence of the impugned penalty of

removal from service for the following

REASONS

The II party which appointed the I party as a

Trackman under the land losers category subsequently

on the ground that it has come to its notice his elder brother

Sh. Umesh B being already appointed giving the benefit

of Land Loser family giving him show cause notice and

being not satisfied with his reply by serving a charge sheet

claiming that an enquiry was conducted on the same

passed the impugned order dated 09.10.2009 removing him

service. Since the I party claims that since he was taken in

adoption by Sh. Krishniah Sheregar and Smt. Savithri in

accordance with law who were also land losers for Konkan

Railway, as their adopted son claimed the appointment

and this assertion and the evidence adduced on this aspect

being not controverted or assailed by the II Party by

entering appearance and filing objection statement and

leading any rebuttal evidence, I have no reason to

disbelieve the assertion of the I Party made in his claim

statement which is supported by the Oral and

Documentary Evidence produced during the trial. As per

the schedule of reference the burden was on the II party

to substantiate its action of imposing the penalty of

removal from service being legal and justified but II Party

did not care to put in its appearance and to oppose the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

983

claim of the I Party. Under the circumstance, I have arrived

at conclusion the II party having failed to substantiate its

action of removing the I Party from service. Having regard

to the nature of job for which the I Party was appointed. I

feel it just and appropriate to order for his reinstatement

with 50% backwages, continuity of service and all other

consequential benefits he would have been received in

the absence of his removal from service. In the result, I

pass the following

ORDER

The management is not justified in imposing the

punishment of Removal from Service on Shri Ganesh B

vide their order dated 09.10.2009 and he is entitle for

reinstatment with 50% of the Back wages, continuity of

service and other consequential benefits that he would

have received in the absence of the impugned penalty of

removal from service.

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 370-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; fj”koZ

cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 95@1999)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@115@99&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2015

S.O. 370.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 95/1999)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Reserve

Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/115/99-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

Dated : 2nd January, 2015

PRESENT : Shri S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

C R No. 95/1999

I Party

Smt. Gajalakshmi,

W/o late Shri V Thangaraj,

No. 157, 7th Square,

Murphy Town, Ulsoor,

Bangalore-560 008

II Party

The Manager,

Reserve Bank of India,

Nurpathunga Road,

Bangalore-560 001.

Appearances :

I Party

Shri D R V Bhat, Advocate

II Party :

Smt. Bindu Radhakrishnan,

Assistant Legal Advisor

AWARD

The Central Government vide order No. L-12012/

115/99-IR(B-I) dated 30.07.1999 in exercise of the power

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the management of Reserve Bank of India

is justified in dismissing the services of late Shri V

Thangaraj, Mazdoor, w.e.f. 14.11.1991? If not, to

what relief Smt. Gajalakshmi, wife of the deceased, is

entitled?”

On receipt of the reference while registering it in C R

95/1999, when notices were issued to both the parties, I

party entered her appearance through Sh. D R V Bhat,

Advocate and filed her claim statement 11.06.2002 and II

party through Sh. C Subhas, Legal Officer and filed its

counter statement on 16.08.2002.

The brief facts that leads to this reference and Award

may be stated as under.

It is borne out from the records that the first party

Sh. V Thangaraj the deceased husband of who was

working as Mazdoor along with Sh. Richard Pinto, K M

Mathew, S Ramalingam and Sh. B Jayaraj in Examination

Hall B was served with charge sheet as under:-

“You are advised that in the circumstances

mentioned in paragraph 2 below, the charges as set

out in paragraph 3 have been framed against you.

