782 GI/2015

(989)

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

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

ubZ fnYyh] 17 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 372-—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,] fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk

}kjk tkap fd, x, ekeyksa ls mRiUu vfHk;kstu] vihy vkSj

iqujh{k.k ;k vU; ekeyksa dk vfHk;kstu enqjS fLFkr eækl mPp

U;k;ky; dh enqjS ihB esa mifLFkr gksus ds fy, Jh ,l- t;dqekj

dks dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks esa fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa

fu;qDr djrh gS A

[iQk- la- 225@25@2013&,ohMh&II]

lq'khy dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC

GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2015

S.O. 372.—In exercise of 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 S.Jayakumar, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor of the Central Bureau of Investigation in

the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court at Madurai for

conducting the prosecution, appeals, revisions or other

matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi

Special Police Establishment.

[F. No. 225/25/2013-AVD-II]

SUSHEEL KUMAR, Under Secy.

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la-

ubZ fnYyh] iQjojh 22—iQjojh 28] 2015] 'kfuokj@iQkYxqu 3—iQkYxqu 9] 1936

No. 9]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 22—FEBRUARY 28, 2015, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 3—PHALGUNA 9, 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

990

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 373-—dsUnh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

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

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk

(ds-v-C;wjks) }kjk laiw.kZ if'pe caxky jkT; ds LFkkuh; {ks=kksa esa

fof/ }kjk LFkkfir Vªk;y U;k;ky;ksa rFkk iqujh{k.k ;k vihyh;

U;k;ky;ksa esa muls m¼`r vihyksa] iqujh{k.kksa rFkk vU; ekeyksa ds

lapkyu ds fy, loZJh lq'khy usxh ,oa fofiu dqekj] dsUnzh;

vUos"k.k C;wjks ds vfHk;kstu vf/dkjh dks yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i

esa fu;qDr djrh gS A

[iQk- la- 225@44@2013&,ohMh&II]

lq'khy dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2015

S.O. 373.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal

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

hereby appoints S/Shri Sushil Negi and Vipin Kumar,

Prosecuting Officer of Central Bureau of Investigation as

Public Prosecutor for conducting cases in the local area

comprising the whole State of West Bengal instituted by

the Delhi Special Police Establishment (C.B.I.) in the trial

courts and appeals, revisions or other matters arising out

of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts, established

by law.

[F. No. 225/44/2013.AVD.II]

SUSHEEL KUMAR, Under Secy.

foRr ea=ky;

¼jktLo foHkkx½

¼dsUæh; çR;{k dj cksMZ½

ubZ fnYyh] 16 Qjojh] 2015

çi= la- 3 lhih

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 374.—

vkosnd dk uke] irk rFkk isu la-

xksMjst ,xzksosV fy- fijkst’kk uxj] bLVuZ ,DlçSl gkbos] fodjksyh ¼bZLV½ eqEcbZ& 400719

¼,,, lhth 0617 D;w½

—f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dk uke

xksMjst ,xzksosV&—f”k laca/kh fufof”V;ka foLrkj ifj;kstuk ¼th,& ,vkbZbZih½

—f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dk ç;kstu

Qly vkSj i’kq/ku mRiknksa esa lrr~ o`f) djus gsrq vfHkuo mRiknksa ,oa lsokvksa dks miyC/k

djkdj Hkkjrh; fdlkuksa dh mRikndrk esa lq/kkj ykukA fdlkuksa dks uohure lek/kku

çnku djkuk vkSj bUgsa vPNh —f”k laca/kh i)fr;ksa ls voxr djkukA

vkosnu dh lanHkZ la[;k vkSj frfFk

Qk- la- 203@29@2014&vk-d-fu&AA]fnukad14-01-2015 dks çkIr gqvkA

—f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks vkjaHk djus dh frfFk

igys gh vkjaHk dh tk pqdh gSA rFkkfi] vuqeksnu vk;dj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 35 xxx ds

rgr vkSipkfjd vf/klwpuk tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls gh çHkkoh gksxkA

—f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh ekg ds fglkc ls vof/k

py jgh ifj;kstukA

dj&fu/kkZj.k o”kZ ¼o”kksaZ½ ftuds fy, —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk

vf/klwpuk ds vkSipkfjd :i ls tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls dj&fu/kkZj.k o”kZ 2016&17

dks vf/klwfpr fd;k tk jgk gS ¼rhu o”kksaZ ls vf/kd ugha½

rdA

—f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ij gksus okys laHkkfor dqy [kpZ

dj fu/kkZj.k o”kZ 2014&15 vkSj 2015&16 ¼vkosnd us çR;sd o”kZ ds fy, 10]82]00]000@&

¼Hkwfe vFkok Hkou dh ykxr jkf’k ls fHkUu½

:i, ds [kpZ dk nkok fd;k gSk rFkkfi] D;ksafd ifj;kstuk dks vuqeksnu foRr o”kZ 2014&15

esa ijorhZ frfFk ls fn;k tk jgk gSA vr% laxr vof/k gsrq laHkkfor O;; dkQh de gksxk]

tgka rd foRr o”kZ 2013&14 dk laca/k gS /kkjk 35 xxx ds rgr fdlh Hkh nkos ds fy,

vuqefr ugha nh tk,xh½ tcfd dj& fu/kkZj.k o”kZ 2016&17 ds fy, laHkkfor O;;

10]82]00]000@& :i;s dk vuqeku gSA

—f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds çR;sd ykHkxzkgh ls çkIr dh

‘kwU;

tkus okyh jkf’k] ;fn dksbZ gks]

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

991

10- os ‘krsaZ ftuds v/;/khu ¼th,& ,vkbZbZih½ uke ls —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks vf/klwfpr fd;k tk jgk gS] fuEukuqlkj gS %&

¼i½

—f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks ‘kq: djus okyh vuqeksfnr laLFkk /kkjk 35 xxx dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr vf/klwfpr —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh

ys[kkcfg;ka i`Fkd :i ls j[ksxh rFkk ,slh ys[kkcfg;ksa dh /kkjk 288 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds uhps mfYyf[kr Li”Vhdj.k esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf”kr fd, x, vuqlkj

fdlh ys[kkdkj ls ys[kk&ijh{kk djk,xhA

¼ii½

mifu;e ¼1½ esa mfYyf[kr ys[kk ijh{kk esa ys[kk&ijh{kd dh —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds lEca/k esa vuqjf{kr ys[kkcfg;ksa ds lgh vkSj mfpr gksus ds

laca/k esa dh xbZ fVIif.k;ka] —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds fØ;kdykiksa dh okLrfodrk rFkk vf/kfu;e ds laxar mica/kksa esa fofufnZ”V ‘krksaZ ds iw.kZ fd;s

tkus vFkok fu;eksa vFkok fu;e 6 dd?k ds mifu;e ¼6½ ;k mifu;e ¼9½ ds varxZr tkjh vf/klwpuk esa mfYyf[kr fu;eksa vFkok ‘krksaZ dks iw.kZ fd,

tkus ds laca/k esa fVIif.k;ka ‘kkfey gksaxhA

¼iii½

vuqeksfnr laLFkk çf’k{k.k] f’k{kk] ekxZn’kZu vFkok ,sls çf’k{k.k] f’k{kk vFkok ekxZn’kZu gsrq forfjr dh xbZ fdlh lkexzh ds fy, ik= —f”k foLrkj

ifj;kstuk ds vUrxZr fdlh ykHkxzkgh ls dksbZ jkf’k Lohdkj ugha djsxhA

¼iv½

vuqeksfnr laLFkk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 35xxx ds mica/kksa] fu;e 6 dd?k vkSj bl fu;e ds vuqlkj ik= O;; dh dVkSrh ds vykok vf/klwfpr —f”k

foLrkj ifj;kstuk ls dksbZ çR;{k ;k vçR;{k ykHk ugha mBk,xhA

¼v½

ifj;kstuk ds varxZr dEiuh dh çksQkby vkSj mRiknksa ij y?kq l= dks NksM+dj dsoy mRikn&fu”çHkkoh çf’k{k.k fn;k tk,xkA

¼vi½

ykHkxzkgh ls çkIr dh xbZ jkf’k] ;fn dksbZ gks] dks ?kVkus ds ckn lHkh [kpsZ ¼fdlh Hkwfe ;k Hkou dh ykxr Lo:i dk O;; u gksus ij½ ftUgsa fdlh

ik= —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks ‘kq~: djus gsrq iw.kZ rFkk vuU; :i ls [kpZ fd;k x;k gS] /kkjk 35 xxx ds rgr dVkSrh ds ik= gksaxs%

ijUrq ;g fd —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ij [kpZ fd;k x;k dksbZ O;; ftldh dj fu/kkZfjrh dks fdlh O;fä }kjk çR;{k ;k vçR;{k :i ls çfriwfrZ

dh xbZ gS ;k dh tkuh gS] ds fy, /kkjk 35 xxx ds varxZr dksbZ dVkSrh ugha nh tk,xhA

¼vii½

tgka vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 35 xx ds vUrxZr fdlh dVkSrh dk fdlh dj&fu/kkZj.k o”kZ gsrq nkok fd;k tkrk gS rFkk mls vuqer fd;k tkrk gS rks

,sls O;; ds laca/k esa vf/kfu;e ds fdlh vU; mica/k ds vUrxZr mlh dj&fu/kkZj.k o”kZ vFkok vU; fdlh dj fu/kkZj.k o”kZ esa dVkSrh vuqer ugha dh

tk,xhA

¼viii½

bl ifj;kstuk ds varxZr foLrkj dk;ZdrkZvksa dk MsVkcsl rRlaca/kh jkT; dh lacaf/kr ftyk —f”k lfefr ¼Mh,lh½ dks fn;k tk,xkA blds vykok]

vkosnd —f”k foLrkj lsokvksa dks ^Mh,bZ,lvkbZ* ¼^buiqV fMyjksa gsrq —f”k foLrkj lsokvksa esa fMIyksek*½ ds vUrxZr buiqV fMyjksa ds ek/;e ls —f”k foLrkj

lsok,a miyC/k djk ldrk gS D;ksafd Mh,bZ,lvkbZ tks fd jk”Vªh; —f”k foLrkj çca/ku laLFkku] gSnjkckn ¼^,e,,u,thbZ*½ }kjk pyk;k tk jgk gS] dh

12 oha ;kstuk esa bl laca/k esa fof’k”V fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k gSA

¼ix½

vuqeksfnr laLFkk }kjk /kkjk 139 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr vk; fooj.kh dks

çLrqr djus dh fu;r frfFk dks ;k mlls iwoZ fuEufyf[kr lwpuk

Hkh çLrqr djsxh] uker%&

¼d½

ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ds lkFk iwoZ o”kZ ds fy, —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds ys[kkvksa ds ys[kkijhf{kr fd, x, fooj.k rFkk /kkjk 35 xxx dh mi /kkjk

¼1½ ds vUrxZr nkok dh xbZ dVkSrh dh jkf’k(

¼[k½

iwoZ o”kZ ds nkSjku blds }kjk ‘kq: dh xbZ —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ij rFkk pkyw o”kZ ds nkSjku ‘kq: dh tkus okyh —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds dk;ZØe

ds laca/k esa ,d fVIi.kh vkSj ,sls dk;ZØe gsrq foRrh; vkcaVu( rFkk

¼x½

dj fu/kkZfjrh }kjk iwoZ o”kZ ds nkSjku ‘kq: dh xbZ —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh

okLrfodrk ds laca/k esa —f”k ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj dh vksj ls

çek.ki=A

¼x½

bl ifj;kstuk ds varxZr dEiuh dh çksQkby vkSj mRiknksa ij vYi l= dks NksM+dj dsoy mRikn fu”çHkkoh çf’k{k.k fn;k tk,xkA

11- dsUæh; çR;{k dj cksMZ viuk vuqeksnu okil ys ysxk ;fn vuqeksfnr laLFkk%&

¼d½

vius fØ;kdyki can dj nsrh gSa( vFkok

¼[k½

blds fØ;kdyki vokLrfod ik, tkrs gSa( vFkok

¼x½

blds fØ;kdyki vf/kfu;e ds lHkh ;k fdlh laxr mica/kksa vFkok fu;eksa ds vuqlkj ugha fd, tk jgs gSa( vFkok

¼?k½

blds fØ;kdyki ,slh lHkh ‘krksaZ vFkok muesa ls fdlh Hkh ‘krZ ds vuqlkj ugha fd, tk jgs gSa ftu ‘krksaZ ds v/;/khu vf/klwpuk tkjh dh tk jgh

gSA

LFkku % ubZ fnYyh] fnukad 16-2-2015

[vf/klwpuk la- 16@2015@Qk-la- 203@29@2014&vkdfu II]

_pk jLrksxh] voj lfpo

992

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2015

FORM NO. 3CP

S.O.

374.—

Name, address and PAN of the applicant

Godrej Agrovet Limited, Pirojshanagar, Eastern Express

Highway, Vikroli (East), Mumbai-400079 (AAACG0617Q)

Title of the agricultural extension project

Godrej Agrovet- Agricultural Inputs Extension Project

(‘GA- AIEP’)

Purpose of the agricultural extension project

To improve the productivity of Indian farmers by providing

innovative products and services that sustainably increase

crop and livestock yields. To provide latest solutions to

the farmers and educate them on good agricultural

practices.

Reference No. and date of the application

F.No. 203/29/2014-ITA.II received on 14.01.2015

Date of commencement of the agricultural

Already commenced. However, approval shall be effective

extension project

from the date of issue of this formal Notification u/s 35CCC

of the I.T. Act.

Duration of the agricultural extension project

Ongoing project.

in months

Assessment year(s) for which the agricultural

From date of formal issue of Notification till A.Y. 2016-17.

extension project is being notified

(not exceeding three years)

Total expenses likely to be incurred for the

For A.Yr’s 2014-2015 and 2015-16 (applicant has claimed

agricultural extension project (other than cost

expenses of Rs. 10,82,00,000/- for each year. However, as

of land or building)

project is being accorded approval from subsequent date

in the F.Yr. 2014-2015, the expected expenditure for the

relevant period would be much lesser, as far as F.Yr. 2013

2014 is concerned, no claim u/s 35CCC shall be allowed)

while for A.Y. 2016-17, likely expenditure is Rs. 10,82,00,000/-.

Amount, if any, to be charged from each

NIL

beneficiary of agricultural extension project.

10.

Conditions subject to which agricultural extension project titled (‘GA-AIEP’) is being notified are as under:

The approved entity undertaking agricultural extension project shall maintain separate books of account of

the agricultural extension project notified under sub-section (1) of section 35CCC, and get such books of

account audited by an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288.

ii.

The audit report referred to in sub-rule (1) shall include the comments of the auditor on the true and fair view

of the books of account maintained for agricultural extension project, the genuineness of the activities of the

agricultural extension project and fulfillment of the conditions specified in the relevant provisions of the Act

or the rules or the conditions mentioned in the notification issued under sub-rule (6) or sub-rule (9) of rule

6AAD.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

993

iii.

The approved entity shall not accept any amount from the beneficiary under the eligible agricultural extension

project for training, education, guidance or any material distributed for the purposes of such training, education

or guidance.

iv.

The approved entity shall not get any direct or indirect benefit from the notified agricultural extension project

except the deduction of the eligible expenditure in accordance with the provisions of section 35CCC of the

Act, rule 6AAD and this rule.

Under the project only product neutral training would be given except a short session on company’s profile

and products.

vi.

All expenses (not being expenditure in the nature of cost of any land or building), as reduced by the amount

received from beneficiary, if any, incurred wholly and exclusively for undertaking an eligible agricultural

extension project shall be eligible for deduction under section 35CCC:

Provided that any expenditure incurred on the agricultural extension project which is reimbursed or reimbursable

to the assessee by any person, whether directly or indirectly, shall not be eligible for deduction under section

35CCC.

vii.

Where a deduction under this section 35CC of the Act is claimed and allowed for any assessment year,

deduction shall not be allowed in respect of such expenditure under any other provisions of the Act for the

same or any other assessment year.

viii.

Database of extension workers under this project would be given to the District Agricultural Committee (DAC)

concerned in the respective State. In addition, applicant may provide the agricultural extension services

through input dealers under DAESI (‘Diploma in Agricultural Extension Services for Input Dealers’) being run

by the National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad (‘MANAGE’) as the 12th Plan

scheme for DAESI has a specific stipulation in this regard.

ix.

The approved entity shall, on or before the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1)

of section 139, furnish the following to the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of Income-tax, as the

case may be, namely:-

the audited statement of accounts of the agricultural extension projects for the previous year along with the

audit report and amount of deduction claimed under sub-section (1) of section 35CCC;

a note on the agricultural extension project undertaken by it during the previous year and the programme of

agricultural extension project to be undertaken during the current year and the financial allocation for such

programme; and

a certificate from the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, regarding the genuineness of the agricultural

extension project undertaken by the assessee during the previous year.

Under the project only product neutral training will be given except a short session on company’s profile and

products.

11. The Central Board of Direct Taxes shall withdraw the approval if the approved entity:-

has ceased its activities; or

its activities are not genuine; or

its activities are not being carried out in accordance with all or any of the relevant provisions of the Act or

Rules; or

its activities are not being carried out in accordance with all or any of the conditions subject to which the

notification is being issued.

Place: New-Delhi

Dated:16/02/2015

[Notification No. 16/2015/F.No. 203/29/2014-ITA.II]

RICHA RASTOGI, Under Secy.

994

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 16 Qjojh] 2015

çi= la- 3 lhih

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 375.—

vkosnd dk uke] irk rFkk isu la-

xksMjst ,xzksosV fy- fijkst’kk uxj] bLVuZ ,DlçSl gkbos] fodjksyh ¼bZLV½ eqEcbZ& 400079

¼,,, lhth 0617 D;w½

—f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dk uke

i’kqpkjk foLrkj ifj;kstuk ¼,fuey QhM ,DlVSa’ku çkstsDV½

—f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dk ç;kstu

i’kq rFkk dqDdqV LokLF; çca/ku rFkk i’kq fpfdRlk fo’ks”kKksa ds laca/k esa fdlkuksa ds chp

lwpuk ckaVukA

vkosnu dh lanHkZ la[;k vkSj frfFk

Qk-la- 203@30@2014 vk-d-fu&AA] fnukad 14-01-2015 dks çkIr gqvkA

—f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks vkjaHk djus dh frfFk

igys gh vkjaHk dh tk pqdh gSA rFkkfi] vuqeksnu vk;dj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 35 xxx ds

rgr bl vkSipkfjd vf/klwpuk tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls gh çHkkoh gksxkA

—f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh ekg ds fglkc ls vof/k

py jgh ifj;kstuk

dj&fu/kkZj.k o”kZ ¼o”kksaZ½ ftuds fy, —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk

vf/klwpuk ds vkSipkfjd :i ls tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls dj&fu/kkZj.k o”kZ 2016&17

dks vf/klwfpr fd;k tk jgk gS ¼rhu o”kksaZ ls vf/kd ugha½

—f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ij gksus okys laHkkfor dqy [kpZ

dj fu/kkZj.k o”kZ 2014&15 vkSj 2015&16 ¼vkosnd us çR;sd o”kZ ds fy, 2]07]00]000@&

¼Hkwfe vFkok Hkou dh ykxr jkf’k ls fHkUu½

:i, ds [kpZ dk nkok fd;k gSA rFkkfi] D;ksafd ifj;kstuk dks vuqeksnu foRr o”kZ

2014&15 esa ijorhZ frfFk ls fn;k tk jgk gS] vr% laxr vof/k gsrq laHkkfor O;; dkQh

de gksxk] tgka rd foRr o”kZ 2013&14 dk laca/k gS /kkjk 35 xxx ds rgr fdlh Hkh nkos

ds fy, vuqefr ugha nh tk,xh½ tcfd dj&fu/kkZj.k o”kZ 2016&17 ds fy, laHkkfor O;;

10]82]00]000@& :i;s dk vuqeku gSA

—f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds çR;sd ykHkxzkgh ls çkIr dh

‘kwU;

tkus okyh jkf’k] ;fn dksbZ gks]

10- os ‘krsaZ ftuds v/;/khu ^i’kqpkjk foLrkj ifj;kstuk* uke ls —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks vf/klwfpr fd;k tk jgk gS] fuEukuqlkj gS%&

¼i½

—f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks ‘kq: djus okyh vuqeksfnr laLFkk /kkjk 35 xxx dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr vf/klwfpr —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh

ys[kkcfg;ka i`Fkd :i ls j[ksxh rFkk ,slh ys[kkcfg;ksa dh /kkjk 288 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds uhps mfYyf[kr Li”Vhdj.k esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf”kr fd, x, vuqlkj

fdlh ys[kkdkj ls ys[kk&ijh{kk djk,xhA

¼ii½

mifu;e ¼1½ esa mfYyf[kr ys[kk ijh{kk esa ys[kk&ijh{kd dh —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds lEca/k esa vuqjf{kr ys[kkcfg;ksa ds lgh vkSj mfpr gksus ds

laca/k esa dh xbZ fVIif.k;ka] —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds fØ;kdykiksa dh okLrfodrk rFkk vf/kfu;e ds laxar mica/kksa esa fofufnZ”V ‘krksaZ ds iw.kZ fd;s

tkus vFkok fu;eksa vFkok fu;e 6 dd?k ds mifu;e ¼6½ ;k mifu;e ¼9½ ds varxZr tkjh vf/klwpuk esa mfYyf[kr fu;eksa vFkok ‘krksaZ dks iw.kZ

fd, tkus ds laca/k esa fVIif.k;ka ‘kkfey gksaxhA

¼iii½

vuqeksfnr laLFkk çf’k{k.k] f’k{kk] ekxZn’kZu vFkok ,sls çf’k{k.k] f’k{kk vFkok ekxZn’kZu gsrq forfjr dh xbZ fdlh lkexzh ds fy, ik= —f”k foLrkj

ifj;kstuk ds vUrxZr fdlh ykHkxzkgh ls dksbZ jkf’k Lohdkj ugha djsxhA

¼iv½

vuqeksfnr laLFkk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 35xxx ds mica/kksa] fu;e 6 dd?k vkSj bl fu;e ds vuqlkj ik= O;; dh dVkSrh ds vykok vf/klwfpr —f”k

foLrkj ifj;kstuk ls dksbZ çR;{k ;k vçR;{k ykHk ugha mBk,xhA

¼v½

ykHkxzkgh ls çkIr dh xbZ jkf’k] ;fn dksbZ gks] dks ?kVkus ds ckn lHkh [kpsZ ¼fdlh Hkwfe ;k Hkou dh ykxr Lo:i dk O;; u gksus ij½ ftUgsa fdlh

ik= —f”k foLrkj

ifj;kstuk dks ‘kq~: djus gsrq iw.kZ rFkk vuU; :i ls [kpZ fd;k x;k gS] /kkjk 35 xxx ds rgr dVkSrh ds ik= gksaxs(

ijUrq ;g fd —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ij [kpZ fd;k x;k dksbZ O;; ftldh dj fu/kkZfjrh dks fdlh O;fä }kjk çR;{k ;k vçR;{k :i ls çfriwfrZ

dh xbZ gS ;k dh tkuh gS] ds fy, /kkjk 35 xxx ds varxZr dksbZ dVkSrh ugha nh tk,xhA

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

995

¼vi½

tgka vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 35 xx ds vUrxZr fdlh dVkSrh dk fdlh dj&fu/kkZj.k o”kZ gsrq nkok fd;k tkrk gS rFkk mls vuqer fd;k tkrk gS rks

,sls O;; ds laca/k esa vf/kfu;e ds fdlh vU; mica/k ds vUrxZr mlh dj&fu/kkZj.k o”kZ vFkok vU; fdlh dj &fu/kkZj.k o”kZ esa dVkSrh vuqer ugha

dh tk,xhA

¼vii½

vuqeksfnr laLFkk }kjk /kkjk139 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr vk; fooj.kh dks çLrqr djus dh fu;r frfFk dks ;k mlls iwoZ vk;dj vk;qDr dks ;k

vk;dj funs’kd

dks] tSlk Hkh ekeyk gks] fuEufyf[kr lwpuk Hkh çLrqr djsxh] uker%&

¼d½

ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ds lkFk iwoZ o”kZ ds fy, —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds ys[kkvksa ds ys[kkijhf{kr fd, x, fooj.k rFkk /kkjk 35xxx dh mi/kkjk ¼1½

ds vUrxZr nkok dh xbZ dVkSrh dh jkf’k(

¼[k½

iwoZ o”kZ ds nkSjku blds }kjk ‘kq: dh xbZ —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ij rFkk pkyw o”kZ ds nkSjku ‘kq: dh tkus okyh —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds dk;ZØe

ds laca/k esa ,d fVIi.kh vkSj ,sls dk;ZØe gsrq foRrh; vkcaVu( rFkk

¼x½

dj&fu/kkZfjrh }kjk iwoZ o”kZ ds nkSjku ‘kq: dh xbZ —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh okLrfodrk ds laca/k esa —f”k ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj dh vksj ls

çek.ki=A

¼viii½

bl ifj;kstuk ds varxZr dEiuh dh çksQkby vkSj mRiknksa ij vYi l= dks NksM+dj dsoy mRikn fu”çHkkoh çf’k{k.k fn;k tk,xkA

11- dsUæh; çR;{k dj cksMZ viuk vuqeksnu okil ys ysxk ;fn vuqeksfnr laLFkk%&

¼d½

vius fØ;kdyki can dj nsrh gS( vFkok

¼[k½

blds fØ;kdyki vokLrfod ik, tkrs gSa( vFkok

¼x½

blds fØ;kdyki vf/kfu;e ds lHkh ;k fdlh laxr mica/kksa vFkok fu;eksa ds vuqlkj ugha fd, tk jgs gSa( vFkok

¼?k½

blds fØ;kdyki ,slh lHkh ‘krksaZ vFkok muesa ls fdlh Hkh ‘krZ ds vuqlkj ugha fd, tk jgs gSa ftu ‘krksaZ ds v/;/khu vf/klwpuk tkjh dh tk jgh

gSA

LFkku % ubZ fnYyh] fnukad 16-2-2015

[vf/klwpuk la- 15@2015@Qk-la- 203@30@2014&vkdfu II]

_pk jLrksxh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2015

FORM NO. 3CP

S.O. 375.—

Name, address and PAN of the applicant

Godrej Agrovet Limited, Pirojshanagar, Eastern Express

Highway, Vikroli (East), Mumbai-400079 (AAACG0617Q)

Title of the agricultural extension project

Animal Feed Extension Project

Purpose of the agricultural extension project

Sharing of information among farmers in relation to cattle

and poultry health management and with veterinary

experts.

Reference No. and date of the application

F.No. 203/30/2014-ITA.II received on 14.01.2015

Date of commencement of the agricultural

Already commenced. However, approval shall be effective

extension project

from the date of issue of this formal Notification u/s 35CCC

of the I.T. Act.

Duration of the agricultural extension project

Ongoing project.

in months

Assessment year(s) for which the agricultural

From date of formal issue of Notification till A.Y. 2016-17.

extension project is being notified

(not exceeding three years)

996

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Total expenses likely to be incurred for the

For A.Yr’s 2014-2015 and 2015-16 (applicant has claimed

agricultural extension project (other than

expenses of Rs. 2,07,00,000/- for each year. However, as

cost of land or building)

project is being accorded approval from subsequent date

in the F.Yr. 2014-2015, the expected expenditure for the

relevant period would be much lesser, as far as F.Yr. 2013

2014 is concerned, no claim u/s 35CCC shall be allowed)

while for A.Y. 2016-17, likely expenditure is Rs. 10,82,00,000/-.

Amount, if any, to be charged from each

NIL

beneficiary of agricultural extension project.

10.

Conditions subject to which agricultural extension project titled ‘Animal Feeds Extension Project’ is being notified

are as under:

The approved entity undertaking agricultural extension project shall maintain separate books of account of

the agricultural extension project notified under sub-section (1) of section 35CCC, and get such books of

account audited by an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288.

ii.

The audit report referred to in sub-rule (1) shall include the comments of the auditor on the true and fair view

of the books of account maintained for agricultural extension project, the genuineness of the activities of the

agricultural extension project and fulfillment of the conditions specified in the relevant provisions of the Act

or the rules or the conditions mentioned in the notification issued under sub-rule (6) or sub-rule (9) of rule

6AAD.

iii.

The approved entity shall not accept any amount from the beneficiary under the eligible agricultural extension

project for training, education, guidance or any material distributed for the purposes of such training, education

or guidance.

iv.

The approved entity shall not get any direct or indirect benefit from the notified agricultural extension project

except the deduction of the eligible expenditure in accordance with the provisions of section 35CCC of the

Act, rule 6AAD and this rule.

All expenses (not being expenditure in the nature of cost of any land or building), as reduced by the amount

received from beneficiary, if any, incurred wholly and exclusively for undertaking an eligible agricultural

extension project shall be eligible for deduction under section 35CCC:

Provided that any expenditure incurred on the agricultural extension project which is reimbursed or reimbursable

to the assessee by any person, whether directly or indirectly, shall not be eligible for deduction under section

35CCC.

vi.

Where a deduction under this section 35CC of the Act is claimed and allowed for any assessment year,

deduction shall not be allowed in respect of such expenditure under any other provisions of the Act for the

same or any other assessment year.

vii.

The approved entity shall, on or before the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1)

of section 139, furnish the following to the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of Income-tax, as the

case may be, namely:-

the audited statement of accounts of the agricultural extension projects for the previous year along with the

audit report and amount of deduction claimed under sub-section (1) of section 35CCC;

a note on the agricultural extension project undertaken by it during the previous year and the programme of

agricultural extension project to be undertaken during the current year and the financial allocation for such

programme; and

a certificate from the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, regarding the genuineness of the agricultural

extension project undertaken by the assessee during the previous year.

viii.

Under the project only product neutral training will be given except a short session on company’s profile and

products.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

997

11.

The Central Board of Direct Taxes shall withdraw the approval if the approved entity:-

has ceased its activities; or

its activities are not genuine; or

its activities are not being carried out in accordance with all or any of the relevant provisions of the Act or

Rules; or

its activities are not being carried out in accordance with all or any of the conditions subject to which the

notification is being issued.

Place: New-Delhi

Dated:16/02/2015

[Notification No. 15/2015/F.No. 203/30/2014-ITA.II]

RICHA RASTOGI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 16 Qjojh] 2015

çi= la- 3 lhih

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 376.—

vkosnd dk uke] irk rFkk isu la-

xksMjst ,xzksosV fy- fijkst’kk uxj] bLVuZ ,Dlçsl gkbos] fodjksyh ¼iwohZ½ eqEcbZ& 400079

¼,,, lhth 0617 D;w½

—f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dk uke

[ktwj rsy foLrkj ifj;kstuk

—f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dk ç;kstu

[ktwj rsy Qly dh [ksrh esa fdlkuksa dks çf’kf{kr djuk

vkosnu dh lanHkZ la[;k vkSj frfFk

Qk-la- 203@31@2014 vk-d-fu&AA] fnukad 14-01-2015 dks çkIr gqvkA

—f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks vkjaHk djus dh frfFk

igys gh vkjaHk dh tk pqdh gSA rFkkfi] vuqeksnu vk;dj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 35 xxx ds

rgr bl vkSipkfjd vf/klwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls gh çHkkoh gksxkA

—f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh ekg ds fglkc ls vof/k

py jgh ifj;kstuk

dj&fu/kkZj.k o”kZ ¼o”kksaZ½ ftuds fy, —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk

fu/kkZj.k o”kZ 2016&17 rd vf/klwpuk ds fof/kor tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls

dks vf/klwfpr fd;k tk jgk gS ¼rhu o”kksaZ ls vf/kd ugha½

—f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ij gksusokys laHkkfor dqy [kpZ

fu/kkZj.k o”kZ 2014&15 vkSj 2015&16 ds fy, ¼vkosnd us çR;sd o”kZ ds fy,

¼Hkwfe vFkok Hkou dh ykxr jkf’k ls fHkUu½

8]53]00]000@& #- ds O;; dk nkok fd;k gSA rFkkfi] D;ksafd ifj;kstuk dks vuqeksnu

foRr o”kZ 2014&15 esa ijorhZ frfFk ls fn;k tk jgk gS vr% laxr vof/k gsrq laHkkfor O;;

dkQh de gksxk] tgka rd foRr o”kZ 2013&14 dk laca/k gS] /kkjk 35xxx ds rgr fdlh

nkos ds fy, vuqefr ugha nh tk,xh½ tcfd dj fu/kkZj.k o”kZ 2016&17 ds fy, laHkkfor

O;; 8]53]00]000@&#- dk vuqeku gSA

—f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds çR;sd ykHkxzkgh ls çkIr

‘kwU;

dh tkus okyh jkf’k] ;fn dksbZ gks]

10- os ‘krsaZ ftuds v/;/khu i’kqpkjk ^foLrkj ;kstuk* uke ls —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks vf/klwfpr fd;k tk jgk gS] fuEukuqlkj gS%&

¼i½

—f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks ‘kq: djus okyh vuqeksfnr laLFkk /kkjk 35 xxx dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr vf/klwfpr —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh

ys[kkcfg;ka i`Fkd :i ls j[ksxh rFkk ,slh ys[kkcfg;ksa dh /kkjk 288 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds uhps mfYyf[kr Li”Vhdj.k esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf”kr fd, x,

vuqlkj fdlh ys[kkdkj ls ys[kk&ijh{kk djk,xhA

¼ii½

mifu;e ¼1½ esa mfYyf[kr ys[kk ijh{kk esa ys[kk&ijh{kd dh —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds lEca/k esa vuqjf{kr ys[kkcfg;ksa ds lgh vkSj mfpr gksus ds

laca/k esa dh xbZ fVIif.k;ka] —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds fØ;kdykiksa dh okLrfodrk rFkk vf/kfu;e ds laxar mica/kksa esa fofufnZ”V ‘krksaZ ds iw.kZ fd;s

998

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

tkus vFkok fu;eksa vFkok fu;e 6 dd?k ds mifu;e ¼6½ ;k mifu;e ¼9½ ds varxZr tkjh vf/klwpuk esa mfYyf[kr fu;eksa vFkok ‘krksaZ dks iw.kZ fd,

tkus ds laca/k esa fVfIif.k;ka ‘kkfey gksaxhA

¼iii½

vuqeksfnr laLFkk çf’k{k.k] f’k{kk] ekxZn’kZu vFkok ,sls çf’k{k.k] f’k{kk vFkok ekxZn’kZu gsrq forfjr dh xbZ fdlh lkexzh ds fy, ik= —f”k foLrkj

ifj;kstuk ds vUrxZr fdlh ykHkxzkgh ls dksbZ jkf’k Lohdkj ugha djsxhA

¼iv½

vuqeksfnr laLFkk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 35xxx ds mica/kksa] fu;e 6 dd?k vkSj bl fu;e ds vuqlkj ik= O;; dh dVkSrh ds vykok vf/klwfpr —f”k

foLrkj ifj;kstuk ls dksbZ çR;{k ;k vçR;{k ykHk ugha mBk,xhA

¼v½

vkosnd [ktwj rsy fdlkuksa ftudks ifj;kstuk ls ykHk gqvk gS dh MkVk’khV —f”k ea=ky; dks HkstsxkA

¼vi½

ykHkxzkgh ls çkIr dh xbZ jkf’k] ;fn dksbZ gks] dks ?kVkus ds ckn lHkh [kpsZ ¼fdlh Hkwfe ;k Hkou dh ykxr Lo:i dk O;; u gksus ij½ ftUgsa fdlh

ik= —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks ‘kq~: djus gsrq iw.kZ rFkk vuU; :i ls [kpZ fd;k x;k gS] /kkjk 35 xxx ds rgr dVkSrh ds ik= gksaxs(

ijUrq ;g fd —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ij [kpZ fd;k x;k dksbZ O;; ftldh dj fu/kkZfjrh dks fdlh O;fä }kjk çR;{k ;k vçR;{k :i ls çfriwfrZ

dh xbZ gS ;k dh tkuh gS] ds fy, /kkjk 35 xxx ds varxZr dksbZ dVkSrh ugha nh tk,xhA

¼vii½

tgka vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 35 xx ds vUrxZr fdlh dVkSrh dk fdlh dj&fu/kkZj.k o”kZ gsrq nkok fd;k tkrk gS rFkk mls vuqer fd;k tkrk gS rks

,sls O;; ds laca/k esa vf/kfu;e ds fdlh vU; mica/k ds vUrxZr mlh dj&fu/kkZj.k o”kZ vFkok vU; fdlh dj&fu/kkZj.k o”kZ esa dVkSrh vuqer ugha

dh tk,xhA

¼viii½

vuqeksfnr laLFkk }kjk 139 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr vk; fooj.kh dks çLrqr djus dh fu;r frfFk dks ;k mlls iwoZ vk;dj vk;qDr dks ;k

vk;dj funs’kd dks] tSlk Hkh ekeyk gks] fuEufyf[kr lwpuk Hkh çLrqr djsxh] uker%&

¼d½

ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ds lkFk iwoZ o”kZ ds fy, —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds ys[kkvksa ds ys[kkijhf{kr fd, x, fooj.k rFkk /kkjk 35xxx dh mi/kkjk ¼1½

ds vUrxZr nkok dh xbZ dVkSrh dh jkf’k(

¼[k½

iwoZ o”kZ ds nkSjku blds }kjk ‘kq: dh xbZ —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ij rFkk pkyw o”kZ ds nkSjku ‘kq: dh tkus okyh —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds

dk;ZØe ds laca/k esa ,d fVIi.kh vkSj ,sls dk;ZØe gsrq foRrh; vkcaVu( rFkk

¼x½

dj&fu/kkZfjrh }kjk iwoZ o”kZ ds nkSjku ‘kq: dh xbZ —f”k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh okLrfodrk ds laca/k esa —f”k ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj dh vksj ls

çek.ki=A

¼ix½

bl ifj;kstuk ds varxZr dEiuh dh çksQkby vkSj mRiknksa ij vYi l= dks NksM+dj dsoy mRikn fu”çHkkoh çf’k{k.k fn;k tk,xkA

11- dsUæh; çR;{k dj cksMZ viuk vuqeksnu okil ys ysxk ;fn vuqeksfnr laLFkk%&

¼d½

vius fØ;kdyki can dj nsrh gS( vFkok

¼[k½

blds fØ;kdyki vokLrfod ik, tkrs gS( vFkok

¼x½

blds fØ;kdyki vf/kfu;e ds lHkh ;k fdlh laxr mica/kksa vFkok fu;eksa ds vuqlkj ugha fd, tk jgs gSa( vFkok

¼?k½

blds fØ;kdyki ,slh lHkh ‘krksaZ vFkok muesa ls fdlh Hkh ‘krZ ds vuqlkj ugha fd, tk jgs gSa ftu ‘krksaZ ds v/;/khu vf/klwpuk tkjh dh tk jgh

gSA

LFkku % ubZ fnYyh] fnukad 16-2-2015

[vf/klwpuk la- 14@2015@Qk-la- 203@31@2014&vkdfu II]

_pk jLrksxh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2015

FORM NO. 3CP

S.O.

376.—

Name, address and PAN of the applicant

Godrej Agrovet Limited, Pirojshanagar, Eastern Express

Highway, Vikroli (East), Mumbai-400079 (AAACG0617Q)

Title of the agricultural extension project

Oil Palm Extension Project

Purpose of the agricultural extension project

Training farmers in cultivation of oil palm crop

Reference No. and date of the application

F.No. 203/31/2014-ITA.II received on 14.01.2015

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

999

Date of commencement of the agricultural

Already commenced. However, approval shall be effective

extension project

from the date of issue of this formal Notification u/s 35CCC

of the I.T. Act.

Duration of the agricultural extension project

Ongoing project.

in months

Assessment year(s) for which the agricultural

From date of formal issue of Notification till A.Y. 2016-17.

extension project is being notified

(not exceeding three years)

Total expenses likely to be incurred for the

For A.Yr’s 2014-2015 and 2015-16 (applicant has claimed

agricultural extension project (other than cost

expenses of Rs. 8,53,00,000/- for each year. However, as

of land or building)

project is being accorded approval from subsequent date

in the F.Yr. 2014-2015, the expected expenditure for the

relevant period would be much lesser, as far as F.Yr. 2013-

2014 is concerned, no claim u/s 35CCC shall be allowed)

while for A.Y. 2016-17, likely expenditure is Rs. 8,53,00,000/-.

Amount, if any, to be charged from each

NIL

beneficiary of agricultural extension project.

10.

Conditions subject to which agricultural extension project titled ‘Animal Feeds Extension Project’ is being notified

are as under:

The approved entity undertaking agricultural extension project shall maintain separate books of account of

the agricultural extension project notified under sub-section (1) of section 35CCC, and get such books of

account audited by an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288.

ii.

The audit report referred to in sub-rule (1) shall include the comments of the auditor on the true and fair view

of the books of account maintained for agricultural extension project, the genuineness of the activities of the

agricultural extension project and fulfillment of the conditions specified in the relevant provisions of the Act

or the rules or the conditions mentioned in the notification issued under sub-rule (6) or sub-rule (9) of rule

6AAD.

iii.

The approved entity shall not accept any amount from the beneficiary under the eligible agricultural extension

project for training, education, guidance or any material distributed for the purposes of such training, education

or guidance.

iv.

The approved entity shall not get any direct or indirect benefit from the notified agricultural extension project

except the deduction of the eligible expenditure in accordance with the provisions of section 35CCC of the

Act, rule 6AAD and this rule.

The applicant shall furnish data sheet of oil palm farmers who have benefitted from the project to the Ministry

of Agriculture.

vi.

All expenses (not being expenditure in the nature of cost of any land or building), as reduced by the amount

received from beneficiary, if any, incurred wholly and exclusively for undertaking an eligible agricultural

extension project shall be eligible for deduction under section 35CCC:

Provided that any expenditure incurred on the agricultural extension project which is reimbursed or reimbursable

to the assessee by any person, whether directly or indirectly, shall not be eligible for deduction under section

35CCC.

vii.

Where a deduction under this section 35CC of the Act is claimed and allowed for any assessment year,

deduction shall not be allowed in respect of such expenditure under any other provisions of the Act for the

same or any other assessment year.

viii.

The approved entity shall, on or before the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1)

of section 139, furnish the following to the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of Income-tax, as the

case may be, namely:-

the audited statement of accounts of the agricultural extension projects for the previous year along with the

audit report and amount of deduction claimed under sub-section (1) of section 35CCC;

a note on the agricultural extension project undertaken by it during the previous year and the programme of

agricultural extension project to be undertaken during the current year and the financial allocation for such

programme; and

1000

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

a certificate from the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, regarding the genuineness of the agricultural

extension project undertaken by the assessee during the previous year.

ix.

Under the project only product neutral training will be given except a short session on company’s profile

and products.

11. The Central Board of Direct Taxes shall withdraw the approval if the approved entity:-

has ceased its activities; or

its activities are not genuine; or

its activities are not being carried out in accordance with all or any of the relevant provisions of the Act or

Rules; or

its activities are not being carried out in accordance with all or any of the conditions subject to which the

notification is being issued.

Place: New-Delhi

Dated:16/02/2015

[Notification No. 14/2015/F.No. 203/31/2014-ITA.II]

RICHA RASTOGI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 17 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 377-—loZlk/kkj.k dh tkudkjh ds fy, ,rí~okjk ;g vf/klwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd dsUæ ljdkj }kjk vk;dj fu;ekoyh] 1962 ¼mDr fu;ekoyh½

ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5M- ds lkFk ifBr vk;dj vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼mDr vf/kfu;e½ dh /kkjk 35 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼ii½ ds ç;kstukFkZ vdkneh vkQ lkabfVfQd ,.M

buksosfVo fjlpZ ¼,lh,lvkbZvkj½] ubZ fnYyh ¼iSu&,,,,y,1352ih½ uked laxBu dks fu/kkZj.k o”kZ 2014&15 vkSj blls vkxs dh vof/k ds fy, fuEufyf[kr ‘krksaZ ds

v/khu vuqla/kku dk;Zdykiksa esa yxs ^^fo’ofo|ky; d‚yst vFkok vU; laLFkku* dh Js.kh esa vuqeksfnr fd;k x;k gS] uker%&

¼i½

vuqeksfnr laxBu dks çnRr jkf’k dk mi;ksx oSKkfud vuqla/kku ds fy, fd;k tk,xk(

¼ii½

vuqeksfnr laxBu vius ladk; lnL;ksa vFkok vius ukekafdr Nk=ksa ds ek/;e ls oSKkfud vuqla/kku djsxk(

¼iii½

vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqla/kku ds fy, blds }kjk çkIr jkf’k ds laca/k esa vyx ys[kk cfg;ka j[ksxk ftuesa vuqla/kku djus ds fy, ç;qDr jkf’k

n’kkZbZ xbZ gks] ,slh [kkrk&cfg;ksa dh mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 288 dh mi /kkjk ¼2½ ds Li”Vhdj.k esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf”kr fdlh ys[kkdkj ls ys[kk ijh{kk

djk,xk vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 139 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds varxZr vk; fooj.kh çLrqr djus dh fu;r frfFk rd ,sls ys[kkdkj }kjk fof/kor

lR;kfir ,oa gLrk{kfjr ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ekeys esa {ks=kf/kdkj j[kus okys vk;dj vk;qDr vFkok vk;dj funs’kd dks çLrqr djsxk(

¼iv½

vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqla/kku ds fy, çkIr nku rFkk ç;qDr jkf’k dk vyx fooj.k j[ksxk vkSj mi;qZDr ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ds lkFk ys[kk

ijh{kd }kjk fof/kor lR;kfir ,sls fooj.k dh çfr çLrqr djsxkA

2- dsaæ ljdkj ;g vuqeksnu okil ys ysxh ;fn vuqeksfnr laxBu%&

¼d½

iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ ¼iii½ esa ;Fkk mYfyf[kr vyx ys[kk cfg;ka j[kus esa vlQy jgrk gS( vFkok

¼[k½

iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ ¼iii½ esa ;Fkk mYfyf[kr viuh ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ çLrqr esa vlQy jgrk gS( vFkok

¼x½

iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ ¼iv½ esa ;Fkk mYfyf[kr oSKkfud vuqla/kku ds fy, çkIr nku ,oa ç;qDr /kujkf’k dk fooj.k çLrqr djus esa vlQy

jgrk gS( vFkok

¼?k½

viuk vuqla/kku dk;Z djuk can dj nsrk gS vFkok blds vuqla/kku dk;Z dks okLrfod ugha ik;k tkrk gS( vFkok

¼M-½

mDr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5M- ds lkFk ifBr mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 35 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼ii½ ds çko/kkuksa ds vuq:i ugha

gksxk rFkk mudk ikyu ugha djsxkA

[vf/klwpuk la- 17@2015@Qk-la- 203@06@2014&vkdfu II]

_pk jLrksxh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2015

S.O. 377.—It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Academy of Scientific and

Innovative Research (AcSIR), New Delhi (PAN – AAALA1352P)has been approved by the Central Government for the

purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said Act), read with Rules 5C and 5E of

the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (said Rules), from Assessment year 2014-2015 and onwards in the category of “University

College and other Institution”, engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions, namely:-

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1001

(i)

The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research;

(ii)

The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its enrolled

students;

(iii)

The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sums received by

it for scientific research, reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research, get such books audited

by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub-section (2) of section 288 of the said Act and furnish

the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income-tax or

the Director of Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case, by the due date of furnishing the return of

income under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the said Act;

(iv)

The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied

for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the

report of audit referred to above.

The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if the approved organization:-

(a)

fails to maintain separate books of accounts as referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or

(b)

fails to furnish its audit report as referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or

(c)

fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research as referred

to in sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph 1; or

(d)

ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine; or

(e)

ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the

said Act read with rules 5C and 5E of the said Rules.

[Notification No. 17/2015/F.No. 203/06/2014-ITA.II]

RICHA RASTOGI, Under Secy.

(vkS|ksfxd vkSj foÙkh; iqu£uekZ.k vihyh; izkf/dj.k)

ubZ fnYyh] 20 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 378-—bl izkf/dj.k dh vf/lwpuk dh fujarjrk

esa Jherh fot; 'kekZ dks bl izkf/dj.k esa ih-ch-&3 #- 15600—

39100 $ 6600 fnukad 14 iQjojh] 2015 ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/ ;k

dk£ed ,oa izf'k{k.k foHkkx ds dk;kZy; Kkiu la- 6@8@2009&LFkk-

(is cSaM&2) fnukad 17-6-2010 ds vuqlkj fu/kZfjr fu;e vkSj 'krks±

ij ,d o"kZ rd ;k vxys vkns'k rd ;k dk;kZy; cUn gksus rd

tks Hkh iwoZ ?kfVr@igys gks] izfrfu;qfDr ds vk/kj ij izeq[k futh

lfpo ds in ij vkxs c<+k;k tkrk gS A

[fefly la- 1@2@2011&iz'kk-]

fot; 'kekZ] jftLVªkj o izeq[k dk;kZy;

(APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND

FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION)

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2015

S.O. 378.—In continuation of this Authority’s

Notification of even number dated 14.02.2014, the term of

deputation of Smt Vijay Sharma, a Sr. Private Secretary of

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as Principal Private Secretary

in this Authority on deputation basis in the PB-3, Rs.15600—

39100+6600 (Grade Pay) is hereby extended for a further

period of one year w.e.f 14.02.2015 to 13.02.2016 or till

abolition of this Authority or until further orders, whichever

is earlier, on the same terms and conditions, determined as

per the instructions contained in DOPT OM No. 6/8/2009-

Estt (Pay-II) dated 17.06.2010 as amended from time to time.

[F. No. 1/2/2011-Admn.]

VIJAY SHARMA, Registrar & Head of Office

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 27 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 379-—foÙkh; vkfLr;ksa dk izfrHkwfrdj.k vkSj iquxZBu

rFkk izfrHkwfr fgr dk izorZu vf/fu;e] 2002 dh /kjk 21(1)

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæh; ljdkj us ;g fu.kZ;

fy;k gS fd Jh v'kksd dqekj ¯lg] funs'kd (fjdojh)] foÙkh;

lsok,a foHkkx] Hkkjr ljdkj vius dk;ZHkkj ds lkFk&lkFk izfrHkwfrdj.k

ls lacaf/r ysu&nsuksa ds iathdj.k] foÙkh; vkfLr;ksa ds iquxZBu rFkk

laifÙk;ksa ij l`ftr izfrHkwfr fgr ds iz;kstu gsrq dsUæ ljdkj }kjk

dsUæh; jftLVªkj] dsUæh; jftLVªh ds :i esa fu;fer in/kjh dh

fu;qfDr fd, tkus rd] dsUæh; jftLVªkj vkSj izca/ funs'kd ,oa

eq[; dk;Zikyd vf/dkjh] dsUæh; jftLVªh dk vfrfjDr izHkkj

laHkkysaxs A

[iQk- la- 56@05@2007(chvks&II)&fjdojh]

,e- lqcze.kh] ofj"B vuqla/ku vf/dkjh (fjdojh)

1002

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2015

S.O. 379.—In exercise of the powers conferred under

section 21(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002, the Central Government has decided that Shri Ashok

Kumar Singh, Director (Recovery) Department of Financial

Services, Government of India will hold additional charge

for the post of Central Registrar and Managing Director

and Chief Executive Officer, Central Registry for the

purpose of registration of transactions relating to

securitisation, reconstruction of financial assets and

security interest created over the properties till the time a

regular incumbent is appointed by the Central Government

as Central Registrar, Central Registry.

[F. No. 56/05/2007(BO-II)-Recovery]

M. SUBRAMANI, Senior Research Officer (Recovery)

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 380-—dsUnh; 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 mÙkj izns'k] mÙkjk[akM vkSj fcgkj jkT;ksa

ds Hkhrj xsy (bafM;k) fyfeVsM dh lHkh ikbiykbZuksa ds fy, l{ke

izkf/dkjh ds dk;ks± dk fuoZgu djus ds fy, Jh vej iky ¯lg]

fMIVh dysDVj] mÙkj izns'k ljdkj] dks izkf/Ñr djrh gS A

[iQk- la- ,y&14014@01@*15&th-ih-&II]

,l- ih- vxzoky] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 380.—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), Central

Government hereby authorizes Shri Amar Pal Singh, Deputy

Collector, Government of Uttar Pradesh to perform the

functions of Competent Authority for all pipelines of GAIL

(India) Limited, under the said Act, within Uttar Pradesh,

Uttarakhand and Bihar States.

[F. No. L-14014/01/’15-G.P.-II]

S. P. AGARWAL, Under Secy.

(ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx)

(lkekU; lsok laxBu)

dYikDde] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 381-—dsUæh; ljdkj] fnukad 26-9-2012 ds iwoZ

vfèklwpuk la- th,lvks@17(27)@2012&vkj@21@635 dk vf/Øe.k

djrs gq, vkSj yksd ifjlj (vizkf/Ñr vf/Hkksxh ds fu"dklu)

vf/fu;e] 1971 (1971 dk 40oka) dh /kjk 3 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ,rn~}kjk uhps lkj.kh ds dkWye (1) esa n'kkZ,

vf/dkjh dks] ljdkj ds jktif=kr vf/dkjh gksus ds ukrs] mDr

vf/fu;e ds mís';ksa ds fy, laink vf/dkjh ds :i esa fu;qDr

djrh gS] tks iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djsaxs vkSj mDr vfèkfu;e ds

}kjk vFkok varxZr laink vf/dkjh ij vf/jksfir drZO;ksa dk]

mDr lkj.kh ds dkWye (2) esa fofu£n"V yksd ifjljksa gsrq muds

{ks=kkf/dkj ds LFkkuh; lhekvksa ds Hkhrj] fu"iknu djsaxs A

lkj.kh

dkWye (1)

dkWye (2)

vf/dkjh dk inuke

yksd ifjljksa dh Jsf.k;ka vkSj

{ks=kkf/dkj dh LFkkuh; lhek,a

Jh- okbZ- ukxktqZu izlkn

Hkkjr ljdkj] ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx

iz'kklfud vf/dkjh&III]

dk vFkok mlds fu;a=k.kk/hu

lkekU; lsok laxBu]

dYikDde ,oa v.kqiqje ifjlj]

ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx]

fr#DdkyqdqUMªe rkyqd] dkaphiqje

dYikDde&603 102]

ftyk] rfeyukMq

dkaphiqje ftyk]

rfeyukMq

[la- lklsla@17(27)@2014&vkj@724]

ih- Vh- eksgu] iz'kklfud vf/dkjh&III

(Department of Atomic Energy)

(GENERAL SERVICES ORGANISATION)

Kalpakkam, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 381.—In supersession of earlier Notification

No. GSO/17(27)/2012-R/635 dated 26.09.2012 and in

exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public

Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971

(40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the

Officer mentioned in column (1) of the Table below, being

a Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be Estate Officer

for the purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the

powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on Estate

Officer by or under the said Act within the local limits of

his/her jurisdiction in respect of the public premises

specified in column ( 2) of the said Table;

TABLE

Column (1)

Column (2)

Designation of the

Categories of Public Premises

Officer

& local limits of iurisdiction

Shri. Y. Nagarjuna Prasad

Premises in Kalpakkam and

Administrative Officer-III

Anupuram, Thirukkalukundram

General Services

Taluk, Kancheepuram District,

Organisation, Department

Tamilnadu Belonging to or

of Atomic Energy

under

the

control

Kalpakam - 603 102

Department of Atomic Energy,

Kancheepuram District

Government of India

Tamil Nadu

[Ref. No. GSO/17(27)/2014-R724]

P. T. MOHAN, Administrative Officer-III

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1003

Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 382-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ikaM;ku xzkek

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 91@2013)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@84@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 382.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 91/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Pandyan

Grama Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 23/02/2015.

[No. L-12011/84/2013-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 10th February, 2015

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 91/2013

(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 Pandyan Grama Bank and their

workman)

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary

1st Party/Petitioner Union

Pandyan Grama Bank

Employees Association

Near R.T.O. Office

Virudhunagar

Tamilnadu

AND

The Chairman

2nd Party/Respondent

Pandyan Grama Bank

Administrative Office

2-70-1 Collectorate Complex

Virudhunagar

Tamilnadu

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

M/s S. Anbazhagan,

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/Respondent

M/s N.G.R. Prasad,

V. Stalin, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/84/2013-IR (B.I)

dated 21.10.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of Pandyan

Grama Bank in not regularizing the services of 116

temporary employees who have rendered more than

240 days of continuous service is justified? To what

relief are they entitled?”

On receipt of Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 91/2013 and issued notices to both sides.

Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel

and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner association is representing the

workers of the Respondent Bank. The Respondent Bank

is established under the Regional Rural Banks Act. The

Indian Overseas Bank is the sponsor bank of the

Respondent Bank. The Respondent Bank has 220

branches, 4 Regional Offices and an Administrative Office.

It has only 86 employees as Messengers presently

designated as Office Attendants, as permanent employees.

More than 150 posts of Messengers/Office Attendants

are vacant for the past 10 years. In the absence of hands

as Messengers/ Office Attendants the Managers of the

branches were not in a position to carry on day to day

functions. So the Managers were given power to engage

employees on daily wage basis. Almost all the Branch

Managers have engaged qualified persons as daily wage

employees in their respective branches. This was the

practice for almost 10 years. The workmen employed on

daily wage basis are doing the same work as that of a

Permanent Messenger. They attend office at 0930 AM.

They perform all the work allotted to them by the Manager

of the Branch. They maintain the communication registers

received and compile the communications, despatch all

the outgoing communications and maintain the registers,

stitch and maintain all the vouchers, maintain voucher

data entry is also made by these workers. They are paid a

1004

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

meager sum of Rs. 175/- per day as wages. The petitioner

demanded the regularization of these workmen and when

the Respondent refused to comply with the demand,

dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer. An order

may be passed holding that the action of the Respondent

in not regularizing the services of 116 temporary employees

who have rendered more than 240 days of continuous

service is not justified and also directing the Respondent

to regularize the service of these 116 workmen from the

date of their appointment.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as below:

The petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The

members of the Petitioner Union were employed only as

casual labours on daily wage basis. They were not

recruited through Employment Exchange. The recruitment

of Messengers to the Bank’s service is governed by

Government of India guidelines. As per the guidelines,

they should be sponsored by Employment Exchange. The

casual employment was not on any sanctioned post nor

on scale wages. It is not admitted that 116 employees

mentioned in the Claim Statement have completed 240 days

of continuous service. The burden of establishing this is

on the workmen. Unless a person has been recruited as

per the rules and there is a sanctioned post the question

of regularization does not arise. The petitioner is not entitled

to any relief.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 to WW4 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext. W15 and M1.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent in not

regularizing the concerned temporary employees is

justified?

(ii)

What, if any, is the relief to which the workmen are

entitled?

The Points

The Petitioner Union has raised the dispute on behalf

of 116 persons who are working as Messengers/Office

Attendants in the different branches of the Respondent

Bank on temporary basis. It is stated that all the temporary

workmen have completed 240 days of continuous service

and there are even persons who have completed more

than 17 years of service as temporary workers. According

to the petitioner all these persons have the required

qualification and they were engaged by the concerned

Branch Managers on the basis of the power that was given

to them in the wake of the crisis that has arisen in the Bank

on account of absence of regular hands working as

Messengers/Office Attendants.

The Respondent has inter alia raised a contention in

the Counter Statement that the petitioner has no locus

standi to raise the dispute on behalf of the concerned

workmen who are only temporary employees. The

petitioner seems to be a recognized union with capacity to

negotiate and bargain with the Respondent. The Union is

a signatory to the settlement which is marked as Ext.W1

entered into on behalf of temporary workmen. It is very

much apparent that the concerned workmen are also

members of the Union. So nothing prevents the petitioner

union in taking up the cause of these workmen and seeking

their regularization.

The petitioner has examined four witnesses to prove

under what circumstances the concerned workmen were

engaged. There is the evidence given by WW2 who is

one of the temporary employees on whose behalf the

dispute is raised. This witness has stated that he is working

as Temporary Office Attendant at Ettayapuram road

Branch for the past 7 years. He has also stated that he was

engaged by the Branch Manager though he was not given

any appointment order. He has stated that he used to

report for work at 0930 AM and worked upto 0630 PM. He

was doing all odd jobs in the branch as required.

According to him the work is continuous and perennial in

nature without which the Bank cannot function effectively.

He has completed more than 240 days as temporary

employee. There is no regular messenger in the Branch in

which he is working. The Respondent Bank has only 30

regular messengers at present. All others are working on

daily wage basis, according to him.

10.

There is also the evidence of WW1, the Secretary of

the Petitioner Association regarding employment of the

Temporary Messengers.

11.

The petitioner has examined two Bank Managers

also to establish the case. WW3 working as Manager of

Kalkurichi Branch, Virudhanagar District has stated that

the Messenger in his Branch is working on temporary

basis. He is to take the vouchers from the Cashier’s Box to

the Manager, to arrange the vouchers and stitch them and

maintain a voucher register also. The Messenger will

also be accompanying the Cashier to carry cash. He will

be doing the work of dispatch also. According to WW3,

he has engaged two persons as Messengers, in two

different branches at different times. According to him

when the number of branches has increased there was

need to engage Messengers. There is also the evidence

of WW4, another Branch Manager of the Respondent

Bank who has deposed that out of the two messengers in

his branch, one is temporary and was engaged by his

predecessor.

12.

The petitioner has furnished a list of 116 Temporary

Messengers with their address, the date on which they

have joined and the respective branch in which they are

working. From the list it could be seen that there are persons

who were working as Messengers even for a period of 17

years. The petitioner seems to have applied to the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1005

Respondent Bank under Right to Information Act for

information regarding the steps taken by the bank for

regularization of Temporary Messengers. It is seen from

Ext.W3 the reply received that the Board Meeting of the

Bank has passed a resolution to recommend regularization

of Temporary Messengers. It is also seen from this that

the resolution has been referred to the sponsor bank for

approval as early as on 03.12.2011. At the instance of the

petitioner the Respondent has produced the copy of the

letter addressed by it to its sponsor bank and this has

been marked as Ext.W15. The letter shows that the Bank

has decided to create a panel of temporary workers who

had more than 5 years service as on 31.03.2010. The letter

is written to the sponsor Bank to permit regularization of

these persons. Thus it could be seen that the Bank itself

has realized that the temporary workers were working for a

long time and are to be regularized.

13.

The petitioner has produced copies of some payment

vouchers pertaining to the branches in which WW3 and

WW4 are working. Ex.W10, Ext.W11 and Ext.W12 (series)

were proved through WW3. Ext.W13 (series) vouchers

are proved through WW4. These witnesses have stated

that the Temporary Messengers are paid through

vouchers.

14.

There is also the evidence given by MW1 on behalf

of the Respondent. MW1 has admitted that there are 246

branches for the Bank while there are only 53 permanent

messengers working in the Bank. He has further stated

that normally each branch will have one sanctioned post

of Messenger and so there should be sanctioned strength

of 246 Messengers.

15.

Not much evidence is available on the side of the

petitioner to prove the exact period of service of the

concerned workers. Only one of the temporary workmen

on whose behalf dispute is raised has been examined. This

witness examined as WW2 has stated that he has been

working as Temporary Messenger for about 7 years. There

is also the evidence given by WW3 that the temporary

messenger in the branch in which he is working has been

in this bank even before he joined in August 2011. This

much evidence on the side of the petitioner would not

show on which date each of the workmen on whose behalf

the dispute is raised have joined. However, as already

stated, the petitioner has furnished a list of the concerned

workmen showing the period for which they have been

working in the respective branches. When the conduct of

the Respondent and the circumstances are taken into

account there is no necessity to disregard this list which

is marked as Ext.W5. There is the evidence of WW3 an

Officer of the Respondent Bank that recruitment as per

the procedure for the post of Messenger has not taken

place for a long time, from the year 1977. Ext.W1 shows

that those who were then working as Temporary

Messengers were regularized. Even after that there was

no recruitment and the practice of engaging Temporary

Messengers continued. Ext.W15 the resolution of the

Board of the Respondent itself states that some of the

temporary workmen have been working for more than 15

years. When this is taken into account there is no reason

to reject the period of service of each of the concerned

workman shown in Ext.W5.

16.

In Ext.W15 itself it is stated that though Messengers

were engaged on temporary basis they were being engaged

after assuring that they are having the qualification

prescribed by the recruitment procedure. Thus there is no

case for the Respondent also that the persons concerned

are not having the qualification.

17.

The contention that is raised on behalf of the

Respondent is that the engagement of these workmen not

being in accordance with the recruitment rules, they are

not entitled to regularization. It has been pointed out on

behalf of the petitioner that the Bank has been engaging

in unfair labour practice by employing these persons on

temporary basis for a long time. According to the counsel

for the petitioner the work done by the concerned workmen

being perennial in nature and also because the Bank was

engaging in unfair labour practice they are entitled to

regularization.

18.

The counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that

the dictum laid down in Uma Devi’s case is not applicable

to the facts of the present case. The Counsel has referred

to the decision in U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs.

POORAN CHANDRA PANDEY AND OTHERS reported

in 2007 11 SCC 92 in this respect. In this the Apex Court

has observed that Uma Devi’s case was being applied

mechanically without reference to the facts of the particular

case. It has further been held that the decision in Uma’s

Devi case cannot be applied to a case where regularization

has been sought for in pursuance of Article-14 of the

Constitution. The above was a case where the writ

petitioners have put in about 22 years of service. It was

found that it will not be reasonable if their claim for

regularization is denied even after such a long period of

service. In the decision in MAHARASHTRA STATE

ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. CASTERIBE

RAJYA P. KARMACHARI SANGHATANA reported in

2009 8 SCC 556, while considering the provisions of

MAHARASHTRA TRADE UNIONS ACT it was held that

Uma Devi case does not denude the industrial and labour

courts of their statutory power under the said Act to order

permanency of workers who have been victim of unfair

labour practice on the part of the employer. In the decision

in HARINANDAN PRASAD AND ANOTHER Vs.

MANAGEMENT OF FOOD CORPORATION AND

ANOTHER reported in 2014 7 SCC 190, the Apex Court

has held that though in the MAHARASTHRA Road

Transportation case the provisions of MRTU Act were

considered to ascertain the powers conferred upon the

Industrial Tribunal, the powers of the industrial adjudicator

under the ID Act are also equally wide. The Act deals with

1006

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

industrial disputes, provides for conciliation, adjudication

and settlements and regulates the rights of the parties and

thus by empowering adjudicating authorities under the

Act to give reliefs such as reinstatement of wrongfully

dismissed or discharged workmen which may not be

possible in common law or justified under the terms of

contract between the employer and such workmen. The

legislature has attempted to frustrate the unfair labour

practices and secure the policy of collective bargaining as

a road to industrial justice by the Act, it has been held.

Thus it could be seen that the power of the industrial

court is not curtailed by the decision in Uma Devi case

when it comes to unfair labour practice, resorting to

irregular engagement and keeping worker temporarily for

long years.

19.

The counsel for the Respondent has referred to a

few decisions to substantiate his argument that the

concerned workmen are not entitled to regularization. In

the decision in KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGHATHAN

AND OTHERS VS. L.B SUBRAMANYESWARA AND

ANOTHER reported in 2007 5 SCC 326 referred to by the

Counsel the finding is that the concerned workmen

continued in service for a long time under interim orders

of the High Court and so they did not satisfy the tests of

equality, reservation or the rule of law as adumbrated in

Uma Devi’s case and so they are not entitled to

regularization. In the decision in COUNCIL FOR

SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND

OTHERS VS. RAMESH CHANDRA AGARWAL AND

ANOTHER reported in 2009 3 SCC 35 the question under

consideration was regarding the fixation of a cut-off date

for extending the scheme for absorption. The Apex Court

has held that there is no illegality in fixing the cut-off date

and the State is entitled to do so. The observation in this

decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

In the decision in STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

VS. M.L. KESARI AND OTHERS reported in 2010 9

SCC 247 the distinction between illegal and irregular

appointments were referred to. In the discussion above I

have already referred to the nature of the appointment of

the concerned workmen which could not be termed illegal

but only irregular. The workmen were working

continuously not with the help of any order of any Court

but have been continuously working so.

20.

In the present case the Respondent Bank in spite

of it having a recruitment procedure has not been going

for the procedure to fill up the vacancies of Messengers.

It has been engaging persons on temporary basis and has

been keeping them for years. It is clear from the evidence

that all of them are working on sanctioned posts. They

come within the qualification prescribed as per the

Recruitment Rules also. The work done by them is perennial

in nature it being in respect of the day to day affairs of the

Respondent Bank. The business of the Bank could not be

conducted without the assistance of the messengers. They

are part and parcel of the institution.

21.

The bank itself has decided to regularize temporary

messengers who have completed more than 5 years service

as on a particular date. They passed a resolution to this

effect and had sent the recommendation to the sponsor

bank. The evidence let in is that the Bank has not received

any reply in this respect.

22.

So far as those workmen who were working for a

considerable period of time are concerned the Bank has

recommended to regularize them. So far as others are

concerned they being persons who were engaged in the

recent past they were not considered for regularization.

The Bank has fixed 31.03.2011 as the date for completion

of the period of 5 years. For the purpose for regularization,

the period of 5 years and the cut-off date fixed by the Bank

can be accepted. Those persons who have completed their

temporary service for 5 years on this date are entitled to

regularization from that date i.e. 31.03.2011. So far as

others are concerned it is for the Bank to resort to the

normal recruitment process and consider the remaining

persons also during such recruitment taking into account

their age on which they joined the Bank as the relevant

date.

In view of my discussion above an award is passed

as follows:

The Respondent is directed to regularize those

temporary Messengers who have completed 5 years in

service as on 31.03.2011, with effect from that date. The

claim of the remaining persons shall be considered during

recruitment as per the rules treating their age on which

they joined the Bank as the relevant date.

The reference is answered accordingly.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/

WW1, Sri J. Mathavaraj

Petitioner Union

WW2, Sri P. Srinivasan

WW3, Sri P.S. Bosepandian

WW4, Sri D. Samuel Jothikumar

For the 2nd Party/

MW1, Sri K. Ramasubbu

Management

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

29.01.1993

Memorandum of Settlement

between

the

Petitioner

Association

and

the

Respondent Bank

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1007

Ex.W2

21.07.2012

Application by the petitioner

under RTI Act, 2005

Ex.W3

21.08.2012

Reply by the PIO for the RTI

Application of the petitioner

Ex.W4

20.05.2013

Industrial Dispute raised by the

petitioner before the Asstt.

Commissioner of Labour

Ex.W5

31.08.2013

Details of the temporary

messengers filed before the

Asstt. Commissioner of

Labour in the Industrial

Dispute

Ex.W6

28.06.2013

Failure report sent by the

Assistant Commissioner to

Government of India

Ex.W7

Payment Voucher

Ex.W8

Jan to June

Maintenance of Voucher

2014

Ex.W9

List of Executive Committee for

PGB Officers Union

Ex.W10

Voucher Register maintained

(Series)

Muthaiah-Temporary

Messenger in Kalkurichi

Branch-PGB

Ex.W11

Fund Movement Register of

(Series)

Kalkurichi Branch

Ex.W12

Payment voucher along with

(Series)

Inspection Report of Kalkurichi

Branch

Ex.W13

Payment

voucher

(Series)

Temporary Messenger at

Palaganatham Branch

Ex.W14

HR Policy for RRBs

Ex.W15

03.12.2011

Respondent letter to their

Sponsor Bank

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

13.07.2010

Regional

Rural

Banks

(Appointment and Promotion

of Officers and Employees)

Rules, 2010.

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 383-—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; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

35@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@02@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@28@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 383.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 35/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad 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 23/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/28/2011-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/s 10(1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 35 of 2011

Employer in relation to the management of S.B.I

Regional Business Office, Jamshedpur

AND

Their workman.

Present :- Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri S.N.Goswami, Advocate

For the Workman : Sri B.B.Pandey, Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Banking

Dated 07/01/ 2015

AWARD

By order No.-L-12012/28/2011 IR-(B-I), dated. 29/06/

2011 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -section

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

Disputes Act.1947, referred the following disputes for

adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Regional

Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business

Office, Jamshedpur in imposing the penalty of

dismissal without notice on shri Satya pal Singh,

Ex- Senior Assistant , Golmuri Branch vide their order

dated 21/01/2008 , is legal and justified? To what

relief the workman is entitled?”

1008

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

13.07.2011. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed, the workman files their written statement on

06.05.2013.The management also files written statement –

cum- rejoinder on 26.06.2013 . Document of the

management marked as M-1 to M-8 and document of

workman marked as W-1 to W-11.

The allegations against the workman was, that he

misappropriated a sum of two lakhs and odd, and after

detection, he deposited two lakhs and odd in two phases.

Enquiry already held as fair and proper.

It is submitted by the workman that soon after it is

detected, he returned the money. Bank staff taking money

and returning the same after detection is a serious charge.

The Tribunal is not inclined to interfere with the orders

passed by the management .

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

, I hold that the action of the management of Regional

Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office,

Jamshedpur in imposing the penalty of dismissal to Shri

Satya pal Singh, Ex- Senior Assistant , Golmuri Branch

vide their order dated 21/01/2008 is justified and proper.

Accordingly he is not entitled to get any relief.

This is my award.

R.K.SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 384-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

92@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@02@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@01@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 384.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 92/2004)

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

Reserve Bank of India and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 23/02/2015.

[No. L-12011/01/2004-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, 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 92 OF 2004

PARTIES

The General Secretary,

RBI Workers’ Organization,

Patna 6/E, Rajendra Nagar, Patna

Vs.

The Regional Director,

Reserve Bank of India,

South Gandhi Maidan, Patna

Order No. L-12011/01/2004-IR (B-I)

dt.07.07.2004.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr. O.P. Bihari, Workmen’s

workman/Union

Representative

On behalf of the

Mr.Bal Chandra Nirmal &

Management

A.K.M.Mustaque

Management Reps.

State : Bihar

Industry : Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 22nd 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-12011/01/2004-IR (B-I) dt.07.07.2004.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the stand of the Reserve Bank Workers’

Organization, Patna in refusing to compensate for

loss of ½ days post lunch work on 16.10.2001 and

demanding that there should be no wage cut these

grounds by the Management of RBI is legal and

justified ? If so what reliefs the workmen are entitled

to?”

None is present to represent the Sponsoring

Union.Mr.Bal Chandra Nimal, the Manager is present to

represent OP/Management .From the perusal of case

record, it transpires that the Sponsoring Union appears to

be reluctant in pursuing its case for final adjudication.

Under this circumstance, it is futile to proceed with

this case further. It also appears that the case is fixed for

evidence on the part of the Management for the last two

dates. It also reveals from the record that WWI (Arun Kr.

Jha) did not appear for cross examination and evidence of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1009

workmen was closed on 17.09.2014 at the prayer of

workmen’s Representative .Accordingly, the evidence of

the workmen Representative has no value at all, if the

WW-I is not cross-examined, or there is no need to examine

any witness of the Management. Hence the case is closed

as ‘ No Industrial Dispute’ existing between the

paties.Accodingly, an order of “No Dispute Award” is

passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 385-—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 30@2011)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@71@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 385.—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, 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 23/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/71/2011-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/30/2011

Date: 18.12.2014

Party No.1(a) :

The Assistant General

Manager (NRI Services),

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office,

C-6 G Block,

Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra East, Munbai-400051

(b)

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

MIDC Butibori Branch,

Plot No. X-9,

MIDC Butibori Area,

Near Police Station,

Wardha Road, Butibori,

Distt- Nagpur-441122

Versus

Party No. 2

Shri Prashant Kashaorao Thakre,

R/o Juni Wasahat,

Ward No. 2,

Butibori,

Nagpur (MS)-441108.

AWARD

(Dated: 18th December, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office and

their workman, Shri Prashant Keshaorao Thakre, for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-12012/71/2011-IR (B-I)

dated 22.11.2011, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India, Butibori in terminating the services of

Shri Prashant Keshaorao Thakre w.e.f. 01.12.2010

without following the mandatory provisions of

section 25-F of ID Act,1947 is legal and justified? To

what relief the workman is entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Prashant

Keshaorao Thakre, (‘the workman” in short), filed the

statement of claim and the management of State Bank of

India (“Party No. 1” in short) filed their written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim that he first came to be appointed with

party no.1-a on 08.06.2006 as office boy and he was

required to carry out the work of gardening and cleaning

and he was also required to work in the canteen and as a

messenger and later on, he performed all the official work

to regular nature required to be done by the peon and the

said work is available with the bank round the year and he

had worked for more than 240 days of continuous service

with party no.1-a and 1-b and he was deemed to be a

permanent employee and his service was clean and

excellent and he was illegally dismissed from service w.e.f.

30.11.2010 and party no. 1-a appointed one Shri Anup Saise

in his place from 23.11.2010 and he was working sincerely

and continuing without any break from the date of his

initial appointment till the date of his illegal dismissal.

The further case of the workman is that party no.1-b

is burdened with heavy business transactions and as such,

there is necessity of support staff for the branch and he

was working for more than 12 hours and sometimes even

1010

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

after the closing hours of the branch and he was getting

Rs. 3000/- as salary and he was getting extra amount of

Rs. 50/- to Rs.250/- for doing extra work, which was being

paid to him in cash on vouchers being signed and passed

by the Branch Manager and on his applications, the salary

was being paid in his account No. 30181633409 and party

no.1-a had maintained register of all the work carried out

by him and so also, the charges paid to him and though he

was appointed as temporary office boy, party no.1-b by

appointing persons on temporary basis is only with the

intension to avoid the benefits of giving them the benefits

of permanent post and such action amounts to unfair labour

practice under the Act and so also under MRTU Act and

P.U.L.P. Act.

It is also pleaded by the workman that he is a workman

and party no.1-a and 1-b are industry as per the provisions

of the Act and before termination of his services, no

seniority list was prepared and published by party no.1-a

and 1-b and neither one month’s notice or notice pay in

like of the notice was given to him and the mandatory

provisions of sections 25-F and 25-G were not complied

with by them and he was illegally terminated from services

without following the due process of law and the party

no.1 in the reply filed by them before the conciliation officer

stated that his appointment was illegal and party no.1-b

had no authority to appoint an person in service and there

is prescribed procedure of recruitment and party no.1-a

and 1-b are required to follow the same for appointment of

any person in service and as he was paid regularly by the

party no.1-a and the amount was properly sanctioned by

the Accounts Division, it cannot be said that the

appointment was not according to the procedure and he

is out of employment from the date of his illegal termination

and he has no source of income of maintain himself and

his family and he is entitled for reinstatement in service

with continuity, full back wages and all consequential

benefits.

The party no.1-a and 1-b filed a joint written

statement and they after denying all the adverse

allegations made in the statement of claim have pleaded

inter-alia that the workman has misquoted the facts and

law, which appear to have arisen due to misconception

and misconstructions of the facts and law involved in the

case and the workman on his own admission had worked

mainly and substantially as a “Canteen Boy” with the local

implementation committee (“LIC” in short), constituted in

each establishment, for the welfare of the staff working in

that establishment and he was required to prepare the tea/

snacks and cleaning of canteen utensils and normally, he

had to work for about two hours daily and the workman

left the job on his own volition, as he wanted the permanent

job of the Bank, which he was aware, not at all possible

and the persons engaged by the LIC are not the employees

of the Bank.

The further case of the party No.1 is that the

workman was also engaged purely on casual and daily

wages basis in casual vacancies, intermittently, but without

continuity in service, due to administrative exigencies for

doing the work of sweeping the courtyard of the branch,

filling water in coolers etc. and such engagement of the

workman was done only during business hours, when the

regular employers were on leave and the workman has not

worked for 240 days in any calendar year or in the twelve

calendar months preceding the date of his alleged

disengagement and the workman was engaged on

temporary/daily wages/casual basis by the branches, who

had/have authority to appoint any person in such category

and as the engagement of the workman was purely casual

and daily wages basis, he cannot claim permanency and

he cannot have any legitimate expectations of

reinstatement or absorption or permanency and has no

enforceable right for reinstatement.

It is also pleaded by party no.1 that recruitment is

done in the Bank as per the well laid down Rules, policies

and procedures and the workman is not entitled to any

relief.

It is also averred by the party no.1 that as the

workman was unwilling to do the job of canteen boy and

left the said on his own volition, Shri Anup Saise was

engaged to work as a canteen boy by the LIC and not by

the bank and there was no employer and employee

relationship between them and the workman and the

workman was getting fixed amount of Rs.100/- per day

from the LIC for his service as canteen boy and he was

getting the wages depending upon type of work and the

time taken to do such work, whenever his services were

used on casual vacancies by the bank and therefore, there

was no question of extending the benefits of permanent

employee to the workman and it has not committed any

unfair labour practice under any Act and the workman is

not entitled to any relief.

No rejoinder has been filed by the workman.

In order to prove his case, the workman has examined

himself as a witness. The party No.1 has not adduced any

oral evidence and has relied on documentary evidence

only.

The workman in his examination-in-chief on affidavit

has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim.