2 (i) It was reported that on 24.2.1979, you had in

collusion with S/Shri Richard Pinto, K.M. Mathew,

S. Ramalingam and B.Jayaraj substituted one packed

of non-defaced notes of denomination of Rs. 100/-

by already defaced notes which were punched/

984

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

defaced prior to 24.2.1979. This packet of defaced

notes was passed on to Shri Riachrd Pinto by Sri

B.Jayaraj through Sri S.Ramalingam. In turn, Richard

Pinto is reported to have passed on the said packet

to Shri K.M.Mathew, Coin/Note Examiner Gr.II. On

24.2.1979 when Shri K.M.Mathew was working as

Coin/Note Examiner in Examination Hall’B”, Shri

K.M.Mathew is reported to have substituted the

note packet of Rs. 100/- bearing seal BG-NW (which

seal was issued to Shri K.M.Mathew on that day)

by the packet of the same denomination received

from you in collusion with S/Shri Jayaraj,

Ramalingam, Richard Pinto and K.M.Mathew had

caused a loss of Rs. 10000/- to the Bank as a result

of the substitution referred to above.

(ii) On 27.3.1979, you were working as Mazdoor in

Examination Hall ‘B’ of this office. It was reported

that on that day in collusion with Sri K.M.Mathew

and Richard Pinto who were working as Coin/Note

Examiner Gr. II and Group Supervisor respectively,

you had substituted one packet of notes of the

denomination of Rs. 100/-, punched/defaced prior

to 27.3.1978. On 27.3.1978, when Sri K.M.Mathew

was working as Coin/Note Examiner Gr. II in

Examnation Hall ‘B”, Shri K.M.Mathew is reported

to have substituted the note packet of seal ‘BG-SZ’

(which seal was issued to Shri K.M.Mathew on that

day) by the packet of the same denomination

received from you in collusion with Shri Richard

Pinto and yourself. Thus, your action in collusion

with the persons cited above had caused a loss of

Rs. 10,000/- to the Bank as a result of the

substitution referred to above.

(iii) On 5.4.1979, you were working as Mazdoor in

Examination Hall ‘D’ of this office. It was reported

that on that day, in collusion with Shri K.M.Mathew

and Shri Richard Pinto who were working as Coin-

Note Examiner Gr.II and Group Supervisor

respectively, you had substituted one packed of the

notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- punched/

defaced prior to 5.4.1979. On 5.4.1979, when Shri

K.M.Mathew was working as Coin-Note Examiner

Gr. II in Examination ‘D’, Shri K.M.Mathew is

reported to have substituted the note packed of seal

‘BG-AL’ (which seal was issued to Sri K.M.Mathew

on that day) by the packet of the same denomination

received from you in collusion with S/Sri Mathew

and Richard Pinto had caused a loss of Rs. 10,000/-

to the Bank as a result of the substitution referred to

above.

(iv) It was reported that on 9.4.1979 you had in

collusion with S/Shri Richard Pinto, K.M.Mathew,

B.Jayaraj, S.Ramalingam and M. Devadoss, you had

abetted in the substitution of one packed of non-

defaced notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- by

already defaced notes which were punched/ defaced

prior to 9.4.1979. This packet of defaced notes was

passed on by Sri B.Jayaraj to Sri Richard Pinto

through Sri S.Ramalingam. In turn, Sri Richard Pinto

is reported to have passed on the said packet to Shri

K.M.Mathew,Coin-Note Examiner Gr. II. On 9.4.1979,

when Sri K.M.Mathew was working as Coin-Note

Examiner in Examination hall ‘B’, Shri K.M.Mathew

is reported to have substituted the note packet of

Rs. 100/- bearing seal BG-AH (which seal was issued

to Shri K.M.Mathew on that day) by the packet of

the same denomination received from you in

collusion with the persons cited above. Thus, your

action in collusion with S/Shri Richard Pinto,

K.M.Mathew, B.Jayaraj, S.Ramalingam and

M.Devadoss had caused a loss of Rs. 10,000/- to

the Bank as a result of the substitution referred to

above.

3. You are, therefore, charged with having committed

an act of misconduct by being a party to the

substitution of the non-defaced notes by already

defaced notes and thereby having acted in a manner

detrimental to the interests of the Bank causing a

loss of Rs. 40,000/- to the Bank.

4. Accordingly, this charge sheet is issued to you in

pursuance of Regulation 47 of the Reserve Bank of

India (Staff) Regulations, 1948.

5. You are hereby called upon to answer the above

charges in writing or in person in which case your

defence will be taken down in writing and read out

to you. Any defence you may wish to proffer

including the list of witnesses you may wish to

produce, should be submitted along with the reply

to the above charges to the undersigned on or before

30.04.1985.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(J P Awasthi)

Manager”

and appointed Sh. V V Nayak as Enquiry Officer and Sh.

Mohammed Shafi Ahmed as Presenting Officer and

initiated the Domestic Enquiry. The Enquiry Officer while

securing the presence of the I Party and the Management

Representative observing the formalities of preliminary

hearing and receiving the evidence of six witnesses for

the management and as the CSE did not wish to lead any

evidence the Enquiry Officer closed the enquiry and

submitted his enquiry report dated 18.04.1988 holding him

guilty of the charges and Disciplinary Authority after

affording opportunity of hearing passed the order of

Dismissal from Service and on appeal by the I Party the

Appellate Authority affording opportunity of hearing

confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority by his

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

985

order dated 16.06.1993. In the meanwhile since Sh. V

Thangaraj died his wife approached the RLC(C), Bangalore

and on his submission of FOC report dated 15.03.1999 this

reference came to be made for adjudication.

Having regard to the contention raised by the first

party with regard to the fairness or otherwise of the

Domestic Enquiry while raising a preliminary issue as to

“Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted against

the first party by the second party is fair and

proper?”,

my learned Predecessor after receiving the evidence

adduced by both sides and hearing arguments on the said

issue answered the same in the ‘negative’ i.e. the enquiry

being not fair and proper and aggrieved by it management/

II Party approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka

in W P No. 21066/2005 (L-RES) the Hon’ble High Court

vide order dated 13.02.2013 quashed the order of this

tribunal and held that the Domestic Enquiry held against

the I Party is fair and proper and remitted the matter back

to this tribunal. In view of the said order the matter came

to be posted for Evidence of I party on the point of

victimization and being not gainfully employed but the

same was being not availed after affording several

opportunities the matter came to be posted for hearing

arguments on merits. Authorised Representative of the

II Party addressed her oral arguments and though several

opportunities were afforded for I Party counsel same was

being not availed the matter came to be posted for award.

Since the Domestic Enquiry has been held as fair

and proper it was for the first party to demonstrate that

the enquiry finding was perverse and that the Disciplinary

Authority or Appellate Authority could not have placed

reliance on such a finding to impose the highest

punishment of dismissal. But as already adverted to by

me above, the first party and her counsel since never

turned up after the finding of the Hon’ble High Court on

the Domestic Enquiry issue, I feel that they left abandoned

the reference being satisfied that they have no hope of

success. It is also borne out from the records besides the

Domestic Enquiry initiated against the husband of first

party and others in relation to this very charge parallel

criminal proceedings was also initiated and all the officials

have been convicted by the criminal court where in this

official was accused No.13. Apart from that in respect of

this very charge in the dispute raised by other five officials

this tribunal while confirming the finding of the enquiry

officer had reduced punishment of dismissal to compulsory

retirement and that order when challenged by the second

party before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ

Petition No.556/94 same came to be allowed reversing the

modification of punishment by this tribunal and confirmed

order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority

and even writ appeal preferred against that order came to

be dismissed. Having regard to this development the first

party in this case appears to have lost hope of success

and actually abandoned the reference. Under the

circumstances, I have no reason to interfere either in the

finding of the enquiry officer as perverse or order of

punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority

confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

In the result I arrived at the conclusion of rejecting

the reference affirming the order of dismissal passed by

the Disciplinary Authority and pass the following

ORDER

The reference is rejected holding that action of the

management of Reserve Bank of India is justified in

dismissing Late Shri V Thangaraj, Mazdoor w.e.f.

14.11.1991 based on the finding of the enquiry officer

the charge being proved and that the first party is

not entitle for any relief.

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 371-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj izxfr xzkeh.k

cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 39@2013)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@21@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2015

S.O. 371.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Pragati

Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19/02/2015.

[No. L-12011/21/2013-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

Dated : 13th January, 2015

PRESENT : Shri S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

C R No. 39/2013

986

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

I Party

The Assistant General Secretary,

Pragathi Gramin Bank Officers

Association, No. 33/15, 1st Floor,

III Cross, Gandhinagar, Bellary

II Party

The Chairman,

Pragathi Gramin Bank,

Head Office,

Bellary-583 103.