However, in his cross-examination, the workman has

admitted that he was making tea in the branch and also

cleaning the utensil and he was working as a canteen boy

and besides working as a canteen boy, he was also being

engaged to sweep and clean the branch premises and to

fill water in the coolers and he was also doing the work of

sorting and arranging of vouchers and he was engaged

on daily wages basis and no appointment letter was issued

to him by the Bank and wages was being paid to him on

vouchers and he has not filed any document to show that

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1011

he had worked for 240 days in any calendar year and Shri

Anoop Saise was engaged to prepare tea in the branch

and he was engaged by the Branch Manager and he did

not go through the process of selection of sub-staff as

provided in the Rules of the Bank and he did not appear in

any interview and he was not medically examined and there

was also no police verification and Bank had also not

given any advertisement for appointment of any sub—

staff.

At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that the workman was

first appointed on 08.06.2006 at Butibori branch as office

boy by party No.1 and he was required to work for more

than 12 hours and he was getting regular salary of Rs.3000/-

per month and was also being paid extra amount ranging

from Rs.50/- to Rs.250/- on vouchers for doing extra work

and the workman had completed 240 days of work and he

was performing the work of regular nature and he was

continuously doing the same and party No.1 has

completely failed to prove that the workman was appointed

by the LIC, as no evidence has been adduced by party

No.1 in support of such claim and it is proved beyond

doubt from the evidence of the workman on affidavit that

he had been working continuously and had completed

more than 240 days of service in a year and the service of

the workman was terminated without compliance of the

mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act and is

therefore, illegal and the workman is entitled for

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages.

Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the party No.1 that the workman mainly and

substantially worked as a canteen boy with LIC and he

was not the employee of the Bank and the workman was

engaged sometimes purely on casual/daily wages basis,

in casual vacancies, intermittently but without continuity,

due to administrative exigencies for sweeping of the

branch premises and filling water in the coolers etc., when

the regular employees were on leave and the workman

had not worked for 240 days in any calendar year or in the

12 calendar months preceding the date of his alleged

disengagement and as the engagement of the workman

was purely on casual and daily wages basis, he cannot

claim permanency in the Bank’s service, as the engagement

of the workman itself was void ab-initio, being without

authority and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

In support of such submissions, the learned

advocate for the party No.1 placed reliance on the

decisions reported in AIR 2006 SC- 1806 (Secretary, State

of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi), AIR 1996, SC – 1565 (State of

Himachal Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kumar Verma), (2000) 5 SCC –

531 (State Bank of India Vs. State Bank of India Canteen

Employees’ Union), ) and 2007 I CLR – 48 (India Drugs

and Pharma ceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen).

In this case, it is the case of the workman that he

had worked continuously from 08.06.2006 to 30.11.2010

and his service was terminated on 30.11.2010 and that he

worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination.

The claim has been denied by the management. It is the

case of the management that the workman was engaged

intermittently as and when required on purely casual and

daily wages basis and the workman joined as a canteen

boy in the canteen, managed by LIC and he had not worked

for 240 days in any calendar year or in the 12 calendar

months preceding the date of his alleged disengagement.

10.

In view of the stands taken by the parties, I think it

apt to mention the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon the

discussion of the merit of the case.

The Hon’ble Apex court, in the decision reported in

AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their

workmen) have held that:-

“Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service

for not less than one year under the employer, if the

workman has actually worked for 240 days during a

period of 12 calendar months both the conditions

are fulfilled. The definition of “Continuous Service”

need not be read into section 25-B. The fiction

converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve

calendar months into continuous service for one

complete year. The amended section 25-B only

consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and

2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters. The

purport of the new provisions, however, is not

different. In fact, the amendment of section 25-F of

the principal Act by substituting in clause (b) the

words “for every completed year of continuous

service” has removed a discordance between the

un-amended section 25 B and the un-amended Cl.

(b) of section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is

necessary, if the total service is 240 days in a period

of twelve calendar months either before the several

changes or after these. The only change in the Act

is that this service must be during a period of twelve

calendar months preceding the date with reference

to which calculation has to be made. The last

amendment has now removed a vagueness which

existed in the un-amended section 25-B”.

In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253

(Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.), the Hon’ble

Apex Court have held that,

“Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). Section 25-B

(1) and (2)- Continuous service-Scope of sub-

sections (1) and (2) is different, (words and phrases-

Continuous Service)

Before a workman can complain of retrenchment

being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has

1012

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to show that he has been in continuous service for

not less than one year under that employer, who has

retrenched him from service. Section 25-B as the

dictionary clause for the expression “continuous”.

Both in principle and are precedent it must be held

that section 25-B (2) comprehends a situation where

a workman to not in employment for a period of

12 calendar months, but has rendered for a period of

240 days within the period of 12 calendar months

commencing and counting backwards from the

relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he

has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service

for a period of one year for the purpose of section

25-B and chapter V-A”.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in

AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar)

have held that:

“Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947- S.25-F, 10-

Retrenchment compensation-Termination of services

without payment of –Dispute referred to Tribunal-

Case of workman/claimant that he had worked for

240 days in a year preceding his termination- Claim

denied by management-Onus lies upon claimant to

show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a

year-In absence of proof of receipt of salary, the

affidavit of the workman is not sufficient evidence

to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year

preceding his termination.”

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in

(2005) 5 SCC-100 (Reserve Bank of India Vs. S.Mani) have

held that:-

“Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Ss.25-F, 25-N,25-B

and II-240 days’ continuous Service-Onus and

burden of proof with respect to-Evidence sufficient

to discharge-Failure of Employer to prove a defence

(of abandonment of service) if sufficient or amounted

to an admission, discharging the said burden of proof

on the workman discharged, merely because

employer fails to prove a defence or an alternative

plea of abandonment of service – Filing of affidavit

of workman to the effect that he had worked for

240 days continuously or that the workman had

repeated representations or raised demands for

reinstatement, is not sufficient evidence that can

discharge the said burden-Other substantive

evidence needs to be adduced to prove 240 days’

continuous service-Instances of such evidence given.

The initial burden of proof was on the workmen to

show that they had completed 240 days of service. The

Tribunal did not consider the question from that angle. It

held that the burden of proof was upon the appellant on

the premise that they have failed to prove their plea of

abandonment of service.

Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his

favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence

for any Court of Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a

workman had in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. Such

evidence might include proof of receipt of salary or wages

for 240 days or order or record of appointment or

engagement for this period or the terms and conditions of

his offer of appointment, or by examination of any other

witness in support of his case.

So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above

that for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is

necessary to prove that the workman worked for 240 days

in the preceding 12 calendar months commencing and

counting backwards from the relevant date and the burden

of such proof is upon the workman.

11.

The present case in hand is now to be considered

with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned above and it is to be

found out, if the workman has been able to prove that he

had infact worked at least for 240 days in a year preceding

his termination. According to the workman, his services

were orally terminated on 30.04.2004. So, it is necessary to

prove that in the preceding twelve calendar months of

30.04.2004, the workman had worked for 240 days.

12.

In this case except his oral evidence on affidavit the

workman has not adduced any other evidence to prove

that in fact he had worked for 240 days in the preceding

12 calendar months of the alleged date of termination i.e.

30.11.2010. On the other hand, the evidence adduced by

the party No.1 shows that the workman had not been

engaged for 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months

of 30.11.2010. As the workman did not work for 240 days in

the preceding 12 calendar months of 30.11.2010, the

provisions of section 25-F of the Act do not apply to his

case.

The workman has admitted that Shri Anoop Saise is

being engaged to prepare tea in the branch. As, Anoop

has not been engaged in place of the workman by the

party No.1 in the work of the Bank, the provisions of section

25-G are also not applicable to his case. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and

against the workman. The workman is not entitled to any

relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 386-—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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1013

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 27@2011)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@44@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 386.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2011)

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 23/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/44/2011-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/27/2011

Date: 08.12.2014

Party No.1

The Dy. General Manager

(O & C-III) & Appellate Authority,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, S.V. Marg,

Post Box No.37,

Nagpur-440001

1(b)

The Regional Manager &

Disciplinary Authority,

State Bank of India,

R.B.O., Dongaon,

Buldhana(M.S.)

Versus

Party No.2

Shri Prakash Nathuji Hedau,

C/o Manohar N. Hedau,

“Maineewala”, Subhash Ward,

Taluka,At and Post-Mohadi,

Distt. Bhandara-441909.

AWARD

(Dated: 8th December, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Appellate Authority, State Bank of India

and their workman, Shri Prakash Nathuji Hedau, for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-12012/44/2011-IR (BI) dated

10.10.2011, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India, Nagpur in imposing the penalty of

discharge from service with superannuation benefits

on Shri Prakash Nathuji Hedau vide their order dated

26.05.2006 is legal and justified? To what relief the

workman is entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to

file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, in response to which, the workman Shri Prakash

Nathuji Hedau , (“the workman” 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 in the

statement of claim is that he came to be appointed by

party no.1 as a clerk-cum-typist w.e.f. 27.09.1991 and was

posted at Dongaon branch in the district of Buldana and

thereafter, he was transferred to various places by party

no.1 and his entire service carrier was clean and excellent

and charge sheet dated 13.09.2003 containing various false

charges were levelled against him and enquiry was ordered

by party no.1, which resulted his discharge from service,

vide order dated 26.05.2006 and the appeal preferred by

him against the order of punishment was rejected by the

Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority

confirmed the order of punishment by order dated

10.03.2010.

The further case of the workman is that the service

conditions of the employees of party no.1 are governed

by various awards like Sastri Award and Desai Award and

different bipartite settlements arrived at between the

management and the recognized unions and while he was

working at Malkapur Branch, he was served with the memo

dated 01.08.2002 and he was directed to give his

explanation regarding grant of loan to some persons while

working at Dongaon branch and he submitted his reply to

the memo on 05.08.2002, denying the allegations made in

the same and on 07.07.2003, he was served with a letter,

whereby, he was debarred from in cadre and out cadre

promotions for a period of three years and he was also

intimated that in view of his denial of the charges levelled

against him, it was decided to conduct a enquiry against

him and the punishment imposed against him of debarring

him from promotion was without conducting any enquiry

into the matter and to his surprise, he was served with the

charge sheet dated 30.08.2003 under clauses (d), (e), (j)

and (k) of the settlement dated 10.04.2002, on the

allegations of his committing gross misconduct by

demanding illegal gratification of an amount of Rs. 2500/-

from the concerned persons for getting loan sanctioned

and the charges levelled against him were vague and many

of them were not proper and prior to initiation of the

departmental enquiry, vigilance department conducted

preliminary enquiry, communication of which was never

supplied to him and he submitted his reply on 26.09.2003,

1014

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

denying the charges and alongwith the charge sheet, he

was not served with the list of witnesses to be examined in

the enquiry and the documents basing on which the

charge sheet was submitted against him were not supplied

to him and party no.1appointed Shri Palsepure and

Shri G.L. Ganras as the enquiry officer and presenting officer

respectively to conduct the enquiry against him and he

made oral request to allow him to engage a lawyer for his

defence, but his request was denied and he was directed

to bring his representative to defend his case during the

enquiry and as such, he was denied fair and proper

opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry and such

denial was against the principles of natural justice and on

this count alone, the enquiry can be said to be vitiated.

It is further pleaded by the workman that he

appointed Shri S.T. Gulgulwar, the President of the State

Bank of India Staff Union at the relevant time as his defence

representative and out of the list of witnesses supplied

during the enquiry two witnesses were only examined by

the management and the said witnessed were cross-

examined by his defence representative and the enquiry

against him was completed in two sittings without giving

him any opportunity to bring his witnesses and the party

no.1 initiated and completed the enquiry hurriedly, without

following the principles of natural justice and though the

second show cause notice was received by him on

17.02.2006, he was not supplied with the copy of the report

submitted by the enquiry officer along with the said show

cause notice and therefore, he sent a letter on 09.03.2006

to the party no.1 demanding a copy of the enquiry report

and the action of party no.1 in not supplying the copy of

the enquiry report and only issuing show cause notice

proposing punishment of discharge from service itself is

illegal and arbitrary and upon receipt of the letter issued

by him, the party no.1 supplied the copy of the enquiry

report dated 13.03.2004 and the detailed explanation dated

27.11.2003 submitted by him was not considered by the

enquiry officer while submitting his report and basing on

such a report, the punishment of discharge from service

was inflicted and while conducting the enquiry, the enquiry

officer did not conduct the enquiry as per the procedure

prescribed in the standing orders and while inflicting the

punishment, the disciplinary authority did not consider

his past clean and excellent service record and the

punishment imposed against him is shockingly

disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.

The workman has further pleaded that he preferred

an appeal dated 29.05.2006 before the appellate authority

and his appeal was rejected on 10.03.2010 by the appellate

authority and from the date of his discharge from service,

he is out of job and he is entitled for reinstatement in

service with continuity and full back wages.

The party no.1 in the written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that the workman was appointed as a clerk-cum-

typist on 27.09.1991 and was posted at Dongaon Branch

and in due course of time, he was promoted as an Assistant

and there were complaints against the workman by some

borrowers, of demanding and accepting illegal gratification

in dealing with loan applications and as number of

irregularities were noticed in processing the loan proposals,

in the interest of the workman, the bank and the customers,

the workman was transferred to Malkapur Branch and a

memo dated 01.08.2002 was issued to the workman calling

for his explanation to various omissions and commissions

committed by him while working at Dongaon Branch and

the workman submitted his explanation dated 05.08.2002,

denying the allegations made in the memo and as it was

not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the

workman, decided to hold the enquiry and accordingly

issued charge sheet dated 22.08.2003 against the workman

(wrongly mentioned as charge sheet dated 22.08.2002 in

paragraph 2.3 at page 3 of the written statement by party

no.1) and appointed the enquiry officer to enquire into the

misconduct as mentioned in the charge sheet and the

enquiry commenced on 08.10.2003 and concluded on

31.10.2003 and the management examined two witnesses

and produced number of documents in support of its case

and the witnesses were cross-examined by the experienced

and competent defence representative and all relevant

documents relied on by the Bank were supplied to the

workman during the enquiry and the workman never

complained of non-receipt of the documents or of not

following the principles of natural justice and the parties

submitted written notes of argument in support of their

respective case, to the enquiry officer and the enquiry

officer submitted his report dated 13.03.2004 holding only

charge no.2 to have been proved against the workman

and the disciplinary officer accepted the said report

independently and issued the show cause notice dated

11.02.2006 to the workman for proposed punishment of

discharge with superannuation benefits and the workman

was given personal hearing on 23.03.2006 and was heard

in length by the disciplinary authority on the point of

punishment and the disciplinary authority duly considered

the enquiry report and examined the entire matter

independently and passed the final order of punishment

of “discharge with superannuation benefits (pension/

provident fund and gratuity) on 26.05.2006 and the appeal

dated 29.05.2006 preferred by the workman against the

order of punishment was dismissed by the Appellate

Authority after due consideration of the facts and

circumstances of the case and the grounds of appeal, on

10.03.2010.

It is also pleaded by the party no.1 that the workman

was governed by Sastry Award, Desai Award and various

Bipartite Settlement and not by any other Act and the

request of the workman for engagement of lawyer in the

enquiry was rightly rejected by the enquiry officer and

permission to grant the assistance of lawyer is the

discretion the disciplinary authority and when the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1015

presenting officer is not technically qualified person, the

services of lawyer to the charge sheeted employee is not

necessary to be provided and the workman had neither

made any request to examine any witness nor produced

any witness during the enquiry and the allegations have

been made with ulterior motive by the workman to suit his

purpose and the enquiry was conducted by giving all

reasonable opportunities to the workman and the

punishment is not shockingly disproportionate and the

workman is not entitled to any relief.

As this is a case of discharge of the workman from

service after holding a departmental enquiry, the fairness

or other wise of the departmental enquiry was taken as a

preliminary issue for consideration and by order dated

14.07.2014, the departmental enquiry conducted against

the workman as 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 preliminary issue

regarding the fairness of the enquiry has been answered

against the workman and so far the issue of perversity of

the findings of the Enquiry Officer is concerned, it can be

found that the findings are one sided and the Enquiry

Officer did not consider the evidence adduced by the

workman in the enquiry and the workman was not supplied

with the copy of the enquiry report and vigilance

department had made enquiry in the matter, prior to the

submission of the charge sheet against the workman and

copy of the enquiry report of the vigilance department

was not given to the workman and out of the witnesses

examined by the management in the enquiry, one witness

deposed that the complaint made against the workman

was a false complaint, but the Enquiry Officer did not

consider the said evidence at the time of giving of his

findings and as such, the findings of the Enquiry Officer

are perverse and his clean and unblemished past service

record of 15 years was not considered by the Disciplinary

Authority before inflicting the punishment of dismissal

from service and one of the complainants, Shri Landge

withdrew his complaint stating the same to be a fake

complaint and such fact was placed before the Enquiry

Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, but the same was

not considered by the said authorities and the punishment

awarded against the workman is shockingly

disproportionate and as the charge sheet was submitted

and the enquiry was conducted against the workman on

the basis of fake complaints, the punishment imposed

against the workman is liable to be set aside and the

workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with

continuity and full back wages.

Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the party no.1 that the issue of fairness of the

departmental enquiry has been answered in favour of the

party No.1 by order dated 14.07.2014 and so far the issue

of perversity of the findings is concerned, in the entire

statement of claim, there is no allegation or whisper about

the perversity of the findings or as to how they are

perverse and the documents , evidence and materials on

record of the enquiry clearly prove that the findings are

based on the evidence on record and it is well settled

that where the Tribunal does not find any fault with the

proceedings conducted by the enquiring authority, it does

not have any jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence

and set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority on

the ground of insufficient evidence to prove the charges

and Tribunal cannot sit on appeal over the findings of the

Disciplinary Authority and the workman was charged for

illegal gratification etc., which are serious in nature and

as such the punishment is just and proper and as per law

and Rules applicable to the workman and the workman

was not dismissed ,but he was discharged and was entitled

to all most all terminal benefits and the punishment is

not harsh or shockingly disproportionate and in the entire

statement of claim, only at one place, it has been

mentioned that the punishment is shockingly

disproportionate, but no reason has been mentioned for

coming to the said conclusion and looking to the nature

of the charge, the punishment imposed against the

workman is very meager and as such, there is no scope

to interfere with the punishment.

In support of the submissions, the learned advocate

for the party No.1 has placed reliance on the decisions

reported in 1995 SCC-292 (Government of Tamilnadu

Vs.Rajapandian), 2005 SCC (L&S)-417( M.P.Elec. Board

Vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma), 2005 SCC (L&S)-567

(Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank Vs. Munnalal

Jain), 1993 LIC-1897(AP) (S. Narasimha Vs. Pesonnel

Manager, Syndicate Bank), 2005 SCC(L&S)-

407(Divisional Controller Vs. A.T. Mane), (2010) 2

SCC(L&S)-239 (UPSRTC Vs. Suresh Chand), 2003 SCC

(L&S) -468 (CMD U Co. Bank Vs. P.C.Kakkar), 2006

SCC (L&S) -265 (TNCS Corporation Vs. K. Meerabai),

2006 SCC(L&S)-133 (Hombe Gowda Edu. Trust Vs.

State of Karnatak) and Air 1989 SC-1185 (Union of India

Vs. Paramanand)

At the outset, it is to be mentioned that so far the

contentions made by the learned advocate for the

workman regarding the non supply of document to the

workman is concerned, the same had been dealt with at

the time of deciding the preliminary issue of fairness of

the departmental enquiry and as such, there is no scope

of reconsideration of the same. It is also, clear from the

evidence of the workman himself that he had received

the second show cause notice on 17.02.2006 and copy

of the inquiry report on 07.03.2006 and submitted his

reply to the second show cause notice on 23.03.2006.

So, there is no force in the contention raised by the

learned advocate for the workman that the workman as

not supplied with the copy of the enquiry report.

1016

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In view of the submissions made by the learned

advocates for the parties, before delving into the merit of

the matter, I think it necessary to mention the principles

envisaged in the judgments cited by the learned advocate

for the party No.1.

It is found from the decisions cited by the learned

advocate for the party No.1 that the Hon’ble Apex Court

have held that:-

“Disciplinary Enquiry:- Finding of fact- Interference-

Permissible only when there is no material for the

said conclusion: or that on the materials, the

conclusion cannot be that of a reasonable man.

Enquiry Officer dealing with Articles of charge

chronologically and relevant materials on basis of

which ultimate conclusion is arrived at. Findings of

enquiry officer cannot be held to be findings base

on no evidence. Bias of enquiry officer also not

made out – Enquiry cannot be held to be vitiated.”

“A finding recorded in a domestic enquiry cannot

be characterized as perverse by the Labour Court

unless it can be shown that such a finding is not

supported by any evidence, or is entirely opposed

to the whole body of evidence adduced. In a

domestic enquiry once a conclusion is deducted

from the evidence, it is not permissible to assail the

conclusion even though, it is possible for some other

authority to arrive at a different conclusion on the

same evidence.”

“A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial.

The Standard of proof required is that of

preponderance of probability and not proof beyond

reasonable doubt.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

Where there are some relevant materials which the

authority has accepted and which materials may

reasonably support the conclusion that the officer

is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court

exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review

the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held,

the question of adequacy or reliability of evidence

cannot be canvassed before the High Court.”

xxx xxx xxx xxx

The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the

disciplinary matters for punishment cannot be equated

with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere

with the findings of the enquiry officer or competent

authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse.

It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose

penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the

competent authority either by an act of Legislature or rules

made under the proviso of Article 309 or the Constitution.

If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and

in accordance with the principles of natural justice, what

punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter

exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent

authority. If the penalty can be lawfully imposed and is

imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no

power to substitute its own discretion for that of the

authority.

Now, the present case in hand is to be judged with

the touch stone of the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned above.

10.

On perusal of the record, it is found that the findings

of the Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence on record

of the departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has

analyzed the evidence on the record of the departmental

enquiry in a rational manner and has assigned reasons in

support of his findings. It is also found that the findings

of the Enquiry Officer are not as such, which cannot be

arrived at by a reasonable man on the materials on record

of the departmental enquiry. It is not a case of total

absence of evidence on record of the enquiry or that the

findings of the Enquiry Officer are totally against the

evidence on record. Hence, the findings of the Enquiry

Officer cannot be said to be perverse.

11.

So far the question of proportionality of the

punishment is concerned, it is found that grave misconduct

of receipt of illegal gratification, willful damage or attempt

to cause damage to the property of the bank or any of its

customers, willful in subordination and doing an act

prejudicial to the interest of the Bank have been proved

against the workman in a properly conducted departmental

enquiry. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a

number of decisions that in case of proved misconducts

of serious nature, there is no question of considering past

service record. It is the discretion of the employer to

consider the same in appropriate cases, but Labour Court

cannot substitute the penalty imposed by the employer. A

bank employee has to exercise a higher degree of honesty

and integrity. Contention that the complainant withdrew

his grievance would not condone the misconduct. Hence,

the punishment of discharge from service with

superannuation benefits imposed against the workman

cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate. From

the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that

there is no scope to interfere with the punishment imposed

against the workman. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of State Bank of India,

Nagpur in imposing the penalty of discharge from service

with superannuation benefits on Shri Prakash Nathuji

Hedau vide their order dated 26.05.2006 is legal and

justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1017

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 387-—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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 10@2014) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@48@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 387.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Central

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 23/02/2015.

[No. L-41011/48/2014-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/10/2014

Date: 03.02.2015

Party No.1 (a)

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Central Railway, Nagpur Division,

Kings Way, Station Road

Nagpur (M.S.)- 440001.

(b)

The Sr. Divisional Commercial

Manager, Central Railway,

Kingsway, Nagpur- 440001.

(c)

The Sr. Divisional Personnel

Officer, Central Railway,

Kingsway, Nagpur- 440001.

Versus

Party No. 2

The General Secretary,

Parcel Porter Sanghatana,

New Mankpur, Plot No.37,

Mhada Colony ke pas,

Nagpur- 440030.

ORDER

(Dated: 3rd 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 Central Railway and their union, for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-41011/48/2014-IR (B-I)

dated 27.05.2014, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Central

Railway, Nagpur in denying the claim of

Smt. Prabhabai W/o Late Mohanlal Laloo for

compassionate appointment and compassionatry

allowance in lieu of death of her husband late

Mohanlal Laloo is just, fair and legal? If not, to what

relief the concerned dependent of deceased workman

is entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to

file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, in response to which, the union, “Parcel Porter

Sanghatanal”, (“the union” in short) filed the statement of

claim. However, the management of Central Railway, (“party

no.1” in short) filed an application for dismissal of the

reference on the ground of this Tribunal having no

jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

This order arises out of the application dated

29.10.2014 filed by the management of Central Railway,

Nagpur Division for dismissal of the reference, on the

ground of this Tribunal having no jurisdiction to

adjudication the dispute, in view of the bar created by the

Administrative Tribunals Act,1985.

The case of the management is that the union has

raised the present dispute on behalf of the deceased

workman, Mohanlal Laloo, Ex LPP, Wardha, who was

removed from service by following proper Dar proceeding,

vide order dated 30.07.2001 and after the enactment of

Administrative Tribunals Act,1985 and the constitution

of the Central Administrative Tribunal to adjudicate the

dispute relating to service condition of the central

government servants, the Central Administrative Tribunal

is only empowered to decide the dispute as raised by the

union and according to section 14 of the Administrative

Tribunals Act,1985, all service matters pertaining to the

Central Government are to be adjudicated by the Central

Administrative Tribunal and section 28 of the said Act

provides that, “On and from the date from which any

jurisdiction, powers and authority becomes exercisable

under this Act by a Tribunal in relation to recruitment and

matters concerning recruitment to any service or post or

service matters concerning members of any service or

persons appointed to any service or post, no court except

the (a) the Supreme court, (b) any Industrial Tribunal,

Labour Court or other authority constituted under the

Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (14 of 1947) or any other

corresponding law or the time being in force, shall have ,

or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or

authority in relation to such recruitment or matters

concerning such recruitment or such service maters.” and

the expression “service matter” occurring both in sections

1018

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14 and 28 has been defined in clause “q” of section 3,

which says that “service matters” in relation to a person,

means all matters relating to the conditions of his service

in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State

or of any local or other authority within the territory of

India or under the control of the Government of India, or,

as the case may be, of any corporation or society owned

or controlled by the Government, in respect of -

(i)

Remuneration (including allowances),

pension and other retirement benefits;

(ii)

…….

(iii)

…….

(iv)

……..

(v)

Any other matter whatsoever;

And it is clear from the aforesaid provisions of the

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 that it is the Central

Administrative Tribunal, which has the jurisdiction, power

and authority to adjudicate the dispute and this Tribunal

is lack of jurisdiction to decide the issue and in the present

reference, the union has made prayer to set aside the

impugned order of punishment of removal from service

passed against the deceased employee and to treat his

death as death in harness and to grant benefit of family

pension and appointment on compassionate ground and

the grievance of the applicant being the service matter,

the same can be challenged before the Central

Administrative Tribunal and as such, the reference is liable

to be dismissed, the same being bad in law.

The Union has resisted the application by filing its

objection and stating therein that it is a registered trade

union under the Trade Unions Act and it has every right

to raise the dispute under section 2(A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 and the DAR proceeding initiated

against the deceased workman was unlawful and this is a

dispute between the employer and employee and hence

an industrial dispute and is within the purview of the

Industrial Tribunal and section 14 of the Administrative

Act,1985 relates to jurisdiction, powers and authority of

Administrative Tribunal for recruitment matters and the

provisions of section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals

Act,1985 do not preclude the jurisdiction of the Industrial

Tribunal and it has raised the dispute under section 2(k)

of the Industrial Disputes Act and after failure of the

conciliation proceedings, the appropriate Government has

referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication under

section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the

Tribunal has to decide the reference within the frame work

of the schedule of the reference and therefore, the

objection raised by the management is frivolous and liable

to be rejected.

Perused the record. Considered the submissions

made by the learned advocate for the party No.1 and the

union representative for the applicant. It is not disputed

that the deceased employee, Mohanlal Laloo was a

permanent employee of the Central Railway, Nagpur

Division and the dispute raised is in regard to service

matters of the concerned deceased employee, a member

of any service or person appointed to any service or post

with the affairs of the Union (Government).

It is clear from the provisions of sections 14 and 28

read with section 3(q) of the Administrative Act that the

Central Administrative Tribunal under the Act is only

competent to decide the issue raised by the Union on

behalf of the applicant and this Tribunal is precluded from

entertaining the reference for adjudication and this

Tribunal is not entitled to exercise the jurisdiction, power

or authority in relation to such service matters.

ORDER

Hence, the application filed by the management of

Central Railway, Nagpur Division is allowed. It is ordered

that the reference is not maintainable before this Tribunal

on the ground of this Tribunal of not having any

jurisdiction, power or authority to decide the dispute.

However, the Union is at liberty to approach the appropriate

competent forum, i.e. the Central Administrative Tribunal

for redress, if it so likes.

Send the soft copy and the hard copy of the order

as well to the Central Government for notification in the

official gazette.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 388-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ xkuqu

Maqdjyh ,.M da- 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;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 02@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 23@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@170@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 388.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.

Gannon Dunkerly and Co. Ltd. and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 23/02/2015.

[No. L-41012/170/2005-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1019

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 CASE NO. 2/2009

L-41012/170/2005 -IR(B.I), dated 08.12.2008

Date of Passing Award – 27th Day of January, 2015

Between :

The General Manager,

M/s. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd.,

Eros Apartments (7th Floor),

56, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019

The President,

M/s. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd.,

Chartered Bank Building, M.G. Road,

Fort, Mumbai-400001

The Divisional Engg.,

Railway Sleeper Factory,

East Coast Railway, Rayagada,

Odisha

...1st Party Management

(And)

Shri R. Sankar Rao,

Roit Colony (Sastri Nagar),

PO & Dist-Rayagada,

Rayagada, Odisha-765002

...2nd Party Workman

Appearances :

1. None

… For the 1st Party-

Management No. 1, 2 & 3

2. Shri R. Sankar Rao … 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 employers in relation to the Management of

M/s. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd., and the East Coast

Railway AND their workmen Shri R. Shankar Rao 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-41012/170/2005 - IR

(B-I), dated 08.12.2008 to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The dispute as referred to has been mentioned under the

schedule of the letter of reference which is quoted below.

“Whether the management M/s. Gannon Dunkerley

& Co. Ltd., Comes under the control of Sleeper

Factory, East Coast Railway, Raigada (Orissa) and

Railway is the principal employer in this case? If so,

is the termination of services of Shri R. Sankar Rao

w.e.f. 1.10.2004 justified? If not , to what relief the

applicant is entitled from Railway administration?”

The 2nd party workman, Shri R. Sankar Rao (herein

after referred to as “the workman” in short) has averred in

his statement of claim that M/s. Gannon Dunkerley Co.

Ltd., the 1st Party Management No. 1 & 2 (herein after

referred to as “the Gannon management” in short) is a

manufacturer of Railway Sleeper. The Gannon

Management’s factory is established in the premises of

the management of East Coast Railway at it’s Rayagada

Railway Station (hereinafter referred to as “Railway

management” in short). The Railway management have

full control of the Gannon management as the latter is

functioning under the direct supervision of the former and

that the railway sleepers are being done in accordance

with the design specification, requirement and material

supplied through it’s technical expert. The Gannon

management is only a contractor and has no independent

authority left with him to modify, amend or redesign the

railway sleeper. The balance sheet, profit & loss accounts,

payment of wages, bonus, etc., of the employees of the

Gannon management are being done strictly under the

direction of the Railway management.

The workman has further pleaded that his

suspension from duty and termination of his employment

by the Gannon management is malafide, unjust and illegal.

He was not given an opportunity to explain his grievance

to the Gannon management. The Gannon management

also failed to supply the details of the charges framed

against him. The action of the Gannon management being

illegal, he became a victim of the said action. Therefore,

the workman prays to pass orders for his reinstatement

with back wages under the Gannon management declaring

the action of the Gannon management as illegal and

unjustified and the Railway management may be ordered

to pay necessary compensation to him and direct the

Gannon management to allow him to continue in his

services.

The Gannon management on the other hand denied

all the averments of the workman as stated in his statement

of claim. The Gannon management have contended that

they have paid the settled amount of money of Rs. 1,15,000/-

(Rupees One Lakh Fifteen Thousands) only towards full

and final settlement to the workman as per the settlement

arrived at before the conciliation machinery of the Ministry

of Labour & Employment, Government. The Gannon

management also contended that this Tribunal has no

jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter as the Central

Government is not the appropriate Government as per the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Gannon management

is also stated that the employment or non-employment of

the workman is the sole discretion of them and the Railway

management has nothing to do with the same as the latter

1020

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

is no way concerned with the business of the former. Since

the matter has already been resolved through settlement

before the conciliation machinery, the same is binding upon

both the parties and the workman cannot re-agitate by

way of reference or otherwise. On earlier occasions, the

Government of India in the Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide it’s letter dated 07.01.2008 have declined

to referred the matter for adjudication due to reason that

the Gannon management is the independent principal

employer and the State Government is the appropriate

government in respect of them. Accordingly, the Gannon

management have prayed to reject the claim of the

workman.

The Railway management has not taken any step

inspite of notices issued to them and remained absent

from the proceedings of the matter.

The following issues were settled by my

predecessor.

(1)

Whether the management M/s. Gannon

Dunkerley & Co. Ltd., Comes under the control

of Sleeper Factory, East Coast Railway, Raigada

(Orissa) and Railway is the principal employer

in this case? If so, is the termination of services

of Shri R. Sankar Rao w.e.f. 1.10.2004 is

justified?

(2)

If not , to what relief the applicant is entitled

from Railway administration?

The workman examined himself as the workman

witness No. 1 and is duly cross examined. He has proved

12(twelve) documents marked as Exhibit 1 to 12. The

Gannon management filed affidavit evidence of Shri Dwarka

Prasad as the management witness No. 1. Since, the

Gannon management remained absent from the

proceedings on subsequent dates, his witness could not

be cross examined. The Gannon management as well as

the Railway management remained absent without taking

any steps for which I have heard the oral arguments from

the side of the workman. I have perused the record.

FINDINGS

Issue No. 1

It is an admitted fact that M/s. Gannon Dunkerley

Co. Ltd., is registered under the Factories Act and hence

an independent principal employer. The State

Government is the appropriate Government in respect

of the Gannon management. The Gannon management

undertake the jobs for which it is established and recruits

it’s own manpower to undertake it’s works. In the present

dispute, the Gannon management was doing the work of

manufacturing railway sleepers as per the specifications

given by the Railway authority for the use of Railway

only. But, the Railway management has no control over the

Gannon management. The various service conditions of

the Gannon management are not governed by the Railway

management. Therefore, the Railway management cannot

be treated as the Principal Employer in respect of the

disputant workman. The workman also in his cross

examination on 22.3.2012 has admitted that he has no claim

from the Railway management. Thus, the Railway

management is no way concerned in the present matter.

Therefore, the termination of the workman with effect from

01.10.2004 is done by the Gannon management only and

as because the Central Government is not the appropriate

Government in respect of the Gannon management, it

cannot refer the matter of termination of the workman for

adjudication to decide it’s justification. Thus, issue No. 1

is answered against the workman.

Issue No. 2.

In view of the above facts, the applicant is not entitled

for any relief from the Railway administration. However,

since the applicant has rendered a much longer period of

service under the Gannon management without any

complaint or disturbance except his unwillingness for his

transfer to some other establishment, his case should be

considered for giving him one more chance by the Gannon

management by reinstating him into his services to prove

himself.

10.

The reference is answered accordingly.

PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 389-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jsyos fodkl

fuxe 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;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 41@2007)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@21@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 389.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/

2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

management of Railway Vikash Nigam Ltd. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

23/02/2015.

[No. L-41011/21/2007-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1021

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 CASE NO. 41/2007

L-41011/21/2007 -IR(B.I), dated 16.11.2007

Date of Passing Award – 11th day of December, 2014

Between:

M/s. HCIL-Adhikarya-ARSS(JV),

HIG-46, BDA Enclave, G.M. Marg,

Jaydev Bihar, Bhubaneswar,

Odisha

...1st Party-Management

The Chief Personnel Manager,

Railway Vikash Nigam Ltd.,

Metro House, Saheed Nagar,

Bhubaneswar, Odisha

(And)

The General Secretary,

Orissa Nirman Mazdoor Sabha,

VA, 8/1, Unit-2, Bhubaneswar,

Odisha

...2nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

None

…

For the 1st Party-

Management No.1

None

…

For the 1st Party-

Management No.2

Shri Prahalada Pradhan

…

For the 2nd Party-

Union

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

& Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between the employers in relation to the Management of

M/s. HCIL-Adhikarya-ARSS(JV), Bhubaneswar and the

Chief General Manager, Railway Vikash Nigam Ltd.,

Bhubaneswar and their workman represented through the

General Secretary, Orissa Nirman Mazdoor Sabha,

Bhubaneswar 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, 1947 vide their

Letter No. L-41011/21/2007 -IR(B.I), dated16.11.2007 to this

Tribunal for adjudication. The dispute as referred to has

been mentioned under the schedule of the letter of reference

which is quoted below.

“Whether the action of the management of M/s.

HCIL-Adhikarya-ARSS(JV) by terminating the

services of Shri Prahallad Pradhan & 4 others, is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workers

are entitled?”

The 2nd party union (herein after referred to as “the

2nd party”) has filed his Statement of Claim and rejoinder

detailing therewith the modes of termination of the services

of S/Shri Prahallad Pradhan, Nrusinghanath Moharana,

Mirza Mehbub Beg, Dharani Rout and Subas Chandra

Das (in short “workmen”). The workmen were the members

of the 2nd party. The workmen were amongst the workers

(about 108 in numbers) working under the 1st party

Management of M/s. HCIL-Adhikarya-ARSS(JV) (herein

after referred to as “the 1st party No. 1”) who was a

contractor under the 1st party Management of the Chief

Personnel Manager, Railway Vikash Nigam Ltd,

Bhubaneswar (herein after referred to as “the 1st party

No. 2”). The 1st party No. 2 is a Public Sector Undertaking

functioning under the Government of India. The workmen

were engaged by the 1st party No. 2 for construction of

railway bridges, track and other construction work for the

Railway Vikash Nigam Ltd. The 1st party No. 2 is the

principal employer for the purpose of this dispute.

The workers were engaged by the 1st party No. 1 for

more than 12 hours a day. The workers are also not

provided with any safety materials for their safety at the

work place. The workers were not being paid any overtime

wages as well as they were paid less wages compared to

work performed by them. The workers were working at the

Kathojodi site of Gopalpur in Cuttack. Against the above

irregularities of the 1st party No.1, the disputant workmen

raised their voice through their union. Aggrieved with the

same, the 1st party No. 1 terminated the services of the

disputant workmen illegally without following the

principles of natural justice.

Upon aggrieved with the action of the 1st party No.1,

the 2nd party raised an industrial dispute before the

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar

for an amicable resolve of their dispute. Though, several

dates were fixed for conciliation, the 1st party No. 1 did

not turn up. Hence, the conciliation ended in failure which

resulted in the present reference. The 2nd party examined

one Shri Nrusinghnath Moharana (one disputant workman)

at it’s witness and exhibited 08 documents and prayed for

their reinstatement in the project work with all

consequential benefits from the date of their termination

from services till the completion of the project work by the

1st party No. 1 under the 1st party No. 2..

The 1st Party Nos. 1 and 2 though appeared on a

few dates to conduct the case on their behalf, yet did not

prosecute the matter properly. As a matter, the 1st party

No. 2 was set exparte on 19.01.2009. The 1st party No. 1

also set exparte on 31.03.2011. But, inspite of the same,

both the managements were given ample opportunities

to proceed with the case. Several notices were also

1022

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

issued to them for their appearance and for further orders.

But, they did not turn up. It seems, both the managements

have no interest in the case and they did not comply the

orders of the Tribunal.

The following issues are framed by my predecessor:

(a)

Whether the reference is maintainable.

(b)

Whether the termination of workmen amounts

to retrenchment.

(c)

Whether the termination of workman is

justified or not.

(d)

If not, what relief the workman is entitled to.

I have heard oral arguments from the side of the 2nd

party only as the 1st parties are absent. I have also perused

the record.

FINDINGS

Issue No. 1

The 1st party No.2 is a public section undertaking

under the control of the Government of India engaged

with the development of railway infrastructure in India.

The 1st party No. 1 is a multinational company engaged

as a contractor for a project work entrusted to it by the 1st

party No. 2. The disputant workmen were employed in the

1st party No. 1 to carry out various construction works. A

total of about 108 workers were working with the 1st party

No. 1. The 5(five) numbers disputant workers were

amongst the 108 workers. There existed employer and

employee relationship between the 1st party No. 1 & 2

and the disputant workmen.

Upon aggrieved with the action of the 1st party No.

1, the disputant workers raised an industrial dispute

through their union before the Regional Labour

Commissioner (central), Bhubaneswar to have their matter

redressed. But, due to failure of the conciliation

proceedings, the matter was referred by the conciliation

machinery to the appropriate government for necessary

action and hence this reference. In view of the above

facts, the reference is maintainable. This issue is answered

accordingly.

Issue No. 2

10.

While terminating the services of the disputant

workers, the 1st party No. 1 should have complied Section

25F, 25G or 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But,

without complying any of the above Sections, the 1st party

No. 1 has terminated the services of the disputant workmen

which clearly amounts to retrenchment under the Act. This

issue is answered accordingly against the 1st party

management No. 1.

Issue No. 3

11.

As is seen from the record and the oral arguments

submitted by the 2nd party, no disciplinary proceedings

were conducted against the disputant workers except a

fact finding enquiry. On the report of the fact finding

enquiry, the services of the disputant workers were

terminated which is not justified under the eye of law and

clearly violates the principles of natural justice. The action

of the 1st party No. 1 is thus arbitrary, illegal and the

colourable exercise exercise of employer’s rights. Hence,

the action taken by the 1st party No. 1 in terminating the

services of the disputant workmen is not justified. This

issue is answered accordingly against the 1st party

management No. 1.

12.

The 1st party No. 2 (Railway Vikash Nigam Ltd.) was

required to ensure the maintenance of various records

pertaining to attendance register of the employees, register

for payment of minimum wages as well as overtime

allowance to the employees, by the 1st party party No. 1.

It must have watched and guided for taking proper safety

measures by the 1st party No.1 while engaging workers to

work on sites. Also, the 1st party No. 2 should take care of

maintenance of industrial peace and harmony in the

establishments set up under its control. But, it seems the

1st party No. 2 by have not taken all such steps thereby

violated the principles enumerated under the ID Act, 1947.

Issue No. 4.

13.

It is therefore ordered that the 1st party management

No. 1 should reinstate the disputant workers (5 numbers)

as stated above, back into their services with all

consequential benefits till the date of implementation of

award. It is further ordered that, if the concerned project

of the 1st party No. 1 under the 1st party No. 2 is already

complete then the 1st party No. 1 will have to pay the all

financial benefits concerning monthly wages etc., to the

disputant workers from the date of their termination till the

existent of the project work of the 1st party No. 1 in the 1st

party No. 2. The financial benefits are to be paid to the

disputant workmen within a period of three months from

the date of publication award in the Gazette of India failing

which the 1st party No. 1 shall pay interest @ 12% per

annum simple interest to the disputant workmen. The 1st

party No. 2 is directed to take all steps for proper

compliance of the above orders.

14.

The award is passed exparte against the 1st party

management No. 1 and 2. The reference is answered

accordingly.

PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 390-—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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1@2013)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1023

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12025@01@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 390.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Nagpur 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 23/02/2015.

[No. L-12025/01/2015-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/Application/1/2013

Date: 9.12.2014

Applicant

Reserve Bank Employees

Association, Nagpur

Through its Assistant Secretary,

34, Malviya Nagar, Khamla, Nagpur

Versus

Party No.2

Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai,

Through its Chief General Manager,

Human Resources,

Reserve Bank of India,

Central Office,

20th & 21st Floor,

Central Office Building,

Mumbai

AWARD

(Dated: 9th December, 2014)

This is an application under section 33-A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the act” in short ) by the

union, “ Reserve Bank Employees Association” (“the

union” in short ), challenging the action of the opposite

party, Reserve Bank of India (“the opposite party” in short),

for entering into the settlement dated 21.03.2013 with the

union,” All India Reserve Bank Employees Association

(“the AIRBEA” in short ), regarding the scheme of

promotion of class III employees to the post of Assistant

Manager in grade –‘A’.

The case of the applicant as presented in the

application is that the opposite party signed a private

settlement with the AIRBEA on 21.03.2013 regarding the

scheme of promotion of class III employees to the post of

Assistant Manager in Grade-A, making drastic changes

in the service conditions of the employees, flowing from

the settlements dated 23.06.2005 and 18.08.2011, which

were pending subject matter of adjudication before this

Tribunal, but no express permission of the Tribunal was

obtained by the opposite Party, before entering into the

said settlement or making the changes in the service

conditions of the employees.

The union has prayed to decide the complaint and

to pass appropriate order.

The opposite party in its written settlement has

pleaded inter-alia that it had not contravened the

provisions of section 33 or any other provision of the Act

as alleged in the complaint and as such, taking of permission

from the Tribunal does not arise and the union is a minority

union having only 307 members belonging to Class III

employees on All India basis and the demands of the union

were fully considered while negotiating and arriving at a

settlement on 23.06.2005 with the majority recognized

union, the AIRBEA and AIRBEA is the recognized majority

union of class III employees and the memorandum of

settlement dated 18.08.2011 was valid for two years i.e.

panel year 2011 and 2012, after which a new scheme was

to be put in its place by mutual consent, as mentioned in

clause 11 of the said settlement and accordingly, the

memorandum of settlement dated 21.03.2013 on the new

scheme of promotion of the class III employees to the

post of assistant Manager was signed by it with AIRBEA

and therefore, the complaint filed by the applicant is liable

to be rejected.

No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant.

Besides placing reliance on documentary evidence,

both the parties have led oral evidence in support of their

respective claim. Shri Nityanand S. Sahasrabudhe has been

examined as a witness on behalf of the applicant, whereas,

one Shri R. Srinivasa Rao has been examined as a witness

by the opposite party.

The witness for the applicant in his evidence on

affidavit has stated that the opposite party contravened

the provisions of section 33 of the Act and the matter of

promotion of class III employees to the post of Assistant

Manager Grade-A arising out of the settlement dated

23.06.2005 and 18.08.2011 signed by the opposite party

was pending for adjudication before this Tribunal in case

no. CGIT/NGP/06/2012 and during pending of adjudication

of the said industrial dispute, the opposite party entered

into a private settlement with AIRBEA on 21.03.2013 in the

matter of promotion of class III employees to the post

of Assistant Manager Grade-A, making drastic changes

in the service conditions of the employees and the

opposite party did not obtain express permission of the

Tribunal before signing the settlement dated 21.03.2013

1024

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and the action of the opposite party is arbitrary and illegal

and in total contravention of the provisions of section

33 of the Act.

In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted

that the union is a minority union and AIRBEA is the

recognized majority union and in the code of discipline,

1966, it was agreed by the Bank management, Government

of India and the unions to accept the code of Discipline.

The witness has denied the suggestion that there was no

drastic change in the settlement dated 21.03.2013 than the

settlements dated 23.06.2005 and 18.08.2011.

In his evidence on affidavit, the witness for the

opposite party has reiterated the facts mentioned in the

written statement. In the cross-examination, the witness

has admitted that CGIT/NGP/6/2012 was pending on

21.03.2013 before the Tribunal being referred by the Central

Government, which was in respect of promotion of Class-

III employees to officer grade-A in accordance with the

settlements dated 23.06.2005 and 18.08.2011 and the

opposite party entered into an agreement with AIRBEA

on 21.03.2013 on the scheme of promotion of class-III

employees to the post of Assistant Managers in Grade-A,

during the pendency of CGIT/NGP/6/2012 and management

had not sought for any permission from the Tribunal to

enter into the said settlement.

At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

Learned Advocate for the union that the union had

challenged the settlements entered into by the opposite

party with AIRBEA dated 23.06.2005 and 18.08.2001

regarding promotion of class-III employees to the post of

A.M. Grade in reference No. CGIT/NGP/6/2012 and while

the said reference was pending before this Tribunal for

adjudication on 21.03.2013, the opposite party entered into

another agreement in respect of the scheme of promotion

of class-III employees to the post of Assistant Manager,

Grade-A and by such agreement, drastic changes in the

service conditions of the employees were made by the

opposite party and the pattern of examination has been

changed drastically by the settlement dated 21.03.2013,

which is against the interest of the employees and the

changes in the service conditions of the employees were

made by the opposite party without the express permission

of the Tribunal during the pendency of the reference CGIT/

NGP/6/2012, in contravention of the provisions of section

33 of the Act and the witness examined by the opposite

party in his cross-examination has admitted such facts

and therefore, necessary orders are required to be passed

in the matter against the opposite party.

Per contra, it was submitted by the representative

for the opposite party that the opposite party has not

contravened the provisions of section 33(1) of the Act

and the settlement dated 18.08.2011 signed by the opposite

party with AIRBEA was valid for two years i.e. panel year

2011 and 2012, after which a new scheme was to be put in

place by mutual consultation, as per clause II of the said

settlement and accordingly, there was a settlement between

the opposite party and AIRBEA on 21.03.2013 on the new

scheme of promotion of class-III employees to the post of

Assistant Manager and in the said settlement some

changes were made to the pattern of the examination for

such promotion and the said changes do not amount to

change of service condition of the employees concerned

or prejudicial to the interest of the employees and it is well

settled by the Hon’ble Apex court that a rule which affects

the promotion of a person relates to his condition of

service but the mere chance of promotion is not a change

in service condition and as there was no change of any

service condition of the employees concerned in the

settlement dated 21.03.2013, there was no need to take the

express written permission of the Tribunal and as there

was no contravention of section 33 (1) (a) of the Act by

the opposite party, the application filed under section 33

of the Act is not maintainable and liable to be rejected.

In support of such submission, the representative

for the opposite party placed reliance on the decisions

reported in AIR 1977 SC-1229 (The Bhavnagar Municipalty

Vs. Ali Bhai Karim bhai), AIR 1981 SC-1699 (Reserve Bank

of India Vs. C.T. Dighe), AIR 1974 SC-1631 (Mohammad

Shujat Ali Vs. Union of India and 2010 (2) ILR-Cut-798

(Achyutacharan Panda Vs. The Managing Director,

Paradeep Phosphates Ltd.)

10.

As this is an application under section 33-A of the

Act, for contravention of the provisions of section 33 (1)

of the Act, for better appreciation of the matter, I think it

proper to mention the provision of section 33(1) of the

Act.

33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged

under certain circumstances during pendency of

proceedings.

(1) During the pendency of any conciliation

proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board

or of any proceeding before (an arbitrator or) a

Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in

respect of an industrial dispute, no employee shall-

(a)in regard to any matter connected with the

dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workman

concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service

applicable to them immediately before the

commencement of such proceeding; or

(b) for any misconduct connect with the dispute,

discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or

otherwise, any workman concerned in such dispute,

Save with the express permission in writing of the

authority before which the proceeding is pending.

11.

In this case, it is the admitted case of the parties that

during pendency of reference case No. CGIT/NGP/12/2012

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1025

before this Tribunal, regarding the scheme of promotion

of class-III employees to the post of Assistant Manager

as per terms of settlement dated 23.06.2005 and 18.08.2011,

the opposite party entered into another agreement dated

21.03.2013 with AIRBEA regarding the scheme of

promotion of the class-III employees to the post of

Assistant Manager and for that the express written

permission of the Tribunal was not obtained.

The question arises for consideration in this case is

as to whether the opposite party contravened section 33

(1) (a) of the Act by entering into the agreement with

AIRBEA on 21.03.2013.

It is well settled that a complaint under section 33A

of the Act is maintainable only if the employer contravenes

section 33 of the Act and in order to attract section 33 (1)

(a) of the Act the following features must be present.

There is a proceeding in respect of an industrial

dispute pending before the Tribunal.

ii)

Conditions of service of the workmen

applicable immediately before the

commencement of the Tribunal proceeding are

altered.

iii)

The alteration of the conditions of service is

in regard to a matter connected with the

pending industrial dispute.

iv)

The workmen whose conditions of service are

altered are concerned in the pending industrial

dispute.

The alteration of the conditions of service is

to be prejudice of the workmen

12.

Before delving into the merit of the matter, I think it

necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 1981

SC-1699 (Supra). In the said decision, the Hon’ble Apex

Court have held that:

Labour and Industrial- Condition of service- Section

33-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Whether changes

made in circular 6 by appellant amounted to change in

working conditions of respondents – Application under

section 33-A against circular 6 to challenge it on ground

that it was introduced when employees belonging to clerical

grade and their names were already in panel remained to

be promoted was rejected- It was competent for appellant

bank to introduce combined promotional schemes for

clerical staffs and stenographers-it was all part of incidence

of service and in law no grievance can be made against it-

changes made in circular 6 do not amount to changes in

conditions of services.

13.

Applying the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble

Apex Court as mentioned above to the present case in

hand, it is found that entering into the settlement dated

21.032013 by the opposite party with AIRBEA on the

scheme of promotion of class-III employees to the post

of Assistant Manager does not amount to change of

service condition of the workman. The changes made by

such agreement in the pattern of the examination relate

to the chance of promotion of the workmen only and does

not affect the promotion of the workmen. From the

materials on record, it is found that there is no merit in

the complaint filed by the union. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The application filed by the union under section

33-A of the Act is rejected being devoid of merit.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 391-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

53@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@33@2004&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 391.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2004)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

19/02/2015.

[No. L-20012/33/2004-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 53 of 2004

Parties:-

Employer in relation to the management of

Lodna Area of M/S BCCL.

AND

Their workman

Present:- Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

1026

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearance:-

For the employers

Shree D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

Shree R.R. Ram, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 20/01/2015

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/33/2004- IR(C-I) dated 8/

16.06.2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of power conferred by clause (d)

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Lodna

Coke Plant in not providing employment to Shri Raj

Kumar Paswan, in place of his father Shri Sarjoo,

who was medically declared unfit is justified? If not

to what relief the said dependant of the workman

entitled?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

28.06.2004. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed. They appeared through representative. The

Sponsoring Union files their written statement on

03.12.2004. And the management also files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 14.03.2005. Thereafter

rejoinder and document filed by the workman. One

witness examined on behalf of the workman as WW-1.

The management neither filed any document nor

adduce any evidence to prove on their behalf. The

management also not filed any document which is call for

by the workman.

The workman admittedly fell ill and declared unfit

and was asked his heir can apply for job. But while the

applicant applied for job his claim was refused.

The workman files Form-F, in which Kunti Devi and

Raj Kumar Paswan is the nominee of workman concerned.

But what ever may be the reason the heir of the

workman is be taken into job as per the scheme.

The applicant who is the heir of the workman be

taken into job after observing all formalities within a month

after publishing the award in the Gazette failing which

action may be initiated against the erring employee.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 392-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

57@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@83@2008&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 392.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2008)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

19/02/2015.

[No. L-20012/83/2008-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 57 of 2008

Parties:-

Employer in relation to the management of

Sijua Area of M/S BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present:- Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearance:-

For the employers

Shree S.N.Ghosh, Advocate

For the Workman

Shree Niraj Kr. Singh , Rep.

State :- Jharkhand

Industry:- Coal

Dated 20/1/2015

AWARD

By order No. L 20012/83/2008- IR(CM-I) dated

18-11-2008 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of power conferred by clause (d)

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of Mudidih

Colliery under Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL in not

providing dependent employment to Sri Gangadhar

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1027

Mahato, son of late Rameshwar Mahto, Tyndal

under the provision of NCWA is justified & legal?

(ii) To What relief is the dependent son of late

Rameshwar Mahato entitled ?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

24.11.2008. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed. They appeared through representative. The

workman files their written statement on 09.02.2009. And

the management also files their written statement -cum-

rejoinder on 01.04.2010.. Thereafter rejoinder and document

filed by the parties. Management examined one witness

as MW-1 but workman adduce two witnesses. Document

marked by the management as Ext. M-1 to M-6 and the

workman also marked document W-1 to W-14 .

The Short point to be decided in this case is the

deceased workman died during service while under

treatment . After the death of the workman, his son applied

for job under compassionate appointment scheme but

the same was regretted due to delay in submitting

application.

For filing proper application, time usually taken to

make it complete due to many official bottle neck. Therefore

for the said ground, the job should not be refused.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold that the action of the management of Mudidih

Colliery under Sijua Area of M/S BCCL in not providing

dependent employment to Sri Gangadhar Mahato, son of

late Rameshwar Mahto, Tyndal is not justified. Hence the

applicant be given job after observing due formality with

checking identity.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 393-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

02@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@106@2008&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 393.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

19/02/2015.

[No. L-20012/106/2008-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 02 of 2009

Employer in relation to the management of

Lodna Area M/S BCCL

AND

Their workmen.

Present:- Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer.

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri S.N. Ghosh, Advocate

For the workman

Sri R.R. Ram, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry :- Coal

Dated 25/11/2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/106/2008-IR (CM-I), dated

30/01/2009, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bagdigi

Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not providing dependent

employment to Shri Ranjeet Manjhi S/o Late Gandu

Manjhi, General Mazdoor, under the provision of

NCWA is justified and legal? (ii) To what relief is the

son of Late Gandhu Manjhi entitled?”

This Case is received from the Ministry of Labour

& Employment on 13.02.2009. After receipt of

reference, both parties are noticed. The Sponsoring

Union files their written statement on 05.03.2009. The

management files their written statement on 05.02.2010.

One witness each has been examined from both side.

Document marked as W-1 to W-4 by the workman.

The short point that involved in this reference is

that whether the applicant, who is the dependent of the

deceased workman is to get the dependent employment

benefit or not.

The management admitted that the applicant is the

heir of the deceased, but his only grievance is the

1028

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dependent filed application after 3 years, though the time

limit for application is 18 months.

It is really difficult for the dependant of the

deceased to get all the connected document for job within

18 months. Delay of 3 years is not much.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, It is held that the action of the management of

Bagdigi Colliery of M/S BCCL in not providing dependent

employment to Shri Ranjeet Manjhi S/o Late Gandu Manjhi,

General Mazdoor, under the provision of NCWA is not

justified. . The workman be given employment waiving

stringent formality soon. after publication of the award in

the official Gazette.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 394-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

1@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@131@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 394.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/2008)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

19/02/2015.

[No. L-20012/131/2007-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 01 of 2008

Employer in relation to the management of

Govindpur Area No. III of M/S BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present:- Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

None

For the workman

Sri B. B. Pandey, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 26/11/2014

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/131/2007-IR (CM-I), dated

31/12/2007, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of

Akashkinaree Colliery of M/S BCCL in dismissing

the service of Shri Santosh Manjhi, Miner w.e.f.

05.02.2004 is justified and legal? If not, to what relief

is the concerned workman entitled?”

This case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 14.01.2008. After receipt of reference , both parties are

noticed, the workman files their written statement on

24.01.2014. The point involved in the reference is that the

workman has been dismissed from his services.

During preliminary hearing it is revealed that the

case is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty.

But he has already out of service for 10 years. It is felt to

give another chance to the workman to serve.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee. But

the workman be kept under probation for period two years

and his performance report be given to the under signed.

Therefore, the question of back wages does not arise at

all.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 395-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

216@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

19@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@32@2000&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1029

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 395.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 216/2000)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

19/02/2015.

[No. L-20012/32/2000-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 216 of 2000

Parties :

Employer in relation to the management of

Katras Chaitudih Colliery M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present:- Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer.

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Sri R.R. Ram, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry :- Coal

Dated 21/01/2015

AWARD

By order No. L 20012/32/2000- (C-I) dated 24.7.2000,

the central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of power conferred by clause (d) of Sub-Section(1)

and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for

adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Katras

Chaitudih Colliery of M/S BCCL in rejecting the claim

of Sri Binod Kumar Nonia dependant son of late

Shanti Nonia for employment is justified? If not to

what relief the said dependant entitled?

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

07.08.2000. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed. They appeared through representative. The

Sponsoring Union files their written statement on

04.01.2001. And the management also files their written

statement -cum-rejoinder on 19.02.2002. Thereafter

rejoinder and document filed by the workman. One

witness from each side examined on their behalf. Document

marked by the management M-1 to M-5 and document of

workman marked as W-1 to W-4.

The applicant the son of the deceased workman

applies for, while he was minor , and his prayer was refused.

Again when he filed an application for job after being

major the same was not accepted. The applicant appears

to be physically handicapped. Therefore if he is fit he be

taken in job in physically handicapped quota.

If that is not possible, his younger brother who has

filed certificate etc, be taken into job, after verifying all

formality and keeping condition that he will look after the

entire family members of the deceased workman

There is no reason to regret the claim of the workman.

The workman be taken to job soon after the publication of

the award in Gazette.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 396-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

37@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@57@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 396.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 19/02/2015.

[No. L-20012/57/2007-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 37 of 2007

Parties :

Employer in relation to the management of

Lodna Area M/s. BCCL

1030

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

Their workman

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri S.N. Ghosh, Advocate

For the Workman

Sri N.M. Kumar, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 21/01/2015

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/57/2007-IR (CM-I) dated

12.7.2007, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of power conferred by clause (d)

of Sub-Section (l) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Jeanagora

Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not providing dependent

employment to Kumari Sakuntala Modin D/o Late

Chanda Modin W/Loader under the provision of

NCWA is justified and legal? If not, to what relief is

the dependent daughter of the concerned deceased

employee entitled?

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

24.07.2007. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed. They appeared through representative. The

Sponsoring Union filed their written statement on

10.09.2007. And the management also filed their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 18.03.2009. Thereafter

rejoinder and document filed by both parties. One witness

examined on behalf of the management. But three witnesses

examined on behalf of the workman. Document marked by

the management as Ext. M-l to M-8 and document of

workman marked as W-l to W-6 as well as one document

also marked as Ext. C-1.

Applicant Sakuntala is admittedly daughter of Late

workman Chanda Modi. She submitted that she took the

gratuity of her late mother showing her father predeceased

her mother. But Management counsel filed the affidavit of

her father who claims that he is alive and her daughter

shown her dead and took away the Gratuity. Even the

management filed the affidavit of husband of Shakuntala

Modin.

But the applicant filed the death certificate of her

father who died on 18/10/1988, and the death certificate

was issued on 14.8.2002 by the competent authority. Its

genuineness was challenged by the management, and for

its genuineness, querry was made to the competent

authority. Who replied to enquire the matter at our level.

From the death certificate of father of applicant her

grandfather’s name was Bhagto Modi but from the affidavit

of so called father’s father name was mentioned as late

Mohan Modi. So called father of the applicant filed photo

copy of Bank Pass Book Marked as M-5 which shown

that he is son of Mohan Modi But in the same pass book.

he has filed a certificate it is shown that the Grand father

of the applicant is late Bhagat Modi which tallies from the

death certificate of her father.

6. The photocopies of the affidavit of so called

father, and husband is misleading and evidence of

management witness regarding father of the applicant is

not acceptable.

Therefore taking into death certificate and her

Gratuity order, it is clear that, she is the daughter of the

deceased workman and entitled to compassionate

appointment.

Considering the facts and circumstance of this case,

I hold that the action of the management of Jeanagora

Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not providing dependent

employment to Kumari Sakuntala Modin D/o Late Chanda

Modin W/Loader under the provision of NCWA is not

justified and legal, Hence the management is directed to

give appointment to Sakuntala Modin soon after the

publication of the award in the Gazette.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 397-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

42@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@79@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 397.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

19/02/2015.

[No. L-20012/79/2007-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1031

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 42 of 2007

Employer in relation to the management of

Kustore Area of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer.

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

Sri D. Mukherjee, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 17/12/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/79/2007 IR-(CM-I), dated

09/08/2007, the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub

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

Industrial Disputes Act,1947, referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Kustore

Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not providing dependent

employment to Shri Lakhinder Kumar, S/o Late Upas

Ravidas M/Loader, under the provision of NCWA is

justified and legal? If not, to what relief is the

dependent son of late Upas Ravidas entitled?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 21/24.08.2007. After receipt of reference, both

parties are noticed, the workman files their written

statement on 01.01.2009.The management also files

written statement –cum- rejoinder on 24.09.2009. Both

side adduce one witness each on their behalf. The

workman’s one document marked as W-1.

The short point to be decided in this case, as to

whether the applicant who is admittedly the legal

representative of the deceased workman be absorbed in

the company under compassionate appointment scheme.

Though the workman applied for the job in place of

deceased father, the same was rejected as the application

was filed beyond the time stipulated by the management.

But now a days due to administrative bottleneck entire

enclosure of the application for job may not be available.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

it is held that the action of the management of Kustore

Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not providing dependent

employment to Shri Lakhinder Kumar, S/o Late Upas

Ravidas M/Loader, under the provision of NCWA is not

justified. Hence, the management to accept the application

and to give job to the applicant waiving formality.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 398-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

36@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@15@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 398.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

19/02/2015.

[No. L-20012/15/2014-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 36 of 2014

Employer in relation to the management of

Civil Engineering Deptt., Koyla Bhawan, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer.

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

Sri Pintu Mondal, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

1032

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dated 8/12/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/15/2014- IR(CM-I) dated

07-03-2014 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of power conferred by clause (d)

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Civil

Engineering Department of BCCL, Koyla Nagar in

denying promotion to Sri Jai Prakash Sharma in the

post of Asstt. Foreman ( Electrician) T&S Grade C

from 21.03 2008 and as Foreman (Electrician) T&S

Grade-B from 12.06.2013 is fair and justified? To

What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

28.03.2014. After receipt of reference , both parties are

noticed. They appeared through representative. The

Sponsoring Union files their written statement on

16..04..2014. the management also files their written

statement -cum-rejoinder on 17.07.2014.. Thereafter

rejoinder and document filed by the parties. And

Management marked one document as Ext. M-1.

The Short point to be decided in this case as to

whether the workman is to be given promotion as

Electrician Grade-”C” from 21.03.2008 and as foreman

(Electrician) T&S Grade-B from 12.06.2013 .

Though the workman files document he is to be

given the grade claimed, the management submitted as

per the cadre Rule, the workman though qualified is not

entitled to out of turn promotion as such electrician are

getting , who have mining supervisory certificate.

The management counsel submitted that as per cadre

Rule ; -

Rule -1. note

(i)

xxxxx

(ii)

An electrician before reaching cat-Vi in case

obtains supervisor ship certificate valid for

mines will be placed in the next higher

category irrespective vacancy.

Admittedly the workman has no supervisory

certificate valid for mines, as the workman works in the

supervisory capacity in headquarters, seeing maintenance

of quarters, office, Hospital etc. If this is the position as to

whether the workman entitled to the promotion as claimed.

The workman in his argument notes pointed out that in

the same cadre scheme (6) iii & iv, it is mentioned that

such mining supervisory certificate is not required for

supervisory work in surface. Such Cadre scheme is quoted

below :

(6)(iii)

Exemption of DGMS will be obtained for

giving affect to such authorization/

promotion as electrical supervisor

XXXXXXX

(iv)

The benefit of exemption of holding

mining parts of electrical Supervisory

competency certificate should also be

extended to the foreman working in

Housing colonies, maintenance office,

hospital and other establishment on the

surface in addition to the establish

mentioned in II No. 32 of 1992 .

This being the situation to get out of turn promotion

the present workman is entitled , and some persons have

given promotion in this way as pointed out by the

workman. If it is true , it is purely discriminatory attitude of

the management which maintains different standard for

different set of workman of the same cadre.

The management also does not dispute the

genuness of the supervisory certificate of the workman

nor his potentiality. The workman obtained supervisory

certificate on 10.01.2000.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold that the action of the management of Civil

Engineering Department of BCCL, Koyla Nagar in denying

promotion to Sri Jai Prakash Sharma in the post of Asstt.

Foreman ( Electrician) T&S Grade C from 21.03 2008

instead of Cat. vi and as Foreman (Electrical) T&S Grade-

B from 12.06.2013 is not fair , Therefore the claim of the

workman, that he be given promotion to foreman

(Electrical) T&S Grade “C” from 21.3.208 and as foreman

(Electrician) T &S Grade “B” from 12.6.2013 is allowed

and accordingly prepare the seniority list . The

management is directed to give effect the award of this

Tribunal soon after its publication in the official Gazette.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 399-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj 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 161@2000) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@261@2000&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1033

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 399.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 161/2000)

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. CCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

20/02/2015.

[No. L-20012/261/2000-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, 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. 161 OF 2000

PARTIES

The Asstt. Secretary,

United Coal Workers Union,

PO & Distt: Giridih

Vs.

General Manager,

Giridih Are of M/s CCL,

PO: Beniadih, Distt : Giridih

Ministry’s Order No L-20012/261/

2000(C-I) dt. 25.10.2000

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr. S.N. Goswami, Ld. Advocate

workman/Union

On behalf of the

Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld. Advocate

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 29th 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-

20012/261/2000(C-I) dt. 25.10.2000.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Beniadih

Colliery of M/s CCL in not regularizing Sri Basudeo

Saw as E.P.Greaser in Excvn. Gr.”E” is fair and

justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned

workman entitled and from what date?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/261/2000(C-I)

dt. 25.10.2000 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No.161 of 2000 was registered on 24.11.2000 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own

respective Ld. Counsels appeared in, and contested the

case.

The case of workman Basudeo Saw as sponsored

by the United Coal Workers Union is that he was appointed

as Worker Category II by the Area Management on

17.10.1985 at the Open Cast Project Mine,Giridih Area of

M/s CCL. He had been engaged by the Management in

exigency to perform the job to properly repair and

maintenance of Excavation Plant Machineries, as well as

to do the job of Excavation Plant Greaser (EPG)in the year

1992. He efficiently performed the job during the three

years from 1992 to 1994,and had got experience in the job

of E.P.G,Therefore,he represented and claimed for his

regularization as E.P. Greaser Gr. E (Excavation Cadre) in

the pay scale of Rs.69.75-1.85-95.65 (NCWA-V),though

his service conditions were maintained as Category II

worker (Mining Cadre) in the pay scale of Rs.66.86-1- 33-

85.48 (NCWA V). The Management had assured him to

favourably consider it on the completion of his formal

probationary period for six months on the post of the

E.P.G. officially. Accordingly, he was appointed by the

Management to work as the E.P.G., i.e, for repair and

mainaintenance of Dumper, Dozer and pay Loader as per

the appointment Letter No.23 dt.01.01.1996.

Further pleaded case of the workman is that as per

the provision of the Certified Standing Order of the CCL,

if a permanent workman employed as a probationer on a

new post and if unreverted to his old permanent post

within six months or latest by another three months shall

be deemed to have been confirmed on the said post. After

the said period, the workman again demanded for his

regularization as E.P.G. G., but the Management resorted to

delay tactics as denied justice. Finally the industrial

Dispute raised before the ALC©,Dhanbad V due to its

failure in reconciliation resulted in the reference for an

adjudication. He had been denied the right of Natural

justice only because his service condition maintained as

Category II (Mining), and not that of Excv. Cadre. The

Management is alleged to have continuously exploiting

the workman in the Excavation Section contrary to the

law. So the action of the Management in not regularizing

the workman as EPG Gr.E (Excav) is illegal and unjustified,

1034

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Union for the workman in its rejoinder has

specifically denied the allegations of the OP/Management

as incorrect and baseless, further stating that in course of

the joint discussion on 14.08.1996, the Management had

assured to examine his case through the DPC for Cat.

Mechanical fitter as per the record Note dt.16.09.1996.

Lesser payment of wages to the workman than that of the

job performing for the last more than seven years is an

admission of the OP/Management.

Whereas the contra case of the OP/Management

challenging the maintainability of the reference as

unjustified is that the workman never raised any grievance

earlier before the Management in respect of the dispute.

He is performing the nature of job as per the designation,

drawing the wages as earlier. Though his engagement as

EPG/H in most irregular manner was for maximum 3-4

days at a stretch only in absence of the regular employee

as a substatitue in exigency There was no existence of

any sanction vacant post at the relevant time,i.e., during

the Manpower Budget 1999-2000. Temporarily performance

of the job of the EPG /H in exigency can not confer on him

any right to claim for the regularization. As per the norms

of the company in the terms of administrative canon ,the

Management is required to give equal opportunity to all

the eligible employees. In case of a Notification by the

company for such vacant post, the workman may apply

for it subject to the candidature of the employee therefor

required to the Company in future.

The OP/Management as categorically denied the

allegation of the workman as incorrect, further stating that

the Management had authorized the workman to learn

repair and maintenance but he was never engaged as a

Greaser. Nor the workman was appointed as the

Probationer on the post of the Greaser. The workman is

working as Cat. II worker; thus the action of the

Management is legal and justified.

FINDING WITH REASONS

In the instant case, WWI Basudeo Saw the workman

himself on behalf of the Union, and MWI R.K.P. Singh,

the Chief Manager (Pers. & Admn.) for the OP/

Management, have been respectively examined.

On perusal of the materials available on the case

record, it appears that there is no dispute while the

workman was working as General Mazdor Cat.II, he we

was authorized to learn repair and maintenance of Haul

Pack, pay Loader and Dozers as per the authority

dt.1.1.1995 (Ext.W.2). It is also an undisputed fact that the

post of EP Greaser/helper comes under the Excavation

Cat. E of the Excavation which has its own cadre beginning

from Cat.II EP Mazdoor (Excavation Plant). It can not be

denied that Excavation has its own criteria for promotion.

A workman for promotion to EPG in Cat. E must have

qualification such as three years’ experience as Mazdoor

Cat.II, as some of the Mazdoor Cat.II have been temporarily

promoted to the post of EPG Helper Cat.E as per the

Office Order 12.04.2012 (Ext. M.1 on formal proof waived).

There is a seniority list of the employees Cat.II engaged in

CPG/H of Giridih Project (Ext.M.2) which contains the

names of the workman Basudeo Saw under to Sl.No. 20.

Accordingly to the Seniority list as maintained by the OP/

Management Grokha Chammer under its Sl.No. 18 has

got temporary promotion to the post of GPG /H Cat.E on

the recommendation of the DPC and approval of the

Competent Authority. It appears that the workman has

not passed any comptenancy test conducted by DGMS

for the job nor he appears to have got vocational training

for excavation and maintenance.

Mr. S.N. Goswami, Ld. Advocate for the workman

has submitted that the workman has been still working as

Greaser since 1992 but the Authorization Letter (Ext.W.2

on admission) appears to be dated 01.01.1995. Further it

has been submitted on behalf of the workman that despite

his representations dt.12.12.1995 and the discussion

dt.16.09.1996 (Ext.W.4) the workman was not regularized

as he claimed; thus he is entitled to regularization

accordingly.

In response to it, Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Counsel for

OP/Management submits it is an acknowledged fact that

the Excavation has its own cadre scheme (Exgt.M.3) under

which a promotion in Ex.Cat. E from EP Helper needs three

years’ experience as Mazdoor Cat.II as eligibility/

qualifications and thereafter it is recommended by the DPC

(Departmental Promotion Committee); but the present

workman has no such qualification, so he is not entitled to

regularization.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, there is no

doubt the sole claim of the workman for regularization lies

on the aforesaid authorization, but it is unsustainable only

because, it stands beyond the Excavation Cadre.

Therefore, it is hereby responded and accordingly

awarded that the action of the Management of Beniadih

Colliery of M/s BCCL in not regularizing Sri Basudeo Saw

as EP Greaser in Excav. E is quite fair and justified; therefore

workman is not entitled to any relief from any date, as he

was temporarily engaged in the Excavation for a few days

only in exigency.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 400-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fVLdks 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 121@1998) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@241@1997&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1035

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 400.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 121/1998)

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. TISCO

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

20/02/2015.

[No. L-20012/241/1997-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, 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. 121 OF 1998

PARTIES

Shri D.K. Bhagat,

C/o Vijay Store, Church Road,

Ranchi

Vs.

General Manager,

West Bokaro Collieries of

M/s. Tisco PO: Ghatotand,

Distt: Hazaribagh.

Ministry’s Order No L-20012/241/

97-IR (Coal-I) dt. 22.04.1998

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr. U. N. Lal, Ld. Advocate

workman/Union

On behalf of the

Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld. Advocate

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 13th 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-20012/241/97-IR (Coal-I) dt. 22.04.1998.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of West

Bokaro Collieries of TISCO Ltd., PO: Ghatotand,

Distt: Hazaribagh in dismissing Shri D.K. Bhagat

from the Company service w.e.f. 16.07.1990 is

justified? If not, to what relief is the workman

entitled?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/241/97-IR (Coal-I)

dt. 22.04.1998 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 121 of 1998 was registered on 25.05.1998 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own

respective Ld. Counsels appeared in, and contested the

case.

The case of workman D.K. Bhagat as represented in

his written statement is that he had been unblamishedly

working as a permanent workman against permanent

vacancy at West Bokaro Colliery of M/s Tisco. He had

put more than 240 days attendance in each calendar year.

Some officials of the Company were biased against the

workman for his uprightness, and not obliging anybody

to do any illegal act or pilferage of any article of the

Company. So they conspiredly and malafide issued him a

false and frivolous chargesheet under clause 27(2) of the

Certified Standing Order of the Company for alleged

deliberately marking his attendance for the period from

01.06.89 to 3.6.1989 while he was on leave. He had also

replied to the chargesheet, denying the charge emphatically

as not constituting any misconduct, and stating his

remaining on leave to attend his sick mother on death

bed, that he was posted at Chainpur Railway Siding, but

he had to mark his attendance at Ghatotand. Due to the

fact and mental tension, he had inadvertently committed

the mistake, and prayed for condoning it. The anti-labour

Management did not consider the facts of the workman,

and terminated /dismissed him from service while working

as the Security Inspector against the principles of natural

justice, as the chrgesheet was issued by an unauthorized

person. No enquiry was held in his peresence.He had

represented before the Management against his arbitrary

and illegal dismissal which was harsh and

disproportionate.Finally, he raised the Industrial Dispute

before the ALC©, Hazaribagh, but the failure of its

conciliation resulted in the reference for an adjudication.

Thus the action of the Management in dismissing the

workman was vindictive, illegal, and unjustified.

The workman in his rejoinder has specifically denied

all the allegations of the OP/Management as false and

frivolous.

Whereas challenging the maintainability of the

reference, the contra case of the OP/Management is that

the workman as the Senior Security Inspector had the

duties of Supervisor and control over the personnel of the

security department. He was drawing his wages more than

Rs.1600/- per month. He was not a workman under Section

1036

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, so it is not an

Industrial Dispute, rather it is an Individual dispute which

is unmaintainable. He was appointed as Senior Security

Inspector w.e.f. 15.3.1989 on probation, during which he

turned out to be a man of no integrity. He had

unauthorisedly absented from his duties from 01.06.1989

to 03.06.1989. Thereafter he represented before the

Management to treat his absence from duties as leave, as

he had no leave due under the leave rule of the Company

and provisions of the Mines Act. However, the

Management regularized his unauthorised absence as

leave without pay for the period from 01.06.1989 to

03.06.1989. The workman booked his attendances for the

period, and he received his salary including the aforesaid

three days wages for the month of June,1989. After

checking it, it came to the knowledge of the management,

he was issued the chargesheet dt. 11.07.1989 under the

clause 27(2) of the Certified Standing Orders of the

Company for the misconduct of dishonest in respect of its

businesss. He also replied to it on 13.07.1989, confessing

his guilt with a prayer to drop it. But on the departmental

enquiry fairly held by Sri S.K. Tripathy in presence of the

workman, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report,

holding his guilty of the charge proved. Having all the

aspects, the Management as per the letter dt 12.07.12990

dismissed the workman from his service. So the workman

is not entitled to any relief.

The OP/Management in their rejoinder has

categorically denied all the allegations of the workman as

false and wrong.

FINDNG WITH REASONS

In the instant case, at the preliminary point, the

Tribunal on the examination of the MWI Ramesh Chandra

Pathak and the WWI D.K. Bhagat the workman himself, as

per the Order No.52 dt.06.2012 held the domestic enquiry

fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural

justice. It came up for hearing the final arguments of both

the parties on merits.

Mr. U. N. Lal, the Ld. Advocate for the workman has

submitted that no other leave in probation period was

admissible to the workman, he on his application was

granted three days leave without pay for his unauthorised

absence duty from Jun 01 to 3, 1989 due to his attaining to

his ailing mother; that he had to perform his duty at

Chainpur Railway Siding 14-18 Kms. away from the Head

Quarter, Ghatotand where attendance was marked not

daily but monthly at a time; and under these circumstances,

the workman had accepted to have inadvertently marked

his attendances for aforesaid three days. It is also

submitted that no second show cause Notice was issued

to the workman and the punishment of dismissal for a

small mistake was improper and disproportionate; therefore,

he is entitled to reinstatement in service with back wages.

In quick response to it, Mr. D.K.Verma, Learned

Counsel for the OP/Management has contended that the

workman was initially appointed as the Senior Security

Inspector on probation for six months, during which he

unauthorisedly absented from his duty for the said three

days, and on his joining, he also marked his attendances

in the Attendance Register, and had also drawn his wages

for his absent days; for such misconduct, his dismissal

from service for his fraud attendance was not harsh rather

proper, as he was not a confirmed employee.

From the aforesaid contentions of both the learned

Counsels for their respective parties, the main point

emerges whether the punishment of dismissal to the

workman for his aforesaid misconduct during his probation

is legal and justified.