Appearances :

I Party

Shri R Nagendra Naik, Advocate

II Party :

Sh. B C Prabhakar, Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-12011/21/

2013-IR(B-I) dated 31.05.2013 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made

this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the Government of India, Ministry of

Finance can explore the possibility of amending the

decision/guidelines issued and to decide whether

the demands raised by the Union are justified or

not?”

While Registering this reference in C R 39/2013 on

the file of this tribunal when notices were issued to the

Assistant General Secretary, Pragathi Gramin Bank Officers

Association and the Chairman, Pragathi Gramin Bank

(hereinafter referred as I Party and II Party respectively)

both of them entered their appearance through their

respective advocates and the I Party filed his claim

statement on 29.01.2014, whereas, the II Party counter

statement on 13.10.2014.

The I Party in his claim statement alleging that when

National Federation of RRB officers (a wing of all India

Rural Bank Employees Association) an apex body for which

I Party is an affiliate had issued strike notice through its

letter dated 23.05.2012 for observing a days all India Strike

on 08.06.2012 and on receipt of such notice the RLC(C),

Bellary initiated conciliation proceedings on 04.06.2012

and after holding meetings on 04.06.2012, 15.06.2012 and

finally on 07.11.2012 submitted FOC as a result this

reference came to be made narrated in detail the demands

put forward in the said conciliation and justification for

the same prayed for direction to the II Party to regularize

the services of Coolies working in the various branch of

the II Party Bank in the post of Messenger-cum-Sweeper/

Office Attendant with all consequential benefits from the

date of initial engagement. INTER ALIA, the II party

opposed the demands giving their own reasoning and

prayed to reject the same.

After completion of the pleadings when the matter

was posted for Evidence the learned advocate appearing

for the I party while filing the affidavits of Sh. Ganapathi

Vishweswar Hegde, General Secretary of All Karnataka

Gramin Banks Federation and Sh. Veerayya Swamy, a

substitute messenger/coolie at Aland Branch of Pragathi

Krishna Gramin Bank, Sh. Dattatreya Patil, a substitute

messenger/coolie at Ujalam Branch of Pragathi Krishna

Gramin Bank and Sh. K M Gurumurthy, General Secretary,

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank examining them on oath as

WW 1 to WW 4 respectively got exhibited Ex W-1 to Ex

W-39 the detailed description of which are narrated in the

annexure. INTER ALIA, the learned advocate appearing

for the II party while filing the affidavit of Sh. A M

Chandrashekar, Senior Manager - IR Section, Head Office

of the II Party at Bellary examining him on oath as MW 1

(M) got exhibited Ex M-1 to Ex M-9 the detailed description

of which are narrated in the annexure.

With the above pleadings and evidence brought on

record when the matter was posted for arguments the

learned advocate appearing for the I Party in the opening

of the arguments while submitting that Demand No. (a)

Regularisation/absorption of part time/daily waged workers

in RRBs; (b) Parity of Pension; (d) Withdrawal of

government order on deputations, H R Policy to reduce

the staff strength and e. Representation of workman and

Officer in the Board of management are being policy matters

only Demand No. (c) Formation of National Rural Bank of

India will be pressed into service. At this juncture when

the tribunal drawing his attention to the schedule of

reference which reads “Whether the Government of India,

Ministry of Finance can explore the possibility of amending

the decision/guidelines issued and to decide whether the

demands raised by the Union are justified or not” asked

where the Government has made a reference to adjudicate

whether the demands put forward are justified expressing

that the schedule of reference appears to be only seeking

opinion of the Tribunal as to Whether the Government of

India, Ministry of Finance can explore the possibility of

amending the decision/guidelines issued by it and to

decide whether the demands raised by the Union are

justified or not he initially tried to split the schedule into

two, one ‘Whether the Government of India, Ministry of

Finance can explore the possibility of amending the

decision/guidelines issued’ and second ‘and to decide

whether the demands raised by the Union are justified or

not’ urged that the tribunal may not answer the first part

and consider the second part. But when the tribunal

expressed its opinion that since the schedule of reference

reads “Whether the Government of India, Ministry of

Finance can explore the possibility of amending the

decision/guidelines issued and to decide whether the

demands raised by the Union are justified or not” how can

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 2] 1936

987

it be split and read and considered as urged by him he

could not give appropriate answer and rest contended by

saying that the I Party Union is satisfied if this tribunal

give its opinion in the affirmative on the schedule.