On perusal and due consideration of the materials

available on the case record, it appears no dispute that the

delinquent workman, at the very outset in his reply to the

chargeseet had confessed his guilt for his misconduct of

marking his attendance for his unauthorized absence

period from 1.6.1989 to 03.06.1989 due to his mental

upsetness, as he had to proceed for duty WBC Railway

Siding, Chainpur from the month of May, 1989 but

attendance Register was at the H.Qr, where he had to

mark his attendance; naturally not on daily basis, rather in

accordance with the convenience; the delinquent workman

appears to have submitted to the Management for

adjusting the three days leave wages from next month of

July, 1981. The workman on probation had no leave due

under the rule of the Company. In natural course of

conduct, it prima facie appears that the employee as Sr.

Security Guard was working in the aforesaid two

contingencies, namely, his sole responsibility to attend to

his ailing mother and secondly to attend his duty at his

deputed place and marking his attendance at the H.Qr.

The Enquiry proceeding lacks second Show Cause to the

workman prior to awarding him the penalty of dismissal

for his aforesaid misconduct.

Under these circumstances, it appears to me that

awarding the delinquent the punishment of dismissal for

the said pretty misconduct in the very initial career of his

service appears to be too harsh and disproportionate to

the nature of the offence. Hence the dismissal of the

workman from the service appears to be unjustified. Hence

it is set aside under Section 11 A of the Industrial Dispute

Act.

In result, it is, hereby, in the terms of Reference

responded and accordingly awarded that the action of the

Management of West Bokaro Collieries of TISCO Ltd.,

PO: Ghatotand, Distt: Hazaribagh in dismissing Sri. D.K.

Bhagat from Company service w.e.f. 16.07.1990 is

unjustified in eye of law and facts both. Therefore, the

workman is entitled to his reinstatement in the service of

the Company, but without back wages.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1037

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 401-—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 68@2005

o 33@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

23@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12025@01@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

la- ,y&12012@173@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 401.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 68/2005

& 33/2006) 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 23/02/2015.

[No. L-12025/01/2015-IR (B-I),

No. L-12012/173/2005-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 IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE Nos.

L.C. 68/2005 and ID. 33/2006

Between :

Sri P. Srinivas,

S/o P. Ramulu,

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 P. Srinivas 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. 33/2006 has been

received by this forum from Government of India, Ministry

of Labour and Employment, New Delhi vide order No.L-

12012/173/2005-IR(B-I) dated 22.5.2006, 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 P. Srinivas, Casual Worker 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 68/2005 and ID 33/2006 were clubbed

together and the proceedings were conducted commonly

for both these matters in LC 67/2005.

No claim statement has been filed by the Petitioner

in ID 33/2006.

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 from

18.6.1996 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 9 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

1038

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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:

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 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?

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 18..6.1996. 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, W7 and W8 when they were

confronted to him. Thus, it can safely be taken that

Petitioner has worked with the Respondent bank since

18.6.1996 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 W7, 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

18.6.1996 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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1039

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

Witnesses examined for the

the Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri P. Srinivas

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

dt. 29.12.99

Ex.W3

Identity card Xerox copies

Ex.W4

Copy of Respondent’s lr. to Chief Manager,

deputing Petitioner to take delivery

dt.10.11.99

Ex.W5

Copy of certificate to the Petitioner to take

delivery of clearing bags

Ex.W6

Copy of Respondent’s lr. to A.G.M.,

forwarding representation along with

proposal dt.11.10.99

Ex.W7

Copy of proposal submitted by

Respondent to A.G.M., recommending

Petitioner for sweeper cum water boy post

dt. 26.7.2001

Ex.W8

Copy of proposal submitted by

Respondent to A.G.M., recommending

Petitioner for sweeper cum water boy post

dt. 27.9.2001

Ex.W9

Copy of lr. of A.G.M., to the Branch

Manager, Begumpet appointing Sri K.

Shanker Babu as scale wage worker

Ex.W10

copy of lr. of Respondent Np.F/3/430

drawing earlier letter dt.27.9.2001 and

sending the proposal for appointment of

Petitioner

Ex.W11

Copy of Respondent’s letter to chief

Manager, Service branch deputing the

Petitioner dt. 11.4.2002

Ex.W12

Copy of Respondent’s letter to chief

Manager, Service branch deputing the

Petitioner dt. 22.4.2002

Ex.W13

Copy of Respondent’s letter to chief

Manager, Service branch deputing the

Petitioner dt. 14.5.2002

Ex.W14

Copy of Respondent’s letter to chief

Manager, Service branch deputing the

Petitioner dt. 21.5.2002

1040

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W15 :

Copy of circular dt.5.6.2002 No.PER/

2002-2003/15 directions by Head office

to pay Bonus

Ex.W16 :

Copy of Respondent’s letter to chief

Manager, Service branch deputing the

Petitioner dt.13.8.2002

Ex.W17 :

Copy of Respondent’s letter to chief

Manager, Service branch deputing the

Petitioner dt. 27.8.2002

Ex.W18 :

Copy of Respondent’s letter to chief

Manager, Service branch deputing the

Petitioner

Ex.W19 :

Copy of lr. of Respondent recommending

the Petitioner for appointment

dt.24.3.2004

Ex.W20 :

Copy of demand notice dt.19.5.2005 by

WW1 to the Respondents for his

promotion to next grade

Ex.W21 :

Copy of circular dt. 3.6.2005 No.PER/

GR/IV/Misc./1297 issued by Head Office

of all the branches to terminate the

candidates

Ex.W22 :

Copy of lr. of D..M., /Per. &HRD to the

State President, A.P. Industrial Employees

Union that the casual labour are not

workmen under the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

Ex.W23 :

Copy of note on augmentation of sub-staff

sweepers, for date of appointment and

continuation Ex.. dt. 6.5.99

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] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 402-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,e ,l

, Vq tSM esafVusUl ,.M baftfu;j l£ol 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; ua- 1]

/uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@96@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 402.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

M/s. A 2 Z Maintenance & Engineering Service Ltd. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

23/02/2015.

[No. L-41011/96/2012-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/s 10(1) (d) (2A)

of I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 2 of 2013

Employer in relation to the management of

M/s. A 2 Z Maintenance & Engineering Service (Pvt.)

Ltd under S.E Railway, Ranchi

AND

Their workman

Present :- Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

None

For the Workman

Sri U.P. Sinha, Advocate

State:-Jharkhand

Industry :- Railway

Dated- 20/01/2015

AWARD

By order No.-L-41011/96/2012 IR-(B-I), dated. 28/01/

2013 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub –Section

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

Disputes Act,1947, referred the following disputes for

adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the denial of bonus for the year 2010-

2011 to all the contract Labours and termination

of services of Shri Pradip Oraon and 52 others,

contract labours ( as per the list) w.e.f. 4th oct.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1041

2011/26th January, 2012 by the contractor M/s. A 2

Z Maintenance & Engineering Services (Pvt.) Ltd.

engaged in the Industrial establishment of South

Eastern Railways Ranchi Division for cleaning and

sweeping jobs are legal and justified ? If not , what

relief the workman are entitled to?”

Annexure

List of workman

Manu Ram

Pradip Oraon

Hajrat Ansari

Isnam

Ranjeet Tirky

Roshan Toppo

Ravi Tirky

Daniyal Oraon

Hari Prasad Singh

10.

Manohar Kachhap

11.

Govind Oraon

12.

Budhuwa Toppo

13.

Somra Bedia

14.

Lohra Kerketa

15.

Bijay Lakra

16.

Madru Oraon

17.

Kuldeep Kr. Baitha

18.

Badya Kachhap

19.

Budhwa Linda

20.

Dongra Tirky

21.

Tarzan Kachhap

22.

Nishant Tigga

23.

Anup E. Kujur

24.

Ramesh Tirky

25.

Sunil Oraon

26.

Manoj Oraon

27.

Ghanshyam Mahto

28.

Sadhu Oraon

29.

Mahadeo Toppo

30.

Ravi Tirky (2)

31.

Sanicharwa Oraon

32.

Rajendra Mahto

33.

Rewendra Singh

34.

Bhanga Oraorn

35.

Durga Turi

36.

Anika Devi

37.

Mina Bakhla

38.

Budho Kachhap

39.

Anita Tamba

40.

Mujiba Khatoon

41.

Salma Tabasum

42.

Janki Devi

43.

Debanti Devi

44.

Manju Toppo

45.

M. Khatoon

46.

Sunita Tamba

47.

Punam Devi

48.

Rita son Tirky

49.

Sanghan Devi

50.

Sayada Khatoon

51.

Lilabati Devi

52.

Kaihi Devi

53.

Bashanti Devi

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 12/02/2013. After receipt of reference, both parties

are noticed, The sponsoring union files their written

statement on 28.05.2013. The management was noticed

by the Ministry so also from this Tribunal but none on

behalf of the management appeared.

The sponsoring union files written statement and

document which is marked as W-1 to W-6 series. And he

also filed three affidavit evidence. The sponsoring union

also filed photo copies of Identity card, Photo copies of

ESIC, Photo copies of EPF but out of 53 workmen they

only filed 33 workmen’s Identity card, which shows that

the management issued the same to them. But out of 33

only 15 is workmen’s I.D card tallying with their name in

list of workmen attached in the order of reference, which

is issued by the ministry.

The fifteen workmen’s list is as :

Roshan Toppo

Budho Kachhap

Budhwa Toppo

Meena Bakhla

Rita sonTirky

Ranjeet Tirky

Daniyal Oraon

1042

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Salma Tabasum

Madru Oraon

10.

Kuldeep Baitha

11.

Budhuwa Linda

12.

Hari Prasad Singh

13.

Ramesh Tirky

14.

Manoj Oraon

15.

Anika Devi

Considering the fact and circumstances of this case

and considering the documents , it is believed that the

claim of the workman is genuine and above mentioned

fifteen workmen mentioned in paragraph -4, only are

entitled to be regularized and to get bonus , and they be

also entitled to bonus for the year 2010-2011.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 403-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ-Mh-ch-

vkbZ- cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

41@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@02@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@79@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 403.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of IDBI

Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 23/02/2015.

[No. L-12011/79/2013-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/s 10(1) (d) (2A)

of I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 41 of 2013

Employer in relation to the management of

IDBI Intech Ltd.

AND

Their workmen

Present :- Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri D. Mukherjee, Advocate

For the workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry-Bank

Dated- 19/01/2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-12011/79/2013-IR (B-I)) dated

12/09/2013, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referr4ed the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of IDBI

Bank to terminate the services of Sri Ashraf Ali

through IDBI INTECH in contrary to the mandatory

provisions is valid? To what relief the workman is

entitled ?”

After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed. But none appears on behalf of the workman inspite

of regd. Notice. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 404-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ-Mh-ch-

vkbZ- cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

42@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@02@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@78@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 404.—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 No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of IDBI

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1043

Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 23/02/2015.

[No. L-12011/78/2013-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A)

of I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 42 of 2013

Employer in relation to the management of

IDBI Bank

AND

Their workman

Present :- Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri D. Mukherjee, Advocate

For the workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry-Bank

Dated- 19/01/2015

AWARD

By order No. L-12011/78/2013-IR (B-1) dated 12/09/

2013, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of IDBI

Bank to terminate the services of Sri Ashish Kumar

Rajan through IDBI INTECH in contrary to the

mandatory provisions is valid? To what relief the

workman is entitled ?”

After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed. But none appears on behalf of the workman inspite

of regd. Notice. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 405-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xksok f'ki;kMZ

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] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh&2@58 @2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 23@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14011@42@2009&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 405.—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.

CGIT-2/58 of 2010) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown

in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Goa

Shipyard Ltd. and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 23/02/2015.

[No. L-14011/42/2009-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/58 of 2010

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF GOA SHIPYARD LTD.

The Managing Director

Goa Shipyard Ltd.

Vasco-da-Gama

Goa-403 802.

AND

Their Workmen

The President

Goa Shipyard Workers Union

Velho’s Building, 2nd floor

Opp. Municipal Garden

Panaji

Goa-403 001.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER :

Mr. N.S. Bandodkar,

Advocate.

FOR THE UNION

Mr. Christopher Fonseca &

Mr. J.P. Noronha,

Representatives.

Mumbai, dated the 9th January, 2015.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-14011/42/2009-IR (DU),

dated 01.09.2010 in exercise of the powers conferred by

1044

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred

the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

“Whether the charter of demands of Goa Shipyard

workers Union seeking revision of enhancement in

their salaries, allowances and other service

conditions (as per Annexure) w.e.f. 01.01.2007 is legal

and justified? If yes, what relief the workmen are

entitled to?”

The second party union has raised industrial dispute

in respect of their charter of demand for enhancement in

their pay, allowances and other service conditions. As

conciliation failed, the ALC © sent the failure report to

Labour Ministry. Thereafter the Central Labour Ministry

has sent the reference to this Tribunal. In response to the

notices, both the parties appeared before this Tribunal.

The second party union has filed their Statement of Claim

at Ex-5. They have raised number of demands in respect

of better pay and other service conditions. They have

also given the year wise statement of the profit earned by

the first party and prays that their charter of demand in

respect of increase of better pay and other conditions be

allowed and the management be directed to accept the

charter of demand submitted by the workmen w.e.f.

01/10/2007 alongwith periodicity mentioned therein.

The first party management challenged the statement

of claim vide their written statement at Ex-9. They have

denied the claim of the union. In para 28 of the written

statement the management however contended that, “if

the twelve members (workmen) are willing to accept the

settlement dt. 28/08/2009 by submitted requisite declaration

the company is willing to extend the benefit of the

settlement as per ruleswithout any alteration.” After filing

this written statement and amended WS Ex-9A the union

have filed the application Ex-41 contending that as the

first party management has shown willingness to extend

the benefit of the settlement dated 28/08/2009 to these

workmen, they are ready to accept the settlement with

retrospective effect and all consequential benefits arising

out of the said settlement without any alteration as stated

in para 28 of the written statement and requested to pass

appropriate order.

The management resisted the application vide its

say at Ex-42. According to them they are willing to extend

benefits of the said settlement dt. 28/08/2009 as per the

rules without any alteration. They have further contended

that the settlement is required to be accepted in toto

including clause 92.13. As per the said clause, the

employee who signs the undertaking subsequently, their

arrears will be paid as decided by the management and the

allowance will be applicable w.e.f. first of succeeding month

from the date of signing of the undertaking/declaration.

The workman cannot be allowed to accept the settlement

conditionally. Therefore the management prays that, the

application be rejected.

In the written argument the management has also

raised the point of jurisdiction stating that as issue of

appropriate Govt. and jurisdiction of the Tribunal was

framed as issue no.1 & 2. Therefore before passing any

order on the application Ex-41, the Tribunal should decide

the issues of appropriate Govt. and the jurisdiction of the

Tribunal. It is submitted that Tribunal cannot decide the

application if it has no jurisdiction. I accept the averments

made in the written argument that, without jurisdiction

this Tribunal is not competent to pass any order or dispose

of this reference. Therefore in the light of request of the

second party union in the application Ex-41 and the

contents in the arguments of the first party, I think it proper

to recast the issues as follows:

Sr.

Issues

Findings

No.

Whether Central Govt. is appropriate

Yes.

Govt. in respect of the first party

undertaking?

Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction

Yes.

to entertain this reference?

Whether award can be passed on the

Yes.

basis of averments in para 28 of the

Written Statement?

What order?

As per order

below.

REASONS

Issues No. 1& 2:-

Both these issues are interconnected. Therefore in

order to avoid repetition of discussion they are discussed

and decided simultaneously. In this respect the Ld. Adv.

for the first party strenuously submitted that the first party

is being not governed as per the Central Govt. Rules and

Regulations. Therefore though it is a Central Govt.

undertaking, State Govt. is the appropriate Govt. for the

same. In support of his argument, the Ld. Adv. for first

party resorted to number of rulings of various High Courts

and of Supreme Court. They are;

Garden Reach Ship Builders and Engineers Ltd. V/s.

Second Industrial Tribunal 2012 II CLR 28 wherein in

respect of appropriate Govt., the Hon’ble Court observed

that;

“Central Govt has not confirmed any authority by a

Statute on the appellant Company to carry on

industry (iii) Onscrutinizing relevant documents on

record the Tribunal concluded that the State Govt.

is appropriate Govt. in relation to appellant Company.

(iv) This being a question of fact it cannot be

adjudicated by this court. In writ jurisdiction the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1045

single judge has rightly upheld the said conclusion

of Tribunal.”

The Ld. Adv. also resorted to Bombay High Court

ruling in RCF Ltd. V/s. RCF Employees Union &Ors. 2006

III CLR 859. In this case Hon’ble Court after considering

the authorities and nature of undertaking held that; the

appropriate Govt. under Section 2 (a) in so far as petitioner

is concerned is that the State Govt. and not the Central

Govt. and consequently reference made by Central Govt

was not maintainable.

The Ld. Adv. for first party also referred another

ruling of Bombay High Court in Hindustan Organics

Chemical Ltd. V/s. HOCL Employees Union 2008 III CLR

802. In that case, it was pointed out that the company was

established by Central Govt. Inspite of that the Tribunal

held that State Govt is the appropriate Govt. for the

petitioner. The Hon’ble High Court upheld the said

decision of Industrial Tribunal.

Ld. Adv. for the first party also resorted to Tata

Memorial Hospital Workers Union V/s. Tata Memorial

Centre & Anr. 2010 III CLR 151 (SC) wherein the Hospital

was being maintained out of the funds of the Trust and

also from the grants made available from time to time by

the Central Govt. and by the then Govt. of Bombay. While

deciding the point of Appropriate Govt. in para 62 of the

judgement, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that;

“….even on the test of control and management of

the hospital and the Centre, they are functioning

independently under the first respondent Society.

They cannot be said to be under the control of the

Central Govt. In the circumstances, the State Govt.

shall have to be held as the appropriate Govt. for the

first respondent for the purpose of I.D. Act

consequently the MRTU & PULP Act.”

10.

In this respect the Ld. Adv. for the second party

submitted that, Goa Shipyard is established as per the

Central Govt. Rules and it is exclusively controlled by the

Central Govt. Therefore the observations in the above

rulings are not attracted to the set of facts of the present

case. The Ld. Adv. for the second party in this respect

further submitted that, in 2010 there is amendment to

Section 2 (1) (a) of Industrial Disputes Act. He has

produced the gazette notification in respect of the

amendment. As per this amendment, for major Port any

company in which not less than 51% of paid up share

capital is held by Central Govt. and any Corporation not

being a Corporation referred to in this clause established

by or under any law made by Parliament or the Central

Public Sector Undertaking, subsidiary company set by

the principle undertaking and autonomous bodies, owned

or controlled by the Central Govt. in such circumstances,

the Central Govt. shall be the appropriate Govt. In the

case at hand the first party is a Shipyard established as

per the Central Govt. Act and it is under the control of the

Central Govt. Therefore I hold that in this respect Central

Govt. is the appropriate Govt. As central Govt. is held

appropriate Govt., this Tribunal has jurisdiction to

entertain the reference. Accordingly I decide these issues

nos. 1 & 2 in the affirmative.

Issue no. 3:

11.

In this respect the Ld. Adv. for the first party raised

objection to dispose of the reference on the basis of offer

or admission of the first party in the Written Statement.

The Ld. Adv. for second party submitted that the attitude

of the first party appears to be adamant. It seems that any

how they do not want to extend the benefits of settlement

to these workmen. There appears substance in the

averment of the Ld. Adv. Furthermore the Ld. Adv.

submitted that the Tribunal or Court can pass judgment or

award under order XII Rule 6 CPC on the basis of admission

given in the written statement. For that purpose Court or

Tribunal need not waste its time in recording evidence

etc. In support of his argument the Ld. Adv. for the

secondparty resorted to Apex Court ruling in Charanjit Lal

Mehra & Ors V/s. Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan & Anr

decided on 11/03/2005 in Special Leave Petition (Civil)

20914 of 2004 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court referred its

earlier judgment in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. V/s.

United Bank of India & Ors. (2000) 7 SSC 120 where on the

point the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that ;

“In the objects and reasons set out while amending

Rule 6 of Order 12 CPC it is stated that “where a

claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter

a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on

admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable

the party to obtain a speedy judgement at least to

the extent of the relief to which according to the

admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled.”

The Supreme Court should not unduly narrow down

the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a

party to obtain speedy judgement.”

12.

In the case at hand the first party in para 28 of its

written statement has shown its readiness to extend the

benefit of settlement to these workmen on signing the

declaration without any amendment. These workmen vide

their application Ex-41 have shown its readiness to sign

the declaration and to accept the benefits under

Settlement. It shows that the first party has shown their

readiness to extend the benefit of settlement on signing

the declaration. The second party workmen are ready for

the same. In this backdrop there is no hurdle in passing

the award under order XII Rule 6 CPC. The parties would

get speedy remedy by passing the award on admission.

Therefore in the light of above observations of Hon’ble

Apex Court I think it proper to pass the award without

recording evidence etc. as the first party has shown

readiness to give the benefits to these workmen and they

are ready to accept the same.

1046

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

In this respect the only hurdle pointed out by the

first party is that the workmen should accept all the terms

of the settlement including Clause no.92.13. In this respect

I would like to point out that, settlement has to be accepted

as a whole and the workmen cannot be allowed to choose

and pick the beneficial terms of the settlement. However

clause 92.13 is not integral part of the settlement. In this

clause it is mentioned that,

“….this memorandum of settlement will be paid to

those employees who had signed the declaration

for this purpose and accepted the Memorandum of

Understanding signed on 03-08-2009 between the

management and Goa Shipyard Kamgar Sangh as

well as Negotiation Committee represented by a

group of workmen of Goa Shipyard Ltd. and

authorised the Goa Shipyard Kamgar Sangh and the

Negotiation Committee to sign a settlement under

Section 2 (P) read with Section 18 (1) of the I.D. Act.

The arrears will be paid on or before 15-9-2009

the revised allowances will be applicable and paid

from the date of signing the memorandum of

settlement. Employees accepting this memorandum

of settlement by signing an undertaking as given at

Appendix ‘A’ before 10-9-2009 will be paid arrears

on 15-9-2009 and the revised allowance will be

applicable w.e.f. the date of signing the undertaking

as given at Appendix ‘A’. The employees who

signed the undertaking subsequently their arrears

will be paid as decided by the management and the

allowances will be applicable w.e.f. the first of the

succeeding month from the date of signing the

undertaking. Advance already paid and/or any

excess payment made erroneously in the past or

any dues payable by the employee to the company

will be recovered from the arrears payable to the

workers/employees.”

14.

In this respect I would like to point out that giving

benefit after signing of the declaration would no doubt

amount to injustice to these workmen as their fellow

workmen who have signed the undertaking are getting

the benefits since 2009. It would affect the valuable right

of these workmen to get pay and allowances equal to the

members of the union. As these workmen have raised the

dispute and are fighting the legal battle, they could not

get the benefit of settlement. In the circumstances as per

the settled principle of ‘equal work- equal pay’, I come to

the conclusion that these workmen should not suffer as

they have not signed the declaration earlier. As they are

performing the same work, they are well entitled to the pay

equal to the co-workers who are members of the union. I

do consider the fact that these workmen have not signed

the declaration in time and have raised the industrial

dispute. Therefore to meet the end of justice I think it

proper to direct the first party to extend the benefit of the

settlement to these workmen from the date of Order of

Reference. Accordingly I decide this issue no. 3 in the

affirmative that on the basis of admission in the pleadings,

Award can be passed. Thus I pass the following order:

ORDER

(i)

Reference is partly allowed with no order as to

cost.

(ii)

The workmen are directed to sign the declaration

at an earliest.

(iii) After signing the declaration the first party is

directed to extend the benefit of settlement to these

workmen from the date of Order of Reference i.e.

from 01.09.2010.

(iv)

The first party is directed to pay the arrears within

three months from the date of signing of the

declaration by these workmen.

Date: 09-01-2015

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 406-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u VwfjTe

MsoyiesaV dkjiksjs'ku 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- 1] fnYyh ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 189@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 23&02&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@107@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 406.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 189/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi, now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Indian Tourism Development

Corporation and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 23-02-2015.

[No. L-42011/107/2012-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT

NO.1, DELHI

ID No. 189/2012

Shri R.K. Avasthi,

C/o General Secretary,

All India IDC Mazdoor Janta Union,

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1047

C-48-49, Staff Quarter,

Ashok Hotel, 50-B, Chanakyapuri,

New Delhi

...Workman

Versus

The Chairman and Managing Director,

Indian Tourism Development Corporation,

6th Floor, 7, Core, Scope Complex,

Scope Building, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi

...Management

AWARD

Background facts giving rise to the present reference

petition that a reference was received from the Ministry of

Labour, Government of India vide letter No. L-42011/107/

2012-IR(DU) dated 07.12.2012, with the following terms of

reference:

“Whether the action of management of ITDC New

Delhi no providing Special Allowance and

Transportation charges to the workman, Shri R.K.

Avasthi is legal and justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled for?

It is clear from perusal of the statement of claim that

the workman, Shri R.K. Avasthi, was working with the

management of ITDC since 05.12.1979, when he was

appointed at Hotel Jaipur Ashok, a unit of ITDC as Chief

d’rang and due to his good performance and honesty, he

was promoted from time to time. Lastly, he was in the pay

scale of Rs.13500-32720 of Sl.Grade Maitred’ Hotel.

According to the workman, management of ITDC

illegally and unlawfully transferred him from Hotel Jaipur

Ashok to Hotel Jammu Ashok just to harass and victimize

him without any need as he was the branch secretary of

All India ITDC Mazdoor Janta Union, Branch Jaipur. Since

he was appointed for Hotel Jaipur Ashok, as such he could

not be transferred to any other unit without his request as

per the transfer policy signed by the trade union federation

in 1980. However, the workman obeyed the orders of the

management of transfer order dated 24.04.2009 and joined

Jaipur Jammu Ashok on 02.05.2009. Shri Avasthi worked

in Hotel Jammu Ashok from May 2009 from where he was

again transferred to VIP catering unit, Vigyan Bhawn, New

Delhi, a unit of ITDC. It is also averred that the workman

was again re-transferred from Vigyan Bhawan unit of ITDC

to Hotel Jaipur Ashok vide office order dated 18.08.2011

and joined there on 31.08.2011, which is evident from office

order, Ex.WW1/9.

The workman has specifically alleged in para 8 of

his claim petition that he was entitled to Rs.1,500.00 per

month as special allowance on account of his transfer

from one state to another, till he worked at Hotel Jammu

Ashok, i.e May 2009 to December 2009, and the amount

payable comes to Rs.12,000.00. The workman was also

entitled for Rs.27,000.00 as transportation but he was

paid only Rs.3,888.00. As such his claim for Rs.23,112.00

is still pending with the management. Special allowance

payable to the employees working in different states is as

per circular No.HRM/SA/081/HQRS/HR/08/24 dated

18.06.2008. Workman also claimed transportation

allowance of Rs. 9,080.80 on transfer from Vigyan Bhawan,

New Delhi to Hotel Jaipur Ashok. Balance amount of

Rs. 6,747.80 still remains to be paid. Workman also filed

case through All India ITDC Mazdoor Janta Union after

giving proper demand notice dated 29.03.2011 and

Conciliation Officer has now referred the matter with the

above terms of reference.

Claim was contested by the management, who filed

written statement hereto. In para 2 of the written statement,

it was admitted that the workman was appointed at Hotel

Jaipur Ashok and was granted promotion as per rules. In

para 3, I is denied that the management of ITDC illegally

and unlawfully transferred the workman from Hotel Jaipur

Ashok to Hotel Jammu Ashok. It is also denied that he

was harassed and victimized as he was branch secretary

of All India ITDC Mazdoor Janta Union, Branch Jaipur.

Workman was working on transferable job and as per rules

of the Hotel, an employee can be posted in any of the

units in India as per administrative exigencies and

requirements. No immunity is granted to an office bearer

of any union and rules apply to all. Moreover, it is the

prerogative of the management to transfer an employee

from one place to another. Management also denied

transfer policy alleged by the workman in para 4 of the

claim petition. However, in para 8 of the written statement,

it is admitted that as per circular No.HRM/SA/08 dated

18.06.2008 and No. HRM/SA/08/HQRS/HR/08/29 dated

23.06.2008, it has been notified that with effect from

01.06.2008 to consider grant of an incentive by way of

officiating promotion to Hotel Executives who would be

transferred and posted as Heads of the Units at Stations

other than their home state except Bharatpur will be

considered as station other than home state.

It is also alleged that as per the notification, special

allowance of Rs.1,000.00 is payable for those transferred

as Unit Head and for other executives Rs.1,500.00 per

month. Further, the workman being non-executive, is not

entitled to payment of special allowance. Circular

specifically provides for special allowance only for

executives.

Management denies other averments/claims made

by the workman.

The workman, in order to prove his case, tendered

his affidavit in evidence, which is Ex.WW1/A and the

depositions contained in the affidavit are on the same

lines as made in the claim petition. Workman has also

tendered in evidence various documents, including his

order of transfer as well as notifications pertaining to the

grant of allowances etc. and I would be discussing the

same in the subsequent paras.

1048

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Similarly, management examined Ms. Anshu Sharma,

Assistant Manager as MW1, who tendered in evidence

her affidavit which is Ex.MW1/A as well as office

memorandum dated 08.06.2010, office order dated

06.02.2004, copy of the recruitment and promotion policy

as well as other documents from Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/

8. Affidavit of the management is almost on the same

lines as has been taken in the written statement.

10.

I have heard Shri S.S. Upadhyay, authorized

representative of the claimant as well as Ms.Shipra Shukla,

authorized representative on behalf of the management

and also carefully perused the record of the case.

11.

Controversy in the present case lies within a narrow

compass. It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the

workman in the case in hand was appointed initially in

December 1979 in Hotel Jaipur Ashok, a unit of ITDC as

Chief d’rang and from time he was promoted. Lastly, he

was in the pay scale of Rs.13,500 to 32,720 of Sl. Grade

Maitred hotel.

12.

Grouse of the workman is that he was illegally and

unlawfully transferred from Hotel Jaipur Ashok to Hotel

Jammu Ashok so as to harass and victimize him. He was

Secretary of the All India ITDC Mazdoor Janta Union,

branch Jaipur. Shri Upadhyay, appearing on behalf of the

workman strongly contended that the workman should

not have been transferred to any other unit without his

request as per transfer policy signed by the Trade Union

Federation in 1980. This contention of the workman was

strongly refuted by Ms.Anshu Sharma appearing on

behalf of the management by urging that it is the

prerogative of the employer to transfer an employee from

one place to another, as per exigencies of work and so

called transfer policy cannot stop or bar an employer in

any manner from transferring an employee from one place

to another.

13.

Further, it is clear from perusal of letter of

appointment dated 19.11.1979, Ex.WW1/1 that Shri R.K.

Avasthi, workman, herein, was appointed on temporary

post of Chef at Hotel Jaipur Ashok. There is also letter

dated 21.06.2010, Ex.WW1/2, which shows that time bound

upgradation of the workman was done by the management

and he was paid in the pay-scale of Rs.7040-11090. There

is also office order dated 23.04.2009, Ex.WW1/3 which

shows that the workman Shri R.K. Avasthi was transferred

from Hotel Jaipur Ashok to Hotel Jammu Ashok. Workman

has joined duty on 02.07.2009 as per above order and

remained posted there till his further transfer to VIP Catering

Unit at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi vide order dated

18.08.2011. All these facts were not disputed by either of

the parties during the course of arguments. At this stage,

it is appropriate to refer to memorandum of settlement

under section 81 of the ID Act, 1947, Ex.WW1/4, upon

which reliance was placed by the workman. It is clear from

clause xx(ii) that inter unit transfers will be regulated in

accordance with the recommendations contained in paras

16 and 17 of Chapter XI of the report. There is also mention

in the said order that an employee below the senior

operative level as defined in the report shall normally

not be transferred but if such a transfer becomes

necessary in the commercial/operational interest of the

Corporation, they will be transferred only to a unit within

the Region. There is a lot of force in the contention of

the workman that normally a workman, in view of the

above policy, cannot be transferred unless there are some

commercial/operational reasons to transfer an employee.

It is also appropriate to refer to the statement of

Ms. Anshu Sharma, MW1, who in her cross-examination

has admitted that office order Ex.WW1/M1 was issued

unilaterally without any consultation with the trade union.

She further admitted that certified standing orders for

Hotel Jaipur Ashok is different from the certified

standing orders of the other units of ITDC. She further

deposed that services of Sri R.K. Avasthi, workman,

herein were transferred to Jammu Ashok Hotel at the

request of the Hotel and as such the request was orally

made by the General Manager, Jammu Ashok Hotel. I

am of the view that when there is a policy not to transfer

normally such employees from one place to another,

request should have been made in writing by the Hotel to

the management. It has also come in the pleadings as

well as evidence of this witness that Shri R.K. Avasthi

was Secretary of ITDC Mazdoor Janta Union. Further,

there was no demand from Bharatpur unit of ITDC for

transferring services of Shri Avasthi. Thus, it is clear

that the management has been transferring the workman

in a whimsical manner without following any norm or

guidelines in this regard. It has been held in the case of

Umesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

(2014 LLJ 3648) that when transfer of an employee is

not in violation of the statutory provisions or regulations,

the court will not interfere in the same unless from the

record it is established that such a transfer is made in a

malafide manner or is against the policy of transfer. Since

in the case in hand, issue of transfer is no more in

controversy as workman has retired on 30.09.2014, as

such, question of malafide transfer of the workman pales

into insignificance. The only vital question is whether

the workman is entitled to the claim of special allowance

and transportation charges as claimed.

14.

Ms. Shipra Shukla, authorized representative

appearing on behalf of the management strongly urged

that that workman herein is not entitled to the special

allowance as well as transportation charges, as claimed,

in view of office order dated 06.02.2008, Ex.MW1/2:

“I

The following will be treated as a single unit for the

purpose of appointment, seniority, promotion and

reversion and retrenchment:

Senior Executives

India and abroad

Executives

India and abroad

Non-Executives

India

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1049

The Senior Executives and Executives are liable to

be posted anywhere in India and abroad depending

upon exigencies of work.

III

All Non-Executives are liable to be transferred

anywhere in India from one unit to another unit of

the Corporation, including HCE units to Corporate

Office/Regional Offices and vice versa due to

exigencies of work.

However, in case non-executives are transferred from

one Unit to another Unit, their seniority shall be protected.

Note : Unit means any Unit of Hotel Catering

Establishment/Regional Office/Corporate Office etc.”

15.

Ms.Sharma also urged that since relief of special

allowance etc. is only available to the Executives and the

workman herein being non-Executive is not entitled to the

relief/allowances on account of his transfer. In this regard,

attention of this court was also invited to memorandum

dated 28.12.2010, which reads as under:

‘Payment of special allowance: As per Circular

No.HRMS/SA/08/Hqrs/ HR/08/29 dated 23.06.2008,

special allowance/incentive @ 1500 per month is

admissible to the Employees who are transferred to

cities other than their home state, in one Unit of

different units, with the exception of Units at

Bharatpur and Kaziranga. In the above mentioned

circular, the term ‘employee’ for the purpose of

Special Allowance has been confined to executives

only and therefore your request for payment of

special allowance cannot be entertained.’

16.

Whereas Shri Upadhyay, appearing on behalf of the

claimant, urged that when Shri N.D. Gupta, who was

transferred from Hotel Jaipur Ashok to Hotel Bharatpur

Ashok was granted special allowance of Rs.1,500.00, then

there is no reason or legal basis to deny the benefit of

special allowance and transportation charges etc. to the

workman. In this regard, strong reliance was placed upon

the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, i.e.

D.B. Civil Special appeal Writ Petition No.1277 of 2013

titled ‘Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and

others vs. Narain Das Gupta’, decided on 21.02.2014,

wherein similar question came up for consideration before

the Division Bench of the High Court. In the said case,

workman was initially granted House Rent

Allowance(HRA) in terms of office memorandum dated

12.09.2007. However, the same was later on withdrawn and

notice was issued for recovery of the same amount, to the

workman. It was also strongly urged on behalf of the

management that the benefit of the circular/office order

dated 12.09.2007 can only be given to officials holding

executive post and to workman/employees who are

holding non-executive post. This contention of the

management was rejected by the High Court and it was

held as under:

“We have heard counsel for the parties and also

perused order of the learned Single Judge and the

material which has come on record and we do find

substance in the submission made by counsel for

respondent employee that as regards the office order

dated 12.09.2007, it relates to the employees who are

transferred to smaller cities and indisputably all who

are working from Class IV to the highest post in the

organization are employees of the Corporation and

the office order dated 12.09.2007 is applicable to the

employees in general and the later circulars which

are issued in the form of clarification dated 18.06.2008

and 23.06.2008 confines to the hotel executives and

not to the employees in general and they are entitled

to claim HRA in the exigencies referred in the office

order dated 12.09.2007 and as regards recovery, if

the amount has been paid towards HRA in terms of

order dated 12.09.2007 being employee of the

corporation, the question of recovery, in our

considered view, does not arise as has rightly been

paid to him to which he is entitled for under the law

and after going through order of the learned Single

Judge impugned herein, we do not find any apparent

error which may require interference by this court.

Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merit and

accordingly dismissed.”

16.

It is, thus, clear from the ratio of the above judgement

that the benefit of special allowance as well as

transportation charges is to be paid to all kinds of

employees when they are transferred from one place to

the other (beyond 20 kms.).

17.

It is clear from perusal of the record that Shri R.K.

Avasthi, workman herein, in view of his transfers, as

discussed above, has submitted vide Ex.WW1/7, which is

as under:

Amount

Amount Paid

Claimed

Two rail tickers

Rs.1,775.00

(from Jammu to Delhi)

Conveyance Charges

Rs. 180.00

(From Jammu residence

to Jammu Station)

Conveyance Charges

From Delhi Station to

Rs. 250.00

Residence

Transportation charges

Rs. 27,000.00

Rs. 3,682.00

of 400 kg (as per toll slip)

Goods by road

(Full truck charges)

from Jammu to Delhi

Toll Charges (Jammu)

Rs. 240.00

—

1050

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Composit transfer grant

— Rs. 23,125.00

(DA+DP+FDA) equal to

one month salary

Rs. 29,445.00

Rs. 29,012.00

18.

It is clear from perusal of the above that the workman

was not given transportation charges in the manner being

claimed by him to the tune of Rs. 27,000.00 and only an

amount of Rs. 3,682.00 was paid to him. Authorized

representative on behalf of the management could point

out any infirmity in the bill Ex.WW1/7. Thus, deduction in

the above bill made by the management is not in

consonance with law and particularly in view of the ratio

of the law in Narain Das Gupta (supra), employees holding

non-executive posts are entitled to special allowance and

transportation charges.

19.

As a sequel to my discussion hereinabove, it is held

that the workman Shri S.K. Avasthi is entitled to special

allowance as well as transportation charges, details of

which are given in Ex.WW1/7 from the respondent

management. He is also entitled to interest at the rate of

9% per annum from the date when this amount became

due to him and same was wrongly denied to him. An

award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the

appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : February 10, 2015

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 407-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dfe'uj

E;qfufliy dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ fnYyh 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- 1] fnYyh

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 84@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@36@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 407.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 84/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Commissioner, Municipal

Corporation of Delhi and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 23/02/2015.

[No. L-42011/36/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

NO. 1, DELHI

ID No. 84/2012

Shri Inder Pal,

S/o late Shri Tika Ram,

Through MCD General Mazdoor Union,

Room No. 95, Barack No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House,

New Delhi

...Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi

The Commissioner,

Udyog Sadan,

Near Patparganj,

Shahdara

...Management

AWARD

Reference in the present case was received from the

appropriate Government, viz. Ministry of Labour and

employment, vide order No. L-42011/36/2010-IR(DU) dated

05.07.2012 for adjudication of the industrial dispute with

following reference:

“Whether the action of the management of MCD In

not granting the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 to

Shri Inder Pal Singh with effect from 21.03.1996 in

the post of Garden Chaudhary is justified or not? If

not, what relief the workman is entitle to?”

It is clear from perusal of the statement of claim that

the workman, Shri Inder Pal, was initially posted as mali

under Shahdara North, Horticulture Division and thereafter

transferred to Karol Bagh Zone of Horticulture. It is also

submitted that after bifurcation of the Municipal

Corporation of Delhi, the Commissioner office of East

Nagar Nigam is situated at Udyog Sadan, Near Patparganj,

Shahdara. Details of the workman, Shri Inder Pal Singh is

mentioned in para 4 of the statement of claim as under:

Date of

Date of regularization

Date of employment

employment

as mali

as Chaudhary/

on muster

officiating Chaudhary

roll mali

1985

01.04.1994

21.03.1996

It is specifically averred in para 5 of statement of

claim that the workman has been performing the work of

Garden Chaudhary with effect from 21.03.1996 and is

posted at Swami Dayanand Hospital under Shri Shashi

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1051

Kant Sharma, Sectional Officer, Shri Narpat Singh,

Assistant Director (Horticulture) and Shri Ranbir Singh,

Deputy Director of Shahdara North Zone. However, he

has been denied pay scale of Chaudhary as revised from

time to time. The workman has been performing duty of

Chaudhary till date even after transfer from one Zone to

the other. Name of the workman is also appearing in

Annexure A at serial No. 2 as per office documents

prepared by the management.

There are averments that MCD has fixed pay scales

of other employees, including malis, Chaudhary etc. and

non-grant of proper pay scale of Chaudhary to the

workman, Shri Inder Pal Singh is ‘forced labour’ and thus

amounts to unfair labour practice. In fact, the workman

Shri Inder Pal Singh has got payment in lower scale of

Rs. 2550-3200 revised from time to time and has been

denied time scale of Garden Chaudhary Rs. 3050-4590,

which duty he performed since 21.03.1996.

It is also averred that Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

in the matter of Jai Chand vs. MCD has directed payment

of wages of Garden Chaudhary to those malis who are

performing work of Garden Chaudhary vide its order dated

02.05.2003 and in compliance of the said order, management

has issued office order No. ADC(Hort)/AO(Hort)/DA-VII/

05/457 dated 04.03.2005, Annexure B. There is also reference

to the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the

case of MCD versus Sultan Singh and others dated

27.07.2011, wherein Hon’ble High Court under similar

circumstances while considering question of payment of

wages of Garden Chaudhary to those malis who are

performing duties and functions of Garden Chaudhary,

held that such malis be paid the difference in pay of mali

and Garden Chaudhary. The said judgement was also

challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by

filing S.L.P., which was dismissed as withdrawn by the

management. Management is now duty bound to pay

wages to the workman in the scale of Chaudhary with

effect form 21.03.1996.

Claim was contested by the management, who filed

written statement, taking preliminary objections inter alia,

maintainability, non-service of demand notice etc. It was

also alleged that the workman has never performed duties

of Garden Chaudhary, as such he cannot be regularized/

promoted to the post of Garden Chaudhary. There is a

process for promotion to the said post. There must be

sanctioned post/vacant post of Garden Chaudhary and

apart from that the workman should have requisite

academic qualification of matriculation with agriculture as

one of the subjects. Since the claimant is simply 8th pass

and has never passed trade test, as such, his claim is

misconceived and contrary to the provisions of rules.

Reference was also opposed on grounds of delay and

latches etc. On merits, material averments contained in

the claim petition were denied. It was clarified that MCD

stood trifurcated into three Corporations, North Delhi

Municipal Corporation, South Delhi Municipal

Corporation and East Delhi Municipal Corporation and

these are independent identity. It was specifically denied

that the claimant was allotted work of Garden Supervisor

with effect from 21.03.1996. Management also denied the

other material averments contained in the statement of

claim.

The workman, Shri Inder Pal Singh, in support of his

case, examined himself as WW1 and Shri B.K. Prasad as

WW2 and also tendered in evidence some document

alongwith judgements. I would be referring to the same

while drawing my conclusion.

Management, in order to rebut the case of the

workman, examined Shri Ravinder Kumar, Assistant

Director (Horticulture), East Delhi Municipal Corporation

as MW1. It is clear from perusal of his affidavit that the

management has specifically alleged that the workman has

never performed duties as Garden Supervisor and no such

order by any competent officer was issued.

I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant

and Shri Vishwajit Mangla, A/R for the management.

10.

Before I proceed to consider the comparative merits

of the claim made by either of the parties, it is necessary to

mention here that it was not denied that the workman

Shri Inder Pal Singh was initially working as mali and from

time to time he was transferred. This fact is also duly

established from the copy of office order Ex.WW1/1

wherein name of the workman Shri Inder Pal Singh finds

mention at serial No. 2.

11.

The only moot point which is required to be

considered in the case in hand is whether the workman

has been working on the post of Garden Chaudhary since

March 1996 and entitled to wages of Garden Chaudhary,

as alleged in the statement of claim. In this regard, it is

appropriate to refer to the statement of the workman,

Shri Inder Pal Singh, examined himself as WW1 and

tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.WW/A. He has

also tendered in evidence Office Order/documents

Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/2 and deposed that both these

documents may kindly be read in evidence. Workman was

cross examined twice. However, there is nothing in the

cross examination of the workman so as to show that

management has disputed the validity of the office order

Ex.WW1/1. It is crystal clear from perusal of the report

dated 15.06.2005, which is duly signed by three different

officials of Horticulture Department, name of the workman,

Shri Inder Pal Singh is at Serial No. 2 and his designation

is shown as Mali since 1996. Total number of workman

shown in the list is

12.

No doubt, the management in paras 4 and 5 of the

written statement denied that the claimant was allotted

work of Garden Supervisor with effect from 21.03.1996.

However, the workman in his cross examination

(27.06.2013) has deposed that in the year 1997, he

1052

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

demanded wages for the post of Garden Chaudhary though

he is not in a position to give any proof of the same.

13.

Shri Ravinder Kumar, Assistant Director was

examined as MW1 by the management, who tendered his

affidavit, Ex.MW1/A. Concededly, the statement of

Shri Ravinder Kumar was recorded after deposition of

Shri Inder Pal Singh and nowhere has the management

contested validity of the report Ex.WW1/1. This witness

has feigned ignorance regarding raising of industrial dispute

by the other workman, such as Kanwar Singh, Satender

Singh etc. He was also not aware of the fate of the writ

petition which was dismissed on 28.07.2011 wherein similar

question of grant of wages of a mali who was working as

Garden Supervisor was involved. The statement of this

witness is not of much importance as to whether the workman

was doing the work of Garden Chaudhary since 1996 in as

much as this official was posted in Shahdara North Zone

only in the year 2005. Moreover, no record has been

produced by the management in respect of the malis/

chowkidars who were performing duties of Garden

Chaudhary. It is further evident from his statement that

the management had filed writ petition against the award

of the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble High

Court. Since this witness was not in a position to

specifically affirm as to whether Shri Inder Pal Singh was

working with the management since 01.03.1996 as such he

sought further time to answer the above question, which

was granted to him by my learned predecessor.

14.

Even on the subsequent dates of hearing,

(20.11.2013), Shri Ravinder Kumar, MW1 stated that

Shri Inder Pal Singh was working with the management

since 21.03.1996. He has not stated specifically that the

workman was simply working as mali and was not

performing duties of Garden Supervisor. Being a

responsible official, his statement should have been very

categorical and specific so far as question of job of mali or

Garden Supervisor was concerned. He has also admitted

that award Ex.MW1/W1 was passed in favour of

Shri Kanwar Singh by the Industrial Tribunal, NCT of Delhi

and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated

28.07.2011 has affirmed the said award. It is clear from

perusal of the award dated 04.02.2010(Ex.MW1/W1) that

MCD General Mazdoor Union raised a dispute as to

whether the workman Shri Kanwar Singh was allotted the

duty of Garden Supervisor by the management and as

such he is entitled to be regularized in the service of Garden

Chaudhary or not. It is further clear that the said workman

was doing the work of Garden Chaudhary since December

1998 till date and was getting salary in the lower time

scale of mali, i.e. Rs.2550-3200. The stand of the

management in the said case was the same as is in the

case in hand. It was alleged that the post of Garden

Chaudhary is a promotional post from the post of mali,

for which requirement is qualifying of trade test as well

as minimum qualification of matriculation.

15.

After considering evidence on record, the Tribunal,

in its award dated 04.02.2010 (Ex.MW1/W1), held that the

workman was allotted duties of Garden Chaudhary, as such

was entitled to pay scale of Garden Chaudhary from the

time when the workman was performing the said job.

Workman was held not entitled to be regularized or

promoted as Garden Chaudhary as the workman lacked

requisite qualification. The above award was challenged

before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and the award of

the Tribunal was upheld vide judgement dated 27.07.2011

in WP© No.7947/2010 titled ‘MCD versus Sultan Singh &

Others’. Operative portion of the judgement of Hon’ble

High Court, relevant in the context of the present

controversy, is as under:

“28. Considering the entire facts and circumstances

it is apparent that the claim of the respondents have

always been that they should be paid the difference

in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden Chaudhary

as they were made to work on the post of Garden

Chaudhary whereas the petitioner had first denied

that they worked as Garden Chaudharies, then took

the plea that the Assistant Director (Horticulture)

was not competent to ask the respondents to work

as Garden Chaudharies and that the respondents

cannot be appointed to the post of Garden

Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment

rules. There is no doubt that respondents are not

claiming appointment to the post of Garden

Chaudharies on account of having worked on ad-

hoc basis on the post of Garden Chaudhary contrary

to rules or that some of them not having the requisite

qualifications are entitled for relaxation.

29. In the entirety of facts and circumstances

therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

failed to make out any such grounds which will impel

this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution to set aside the orders of the

Tribunal dated 29th January, 2010 and 7th October,

2010 as no illegality or un- sustainability or perversity

in the orders of the Tribunal has been made out.

30. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties

are left to bear their own cost.”

16.

During the course of arguments, it was not denied

that the above judgement of the Hon’ble High Court was

also challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way

of SLP, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.04.2012.

Situation in the case in hand is in no way different from

the above cited case. In that case also, workman in fact

was mali and was performing duties of Garden Supervisor

and as such was entitled to wages of Garden Chaudhary

on account of having worked on adhoc basis on the said

post.

17.

Thus, there is no merit in the contention of the A/R

for the management that the workman, Shri Inder Pal, is

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1053

not having requisite qualification and as such there is no

question of his being considered for the post of Garden

Chaudhary. Here, the workman is not claiming promotion

to the post of Garden Chaudhary. He is simply claiming

difference of wages to which he is entitled on account of

having worked on the above post sine March 1996.

Management did not produce any record or any other

independent evidence so as to show that the workman in

the case in hand never worked on the post of Garden

Supervisor so as to deny him benefit of wages of Garden

Chaudhary.

18.

During the course of arguments, much reliance was

also placed by the workman upon the case of MCD vs.

Satender Singh, decided by the Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi vide judgement dated 20.03.2012 wherein also similar

question was involved. A careful appraisal of the

judgement shows that the Hon’ble High Court has

observed that since the matter is squarely covered by a

judgement dated 20.04.2011 of a Division Bench of High

Court in ‘MCD vs. Sultan Singh and others’, as such

same relief can be given to the respondents(workmen).

19.

Law is fairly settled that if a person is working on a

higher post, on adhoc or temporary post, then such an

employee is entitled to the salary/wages of such higher

post unless rules or regulations provide otherwise. I find

support to this view of mine from the case of Secretary vs.

Lieutenant Governor Port Blair (1998 Lab.I.C. 598).

20.

There is no merit in the contention of the management

that documents Ex.WW1/1 cannot be taken into

consideration, being photocopy of the original. I have

carefully gone through the said document which has been

issued by the management on 15.06.2005 as Annexure A.

No doubt it is settled proposition of law that mere

production and marking of documents as exhibit by the

court cannot be held to be due proof of its contents. Its

execution is to be proved by admissible evidence.

Situation is however different where documents are

produced and their genuineness is not disputed by the

opposite party when they are tendered in evidence or when

they are marked as exhibits. I am fortified in my opinion

from the case of RVE Venkatachala Gounder versus A.V.V.P.

Temples (AIR 2003 SC 4548). This was a case where the

Hon’ble Apex Court dealt at length with the question of

mode of proof and admissibility of documents and after

considering entire case law on the subject, it was held as

under:

“An objection to the admissibility of the document

should be raised before such endorsement is made

and the Court is obliged to form its opinion on the

question of admissibility and express the same on

which opinion would depend the document being

endorsed as admitted or not admitted in evidence.

In the latter case, the document may be returned by

the Court to the person from whose custody it was

produced.

Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of

evidence should be taken when it is tendered and

not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility

of documents in evidence may be classified into

two classes:- (i) an objection that the document

which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible

in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not

dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence

but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging

the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first

case, merely because a document has been marked

as ‘an exhibit’, an objection as to its admissibility is

not excluded and is available to be raised even at a

later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter

case, the objection should be taken before the

evidence is tendered and once the document has

been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit,

the objection that it should not have been admitted

in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving

the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be

raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of

the document as an exhibit.”

21.

The same view appears to have been taken in the

case of Narbada Devi Gupta versus Birendra Kumar Jaiswal

(AIR 2004 SC 175). In view of the ratio of law discussed

above, it is clear in the present case that no objection was

taken by the management(i.e. opposite party) when

workman while appearing as WW1 tendered photocopy

in evidence. Now, it is too late in the day to urge that the

above document, i.e. Ex.WW1/1, original of which is

obviously in possession of the management, has not been

proved in accordance with law. Since at no point of time

validity of this document was questioned during the

course of evidence, as such, contention of the management

deserves to be rejected.

22.

Similarly, reference petition cannot be rejected on

the grounds of delay and latches though the workman

has not approached the appropriate Government or the

management at the earliest regarding grant of pay sale of

Garden Chaudhary. Legitimate claim of a poor workman

cannot be rejected or defeated on such trivial grounds.

Moreover, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raghubir

Singh versus General Manager Haryana Roadways(2014

Lab.I.C. 4266) while dealing with the question of limitation

held that a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act can be made by the Government at any time

and such a reference cannot be rejected by the Industrial

Tribunal on grounds of delay in as much as it is necessary

to keep in mind the provisions of Section 10, which clearly

uses the word ‘at any time’. Section 10(1) of the Act enables

the appropriate Government to make reference of any

industrial dispute which exists or is apprehended at any

time to one of the authorities mentioned in the said section.

How and in what manner or through what machinery the

Government is apprised of the dispute is hardly relevant.

1054

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Only requirement for taking action under Section 10(1) of

the Act is that there must be some material before the

Government which will enable the appropriate Government

to form an opinion that an industrial dispute exists or is

apprehended. This is the administrative function of the

Government and the Government is at liberty thereafter

to make reference to the Industrial Tribunal.

23.

As a sequel to my discussion made hereinabove, it

is held that the workman Shri Inder Pal was doing the

work of Garden Supervisor since 21.03.1996 and from

that date he is entitled to the wages of Garden Chaudhary

and as a corollary, management is liable pay the

difference of wages of mali vis-a-vis Garden Chaudhary

from the date when the workman herein was performing

duties and functions of Garden Chaudhary. An award is

accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the

appropriate Government, as required under Section 17

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : February 18, 2015

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 408-—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] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 63@12) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@39@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2015

S.O. 408.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 63/12)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 24/02/2015.

[No. L-40012/39/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI

Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No.63/12

Sh. Amar Phool,

S/o Sh. Prabhati Lal,

R/o- Hudda Market,

Sector-29,

Faridabad.

Versus

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Sector-15,

Faridabad.

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No.L-40012/39/2011-IR(DU) dated

25.1.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the Management of BSNL,

Faridabad in terminating the services of Sh. Amar

Phool S/o Sh. Prabhati Lal, Ex-Cable Jointer, w.e.f.

23.08.2010, is legal and justified. What relief the

workman is entitled to?

On 14.02.2012 reference was received in this

tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 63/12 and claimant

was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen

days from date of service of notice. Which was required

to be accompanied with relevant documents and list of

witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant Sh. Amar

Phool not filed claim statement but management in

response to reference filed written comments. Wherein

it mentioned as follows:-

That there exists /existed no relationship of

employer and employee between the workman and the

management. The workman/claimant had never been taken

into employment by the respondent/management at any

point of time. The respondent has sufficient staff of Group

C and D and, therefore, the respondent department does

not engage daily wagers for any work. If any petty work is

to be done then that work is done through the contractors

engaged by the respondent. A list of contractors engaged

by the respondent /department is as under:-

Name of Contractor

Period

M/s. Keshav Security

31.08.1998 to30.08.1999

Service

M/s. Laxman Security

31.08.1998 to30.08.1999

Service

M/s. Om Prakash

1.02.2001 to 31.01.2002

Bhulania

M/s. Keshav Security

2.02.2001 to 1.02.2002

Service

M/s. Keshav Security

21.10.2002 to20.10.2003

Service

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1055

M/s. Anirudh Security

2.09.2002 to 15.09.2004

Service

M/s. Keshav Security

1.08.2003 to 31.07.2004

Service

M/s. Keshav Security

23.03.2005 to31.08.2008

Service

M/s. Kishan Singh and

1.11.2007 to 31.10.2008

Associates

10. M/s. Kishan Singh and

1.02.2009 to 31.01.2010

Associates

11. M/s. Keshav Security

1.08.2010 to 31.07.2011

Service

12. M/s Mgarock Security

11.09.2006 to10.09.2007

Service

That the workman has no locus standie to file the

instant claim before this Hon’ble Tribunal.

That the workman /claimant has not come before

this Hon’ble Tribunal with clean hands and he has filed

the false and fabricated claim before this Hon’ble Tribunal.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in view of

above submissions, the claim of the workman may be

dismissed with costs.

On the basis of non-interestedness of workman. The

proceeding of this case is not liable to be proceeded further.

Hence proceedings of the case are liable to be dropped

and no dispute award is liable to be passed.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-4.2.2015

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 409-—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] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 35@12) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@78@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2015

S.O.409.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 35/12)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 24/02/2015.

[No. L-40012/78/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI

Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 35/12

Sh. Sunil Kumar,

S/o Sh. Mewa Lal,

R/o- H.No. -250, Gali No.-2

Rahul Colony, NIT,

Faridabad.

Versus

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited.

Sector-15,

Faridabad.

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-40012/78/2011-IR(DU) dated

05.12.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the Management of BSNL,

in terminating the services of Sh. Sunil Kumar S/o

Sh. Mewa Lal, Ex-Cable Jointer, w.e.f. 23.08.2010, is

legal and justified. What relief the workman is

entitled to?

On 20.01.2012 reference was received in this

tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 35/12 and claimant

was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen

days from date of service of notice. Which was required

to be accompanied with relevant documents and list of

witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant Sh. Sunil

Kumar not filed claim statement but management in

response to reference filed written comments. wherein

it mentioned as follows:-

1.That there exists /existed no relationship of employer

and employee between the workman and the management.

The workman/claimant had never been taken into

employment by the respondent/management at any point

of time. The respondent has sufficient staff of Group

C and D and, therefore, the respondent department does

not engage daily wagers for any work. If any petty work

is to be done then that work is done through the contractors

1056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

engaged by the respondent. A list of contractors engaged

by the respondent /department is as under:-

Name of Contractor

Period

M/s. Keshav Security

31.08.1998 to 30.08.1999

Service

M/s. Laxman Security

31.08.1998 to 30.08.1999

Service

M/s. Om Prakash

1.02.2001 to 31.01.2002

Bhulania

M/s. Keshav Security

2.02.2001 to 1.02.2002

Service

M/s. Keshav Security

21.10.2002 to 20.10.2003

Service

M/s. Anirudh Security

2.09.2002 to 15.09.2004

Service

M/s. Keshav Security

1.08.2003 to 31.07.2004

Service

M/s. Keshav Security

23.03.2005 to 31.08.2008

Service

M/s. Kishan Singh and

1.11.2007 to 31.10.2008

Associates

10. M/s. Kishan Singh and

1.02.2009 to 31.01.2010

Associates

11. M/s. Keshav Security

1.08.2010 to 31.07.2011

Service

12. M/s Mgarock Security

11.09.2006 to 10.09.2007

Service

That the workman has no locus standie to file the

instant claim before this Hon’ble Tribunal.

That the workman /claimant has not come before

this Hon’ble Tribunal with clean hands and he has filed

the false and fabricated claim before this Hon’ble Tribunal.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in view of

above submissions , the claim of the workman may be

dismissed with costs.

On the basis of non-interestedness of workman. The

proceeding of this case is not liable to be proceeded further.

Hence proceedings of the case are liable to be dropped

and no dispute award is liable to be passed.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 4.2.2015

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 410-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[; fuekZ.k

vfHk;ark (vkj ,aM Mh) MhvkjMhvks 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] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 55@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@15@2008&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2015

S.O. 410.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 55/2008)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Chief Construction Engineer

(R&D), MP, DRDO and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 24/02/2015.

[No. L-14012/15/2008-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI

Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 55/2008

Sh. Om Prakash, S/o Late Sh. Ram Phool,

R/o House No. 4/272b, Dakshin Puri,

Sector IV, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,

New Delhi-110062

Versus

The Chief Constructions Engineer (R & D),

MP, DRDO , Development Enclave,

Rao Tula Ram Marg,

Behind Army Head Quarter Camp,

P.B. No.8 Delhi Cantt., Delhi.

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-14012/15/2008-IR(DU) dated

1.12.2008 referred the following Industrial Dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of the

Chief Construction Engineer (R & D) MP, DRDO,

Development Enclave, Rao Tula Ram Marg, Behind

Headquarters Camp, Post Bag No.8, Delhi Cantt,

Delhi in terminating the services of Sh. Om Prakash,

Ex-helper w.e.f. 30.06.1999 is just, fair and legal? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

On 10.12.2008 reference was received in this Tribunal.

Which was register as I.D No. 55/08 and claimant was

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1057

date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of

witnesses.

Workman filed claim statement on 2.2.2009. Where-

in he prayed as follows:-

It is , therefore, humbly prayed that an award may

kindly be passed in favour of the applicant /workman by

issuing orders for re-instatement of the workman in service

along with full back wages and consequential benefits

and justice shall be provided to the applicant/workman so

he can earned his livelihood for his family.

Against claim statement management filed written

statement on 06.07.2009. Wherein management prayed as

follows:-

It is, therefore more respectfully prayed before this

Court that in light of the aforesaid facts the present

reference application moved by the alleged applicant be

dismissed in limini itself against the alleged applicant in

order to cut short the unwarranted ordeal at the hands of

the disgruntled and misguided applicant and in the utmost

interest of justice and fair play.

Against written statement workman filed rejoinder

on 08.02.2010. Where-in workman reaffirmed the contents

of Claim statement and prayed as follows:-

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the

statement of claim of the applicant /claimant may kindly

be allowed with costs throughout. Any other relief or

further to which the applicant/claimant is entitled or this

Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper be passed.

My Ld predecessors has not framed any issue but

proceed to adjudicate the present reference on the basis

of schedule wherein questions of determination were as

follows:-

“Whether the action of the management of the Chief

Construction Engineer (R & D) MP, DRDO,

Development Enclave, Rao Tula Ram Marg, Behind

Headquarters Camp, Post Bag No.8, Delhi Cantt.,

Delhi in terminating the services of Sh. Om Prakash,

Ex-helper w.e.f. 30.06.1999 is just, fair and legal? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

Workman in support of its case filed his affidavit. Wherein

he mentioned as follows:-

That the deponent is the workman /claimant in the

above mentioned Petition and fully conversant with the

facts and circumstances of the case, and as such she is

competent to swear this affidavit.

That the deponent states that the claimant was

appointed as a helper in the above mentioned office vide

appointment letter no. Admin /1128/OP /CCE (R& D) MP

dated 25th July, 1995, since then the claimant had been

working properly, satisfactorily and obeying to the superior

officers and had not given any chance of complaint.

That the deponent states that the claimant could

not attend his duty since 8th July, 1998 because the mother

of the claimant namely Mrs. Kasturi was serious ill and

was treated from Orthnonva Institute of Advance surgery

and Research TCML House No. 23, Pus hp Vihar,

Community Centre, Delhi- 110062 , hence the claimant was

looking after him mother in this connection the claimant

had informed to the office.

That the deponent states that the father of the

claimant Sh. Ram Phool has also expired 08.08.1998 since

then the claimant was facing many problems and was not

in a position to attend his duty due to heavy shocked of

the death of his father and serious illness of his mother

alongwith the wife of the claimant is also ill. The claimant

due to continuous illness of his family members he gone

under depression.

That the deponent states that the claimant was

permanent in the office of the respondent and has been

terminated from her service on 21.05.1999.

That the deponent states that the termination of

service of the claimant was unlawfull and illegal and unjust

and without adopting the due process of law. The claimant

did not given any sufficient opportunity to defend himself

nor any show cause notice was ever served upon him.

The termination of service of the claimant is against the

law and constitution of India. Since, the termination of

services of the claimant not only the claimant has been

suffering but also suffering his entire family and

dependent.

That the deponent states that the claimant has been

regularly visiting the officer of the respondent regarding

his reinstatement in the services but the respondent have

linger on the matter on one pretext or the other.

That the deponent states that the present notice be

treated in continuation to the earlier legal notice dated

23.08.2006. It is pertinent to mention herein that the

notice was duly served upon the management /respondent

but the respondent has not replied for the same. Thereafter

the workman also sent a reminder notice in continuation

of the notice vide reminder dated 21.2.2007, which was

also served upon the respondent but again they did not

respond to the same.

That the application /workman is a family man and

there is no other source of income except this job. So after

termination, the applicant /workman had been regularly

appear on the respondent and demanded from the

management for his reinstatement but the applicant /

workman was not allowed to enter in the premises. Hence

the applicant /workman presented the present Petition

before the Hon’ble Court of labour commissioner

Central Govt. New Delhi.

10.

That the workman had filed a case before the Ministry

of Labour, Shram Mantralaya Govt. of India /Bharat Sarkar

1058

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and after considering all the facts and circumstances of

the case, the desk officer of the above said authority has

passed an order thereby holding that “ an dispute exits

between the employee in relations to the management

of MP , DRDO and their workman in respect of the

matter specified in the schedule hereto annexed. “The

authority after exercising the power conferred by clause

(d) of sub section (1) and sub section 2(a) of section 10

of the ID. Act 1947 referred the above said dispute for

deciding the following issue:

“Whether the action of the management of the Chief

Construction Engineer (R & D) MP, DRDO,

Development Enclave, Rao Tula Ram Marg, Behind

Headquarters Camp, Post Bag No.8, Delhi Cantt,

Delhi in terminating the services of Sh. Om Prakash,

Ex-helper w.e.f. 30.06.1999 is just, fair and legal?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

11.

That the act of the management is illegal and

unconstitutional and termination of the services of the

applicant /workman and neither paid the earned salary and

nor paid the funds and other consequential benefit to the

applicant /workman.

12.

That the deponent states that deponent has filed

certain document in regard to prove his claim. The letter

dated 01.12.2008 referring the dispute to the Hon’ble

Court for adjudication is Ex. As WE-1/1 . The copy of the

various legal notices dt. 21.11.2006, 16.01.2007,

21.2.2007 , 23.08.2006 alongwith the postal receipts

are Ex. WE1/2 (Colly). The copy of the medical records

of the wife of the workman /claimant is Ex. WE1/3(Colly).

The copy of the medical records of the mother of the

claimant /workman are Ex. WE-1/4 (Colly). The copy of

the bill receipts of payment of Smt. Asha and Smt. Kastauri

Devi, wife and mother of the claimant/workman are Ex.

WE1/5 (Colly). The copy of various letter issued by the

claimant to the respondent /opposite party dt. 15.12.2007,

31.12.2007, 15.12.2007, 9.5.99, are Ex. WE-1/6 (Colly).

The copy of letter issued by the respondent to the

petitioner dt. 23.2.99, 30.06.99 are Ex. WE-1/7 (Colly).

The copy of the Identity card issued by the respondent to

the petitioner is Ex. WE-1/8 (Colly). The copy of the

Election I.Card and ration card Ex. WE-1/9 (Colly) . The

copy of various letter issued by the claimant to the

respondent/opposite party dt. 09.7.1997, 10.3.1998,

20.06.1999, 10.08.1998, 27.02.1999, 30.07.1999 are Ex.

WE-1/10 (Colly).

13.

That the deponent states that due to illegal

termination the workman is unemployed even till now.

14.

That the statement made in this affidavit are true

and correct.

He tendered his affidavit on 25.06.2013 and he

was cross-examined on same day. when he was cross-

examined by Ld. A/R for the management. He could not

remain stable on his statement to support his case. Hence,

solitary statement of workman/claimant is not reliable

and credible. So, reliance cannot be placed on it.

Moreover, evidence of management through its

witness MW1 is worthy of credence because nothing

could be extracted out in his cross-examination by Ld.A/R

for the workman. In these circumstances, evidence on

record does not justify the claim of workman/claimant.

Who remained absent for long term without any plausible

reason in his probation period of employment when he

was temporary employee. So, question of determination

No.1 is liable to be decided in favour of management and

against workman.

Which is accordingly decided. As question of

determination No.1 has already been decided in favour of

management and against workman. So, Workman is entitled

to no relief. Hence, reference is liable to be decided against

workman and in favour of management and his claim

statement is liable to be dismissed.

Reference is accordingly decided and claim

statement is accordingly dismissed.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-19.2.2015

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 411-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkfuns'kd

(oDlZ) lhihMCY;wMh 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] fnYyh ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 41@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 24@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2015

S.O. 411.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 41/2010)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Director General (Works),

CPWD and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 24/02/2015.

[No. L-42025/03/2015-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1059

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI

Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No.41/2010

Sh. Om Prakash, S/o Sohan Lal,

CPWD Mazdoor Union,

Room No.95, Barracks No. 1/10,

Jam Nagar House,

Sahajahan Road

...Workman

Versus

Director General (Works),

CPWD Nirman Bhawan,

New Delhi

...Management

AWARD

On 25.11.2010 direct claim statement u/s 2A I.D. Act

has been received in this tribunal. Which was register as

I.D No. 41/10 and management (O.P.) was called upon to

file written statement on 1.2.2011.

Although after 1.2.2011, 24.02.2011, 23.05.2011,

16.08.2011, 17.10.2011 and 20.12.2011 have been fixed for

written statement. On 20.12.11 written statement has been

filed by management. Workman in his claim statement

prayed as follows:-

It is, therefore, prayed that the services of Sh. Om

Prakash, Sewerman be reinstated w.e.f. 1.1.2009 full back

wages granted to the daily rated workers working for skilled

nature of job in the category of sewerman alongwith all

consequential benefit.

Against claim statement management filed written

statement on 20.12.2011 through which he denied the

contents of claim statement and prayed that the claim filed

by the claimant /workman is liable to be rejected with costs.

Against which workman filed rejoinder on

4.4.2012. Through which he reaffirmed the contents of

claim statement.

On the basis of pleadings of parties my Ld.

Predecessor framed following issues on :-

Whether the termination of Sh. Om Prakash S/o Sh.

Sohan Lal w.e.f. 1.1.2009 is illegal and unjustified? If no, to

what relief Sh. Om Prakash would be entitled and what

directions are called for in this regard.

Relief.

Workman in support of his case filed affidavit of

WW1 Sh. Om Prakash on 8.8.2012.

Workman tendered his affidavit on 31.10.2013 and

same day he was cross-examined by Ld. A/R for the

management.

His statement of tendering of affidavit and cross-

examination is as follows:-

I tender my affidavit as Exhibit WW1/A which

bears my signatures at point A and B alongwith documents

Ex. WW1/1 collectively and Ex. WW1/2.

XXXXX by Sh. A.K. Pandey.

I have not studied. I am illiterate my age about

53 years. I have no record of date of birth. It is correct

that I joined with the management w.e.f 11.1.86 . The date

of my joining is with management of CPWD and I have

no document in this regard. I have no knowledge about

the fake contractor and my work and attendance were

supervised by the Junior Engineer. It is correct that

CPWD is a government establishment. The chart of

attendance was kept in inquiry office of CPWD. Some

of the documents were filed collectively. The total paper

placed on record are 26 (photocopies).

Ld.A/R of the management refused to cross-

examine on the ground that few paper in photocopies have

been filed on behalf of the workman. He sought time for

cross-examination.

Although these paper appears to have been filed in

response to question put to witness. Deferring of cross-

examination is not of justify.

However Ld.A/R for the management is at liberty

to either to cross-examine or not.

I received payment through cash and initially I got

500 p.m. I received last payment in the last month of year

2008 of Rs. 3500/- received payment through cash. I was

engagd through Junior Engineer about the work of

sewerman. I know the name of Bhargav

It is correct that documents filed pages 26(note)

in which the payment sheet is not mentioned enclosed. I

did not sought any document as the same was within the

management regarding joining letter of payment etc. It

is correct the CPWD being a Govt. department are

supposed to do all the work. It is wrong to suggest that I

never with the management . It is wrong to suggest that I

m deposing falsely.

Management in support of its case filed affidavit

of Sh. Uttam Chandra on 19.03.2014.

Sh. Uttam Chandra tendered his affidavit on

19.3.2014.

His statement of tendering of affidavit is as

follows:-

I tender in evidence my affidavit Ex. MW/1 A which

bears my signature at point ‘A’ and ‘B’ . I reply upon

documents Ex. R/1 and Ex. R/2.

1060

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sh. Uttam Chandra cross-examined by Ld. A/R for

the workman on 9.10.2014. His cross-examination is as

follows:-

I joined in ‘B’ Division Jan, 2013.

It is correct that workman Sh. Om Prakash has not

being performing duty in my period.

The document whether handed over to you is

confirmed by your staff?

These documents are not on record of mgt.

Whether you are conversant with the Award of I.D

No. 16/2009 in CGIT-I on 9.9.2010?

Yes, appeal has been preferred along aforesaid award

which is still pending in Hon’ble High Court.

Whether documents shown to you and then you

supplied the documents are not on record of management.

Such documents have been admitted by same mgt.

Documents have not been admitted by management

by any person.

As workman was not the workman of the management

no question of giving notice to the workman is admitted in

the instant case.

It is incorrect to suggest that workman was

employed 11.1.86 as sewer man.

Whether workman was terminate 1.1.2009 without

taking permission from CGIT-I ?

As workman was not workman of Mgt. no question

of termination arises alongwith permission of CGIT-I.

Whether you have read through ID.NO. 16/2009 in

CGIT-I on 9.9.2010, New Delhi ?

I have gone through ID. No. 16/2009 in CGIT –I

on 9.9.2010. It is incorrect to suggest that I am giving

false evidence.

Whether you know the name of Sh. Vinod Kumar

Goel and Sh. B.K. Bhattacharya previously posted in your

department .

I know them.

Whether you know Sh. M.T. Assudani, Asstt.

Engineer, B Division , CPWD who have been previously

posted in your department ?

I don’t know.

It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing false.

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

parties and perused the pleadings of claim statement,

written statement and rejoinder as well as evidence of

workman and management including the principles laid

down in case of Tapash Kumar Paul Vs. BSNL 2014 LAB.

I.C. 4486(S.C) and settled law of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

It is, admitted fact that ID. No. 16 of 2009 Sh. Om

Prakash Vs. Director General of works, CPWD has been

decided by Dr. R.K. Yadav, P.O., CGIT No. 1 Karkardooma

Courts Complex, Delhi, on 9.9.2010.

Against which writ-petition has been filed by

management which has been dismissed in default. Against

that order restoration application is pending for disposal

in Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

Till writ-petition is decided on merits order dated

9.9.2010 cannot be final.

In this background contents of Para No. 21 of

judgment dated 9.9.2010 passed by Dr. R.K. Yadav, P.O.,

CGIT No. 1 Karkardooma Courts Complex, Delhi, is of no

avail to workman/ claimant.

Hence, instant claim filed by workman/claimant u/s

2A ID. Act is an futile attempt of claimant/workman to file

fresh claim on the basis of similar facts on which ID.No. 16

of 2009 was filed and already been decided by , P.O., CGIT

No. 1.

Aforesaid ruling cited on behalf of workman is

inapplicable in the instant case due to distinguishable

facts. So, it is of no avail to workman/claimant.

In these circumstances claim is not maintainable.

Which liable to be dismissed. Hence, accordingly

dismissed.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-19.2.2015

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 412-—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;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 43@2002)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@02@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@75@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th February, 2015

S.O. 412.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/

2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Punjab National Bank and their workman, received by

the Central Government on 12/02/2015.

[No. L-12012/75/2002-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1061

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

Dated : 28th January, 2015

PRESENT : Shri S N NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

C R No. 43/2002

I Party

II Party

Sh. Dilip S Bhende,

The Zonal Manager,

No. 290, I Floor,

Punjab National Bank,

Upstairs of Guru Floor

160, Greams Road,

Mills, Ramanuja Road,

Zonal Office,

Mysore – 570 004.

Chennai – 600 006.

Appearances :

I Party

Shri K M S Bhat, Advocate

II Party :

Shri T R K Prasad, Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/75/

2002-IR(B-II) dated 12.08.20002 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-

Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act,

1947 has made this reference for adjudication with

following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the management of Punjab National Bank

is justified in removing Shri Dilip S Bhende, Ex-

special Assistant from the services of the bank w.e.f.

26.04.2000 is legal and justified? If not, what relief

the workman is entitled to and from which date?”

On receipt of the reference while registering it in

C R 43/2002 when notices were issued to both the sides

they entered their appearance through their respective

advocates and I Party filed his claim statement on

17.10.2002 and II Party filed its counter statement on

26.11.2002.

The brief facts leading to this reference and award

may be stated as under.

Sh. Dilip S Bhende (hereinafter referred as I Party)

who was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in September

1975 by the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred as

II Party) and later in the year 1982 selected and posted as

Special Assistant at the V V Market Branch, Mysore of

the II party was served with Charge sheet dated

09.03.1999 as under :

“Charge Sheet

You are hereby Charge Sheeted that :

While working as Special Assistant in BO:VV

Market, Mysore, as In Charge of Loans Department,

you are alleged to have committed the following :

1. TL a/c Shankar 16/11 :

An amount of Rs. 15,000/- was advanced on 26.4.95

for purchase of two cattle to Shri Shankar. The

insurance claim was settled by M/s. United India

Insurance Co. Vide letter dt. 27.9.95 by way of IOB

Cheque No. 564231 dt. 27.9.95 for Rs. 7,500/- . Even

though the loan account was outstanding, instead

of crediting the amount to the loan account, the

amount was credited to the personal account i.e. SF

a/c 9274 of Shri Shankar on 29.9.95. The amount

was withdrawn by way of withdrawal slip on 5.10.95

along with the balance available in the account. Later

on, to conceal your misconduct, you have destroyed

all the relevant correspondence with the insurance

company.

2. TL a/c 297/8 Puttathayamma

Smt. Puttathayamma, was financed for purchase of

cattle on 13.5.93 by advancing Rs. 15,000/-. You

lodged the claim with M/s. United India Insurance

Co. Vide letter dt. 25.5.94 and the Insurance Co. Has

settled the claim vide IOB Cheque No. 500513 dt.

15.6.94 for Rs. 10,000/-. Even though the loan account

was outstanding, the amount was credited to the

Saving A/c i.e. SF 8604 of Ms. Puttathayamma on

18.6.94 and subsequently, the amount was

withdrawn on 21.6.94 by withdrawal slip. You have

passed the withdrawal slip of 21.6.94. To conceal

your misconduct, you have destroyed all the

relevant correspondence with the insurance

company.

3. TL 245/8 MAHADEVAMMA

a) Smt. Mahadevamma, was financed for purchase

of cattle on 27.11.91 for Rs. 9,750/-. The claim was

lodged with Ms. New India Assurance Co. And they

have settled the claim vide their Central Bank of

India Cheque No. 114969 for Rs. 7,000/-. Despite the

fact that the loan account was outstanding, the claim

amount was credited to her Saving A/c 7881 on

19.39.93. On 22.3.93, Rs. 7,000/- was debited to her

SF a/c and Rs. 3,000/- was transferred to TL a/c 267/8

of Basavanna, Rs. 1900/- to TL 275/8 of Shankar and

Rs. 2100/- to TL 277/8 of madaiah. You have

authorised the debit vouchers for transfer to

difference loan accounts of different borrowers even

though the term loan a/c of Smt. Mahadevamma was

outstanding. To conceal your act, you have

destroyed all the correspondence with the insurance

company.

b) You have lodged claim with M/s. United India

Insurance Co. On 21.9.94 and they have settled the

claim vide IOB cheque No. 356621 dt. 31.10.94 for

Rs. 7,000/-. Even though her loan a/c was

outstanding, the amount was again credited to her

1062

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Savings a/c on 8.11.94. Subsequently, on 9.11.94,

the amount was transferred to SF a/c 8005 of Shri

B.Nagaraju, said to be the insurance agent. You

have authorised the debit of SF 7881. To conceal

your act, you have destroyed all the

correspondence, with the insurance company.

4. SHANKAR TL 275/8

Shri Shanker was financed for purchase of two cows

on 15.6.92 for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- You have

lodged the claim with M/s New India Assurance

Co., Devraj Urs Road, Mysore, and they have settled

the claim vide Central Bank of India, Cheque No.