INTERALIA, the learned advocate appearing for the II

Party urged the simple reading of the schedule of reference

makes it clear that the referring authority has sought for

opinion of the tribunal as to whether it can explore its

possibility of amending the decision/guidelines issued by

it and to decide whether the demands raised by the Union

are justified or not as such it do not constitute an industrial

dispute therefore this tribunal cannot give such opinion

and the reference is liable to be rejected.

On appreciation of the schedule of the reference

with the pleadings, evidence (which are not at all relevant

for considering the schedule of the reference) and the

arguments put forward by the learned advocates appearing

for both the sides since I find the schedule of reference do

not constitute an Industrial Dispute requiring an

adjudication by this Tribunal, the reference is liable to be

rejected for the following

REASONS

As already highlighted by me above since the

schedule of reference reads “Whether the Government of

India, Ministry of Finance can explore the possibility of

amending the decision/guidelines issued and to decide

whether the demands raised by the Union are justified or

not” its plain reading makes its clear that the Government

of India, Ministry of finance have asked for the opinion of

this tribunal as to whether it can explore the possibility of

amending the decision/ guidelines issued by it and to

decide whether the demands raised by the Union are

justified or not and has not referred to decide whether the

demands put forward are justified or not. This opinion of

mine is also strengthened since the schedule of demands

is also not forwarded.

The appropriate government under Section 10(1)(d)

of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 under which this

reference is made when is of the opinion that any industrial

dispute exists or is apprehended may refer the same or

any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to

the dispute whether it relates to any matter specified in

the second schedule or the third schedule for adjudication

to the Tribunal but there is no scope to ask the opinion of

the Tribunal as to whether it can explore the possibility of

amending the decision its guidelines issued and to decide

whether the demands raised by the union are justified or

not. As defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947 Industrial Dispute means any dispute or

difference between employees and employers, or between

employers and workman, or between workmen and

workmen, which is connected with employment or non-

employment or the terms of employment or with the

conditions of labour of any person. On joint reading of

section 10(1)(d) and 2(k) of the Industrial Dispute Act,

1947 it is crystal clear that a reference could be made to the

tribunal only when the dispute within the meaning of the

Industrial Dispute is in existence or the dispute is

apprehended. Though in the preamble of the reference

order it is stated that the Central Government is of the

opinion that an Industrial Dispute exist between the

employers in relation to the management of Pragathi Gramin

Bank and their workman the schedule it has referred for

adjudication is not in respect of any dispute between the

employers and the management of Pragathi Gramin Bank

and as already adverted to by me above it could be

understood as asking an opinion of this tribunal as to

whether it can explore the possibility of amending the

decision/guidelines issued by it relating to regularisation

of coolies and to decide whether the demands are justified

or not. Thus having arrived at conclusion the schedule of

reference do not constitute an Industrial Dispute this

tribunal cannot answer the schedule of reference which in

my humble opinion answering it would amount to giving

an opinion as to Whether the Government of India,

Ministry of Finance can explore the possibility of amending

the decision/guidelines issued and to decide whether the

demands raised by the Union are justified or not. In the

result, I pass the following

ORDER

The Reference is Rejected holding that the schedule

of reference since do not constitute an Industrial

Dispute and answering the same would amount to

giving an opinion as to Whether the Government of

India, Ministry of Finance can explore the possibility

of amending the decision/guidelines issued and to

decide whether the demands raised by the Union

are justified or not.