129880 dt. 4.3.94 for Rs. 7,000/- The amount was

credited to his NPA a/c on 7.3.94, but after adjusting

the loan, Rs. 3,511/- was transferred to TL(NPA) of

Shri Madaiah on 7.3.94 without the authorisation

from the borrower, instead of crediting the balance

of Rs. 3511/- to his SF a/c. You have authorised the

said debit voucher. Later on, to conceal your deed,

you have destroyed all the correspondence with

the insurance company.

5. TL a/c 319/8 K.GURUSWAMY

Shri Guruswamy, was financed for purchase of two

cows by advancing Rs. 15,000/- on 3.9.93. The claim

for insurance was lodged with M/s United India

Insurance Co. On 29.6.95. They have settled the

claim vide IOC Cheque No. 961666 for Rs. 7,500/-

Though the loan account was running irregular,

instead of crediting the amount to the loan account

of the borrower, you have credited the same to his

SF a/c 8236. Subsequently, he utilised that amount.

6. TL 301/8 VS NAGENDRA :

Shri Nagendra was financed for an amount of

Rs. 15,000/- on 26.5.93 for purchase of two cows.

You lodged the claim with M/s New India Assurance

Co., JLB Road, Mysore, who settled the claim 1/

93 vide SBI cheque no. 281944 dt. 14.6.94 for Rs.

7500/-. Though the loan a/c was outstanding, the

amount was credited to his SF a/c 8366 on 18.6.94

and subsequently you have allowed the withdrawal

on 21.6.94. You have passed the withdrawal slip

for payment. Later on, to conceal your misconduct,

you have destroyed all the correspondence with

the insurance company.

7. TL 267/8 B.BASAVANNA :

Shri Basavanna was financed for an amount of

Rs. 10,000/- on 28.2.92 for purchase of two cows.

You lodged the claim with M/s United India

Insurance Co., who settled the claim vide their letter

dt. 22.3.93 enclosing IOB Cheque No. 493689

dt. 19.3.93 for Rs. 7000/-. The amount was credited

to his SF a/c 8555 on 30.3.93 even though the loan

a/c was outstanding. Subsequently, you have

transferred the said amount to SF 8005 of Shri

B.Nagaraju on 3.4.93, who is said to be the insurance

agent. Later on, to conceal your deed, you have

destroyed all the correspondence with the insurance

company.

Your above acts amounts to Gross Misconduct as

per Clause 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement, as

amended from time to time.

You are hereby called upon to submit your written

explanation WITHIN TEN DAYS OF RECEIPT OF

THIS LETTER, failing which it will be presumed that

you have no explanation to offer in your defence

and further course of action will be initiated against

you as per the provisions of Bipartite Settlement.

Sd/-

Regional Manager

Disciplinary Authority”

On reply of the I Party to the Charge sheet denying

the Charges the Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied

with the same ordered to face the Domestic Enquiry by his

order dated 09.04.1999 appointing Sh. V L N Murthy, Senior

Manager, CMO, Bangalore as Enquiry Officer and Sh. C N

Muralidhar, Manager, BO, Rajajinagar, Bangalore (previous

manager, VV Market, Mysore) as the Presenting Officer.

The Enquiry Officer while conducting the enquiry by

recording the evidence of Sh. K S Krishnamurthy and

Sh. C N Muralidhar as MW 1 and MW 2 exhibiting 47

documents as PW 1 to PW 47 and examining CSE and Sh.

Mariswamy, Sh. A Gururaj as DW 1 and DW 2 and got

exhibited D 1 to D 8 submitted his report dated 06.12.1999

that Charges being proved. The Disciplinary Authority

while sending the copy of the enquiry report through his

letter dated 13.01.2000 calling for his submission after

receipt of his submission dated 24.01.2000 concurring with

the finding of the Enquiry Officer issued a show cause

notice dated 06.04.2000 as to why he should not be

removed from service with superannuation benefits and

without disqualification from future employment and on

his reply affording an opportunity of hearing by its order

dated 26.04.2000 imposing the punishment of removal from

service with superannuation benefits and without

disqualification from future employment. Then as the CSE

preferred appeal to Zonal Manager and the Appellate

Authority, the Appellate Authority while providing

personal hearing by his order dated 28.11.2000 confirmed

the order of the Disciplinary Authority and dismissed the

appeal. Then the I Party approached the ALC(C),

Bangalore and as he submitted his FOC dated 29.03.2002

it resulted in this reference.

The I Party in his claim statement challenged the

fairness and validity of the enquiry proceedings on the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1063

ground that it was not conducted impartially as per the

provisions of the Bipartite Settlement by which he was

governed and also in violation of principles of natural

justice and that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is not

based on the material placed before him and the

punishment imposed is also disproportionate etc., claimed

for his reinstatement with full backwages and all other

consequential benefits that he would have received in the

absence of the impugned punishment. INTERALIA, the

II Party in its counter statement justified the fairness of

the Domestic Enquiry, finding of the Enquiry Officer as

well as the punishment imposed being proportionate to

the Charges / misconduct proved against the I Party prayed

for rejection of the reference.

My learned predecessor having regard to the

grievance of the I Party touching the fairness of the

Domestic Enquiry while raising a Preliminary Issue as to

“Whether the Domestic Enquiry held by the II Party

against I Party is fair and proper?”

after receiving the evidence adduced by both the sides

and hearing the arguments of their learned advocates by

his order dated 23.11.2004 answered the said issue in the

negative i.e., the enquiry conducted by the management

against the I Party is not fair and proper called upon the II

Party to substantiate the Charges by leading necessary

evidence. Persuant to the said order the learned advocate

appearing for the II Party while filing the affidavits of Sh.

C N Muralidhar on 26.05.2006 who was Branch Manager

of the V V Puram Branch between September 1996 to

October 1998 examined him on oath on 09.03.2011 as

MW 1 and got marked Ex. M-20 to Ex. M-56 the detailed

description of which are narrated in the Annexure and

also examined Sh. Jayanth N, Administrative Officer, United

India Insurance Company limited; Sh. Bhaskar Reddy,

Branch Manager, new India Assurance Company Limited,

Belagol Branch and Sh. Shivanandappa, Branch Manager,

United Indian Insurance Company Limited, City Branch,

K R Nagar, Mysore as MWs 2, 3 and 4 respectively and in

the evidence of MW 3 got marked Ex. M-1 to Ex. M-3 the

detailed description of which are narrated in the Annexure

and in the evidence of MW 4 got marked Ex. M-4 to Ex. M-

19 the detailed description of which are narrated in the

Annexure. The counsel for II party in the cross-examination

of WW 1 by way of confrontation got marked Ex. M-57 to

Ex. M-59 the detailed description of which are narrated

in the Annexure. INTERALIA, the learned advocate

appearing for the I party who got marked Ex W-1 to Ex. W-

21 the detailed description of which are narrated in the

Annexure in the cross-examination of MW 1 by way of

confrontation while filing the affidavit of the I party

examining him on oath as WW 1 got exhibited Ex. W-22 to

Ex. W-46 the detailed description of which are narrated in

the Annexure and closed his side.

With the above pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence brought on record, the arguments addressed by

counsel for both sides were heard. The learned advocate

appearing for I Party has also filed notes of his arguments.

Since the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the II

Party against the I party held as Not Fair and Proper and

evidence of both sides has been received on merits the

points that now arise for my consideration are :

Point No. 1 : Whether the II Party established the

seven Charges levelled against the I Party ?

Point No. 2 : If yes, whether the punishment of

removal from service with superannuation benefits

and without disqualification from future employment

is just and proper or whether any modification is

warranted?

Point No. 3 : What Order/Award?

10.

On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and

documentary evidence brought on record by both the sides

in the light of the arguments put forward by the learned

advocates my finding on the above points are as under :

Point No. 1 : Affirmative except the second portion

of the Charges alleging destruction of insurance

correspondence by the I Party

Point No. 2 : Punishment imposed is just and proper

and do not require any interference.

Point No. 3 : As per final order

11.

Point No. 1 : As per the Charge No. 1 and the

evidence of MW 1 Sh. CN Muralidhar the Branch Manager,

of VV Market, Mysore at the relevant time is that an amount

of Rs. 15000/- was advanced to Sh. Shankar for purchase

of cattle on 26.04.1995 under term loan account No. 16/11

and on he reporting the death of the cattle purchased by

him when the insurance claim was lodged with M/s.

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED who

had issued policy it settled the claim for Rs. 7500.00 and

sent the same to the Bank through their letter dated

27.09.1995 and the I Party instead of crediting the said

amount to the said loan account No. 16/11 credited it to

the Personal Account of Sh. Shankar bearing SF Account

No. 9274 on 29.09.1995 and the said amount was withdrawn

by the Account Holder through withdrawal slip on

05.10.1995 and thereby the I Party deprived the bank from

adjusting that amount to the loan account and enabled

the account holder to withdraw that money and thereby

he committed gross misconduct as per clause 19.5(j) of

the Bipartite Settlement. In support of this Charge and

oral evidence of MW 1 the II Party placed reliance on

the entry in the term loan ledger Ex. M-20 (a); the letter

addressed by the I Party to M/s. UNITED INDIA

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED dated 23.08.1995

requesting to send the claim form reporting death of animal;

the letter addressed by I Party dated 30.08.1995 to the

1064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

enclosing the claim form duly signed by the veterinary

doctor alongwith a Tag with a request to settle the claim;

clearing credit slip dated 28.09.1995 received from insurance

company through their letter dated 27.09.1995; extract of

saving fund account No. 9274; withdrawal slip dated

05.10.1995 for withdrawal of Rs. 12400.00 by Sh. Shankar

which are marked as Ex M-6, 7, 21, 22 and 23 respectively.

These documentary evidence do support the allegation

of the Charge and the oral evidence given by MW 1. Infact

there is no dispute as to the fact that Sh. Shankar was

sanctioned with a loan of Rs.15000.00 for purchase of cattle

and same was being secured by the Insurance Policy

issued by Ms/. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY

LIMITED and on report of death of the cattle the insurance

claim was being settled at Rs. 7500.00 and same sent by

the Insurance Company was being credited to the savings

fund account of the borrower but it appears to be defence

of I Party that the procedure adopted in the bank was to

credit the insurance amount to the SF account and then to

adjust it to the loan balance and accordingly he had

arranged to deposit the insurance amount to the SF

account of the borrower and as Bank Officer, Assistant

Manager and Manager were being superior in rank to him

if at all the credit of the insurance amount to SF account of

the borrower was against the procedure adopted by the

bank they would have raised objection and having not

raised any objection the Branch Manager to take revenge

against him at a subsequent stage managed to foist such

a case against him. When the Bank advances loan for

purchase of cattle and insist to insure the cattle and pay

the insurance premium debiting it to the loan account of

the borrower it is a common sense that the cattle is insured

to secure the loan advanced to the customer as such when

the cattle dies and insurance claim is made that has to go

to the bank unless the borrower clear off the loan amount.

Therefore the defence that there was no rule that the

insurance claim should be credited to the loan account

and there was a procedure to credit the same to the

personal SF account of the borrower is unacceptable. The

learned advocate appearing for the I Party referring to the

admission of MW 1(M) in his cross-examination that if

insured finance motor vehicle met with the accident and

repaired at the garage the insurance amount received by

the bank will be paid to the garage tried to submit that the

insurance amount was not to be adjusted to the loan

account. With due respect to the learned advocate for

the I party there is a lot of difference in respect of insured

motor vehicle repaired at a garage and the death of insured

cattle because in the case of motor vehicle met with

accident being repairable it is not extinguished whereas in

case of death of a cattle it extinguishes and there is no

question of paying the insurance claim amount to any one

except to the borrower in case he had cleared the loan

amount or to the bank in case the loan amount is not yet

cleared. In the instant case admittedly the I Party was

aware the loan advanced to Sh. Shankar was still

outstanding as admitted by himself as such he was

expected to credit the insurance claim amount to the loan

account instead of the personal SF account of the borrower

which enabled the borrower to withdraw and there by

resulting in loss to the bank. As far as the second portion

of the Charge that I Party destroyed all the correspondence

with the insurance company there being no evidence and

only because they were not found such allegation being

made against him that part of the Charge cannot be held

as proved. In the result, I arrived at conclusion that the II

Party having succeeded in establishing this Charge except

the latter portion regarding destruction of the relevant

correspondence with the insurance company.

12.

As per Charge No. 2 and the evidence of MW 1 Smt.

Puttatayamma was financed on 13.05.1993 for purchase of

cattle to the tune of Rs. 15000.00 and the cattle purchased

were insured with M/s. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED and on she reporting the death of

the cattle and laying claim for the insurance amount it was

settled for Rs. 10000.00 and same was sent through cheque

dated 15.06.1994 to the Bank and the I Party though the

loan account was outstanding credited to the savings fund

account of Smt. Puttatayamma on 18.06.1994 enabling her

to withdraw the same on 21.06.1994 and thereby the I Party

deprived the bank from adjusting that amount to the loan

account and enabled the account holder to withdraw that

money and thereby he committed gross misconduct as

per clause 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement. In support of

this Charge and evidence of MW 1 the II Party places

reliance on relevant entry in term loan ledger at Ex. M-

24(a); letter addressed by the I party to M/s. UNITED

INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED requesting to

send the claim form reporting the death of cattle; letter

addressed by the I party to M/s. UNITED INDIA

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED dated 25.05.1994

forwaridng claim form duly filled and the tag with a request

to settle the claim; covering letter received from M/s.

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED dated

15.06.1994 enclosing cheque for Rs. 10000.00 of the same

date; extract of protested advance register of borrower

Smt. Parvathamma showing the said loan account was

still outstanding when the insurance amount was settled;

extract of SF account bearing account No. 8604; clearing

credit slip dated 17.06.1994 for crediting the insurance

amount of Rs. 10000.00 to the SF account of Smt.

Puttatayamma and withdrawal slip dated 21.06.1994 having

withdrawn the said amount of Rs. 10000.00 by Smt.

Puttatayamma which are marked as Ex. M – 8, 9, 10, 25, 26,

27 and 28 respectively. These documentary evidence do

support the allegation of the Charge and the oral evidence

given by MW 1. Infact there being no dispute as to the

fact that Smt. Puttatayamma was sanctioned with a loan of

Rs.15000.00 for purchase of cattle and same was being

secured by the Insurance Policy issued by Ms/. UNITED

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1065

INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED on report of

death of the cattle the insurance claim was being settled at

Rs. 10000.00 and same sent by the Insurance Company

was being credited to the savings fund account of the

borrower. Therefore the defence of the I Party as far as

this transaction is also concerned similar to the Charge

No. 1 for the same reasons assigned by me for Charge No. 1

the same being not acceptable this Charge is also has to

be held as proved except the latter portion of the Charge

regarding destruction of the relevant correspondence with

the insurance company.

13.

As per Charge No. 3 (a) and 3 (b) and the evidence

of MW 1 Smt. Mahadevamma was sanctioned loan of

Rs. 9750.00 on 27.11.1991 for purchase of cattle and same

was insured with M/s. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED and on she reporting the death of

the cattle and laying the claim on the insurance company

it settled the claim for Rs. 7000.00 and forwarded the cheque

for that amount to the Bank and the I Party though the

loan amount was outstanding he credited it to SF Account

7881 instead of crediting it to her loan account and then

out of that amount he transferred Rs. 3000.00 to term loan

account to 267/8 of Sh. Basavanna, Rs. 1900.00 to term

loan account 275/8 of Sh. Shankar and Rs. 2100.00 to the

term loan account 277/8 of Sh. Madaiah without any

authority by himself and again I Party lodged a insurance

claim on 21.09.1994 and the insurance company settling

the claim for Rs. 7000.00 under their letter dated 31.10.1994

forwarded the cheque for the said amount and I Party

instead of crediting it to the loan account credited it to SF

account of the borrower on 08.11.1994 and subsequently

without any authorisation on 09.11.1994 transferred it to

SF account of Sh. B Nagaraju the Insurance Agent and

thereby the I Party deprived the bank from adjusting that

amount to the loan account and enabled the insurance

agent Sh. B Nagaraju to withdraw that money and thereby

he committed gross misconduct as per clause 19.5(j) of

the Bipartite Settlement . In respect of these Charges and

the evidence of MW 1 the II party has placed reliance on

the entry in the loan ledger folio 245/8 Ex M-24(d); letter

addressed by I party to M/s UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED dated 03.09.1994 to settle the claim

reporting the death of the insured cattle; letter addressed

by the I Party to the insurance company enclosing claim

forms, tag with a request to settle the claim; extract of

protested advanced register of the borrower of

Smt. Mahadevamma showing the loan being outstanding;

clearing credit slip dated 19.03.1993 for crediting the

insurance amount to SF account of Smt. Mahadevamma;

debit transfer voucher dated 22.03.1993 for Rs. 7000.00

debited to Smt. Mahadevamma, SF Account; credit transfer

voucher dated 22.03.1993 for Rs. 1900.00 to term loan

account of Sh. Shankar (folio No. 275/8); credit transfer

voucher dated 22.03.1993 for Rs. 2100.00 to term loan

account of Sh. Madaiah (folio No. 277/8); the letter of the

Ms. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

dated 31.10.1994 forwarding cheque of Rs. 7000.00

dated 31.10.1994 which are got marked as Ex M – 11,

12, 31, 32, 33 and 12 respectively. These documentary

evidence do support these Charge under 3(a) and 3(b)

and the defence put forward for the I Party similar to

Charge No. 1 as far as these Charges are also concerned

for the reasons assigned by me while considering Charge

No. 1 being not acceptable this Charge is also held as

proved except the portion that destroying the

correspondence with the insurance company.

14.

As per Charge No. 4 and the evidence of MW 1 (M)

Sh. Shankar under loan account no. 275/8 was sanctioned

Rs. 10000.00 for purchase of cattle on 15.06.1992 and the

said cattle were insured with M/s. NEW INDIA

ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED and on borrower

reporting the death of the cattle the I Party laid claim

with the insurance company and the insurance company

settled it for Rs. 7000.00 and forwarded a cheque dated

04.03.1994 and the I party credited it to NPA account of

the borrower and after adjusting the loan balcne of Rs.

3511.00 transferred the remaining amount to term loan

account of Sh. Madaiah without proper authority from

the account holder by authorising himself. In support of

this Charge and the evidence of MW 1 the II party has

placed reliance on the entry in term loan ledger No. 275/

8 marked at Ex M-24(f); discharge voucher signed by the I

Party for receipt of cheque dated 04.03.1994 for Rs. 7000.00;

clearing credit voucher crediting insurance claim amount

of Rs. 7000.00 to NPA account of Sh. Shankar; extract of

protested advance register in respect of sh. Shankar

showing outstanding amount of Rs. 3511.00 and debit

transfer voucher dated 07.03.1994 transferring Rs. 3511.00

from Term Loan NPA account of Sh. Shankar to term loan

account of Sh. Madaiah marked as Ex M- 34, 35, 36 and 37

respectively. Because the debit transfer voucher dated

07.03.1994/Ex M-37 suggest the I Party himself having

authorised the transfer from NPA account of Sh. Shankar

to the account of Sh. Madaiah and thereby the I Party

deprived the bank from adjusting that amount to the loan

account and enabled the account holder to withdraw that

money and thereby he committed gross misconduct as

per clause 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement. In the result,

I arrived at conclusion of answering that this Charge is

also proved and the defence put forward for the I Party

similar to Charge No. 1 as far as this Charge is also

concerned for the reasons assigned by me while

considering Charge No. 1 being not acceptable this Charge

is also held as proved except the portion that destroying

the correspondence with the insurance company.

15.

As per Charge No. 5 and the evidence of MW 1

Sh. K Guruswamy who was sanctioned with loan of

Rs. 15000.00 on 03.09.1993 for purchase of cattle under term

loan ledger folio No. 319/8 and same were insured with

M/s. United India Insurance Company and on report of

1066

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the death by the borrower the I party forwarded claim to

the insurance company and the insurance company while

settling the claim for Rs. 7500.00 forwarded cheque for the

said amount dated 06.07.1995 and I party though the

account was running irregular instead of crediting that

amount to the loan account credited it to borrowers SF

account No. 8236 which came to be withdrawn

subsequently by him and thereby the I Party deprived the

bank from adjusting that amount to the loan account and

enabled the account holder to withdraw that money and

thereby he committed gross misconduct as per clause 19.5(j)

of the Bipartite Settlement. In support of this Charge and

evidence of MW 1 the II party has placed reliance on

entry in term loan ledger sheet folio No. 319/8 marked as

Ex M-24(g); letter dated 26.06.1995 addressed to M/s.

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

signed by the I party for manager requesting for claim

forms reporting death of cattle; letter dated 29.06.1995

addressed to M/s. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED signed by the I Party for manager

enclosing the claim form requesting to settle the claim;

letter dated 07.07.1995 of M/s. UNITED INDIA

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED forwarding cheque

dated 06.07.1995; clearing credit slip dated 15.07.1995

crediting the insurance claim amount Rs. 7500.00 to SF

account No. 8736 of the borrower and extract of SF

Account No. 8736 of the borrower marked as Ex M- 14,

15, 16, 38 and 39 respectively. These documentary

evidence do support this Charge under 5 and the defence

put

forward

for

the

I Party similar to Charge No. 1 as far as this Charges is

also concerned for the reasons assigned by me while

considering Charge No. 1 being not acceptable this Charge

is also held as proved except the portion that destroying

the correspondence with the insurance company.

16.

As per Charge No. 6 and the evidence of MW 1 (M)

Sh. V. S. Nagendra was sanctioned term loan of Rs. 15000.00

on 26.05.1993 for purchase of cattle and same were insured

with NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

and on borrower reporting death of the cattle the I party

when laid claim with the insurance company the company

settled the claim for Rs. 7500.00 and forwarded the cheque

for the said amount dated 14.06.1994 and the I Party

though the loan account was outstanding credited it to

SF account No. 8336 of the borrower on 18.06.1994

which is subsequently withdrawn through withdrawal slip

and thereby the I Party deprived the bank from adjusting

that amount to the loan account and enabled the account

holder to withdraw that money and thereby he committed

gross misconduct as per clause 19.5(j) of the Bipartite

Settlement. In support of this Charge and evidence of

MW 1 the II Party placed reliance on the entry in term

loan ledger folio No. 301/8 at Ex M-24 (i); letter dated

01.02.1999 addressed by the Senior Division Manager to

the Manager, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office,

Bangalore informing that the settlement of claim in respect

of Sh. V. S. Nagendra was received on 05.01.1999 and as

they are not able to trace the claim file as they have settled

the claim more than four years back and are enclosing

attested copy of discharge voucher signed by the Manager

of VV Market Branch, Mysore; photocopy of Discharge

voucher received from M/s. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED signed by the I Party for having

received Rs. 7500.00; extract of protested advance register

pertaining to the borrower; clearing credit slip dated

17.06.1994 crediting the insurance claim amount of

Rs. 7500.00 to SF Account No. 8366; withdrawal slip of

Rs. 7500.00 by Sh. V. S. Nagendra/ borrower; SF Ledger

sheet in respect of the borrower got marked as Ex M- 40 to

45 respectively. These documentary evidence do support

this Charge No. 6 and the defence put forward for the I

Party similar to Charge No. 1 as far as this Charges is also

concerned for the reasons assigned by me while

considering Charge No. 1 being not acceptable this Charge

is also held as proved except the portion that destroying

the correspondence with the insurance company.

17.

As per the Charge No. 7 and the evidence of MW 1

(M) Sh. B. Basavanna was sanctioned with loan of

Rs. 10000.00 for purchase of cattle and same was insured with

M/s. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

and on report of death of the cattle by the borrower the I

party placed claim with the insurance company and the

insurance company settling the claim by Rs. 7000.00 sent

cheque for the said amount dated 19.03.1993 and though

the loan amount was outstanding the I party instead of

crediting it to loan account credited it to his SF account

No. 8555 on 30.03.1993 and subsequently transferred to

SF No. 8005 of Sh. B. Nagaraju, Insurance Agent on

03.04.1993 and thereby the I Party deprived the bank from

adjusting that amount to the loan account and enabled

Sh. B. Nagaraju an insurance agent to withdraw that money

and thereby he committed gross misconduct as per clause

19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement. In support of this Charge

and evidence of MW 1 (m) the II party has placed reliance

on entry in the term loan ledger folio No. 267/8 marked as

Ex M-24(k) ; letter dated 10.02.1993 addressed to the

Insurance company requesting for claim forms signed by

the I party for Manager; letter dated 10.03.1993 forwarding

the claim form signed by the I party for Manager; letter

dated 22.03.1993 form M/s. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED enclosing cheque for Rs. 7000.00

dated 19.03.1993; extract of protest advanced register in

respect of the borrower showing the loan account being

outstanding; clearing credit slip dated 27.03.1993 crediting

insurance claim amount to SF account of borrower account

No. 8555; debit transfer voucher dated 03.04.1993 for Rs.

7000.00 debiting SF account No. 8555 and crediting it to

SF Account No. 8555 to Sh. B. Nagaraju, Insurance Agent

and credit transfer voucher dated 03.04.1993 crediting Rs.

7000.00 to SF Account of Sh. B. Nagaraju, Insurance Agent

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1067

got marked as Ex M-17 to 19 and 46 to 49 respectively.

These documentary evidence do support this Charge No.

7 and the defence put forward for the I Party similar to

Charge No. 1 as far as this Charges is also concerned for

the reasons assigned by me while considering Charge No.

1 being not acceptable this Charge is also held as proved

except the portion that destroying the correspondence

with the insurance company.

18.

In view of the above discussion, I have arrived at

conclusion the II party having proved all the seven Charges

except the second portion those Charges regarding

destruction of insurance correspondence by the I Party.

19.

Point No. 2 and 3 : The Charges proved against the

I Party that he who was dealing with loan accounts having

credited the insurance claim made on behalf of the

borrowers to their respective SF Account instead of their

loan accounts though the loans were outstanding enabling

them to withdraw that amount which was infact to be

adjusted by the Bank towards outstanding loan and also

without any authority having transferred the amount from

the SF account of the borrowers to some other SF Accounts

and the account of the insurance agent being acts

prejudicial to the interest of the Bank likely to involve the

bank in serious loss, the punishment of removal from

service needs no interference. In my opinion any lenient

view taken under the circumstances may be an

encouragement to the bank employees as such I find no

reason to interfere in the punishment imposed by the

Disciplinary Authority upheld by the Appellate Authority.

In the result, I have arrived at conclusion the punishment

imposed is legal and justified and I party is not entitle for

any relief. Under the circumstances, I pass the following.

ORDER

The management of Punjab National Bank is justified in

removing Sh. Dilip S Bhende, Ex – Special Assistant from

the services of the Bank w.e.f. 26.04.2000 and it needs no

interference and he is not entitle for any relief.

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE – I

Witnesses examined on behalf of II Party:

MW 1 (M) – Sh. C. N. Muralidhara, Senior Manager

MW 2 (M) – Sh. Jayanth N, Administrative Officer,

United India Ins. Co. Ltd.,

MW 3 (M) – Sh. Bhaskar Reddy, Branch Manager, New

India Ass. Co. Ltd.,

MW 4 (M) – Sh. Shivamadappa, Branch Manager,

United India Ins. Co. Ltd.,

Witnesses examined on behalf of I Party:

WW 1(M) – Sh. Dilip S Bhende, I Party

Documents exhibited on behalf of II Party/Management:

Ex M – 1

- Letter addressed by Sh. S. N. Narayanan,

Senior Divisional Manager, NIAC to II Party

in the year 2002

Ex M – 1(a) - Signature of Sh. S. N. Narayanan

Ex M – 2

- Head Office Circulars dated 05.10.1994 and

27.04.2007

Ex M – 3

- Letter dated 25.07.2006 addressed by

Sh. P. B. Nayak, Divisional Manager to the

Manager, PNB, Mysore

Ex M -3(a)

- Signature of Sh. P. B. Nayak

Ex M – 4

- Letter dated 17.01.1995 addressed to II

Party by the Branch Manager

Ex M – 5

- Copies of claim cheque

Ex M – 6

- Letter addressed by Punjab National Bank

to UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED dated 23.08.1995

Ex M – 7

- Letter of II Party dated 30.08.1995 informing

the UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED enclosing claim form,

Veterinary Certificate and Tag 0194 for their

reference

Ex M – 8

- Letter dated 07.05.1994 requesting UNITED

INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

for claim form of borrower Smt.

Puttathayamma

Ex M – 9

- Letter of PNB dated 25.05.1994 to UNITED

INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

enclosing claim form, post-mortem report

and tag for reference relating to Smt.

Puttathayamma

Ex M – 10

- Letter of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED to PNB dated

15.06.1994 settling the claim cheque for

Rs. 10,000.00

Ex M – 11

- Letter of PNB to Br. Manager, UNITED

INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

dated 03.09.1994 requesting for claim form

relating to Smt. Mahadevamma

Ex M – 12

- Letter from PNB to UNITED INDIA

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED dated

21.09.1994 enclosing Veterinary certificate,

claim papers, Post-mortem Report relating

to Smt. Mahadevamma

Ex M – 13

- Letter from UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED to PNB dated

31.10.1994 settling the claim of Rs. 7,000.00

Ex M – 14

- Letter of PNB to UNITED INDIA

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED dated

1068

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

26.06.1995 relating to one Sh. Guruswamy

requesting for claim forms to complete the

formalities

Ex M – 15

- Letter of PNB to UNITED INDIA

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED dated

29.06.1995 submitting claim form, veterinary

certificate

and

tag

relating

Sh. Guruswamy

Ex M – 16

- Letter of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED to PNB dated

07.07.1995 settling the cheque for

Rs. 7500.00

Ex M – 17 - Letter of PNB to UNITED INDIA

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED dated

10.02.1993 requesting to send claim forms

for Tag No. 15585 and Policy No. 70601/

47/12/11/545/95

Ex M – 18 - Letter of PNB to UNITED INDIA

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED dated

10.03.1993 enclosing claim form relating

to the claim of Sh. Basavanna

Ex M – 19 - Letter of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED to PNB dated

22.03.1993 enclosing the cheque of

Rs. 7000.00

Ex M – 20

- Extract of term loan ledger in respect of

Sh. Shankar from the year 1995

Ex M – 20(a)- Folio No. 16

Ex M – 20(b) -

Signature of I Party

Ex M – 21 - Photocopy of the clearing credit slip of

Rs. 7,500.00 signed by I Party

Ex M – 22 - Photocopy of the Savings Fund Account

Sheet relating to Sh. Shankar, A/c No. 9274

for Rs. 7500.00

Ex M – 23

- Withdrawal slip dated 05.10.1995 for having

withdrawn Rs. 12,400.00 from Savings

Account of Sh. Shankar which includes

insurance claim amount of Rs. 7500.00

Ex M – 24

- Term Loan Ledger relating to Charge No. 2

Ex M – 24(a)- Loan entry in respect of Smt. Puttataiamma,

Page No. 297

Ex M – 24(b)

Signature of the I Party

Ex M – 24(c)- Loan entry in respect of Smt. Mahadevamma,

Page No. 245

Ex M – 24(d)

Signature of the I Party

Ex M – 24(e)- Loan entry in respect of Sh. Shankar, Page

No. 275

Ex M – 24(f)- Signature of the I Party

Ex M – 24(g)- Loan entry in respect of Sh. K Guruswamy,

Page No. 319

Ex M – 24(h)- Signature of the I Party

Ex M – 24(i)- Loan entry in respect of Sh. V S Nagendra,

Page No. 301

Ex M – 24(j)- Signature of the I Party

Ex M - 24(k)- Loan entry in respect of Sh. B Basavanna,

Page No. 267

Ex M – 25

- Ledger extract of protested advance register

pertaining to Smt. Puttathaiamma

Ex M – 26

- Photo copy of the savings bank ledger sheet

pertaining to Smt. Puttathaiamma, A/c No.

8604 showing credit of insurance claim

Ex M – 27

- Photo copy of the clearing credit slip dated

17.06.1994 for crediting the insurance claim

amount to Smt. Puttathaiamma Savings

Account No. 8604, Rs. 10,000.00 signed by

the I party

Ex M – 28

- Withdrawal slip dated 21.06.1994 for having

withdrawn Rs. 10,000.00 from A/c no. 8604

by Smt. Puttathaiamma and signed by the

I party having passed for payment

Ex M – 29

- Ledger extract of protested advance register

pertaining to Smt. Mahadevamma

Ex M – 30

- Attested Photo copy of the clearing

credit slip dated 19.03.1993 for crediting

the insurance claim amount to

Smt. Mahadevamma Savings Account No.

7881, Rs. 7,000.00 signed by the I party

Ex M – 31

- Attested Photo copy of the debit transfer

voucher dated 22.03.1993 for Rs. 7,000.00

debited to Smt. Mahadevamma Savings

Account signed by the I party

Ex M – 32

- Attested Photo copy of the credit transfer

voucher dated 22.03.1993 for Rs. 1,900.00

credited to term loan account of

Sh. Shankar (Folio No. 275/8) signed by

the I party

Ex M -33

- Attested Photo copy of the credit transfer

voucher dated 22.03.1993 for Rs. 2,100.00

credited to term loan account of

Sh. Madaiah (Folio No. 277/8) signed by

the I party

Ex M – 34

- Attested Photo copy of the discharge

voucher signed by the I party for receipt of

cheque dated 04.03.1994 for Rs. 7,000.00

Ex M – 35

- Attested Photo copy of the clearing credit

slip dated 19.03.1994 for crediting the

insurance claim amount to NPA account of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1069

Sh. Shankar, Rs. 7,000.00 signed by the

I party

Ex M – 36

- Ledger extract of protested advance register

pertaining to Sh. Shankar crediting excess

amount of Rs. 3,500.00 to term loan account

of Sh. Madaiah without authority of the

borrower signed by I party at two places

one for authorizing the ledger sheet and

second for closure of the account

Ex M – 37

- Attested Photo copy of the debit transfer

voucher dated 07.03.1994 for Rs. 3,511.00

from term loan NPA account of Sh. Shankar

to term loan account of Sh. Madaiah,

signed by the I party

Ex M – 38

- Attested Photo copy of the clearing credit

slip dated 15.07.1995 for crediting the

insurance claim amount to savings fund

account of Sh. Guruswamy, Rs. 7,500.00

Ex M – 39

- Attested Photo copy of saving fund

Account No. 8736 ledger sheet in respect

of Sh. K Guruswamy

Ex M – 40

- Attested Photo copy of the letter dated

01.02.1999 of New India Assurance

Company Limited informing therein that the

discharge voucher was duly signed by the

I party

Ex M – 41

- Attested Photo copy of the discharge

voucher for Rs. 7,500.00 duly discharged

and signed in token of having received the

cheque from the insurance company by the

I party with his signature

Ex M – 42

- Ledger extract of protested advance register

pertaining to Sh. V S Nagendra

Ex M – 43

- Attested Photo copy of the clearing credit

slip dated 17.06.1994 for crediting the

insurance claim amount to savings fund

account of Sh. V S Nagendra, savings

account No. 8366 a sum of Rs. 7,500.00

signed by the I party

Ex M – 44

- Withdrawal slip dated 21.06.1994 for having

withdrawn Rs. 7,500.00 from Savings

Account of Sh. V S Nagendra authorized

by I party with his signature

Ex M – 45

- Attested Photo copy of saving fund

Account No. 8366 ledger sheet in respect

of Sh. V S Nagendra

Ex M – 46

- Ledger extract of protested advance register

pertaining to Sh. B Basavanna

Ex M – 47

- Attested Photo copy of the clearing credit

slip dated 27.03.1993 for crediting the

insurance claim amount to savings fund

account of Sh. B Basavanna, savings

account No. 8555 a sum of Rs. 7,000.00

signed by the I party

Ex M – 48

- Attested Photo copy of the debit transfer

voucher dated 03.04.1993 for Rs. 7,000.00

debiting savings fund account No. 8555

and crediting to Saving Fund Account No.

8005 of Sh. B Nagaraju insurance Agent

signed by the I party

Ex M – 49 - Attested Photo copy of the Credit transfer

voucher dated 03.04.1993 for Rs. 7,000.00

crediting to savings fund account of Sh. B.

Nagaraju, Insurance Agent signed by I

party for having passed the debit voucher

Ex M – 50 - Office copy of the Charge sheet issued to

the I party dated 09.03.1999

Ex M – 51 - Original final order by the Disciplinary

Authority imposing punishment dated

26.04.2000

Ex M – 52

- Order rejecting the appeal filed by the I

party dated 22.05.2000 passed by the

Appellate Authority on 28.11.2000

Ex M – 53 - Register now shown to me is in relation

to destruction of the Old Records

Ex M – 54 - Copy of book of instructions wherein

period of preservation of records is

prescribed

Ex M – 55 - Copies of Investigation Report filed by Sh.

K S Krishna Murthy dated 17.11.1998

Ex M – 56

- Copies of Investigation Report filed by Sh.

K S Krishna Murthy dated 21.02.1999

Ex M -57

- Photostat copy of the withdrawal slip on

which I have permitted Smt. Puttatayamma

to withdraw the amount and it bears my

signature

Ex M – 58

- Photo copy of the discharge voucher

showing the amount to be withdrawn with

permission of the Sh. Nagendra

Ex M – 59

- Photostat copy of Protested Advance

Documents exhibited on behalf of I Party:

W - 1

- Letter addressed by MW 1 to the I party

dated 17.07.1998

W - 2 series- Photostat copy of the Office Orders issued

on 08.01.1991, 28.06.1991, 01.02.1994,

29.11.1995 attested by me as True Copies

W – 3

- Copy of the proceedings of the enquiry

now shown to me out of the five signatures

W – 3(a)

- Signature of Sh. A Gururaj

1070

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

W – 3(b)

- Signature of Sh. C S Muralidhara

W – 3(c)

- Signature of Sh. Dilip S Bhende

W – 4

- Letter dated 17.01.1995 addressed to II

Party by the Branch Manager

W – 5

- Letter dated 22.08.1995 addressed by

II Party to the Branch Manager of UNITED

INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

W – 6

- Letter dated 30.08.1995 addressed by II

Party to the Branch Manager of UNITED

INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

W – 7

- Letter dated 07.05.1994 requesting

UNITED

INDIA

INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED for claim form of

borrower Smt. Puttathayamma

W – 8

- Letter of PNB dated 25.05.1994 to

UNITED

INDIA

INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED enclosing claim

form, post-mortem report and tag for

reference relating to Smt. Puttathayamma

W – 9

- Letter of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED to PNB dated

15.06.1994 settling the claim cheque for

Rs. 10,000.00

W – 10

- Letter of PNB to Br. Manager, UNITED

INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

dated 03.09.1994 requesting for claim form

relating to Smt. Mahadevamma

W – 11

- Letter from PNB to UNITED INDIA

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED dated

21.09.1994 enclosing Veterinary certificate,

claim papers, Post-mortem Report relating

to Smt. Mahadevamma

W – 12

- Letter from UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED to PNB dated

31.10.1994 settling the claim of Rs. 7,000.00

W – 13

- letter of PNB to UNITED INDIA

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED dated

26.06.1995 relating to one Sh. Guruswamy

requesting for claim forms to complete the

formalities

W - 14

- Letter of PNB to UNITED INDIA

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED dated

29.06.1995 submitting claim form, veterinary

certificate

and

tag

relating

Sh. Guruswamy

W – 15

- Letter of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED to PNB dated

07.07.1995 settling the cheque for

Rs. 7500.00

W – 16

- Letter of PNB to UNITED INDIA

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED dated

10.02.1993 requesting to send claim forms

for Tag No. 15585 and Policy No. 70601/47/

12/11/545/95

W – 17

- Letter of PNB to UNITED INDIA

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED dated

10.03.1993 enclosing claim form relating to

the claim of Sh. Basavanna

W – 18

- Letter of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED to PNB dated

22.03.1993 enclosing the cheque of

Rs. 7000.00

W – 19

- Credit voucher dated 12.04.1994

W – 20

- Credit voucher pertaining to SF Account

7944

W – 21

- Credit voucher pertaining to SF Account

8796

W – 22

- Office Copy of my letters addressed to the

Manager, VV Market Branch, Mysore dated

03.06.1999

W – 23

- Letter addressed to Enquiry Officer dated

03.06.1999

W – 24

- Letter addressed to Enquiry Officer dated

07.08.1999

W – 25

- Letter received from the Disciplinary

Authority dated 13.01.2000

W – 26

- Copy of my letter to Disciplinary Authority

dated 24.01.2000

W – 27

- Letter received by me from the Disciplinary

Authority proposing punishment dated

06.04.2000

W – 28

- letter received from the Disciplinary

Authority for Personal hearing dated

13.04.2000

W – 29

- Copy of my letter addressed to Disciplinary

Authority dated 19.04.2000

W – 30

- Order received from Disciplinary Authority

dated 26.04.2000

W – 31

- Copy of appeal memo addressed by me to

Appellate Authority dated 22.05.2000

W – 32

- Letter received by me from Zonal Office,

Chennai dated 29.05.2000

W - 33

- Letter received by me dated 05.12.2000 from

Regional Office, Bangalore with copy of

Order dated 28.11.2000

W – 34

- Copy of order of the Appellate Authority

received by me dated 28.11.2000

W – 35

- Extract of TL Loan Accounts pertaining to

Sh. Shankar, Sh. Puttatayamma, Sh.