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE – I

Witnesses examined on behalf of II Party:

MW 1 (M) –

Sh. A N Chandrasekhara, Senior Manager,

IR Section

Witnesses examined on behalf of I Party:

WW 1(M) –

Sh. Ganapathi Hegde, General Secretary

WW 2(M) –

Veerayya Swami, Substitute Messenger/

Coolie

WW 3(M) –

Sh. Dattatreya Patil, Substitute Messenger/

Coolie

WW 4(M) –

Sh. K M Gurumurthy, General Secretary

Documents exhibited on behalf of II Party:

Ex M – 1

Copy of the Gazette Notification in

respect of government of India

guidelines dated 13.07.2010

988

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 2, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex M – 2

Copy of the Regional Rural Banks Act

1976

Ex M – 3

Copy of the Bye-Law of the Officers

Association

Ex M – 4

Copy of letter dated 27.11.2009

Ex M – 5

Copy of the reminder dated 14.03.2011

addressed to canara bank

Ex M – 6

Copy of the reminder dated 05.07.2011

addressed to canara bank

Ex M – 7

Copy of letter dated 28.07.2011

addressed to NABARD

Ex M – 8

Copy of letter dated 23.09.2011 of Canara

Bank

Ex M – 9

Copy of the Gazette Notification dated

23.08.2013 of the Government of India

about the amalgamation of Krishna

Gramina Bank into Pragathi Gramina

Bank

Documents exhibited on behalf of I Party:

Ex W – 1

Copy of the Wage Paid Register

Ex W – 2

Copy of the approved by the Branch

Manager

Ex W – 3

Copy of the Approved by the General

Manager

Ex W – 4

Copy of the Approved by the General

(General Bank), General Manager

Ex W – 5

Copy of the Bonus Paid Register

Ex W – 6

Copy of the Deposited Letter

Ex W - 7

Copy of the Remittance Registers

Ex W – 8

Copy of the debit voucher for payment

Ex W – 9

Copy of the Std – Receipt’s Indiant

Ex W – 10

Copy of the Wages Extract

Ex W – 11

Letter by General Manager dated

01.09.2014

Ex W – 12

Memo No. 74/2014 dated 01.09.2014

Ex W – 13

Memo No. 131/2008 dated 05.12.20083

Ex W – 14

Memo No. 87/2012 – 13 dated 22.09.2012

Ex W – 15

Circular No. 56/2013-14 dated 11.12.2013

Ex W – 16

Copy of Strike Notice dated 23.05.2012

Ex W – 17

Copy of conciliation proceedings dated

04.06.2012

Ex W – 18

Copy of conciliation proceedings dated

15.06.2012

Ex W – 19

Copy of FOC report dated 22.02.2013

Ex W – 20

Copy of circular dated 27.09.1980

Ex W – 21

Copy of circular dated 30.09.1980

Ex W – 22

Copy of circular dated 28.05.1981

Ex W – 23

Circular No. 100/83 dated 19.03.1983

Ex W – 24

Circular No. 13/92-93 dated 07.05.1992

Ex W – 25

Memo No. 111/92-93 dated 12.01.1993

Ex W – 26

Circular No. 157/1999-2000 dated

31.03.2000

Ex W – 27

Copy of Memo dated 06.02.2001 and

18.01.2003

Ex W – 28

Copy of Memo dated 18.10.2007 and

26.03.2009

Ex W – 29

Copy of Letter dated 12.06.2009

Ex W – 30

Letter written by II Party to Canara Bank

dated 27.11.2009

Ex W – 31

Reply of the II Party dated 17.10.2011 to

RTI Application

Ex W – 32

Letter written by II Party to Canara Bank

dated 14.03.2011

Ex W – 33

Letter written by II Party to Canara Bank

dated 05.07.2011

Ex W – 34

Letter written by Canara Bank to

NABARD, HO dated 28.07.2011

Ex W – 35

Letter written by Canara Bank to

NABARD, HO dated 25.08.2011

Ex W – 36

Memo of II Party dated 27.11.2012

Ex W – 37

Memo of II Party dated 18.07.2013

Ex W – 38

Minutes of the Joint Conference held

on 27.11.2012

Ex W – 39

Joint Forum letter to II Party dated

14.09.2011

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi.110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi.110054.