Mahadevamma, Sh. Shankar, Sh. K

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1071

Guruswamy, Sh. P S Nagendra and Sh B.

Basavanna

W – 36

- Extract of TL Loan Accounts pertaining

to Smt. Puttatayamma

W – 37

- Extract of TL Loan Accounts pertaining

to Smt. Mahadevamma

W – 38

- Extract of TL Loan Accounts pertaining

to Sh. Shankar

W – 39

Extract of TL Loan Accounts pertaining

to Sh. K Guruswamy

W – 40

Extract of TL Loan Accounts pertaining

to Sh. P S Nagendra

W – 41

Extract of TL Loan Accounts pertaining

to Sh. B Basavanna

W – 42

Carbon copy of proceedings dated

31.08.1999

W – 43

Copy of advocates notice issued to II party

dated 09.07.2001

W – 44

Postal acknowledgement regarding service

of legal notice dated 09.07.2001

W – 45

Copy of my letter addressed to II Party

dated 08.11.2001

W – 46

Copy of letter addressed by Regional

Office, Bangalore to Mysore Main Branch

in reply to my letter dated 08.11.2001

ubZ fnYyh] 26 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 413-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWiQ

VsyhdE;qfuds'kal] eè; izns'k l£dy 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@25@01) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@410@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2015

S.O. 413.—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.

CGIT/LC/R/25/01) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Department of

Telecommunications, MP Circle and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 25/02/2015.

[No. L-40012/410/2000-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/25/01

Shri Rahis Khan,

S/o Shri Chand Khan,

C/o Bhurekhan Chudiwal,

Cantt. Gulabganj, Khejra Road,

Guna

...Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. Of Telecommunications,

Hoshangabad Road,

MP Circle,

Bhopal

District Engineer (Phones),

Guna,

Distt. Guna

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 23rd day of January, 2015

As per letter dated 27-12-2000 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/

410/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of District

Engineer (Phones), Guna in terminating Shri Rahis

Khan S/o Chand Khan w.e.f. 21-2-98 is justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at

Pages 2/1 to 2/7. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

initially appointed on 1-10-84 as labour on daily wages.

He was continuously working without break till 20-2-98.

His services were terminated orally without issuing any

notice. He was not paid salary in lieu of notice. The

workman was not paid retrenchment compensation. Any

reasons were not given for his termination by IInd party.

That he continuously worked more than 11 years. He

completed 240 days during each of the calendar year. While

terminating his services, seniority list was not prepared

or displayed as per Rule 77 of the ID Rules 1957. Workman

had filed original application No. 572/98 before CAT,

Jabalpur, it was dismissed for want of jurisdiction

observing that remedy under ID Act was available.

Workman submits that principles of last come first

go was not complied. Employees appointed subsequent

too him were continued on work. IInd party not considered

his case for granting temporary status as per circular dated

1-11-1995. Said circular was issued as per directions issued

1072

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

by Apex Court in case of daily rated casual labour Vrs

Union of India reported in AIR-87-SC-2342. The ratio

held in the case is reproduced. It is reiterated that IInd

party violated provisions of ID Act. He was not provided

re-employment and thereby violated Section 25-F, G, H

of ID Act. On such grounds, workman is praying for his

reinstatement with full back wages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/

5. The claim of workman is opposed. That workman was

never appointed by IInd party. In 1987, appointing

authority for workman was District Engineer, Telephone

and not SDO(T). As per policy of the management,

appointments were prohibited from 1985. As workman

was not appointed on any post on daily wages, there was

no muster roll of temporary employees.

IInd party submits that for petty work, time bound

work, management was engaging few labours on piece

rate. On completion of such work, appointment was taken

automatically. Workman never completed 240 days service

in any calendar year. As workman did not complete 240

days service, there was no question of issuing notice,

paying compensation, preparing seniority list. Workman

was engaged on contract basis through tender in 1998.

There was no question of violation of Section 25 H of

ID Act. Workman was neither appointed nor terminated

by the management in 1999. On such ground, IInd party

prays that reference be answered in it is favour.

Ist party submitted rejoinder at Page 7/2 to 7/4

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 action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of District engineer(Phones),

Guna in terminating shri Rahis Khan

S/o Chand Khan w.e.f. 21-2-98 is

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Workman has raised dispute challenging his

termination in violation of Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act.

IInd party filing Written Statement has denied all material

contentions of workman.

Workman filed his affidavit. Workman has stated

that he was initially engaged on daily wages in the

Telephone Department , Guna from 1-10-84. He

continuously worked for more than 14 years. He was paid

monthly wages obtaining signatures on receipts. During

initial period, he was paid weekly wages. That he completed

240 days continuous service. On 23-2-98, he had requested

for granting temporary status as telephone mechanic.

Thereafter his services were terminated orally. In his

cross-examination, workman says the post was not

advertised. His name was sponsored through Employment

Exchange. He has not produced documents in that regard.

SDO had take his oral interview. Appointment letter was

not issued to him. the appointment were made as per order

of GTO. He had not seen the order. He was orally

appointed by SDO, Guna. He was working under Line

Inspector alongwith Munna Singh, Kumraj Motiram. He

was also working at Bina. First he worked under SIT,

Motiram in December 1987. He was not engaged for

special work. He denies suggestion that he had not

completed 240 days continuous service.

10.

The evidence of workman is supported by witness

Ghansham and Govindram. That workman was working

with them. Ghansham in his cross-examination says that

he had come for his evidence alongwith workman.

Workman was doing work of digging ditches, erecting

poles and laying cable. They were not engaged for special

work. Govindram in his cross says appointment letter was

not given to him. he was paid salary by Junior Engineer.

Only his signature was obtained but receipt was not

prepared. He and Rahis Khan were doing work of laying

cables, digging ditches. Etc. he denies that Rahis Khan

was not doing any work in the department.

11.

Management’s witness Shri Rajendra Prasad in his

affidavit supported contentions of management that the

workman was not appointed in 1984. He did not work in

the department. He not completed 240days in any of the

calendar year. In his cross-examination, management’s

witness says he has no knowledge about workman doing

petty work in the department. He denies that the daily

wage employees were engaged in the deptt. during 1984

to 98. He was working at Gwalior Division during said

period. Any documents are not produced in support of

his evidence. MW-2 Gokul Prasad filed affidavit states

document, muster roll Exhibit W-1 doesnot bear his

signature. It is bogus. However in his cross he says that

workman Rahis Khan, Ghansham and Govind-ram were

working as casual labour with him. He was promoted as

phone mechanic in 1995. That evidence of management’s

witness supports evidence of workman.

12.

Management’s witness Gokul Prasad filed affidavit

that he was not competent to issue copy of muster roll.

The documents doesnot bear his signature. The document

is bogus. However in his cross-examination, said witness

says he is working in Telephone Deptt.from 1979. After 10

years, he was given regular appointment as labour. As a

casual labour, he was doing work of digging ditches, laying

cables, erecting poles. As a phone mechanic, he was

looking the driving engine. He was also distributing

correspondence. He was doing work of connecting lines.

In 1990, he was promoted as lineman. He was doing work

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1073

of fault removal. The work of digging ditches were carried

from available labours. Their wages were paid by

department. He was unable to tell whether Rahis Khan,

Ghansham Singh, Govindram worked more than 240 days.

Management has not produced any kind of documents

like muster roll maintained during 87 to 99. The evidence

of workman is supported by two witnesses examined in

the case. The evidence of management’s witness No.1

based on documents but document are not produced.

Exhibit W-1 is copy of muster roll for the month Jan-90.

The name of workman is appearing at Sl.No.1. The evidence

of workman corroborated by two witnesses whereas

evidence of management’s witness No.1 is not supported

by documents. He has no personal knowledge. The

evidence of management’s witness No.2 that work of

digging ditches for line fault was carried from available

labours. The department was paying their wages. Any

documentary evidence is not produced. Under such

circumstances, I donot find reason to disbelieve evidence

of workman and his witnesses that workman was

continuously working from 1-10-84 to 20-2-98. Workman

was not served with notice. He was not paid retrenchment

compensation, seniority list of casual employees were not

prepared. Termination of workman is in violation of

Section 25-F, G of ID Act. Therefore 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 services of workman is in violation of Section

25-F, G, H of ID Act, question arises whether workman is

entitled for reinstatement with back wages. Learned

counsel for workman Shri Salunke submits that without

considering workman was continuously working for more

than 14 years, reinstatement with back wages be allowed.

In support of his argument, learned counsel placed reliance

on ratio held in

Case of Deepali Gundu Surwase versus Kranti Junior

Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and others reported in

2013(10)SCC 324. The facts of above cited case are

not available. The appellant in above cited case

was appointed as teacher in the Primary School run

by a Trust established and controlled by a family.

25 memos were issued to her before her suspension.

Exparte enquiry was conducted against her therefore

ratio held in above cited case cannot be applied to

case at hand.

Evidence in cross-examination is clear that he was engaged

on daily wages without following selection process. His

name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange.

The legal position is rather settled that for violation of

Section 25-F of ID Act, reinstatement cannot be allowed

to the employees engaged on daily wages dehors the

selection rules.

Next reliance is placed in ratio held in case of Ashok

Kumar Sharma versus Oberoi Flight services

reported in 2010(1) SCC 142. In above cited case,

workman had admitted guilt in writing about carrying

30 KLM soup spoons illegally in his shoe. The

compensation was enhanced from Rs. 60,000 to Rs.

2 Lakhs.

In above cited case, employee was working as loader

in flight services but in present case, workman was

engaged on daily wages as casual employee. The pleading

and evidence of workman are silent about wages paid to

him. The salary of loader working in flight services could

not be compared with casual employee like workman.

Therefore compensation at same rate would not be

justified. Considering workman was working as casual

employee for more than 14 years, his services are

terminated in violation of Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act, in

my considered view, compensation Rs. 1,50,000/- would be

appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.1.

14.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of District engineer

(Phones), Guna in terminating shri Rahis Khan S/o

Chaand Khan w.e.f. 21-2-98 is not proper.

(2)

IInd party management is directed to pay

compensation Rs. 1,50,000/- to the workman.

(3)

IInd party shall pay cost of Rs. 3000/- to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 414-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWiQ

VsyhdE;qfuds'kal] eè; izns'k l£dy 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@42@01) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@463@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2015

S.O. 414.—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.

CGIT/LC/R/42/01) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Department of

1074

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Telecommunications, MP Circle and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 25/02/2015.

[No. L-40012/463/2000-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/42/01

Shri Ghanshyam,

S/o Mangilal,

Vill. Khumbraj,

Bhawad Road,

Guna

...Workman

Versus

District Engineer(Phones),

Guna

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. Of Telecommunications,

Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 23rd day of January, 2015

As per letter dated 18-1-01 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/

463/2000-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Distt.

Engineer (Phones), Guna in terminating Shri

Ghanshyam Singh S/o Mangilal w.e.f. 1996 is

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page

3/1 to 3/7. Case of Ist party workman is that he was initially

appointed on 1-4-90 as labour on daily wages. He was

continuously working without break till 31-12-95. His

services were terminated orally without issuing any notice.

He was not paid salary in lieu of notice. The workman was

not paid retrenchment compensation. Any reasons were

not given for his termination by IInd party. That he

continuously worked more than 4 years. He completed

240 days during each of the calendar year. While

terminating his services, seniority list was not prepared

or displayed as per Rule 77 of the ID Rules 1957.Workman

had filed original application No. 318/2000 before CAT,

Jabalpur, it was dismissed for want of jurisdiction

observing that remedy under ID Act was available.

Workman submits that principles of last come first

go was not complied. Employees appointed subsequent

too him were continued on work. IInd party not

considered his case for granting temporary status as per

circular dated 1-11-1995. Said circular was issued as

per directions issued by Apex Court in case of daily rated

casual labour Vrs Union of India reported in AIR-87-SC-

2342. The ratio held in the case is reproduced. It is

reiterated that IInd party violated provisions of ID Act.

He was not provided re-employment and thereby violated

Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act. On such grounds, workman

is praying for his reinstatement with full back wages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/

2. The claim of workman is opposed. That workman was

never appointed by IInd party. Appointing authority for

workman was District Engineer, Telephone and not SDO(T).

As per policy of the management, appointments were

prohibited from 1985. As workman was not appointed on

any post on daily wages, there was no muster roll of

temporary employees.

IInd party submits that for petty work, time bound

work, management was engaging few labours on piece

rate. On completion of such work, appointment was taken

automatically. Workman never completed 240 days service

in any calendar year. As workman did not complete 240

days service, there was no question of issuing notice,

paying compensation, preparing seniority list. Workman

was engaged on contract basis through tender in 1998.

There was no question of violation of Section 25-H of ID

Act. Workman was neither appointed nor terminated by

the management in 1999. On such ground, IInd party prays

that reference be answered in it is favour.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management

In Negative

of Distt. Engineer(Phones), Guna in

terminating Shri Ghanshyam Singh S/o

Mangilal w.e.f. 1996 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Workman has raised dispute challenging his

termination in violation of Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act.

IInd party filing Written Statement has denied all material

contentions of workman.

Workman filed his affidavit. Workman has stated

that he was initially engaged on daily wages in the

Telephone Department, Guna from 1-4-90. He continuously

worked for 4 years 8 months. He was paid monthly wages

obtaining signatures on receipts. During initial period, he

was paid weekly wages. That he completed 240 days

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1075

continuous service. On 23-2-98, he had requested for

granting temporary status as telephone mechanic.

Thereafter his services were terminated orally. In his

cross-examination, workman says the post was not

advertised. His name was sponsored through Employment

Exchange. He has not produced documents in that regard.

SDO had take his oral interview. Appointment letter was

not issued to him. The appointment were made as per

order of GTO. He had not seen the order. He was orally

appointed by SDO, Guna. He was working under Line

Inspector alongwith Munna Singh, Kumraj Motiram. He

was also working at Bina. First he worked under SIT,

Motiram in December 1987. He was not engaged for

special work. He denies suggestion that he had not

completed 240 days continuous service.

The evidence of workman is supported by witness

Rahis Khan and Govindram. That workman was working

with them. Govindram in his cross says that he had come

for his evidence alongwith workman. Workman was doing

work of digging ditches, erecting poles and laying cable.

They were not engaged for special work. Govindram in his

cross says appointment letter was not given to him. He

was paid salary by Junior Engineer. Only his signature

was obtained but receipt was not prepared. He and Rahis

Khan were doing work of laying cables, digging ditches.

Etc. he denies that Rahis Khan was not doing any work in

the department.

10.

Management’s witness Shri Rajendra Prasad in his

affidavit supported contentions of management that the

workman was not appointed in 1987. He did not work in

the department. He not completed 240 days in any of the

calendar year. In his cross-examination, management’s

witness says he has no knowledge about workman doing

petty work in the department. He denies that the daily

wage employees were engaged in the deptt. during 1984

to 98. He was working at Gwalior Division during said

period. Any documents are not produced in support of

his evidence. MW-2 Gokul Prasad filed affidavit that

documents, muster roll Exhibit W-1 doesnot bear his

signature. It is bogus. However in his cross he says that

workman Rahis Khan, Ghansham and Govindram were

working as casual labour with him. It is surprised to say

that evidence of management’s witness supports evidence

of workman.

11.

Management’s witness Gokul Prasad filed affidavit

that he was not competent to issue copy of muster roll.

The documents does not bear his signature. The document

is bogus. However in his cross-examination, said witness

says he is working in Telephone Deptt.from 1979. After 10

years, he was given regular appointment as labour. As a

casual labour, he was doing work of digging ditches, laying

cables, erecting poles. As a phone mechanic, he was

looking the driving engine. He was also distributing

correspondence. He was doing work of connecting lines.

In 1990, he was promoted as lineman. He was doing work

of fault removal. The work of digging ditches were carried

from available labours. Their wages were paid by

department. He was unable to tell whether Rahis Khan,

Ghansham Singh, Govindram worked more than 240 days.

Management has not produced any kind of documents

like muster roll maintained during 87 to 99. The evidence

of workman is supported by two witnesses examined in

the case. The evidence of management’s witness No.1

based on documents but document are not produced. The

evidence of workman corroborated by two witnesses

whereas evidence of management’s witness No.1 is not

supported by documents. He has no personal knowledge.

The evidence of management’s witness No.2 that work of

digging ditches for line fault was carried from available

labours. The department was paying their wages. Any

documentary evidence is not produced. Under such

circumstances, I do not find reason to disbelieve evidence

of workman and his witnesses that workman was

continuously working from Dec. 87 to 31-3-99.

Workman was not served with notice. He was not paid

retrenchment compensation, seniority list of casual

employees were not prepared. Termination of workman

is in violation of Section 25-F, G of ID Act. Therefore I

record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

12.

Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.1,

termination of services of workman is in violation of Section

25-F, G, H of ID Act, question arises whether workman is

entitled for reinstatement with back wages. Learned

counsel for workman Shri Salunke submits that without

considering workman was continuously working for more

than 4years, reinstatement with back wages be allowed. In

support of his argument, learned counsel placed reliance

on ratio held in

Case of Deepali Gundu Surwase versus Kranti Junior

Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and others reported in

2013(10)SCC 324. The facts of above cited case are

not available. The appellant in above cited case

was appointed as teacher in the Primary School run

by a Trust established and controlled by a family.

25 memos were issued to her before her suspension.

Exparte enquiry was conducted against her therefore

ratio held in above cited case cannot be applied to

case at hand.

Evidence in cross-examination is clear that he was

engaged on daily wages without following selection

process. His name was not sponsored through

Employment Exchange. The legal position is rather settled

that for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, reinstatement

cannot be allowed to the employees engaged on daily

wages dehors the selection rules.

Next reliance is placed in ratio held in case of Ashok

Kumar Sharma versus Oberoi Flight services

reported in 2010(1) SCC 142. In above cited case,

workman had admitted guilt in writing about carrying

30 KLM soup spoons illegally in his shoe. The

1076

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

compensation was enhanced from Rs. 60,000 to

Rs. 2 Lakhs.

In above cited case, employee was working as loader

in flight services but in present case, workman was

engaged on daily wages as casual employee. The pleading

and evidence of workman are silent about wages paid to

him. The salary of loader working in flight services could

not be compared with casual employee like workman.

Therefore compensation at same rate would not be

justified. considering workman was working as casual

employee for 4 years 8 months, his services are terminated

in violation of Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act, in my considered

view, compensation Rs. 75,000/- would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.1.

13.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Distt.

Engineer(Phones), Guna in terminating Shri

Ghanshyam Singh S/o Mangilal w.e.f. 1996 is not

proper.

(2)

IInd party management is directed to pay

compensation Rs. 75,000/- to the workman.

(3)

IInd party shall pay cost of Rs. 3000/- to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 415-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWiQ

VsyhdE;qfuds'kal] eè; izns'k l£dy 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@19@93) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@266@91&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2015

S.O. 415.—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.

CGIT/LC/R/19/93) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Department of

Telecommunications, MP Circle and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 25/02/2015.

[No. L-40012/266/91-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/19/93

Shri Aghan Singh,

S/o Shri Firangi Ram,

Gram Lidiya,

Tehsil Kota,

Distt. Bilaspur (MP)

...Workman

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer (Telegraph),

Telecommunication Deptt.,

Distt. Bilaspur (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 22nd day of January, 2015

As per letter dated Nil 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-L-40012/266/91-

IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the Sub Divisional Officer

(Telegraph) Bilaspur is justified in retrenching Shri

Aghan Singh, S/o Firangi Ram w.e.f. 15-10-90? If

not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled

to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of

claim at Page 35 to 37. The case of workman is that he was

working with IInd party from 1984 to 15-10-90 as casual

labour. Vide order dated 15-10-90, his services were

terminated. In termination order, it was observed that

workman was terminated as per RTO No. MPPRE 01-59CL

dt. 12-1-90. The working period of workman was shown

February 84 to March 90. Workman was paid wages till

15-10-90. General Manager did not consider Para 2/1(2) of

Letter dated 12-1-90. The casual labour working for more

than 240 days acquire status of mazdoor. On said ground,

workman submits his termination is illegal. Principles of

natural justice were not followed while terminating his

services. Workman prays for his reinstatement.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 43 to 47.

The claim of workman was opposed by management

denying material contentions of workman. according to

IInd party, workman was engaged as casual labour. That

as per policy laid down for employment of casual labours

by CMPD Bhopal vide DO Letter dated 12-1-90, workman

did not fulfill conditions for being termed as casual labours

therefore he could not be retained further. The allegations

or discriminations are denied by IInd party. Workman is

not entitled to become ordinary mazdoor from casual

labours since he did not fulfill the requirement. That

workman absented unauthorisely from work. When his

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1077

work was going on, the management denied his status as

casual labour. Workman was engaged for particular job

as and when jobs were available. He worked as unskilled

workman in construction job. Such job was not available

regularly. IInd party denied that management violated

section 25 H of ID Act. Workman was temporarily

engaged. He could not be retained in service. On such

ground, 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 Sub

In Negative

Divisional Officer (Telegraph)

Bilaspur is justified in retrenching

Shri Aghan Singh, S/o Firangi Ram

w.e.f. 15-10-90?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his services

for violation of law. Workman filed affidavit of his

evidence. Workman has stated that he was working on

daily wages from February 1984 in establishment of Sub

Divisional Officer, Telegraph, Bilaspur. He was regularly

working till March 1985. His services were discontinued

from 16-2-85. The employees engaged after him were

continued on work. New persons were appointed. Some

persons discontinued from 1-4-85 were re-engaged by IInd

party. Workman himself was re-appointed after November

1987. He was continuously working on daily wages till

15-10-90. The work was available. The contractors were

engaged by IInd party for carrying the work. He could not

work with IInd party during April 85 to Nov-87 as he was

not re-appointed by IInd party. Workman in his cross-

examination says he was engaged on daily wage for

digging ditches and laying cable. He was engaged by

SDO(T). the work of laying cable is still going on. He denies

that work of digging ditches and laying cable was

completed. He admits that for permanent appointment in

the department, names are called from Employment

Exchange. The post is used to be advertised. His name

was not sponsored through Employment Exchange.

Copy of order passed by CAT, Jabalpur bench in

Original Application is produced on record. In para-

28 of the order, it is observed that the petitioners

who were appointed after 22-6-88 are not entitled for

regularization or to get the temporary status.

However as and when vacancies arise, they shall be

entitled to get employment as held by the Supreme

Court in AIR 1995(S.C.W) 2413.

Para-7 of the order refers to Scheme run by

department known as Casual Labours (Grant of

Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of

the Department of Telecommunications, 1989. The

scheme came into force w.e.f. 1-10-89.

The caption “Temporary Status” reads- Temporary

status would be conferred on all the casual labourers

currently employed and who rendered a continuous

service of atleast one year, out of which they must

have been engaged on work for a period of 240

days ( 206 days in the case of offices observing 5

day week).

The working days of workman shown in para-2 of

the Written Statement are more than 240 days in 84-85, 88-

89& 89-90 workman is squarely covered for temporary

status. Document Exhibit W-1 admitted by IInd party shows

363 working days of workman. Exhibit W-2 is copy of

termination order. W-3 admitted by IInd party shows names

of the 57 employees whose promotions were cancelled.

Exhibit W-4 is representation submitted by workman to

the management. Exhibit W-5 shows workman was paid

compensation Rs. 1552.50. Exhibit W-6 shows 363

working days of workman.

Management has not adduced evidence of any

witness.

Services of Ist party were terminated as per Letter

dated 12-1-90 by Chief General Manager. When workman

had worked with IInd party from 1984-85 to 1990, he is

covered under the scheme. No reasons are given by

management why he was denied status of temporary labour.

Therefore the reasons for termination of workman are

incorrect. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No.1 in Negative.

Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 the

action of management of IInd party is found illegal.

Workman was denied benefit of temporary status as per

the scheme of Casual Labours (Grant of Temporary Status

and Regularisation Scheme 1989. The termination of

workman deserves to be quashed. The question arises

whether workman is entitled to reinstatement with back

wages. Workman was intermittently engaged as per

evidence. Considering the evidence and facts of the case,

workman was paid retrenchment compensation. The claim

for backwages cannot be allowed. The workman deserves

to be reinstated. In pursuance of the benefit of scheme

given to other employees, workman cannot be

discriminated. Accordingly I record my finding in Point

No.2.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the Sub Divisional Officer (Telegraph)

Bilaspur is justified in retrenching Shri Aghan Singh,

S/o Firangi Ram w.e.f. 15-10-90 is not legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to reinstate workman as labour

according temporary status and continuity of service

without backwages.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

1078

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 26 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 416-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWiQ

VsyhdE;qfuds'kal] eè; izns'k l£dy 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@99@94) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@1@93&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2015

S.O. 416.—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.

CGIT/LC/R/99/94) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Department of

Telecommunications, MP Circle and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 25/02/2015.

[No. L-40012/1/93-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/99/94

Shri Shankarlal

S/o Shri Munnaji,

Village Birgod,

Post & Tehsil Tarana,

Distt. Ujjain

...Workman

Versus

The SDO(T),

Telecom Deptt.

Ujjain

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 29th day of January, 2015

As per letter dated 13-7-94 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-40012/

1/93-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of SDO(T)

Telecom Deptt. Ujjain in retrenching the services of

Shri Shankarlal S/o Munnaji, a casual mazdoor w.e.f.

17-8-87 and finally w.e.f. May 1989 after re-

engagement during 1988 and 1989 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to and

from what date?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the Parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 2/1 to 2/2. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

engaged as temporary labour in February 1984. He was

continuously working till 7-7-85. As he was not keeping

proper health, he was unable to attend duties. He submitted

Medical Certificate. Again he was engaged on work from

January 86 to Aug87, Jan 88 to March 88, Jan 89 to April 89

workman submits that he was deliberately discontinued

from work on pretext that he was absent from duty for

more than six months. That termination of his service is

illegal. On such ground, he prays for reinstatement with

back wages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/2

opposing claim of workman. IInd party submits that Ist

party workman was engaged as temporary casual labour

from Feb 84 to June 85. Workman had not submitted any

information about his illness or absence from duty. The

workman had not disclosed from which kind of illness he

was suffering. The medical certificate is not produced.

Zerox copy of certificate produced doesnot bear any date.

The details of illness are not disclosed in it. Workman was

again engaged in January 86 as temporary casual employee.

Workman remained absent for six months from July 85 to

Dec-85. Therefore his date of engagement was treated Jan

86. The services of workman were terminated issuing notice

dated 17-7-87. Workman was offered retrenchment

compensation Rs. 450/- said amount was sent by MO

dated 19-8-87. Workman submitted application dated

16-1-89 for taking him on work but as approval was not

issued from office, his request was not accepted.

Ist party workman submitted 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 SDO(T) Telecom Deptt.

Ujjain in retrenching the services

of Shri Shankarlal S/o Munnaji,

a casual mazdoor w.e.f. 17-8-87

and finally w.e.f. May 1989 after

re-engagement during 1988 and

1989 is legal and 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 ID Act. Workman filed

affidavit of his evidence. Workman says he was engaged

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1079

by IInd party from Feb. 84. He was terminated from 17-8-87.

That from January 86 to 17-8-87, he was continuously

working for 299 days. His services were terminated without

notice. Retrenchment compensation was not paid to him.

workman further stated that he was also working from

January 88 to March 88, Jan. 89 to April 89. Those two

scales of his working are hardly of 2-3 months and not

continuous service of 240 days. After Ist spell, his services

were terminated on 17-8-87. Workman says he completed

299 days. In his cross-examination, workman says his work

was laying cable lines, he was not called for interview.

Appointment letter was not given to him. his name was

not sponsored through Employment Exchange. He denies

that the project in which he was working was closed.

Management’s witness Shri S.N. Panse filed affidavit

of his evidence. He says that in 1984, workman was

engaged as casual labour. He worked for 85 days. Again

he was engaged in July 85 to Dec-85 and again engaged

from Jan-86. Considering different spells of working, his

date of joining was considered January 1986. Notice of

termination was issued to him on 17-7-87. Compensation

Rs. 400/- retrenchment compensation Rs. 450/- was sent

to workman by MO dated 19-8-87. Management’s witness

in his cross-examination says he was working as SDE Ujjain

from 3-10-98. During 84 to 88, he was not posted at Ujjain.

His affidavit is filed on information as per record. The

witness of management was unable to tell working days 1

year preceding his termination. However he was also

unable to tell workman completed 299 days service. After

recording evidence of parties, matter remained pending

for long period. The notes of argument were also

submitted. IInd party was permitted to adduce secondary

evidence. Zerox copy of notice to workman is produced.

Notice refers to collect compensation amount from office.

Amount is not mentioned in the notice. Therefore the

notice served on workman cannot be said legal as per

Section 25-F(3) of ID Act. Therefore termination of service

of workman is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. For

above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Negative.

Point No.2- as per my finding in Point No.1,

termination of service of workman is in violation of Section

25-F of ID Act, considering the number of working days,

workman was engaged on daily wages, reinstatement with

back wages cannot be allowed.

Learned counsel for IInd party Shri R.S.Khare has

submitted bunch of citations.

In case of Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. versus

State of Jharkhand and others reported in

2014(1)SCC(L&S)183. Their Lordship dealing with

Section 10 of ID Act held jurisdiction of Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court determined by the

reference. It is duty of Government to make the

reference appropriately reflective of real/exact nature

of dispute between parties.

Ratio held in the case has no bearing to the

controversy between parties.

Next reliance is placed in case of Assistant Engineer,

Rajasthan Development Corporation and another

versus Giram Singh reported in 2013(2) SCC(L&S)

369. Their Lordship dealing with wrongful termination

of daily rated workman held relief of compensation

and not reinstatement should be granted. Their

Lordship awarded compensation Rs.50,000

considering workman working for short period of

240 days only.

Even in present case workman was served with notice

of retrenchment compensation Rs. 450/- indicates that

workman completed 240 days service. Evidence of workman

also shows that he hardly worked for more than 1 year,

compensation Rs. 50,000 would be appropriate.

10.

Learned counsel for IInd party relies on ratio held in

case of Umadevi and others 2006-4-SCC-1. Workman was

engaged as casual labour, hardly worked for short period.

The terms of reference relates to legality of his

retrenchment and regularization of workman is not

involved in present case at hand therefore ratio held in

above cited case needs no detailed discussion. As

discussed above, compensation Rs. 50,000/- to the

workman is appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding

in Point No. 2.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Action of the management of SDO(T) Telecom Deptt.

Ujjain in retrenching the services of Shri Shankarlal

S/o Munnaji, a casual mazdoor w.e.f. 17-8-87 and

finally w.e.f. May 1989 after re-engagement during

1988 and 1989 is proper and legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 50,000/-

to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 417-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWiQ

VsyhdE;qfuds'kal] eè; izns'k l£dy 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@26@01) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@434@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

1080

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2015

S.O. 417.—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.

CGIT/LC/R/26/01) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Department of

Telecommunications, MP Circle and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 25/02/2015.

[No. L-40012/434/2000-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/26/01

Shri Govindam,

S/o Shankarlal

Vill Ramsinghpura,

PO Vapchalhar

Tehsil Chachoda,

Guna

...Workman

Versus

District Engineer (Phones),

Guna

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunications,

Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 23rd day of January, 2015

As per letter dated 27-12-00 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-40012/

434/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Telecom

Distt. Engineer, Guna in terminating Shri Govindram

S/o Shankarlal in the year 1999 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page

2/1 to 2/7. Case of Ist party workman is that he was initially

appointed on 1-12-1987 as labour on daily wages. He was

continuously working without break till 31-3-99. His

services were terminated orally without issuing any notice.

He was not paid salary in lieu of notice. The workman was

not paid retrenchment compensation. Any reasons were

not given for his termination by IInd party. That he

continuously worked more than 11 years. He completed

240 days during each of the calendar year. While

terminating his services, seniority list was not prepared

or displayed as per Rule 77 of the ID Rules 1957.

Workman submits that principles of last come first

go was not complied. Employees appointed subsequent

too him were continued on work. IInd party not considered

his case for granting temporary status as per circular dated

1-11-1995. Said circular was issued as per directions issued

by Apex Court in case of daily rated casual labour Vrs

Union of India reported in AIR-87-SC-2342. The ratio held

in the case is reproduced. It is reiterated that IInd party

violated provisions of ID Act. He was not provided re-

employment and thereby violated Section 25-F, G, H of ID

Act. On such grounds, workman is praying for his

reinstatement with full back wages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/5 to 5/5.

The claim of workman is opposed. That workman was

never appointed by IInd party. In 1987, appointing

authority for workman was District Engineer, Telephone

and not SDO(T). As per policy of the management,

appointments were prohibited from 1985. As workman was

not appointed on any post on daily wages, there was no

muster roll of temporary employees.

IInd party submits that for petty work, time bound

work, management was engaging few labours on piece

rate. On completion of such work, appointment was taken

automatically. Workman never completed 240 days service

in any calendar year. As workman did not complete 240

days service, there was no question of issuing notice,

paying compensation, preparing seniority list. Workman

was engaged on contract basis through tender in 1998.

There was no question of violation of Section 25 H of ID

Act. Workman was neither appointed nor terminated by

the management in 1999. On such ground, IInd party prays

that reference be answered in it is favour.

Ist party submitted rejoinder at Page 6/1 to 6/4

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 action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of Telecom Distt. Engineer,

Guna in terminating Shri Govindram

S/o Shankarlal in the year 1999 is

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Workman has raised dispute challenging his

termination in violation of Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1081

IInd party filing Written Statement has denied all material

contentions of workman.

Workman filed his affidavit. Workman has stated

that he was initially engaged on daily wages in the

Telephone Department, Guna from 1-12-1987. He

continuously worked for 6 years 5 months. He was paid

monthly wages obtaining signatures on receipts. During

initial period, he was paid weekly wages. That he completed

240 days continuous service. On 23-2-98, he had requested

for granting temporary status as telephone mechanic.

Thereafter his services were terminated orally. In his cross-

examination, workman says the post was not advertised.

His name was sponsored through Employment Exchange.

He has not produced documents in that regard. SDO had

take his oral interview. Appointment letter was not issued

to him. The appointment were made as per order of GTO.

He had not seen the order. He was orally appointed by

SDO, Guna. He was working under Line Inspector

alongwith Munna Singh, Kumraj Motiram. He was also

working at Bina. First he worked under SIT, Motiram in

December 1987. He was not engaged for special work. He

denies suggestion that he had not completed 240 days

continuous service.

10.

The evidence of workman is supported by witness

Ghansham and Rahis Khan. That workman was working

with them. Ghansham in his cross says that he had come

for his evidence alongwith workman. How many days

workman had worked, he was not having in writing. He

was unable to tell specific working days of workman in a

particular year. The wages were paid for actual working

days. Workman was doing work of digging ditches,

erecting poles and laying cable. Rahis Khan in his re-

examination, admitted document W-1 copy of muster roll.

It contains name of workman Govindram. In his cross-

examination he says he handed over original document to

Advocate. That Govindram had obtained zerox copy from

department. No application was given for request of copy

of document. He and workman were working under

Incharge. Their attendance was marked. He denies that

Exhibit W-1 is bogus document. Said document does not

bear his signature. Appointment letter was not issued to

them. He denies that he gave evidence to support claim of

Govindram and his case is also pending. He denies

suggestion that they are giving evidence in case of each

other.

11.

Management’s witness Shri Rajendra Prasad in his

affidavit supported contentions of management that the

workman was not appointed in 1987. He did not work in

the department. He not completed 240 days in any of the

calendar year. In his cross-examination, management’s

witness says phone mechanic does the work of removing

cable faults. That regular employee dig ditches for line

fault. The repair of cable is done by phone mechanic

personally. That he works in Guna office from 2011. From

87 to 99, he was not posted at Guna. He do not know name

of regular employees carrying repair work during 1987 to

99. That as per record, no daily wage labour were working

from 87 to 99. The record is not available. He denies that

casual labours were paid wages as per muster roll.

Personally he did not know workman Govindram. In his

further cross-examination, management’s witness says

he knows lineman Motiram and Munna. He was also

knowing Kasiram who retired in 2012. That he filed affidavit

as per official record. As he personally check the

documents, he says that his affidavit is based on personal

knowledge. The evidence of management’s witness shows

that the witness of management has no personal

knowledge. Any documents are not produced by the

witness. However he denies suggestion of Ist party that

workman was working as casual labour during 1987 to

1999.

12.

Management’s witness Gokul Prasad filed affidavit

that he was not competent to issue copy of muster roll.

The documents does not bear his signature. The document

is bogus. However in his cross-examination, said witness

says he is working in Telephone Deptt. from 1979. After 10

years, he was given regular appointment as labour. As a

casual labour, he was doing work of digging ditches, laying

cables, erecting poles. As a phone mechanic, he was

looking the driving engine. He was also distributing

correspondence. He was doing work of connecting lines.

In 1990, he was promoted as lineman. He was doing work

of fault removal. The work of digging ditches were carried

from available labours. Their wages were paid by

department. He was unable to tell whether Rahim Khan,

Ghansham Singh, Govindram worked more than 240 days.

Management has not produced any kind of documents

like muster roll maintained during 87 to 99. The evidence

of workman is supported by two witnesses examined in

the case. The evidence of management’s witness No.1

based on documents but document are not produced.

Exhibit W-1 is copy of muster roll for the month Jn-90. The

name of workman is appearing at Sl.No.1. The evidence of

workman corroborated by two witnesses whereas evidence

of management’s witness No.1 is not supported by

documents. He has no personal knowledge. The evidence

of management’s witness No.2 that work of digging ditches

for line fault was carried from available labours. The

department was paying their wages. Any documentary

evidence is not produced. Under such circumstances, I

do not find reason to disbelieve evidence of workman

and his witnesses that workman was continuously working

from Dec 87 to 31-3-99. Workman was not served with

notice. He was not paid retrenchment compensation,

seniority list of casual employees were not prepared.

Termination of workman is in violation of Section 25-F, G

of ID Act. Therefore 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 services of workman is in violation of

1082

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act, question arises whether

workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages.

Learned counsel for workman Shri Salunke submits that

without considering workman was continuously working

for more than 11 years, reinstatement with back wages be

allowed. In support of his argument, learned counsel placed

reliance on ratio held in

Case of Deepali Gundu Surwase versus Kranti Junior

Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and others reported in

2013(10)SCC 324. The facts of above cited case are

not available. The appellant in above cited case

was appointed as teacher in the Primary School run

by a Trust established and controlled by a family.

25 memos were issued to her before her suspension.

Exparte enquiry was conducted against her therefore

ratio held in above cited case cannot be applied to

case at hand.

Evidence in cross-examination is clear that he was

engaged on daily wages without following selection

process. His name was not sponsored through

Employment Exchange. The legal position is rather settled

that for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, reinstatement

cannot be allowed to the employees engaged on daily

wages dehors the selection rules.

Next reliance is placed in ratio held in case of Ashok

Kumar Sharma versus Oberoi Flight services

reported in 2010(1) SCC 142. In above cited case,

workman had admitted guilt in writing about carrying

30 KLM soup spoons illegally in his shoe. The

compensation was enhanced from Rs. 60,000 to Rs.

2 Lakhs.

In above cited case, employee was working as loader

in flight services but in present case, workman was

engaged on daily wages as casual employee. The pleading

and evidence of workman are silent about wages paid to

him. The salary of loader working in flight services could

not be compared with casual employee like workman.

Therefore compensation at same rate would not be

justified. Considering workman was working as casual

employee during 1987 to 1999, in my considered view,

compensation Rs. One Lakh would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.1.

14.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Telecom Distt.

Engineer, Guna in terminating Shri Govindram S/o

Shankarlal in the year 1999 is not proper.

(2)

IInd party management is directed to pay

compensation Rs. One Lakh to the workman.

(3)

IInd party shall pay cost of Rs. 3000/- to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 418-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lc fMohtuy

vkWfiQlj (VsyhxzkiQ)] fcykliqj 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@26@93) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@267@91&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2015

S.O. 418.—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.

CGIT/LC/R/26/93) 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 Sub Divisional Officer

(Telegraph), Bilaspur and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 25/02/2015.

[No. L-40012/267/91-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/26/93

Shri Ghurau,

S/o Shri Hiralal,

Gram Khogasra,

Tehsil Kota,

Distt. Bilaspur

...Workman

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer (Telegraph),

Bilaspur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 22nd day of January, 2015

As per letter dated 2-1-93 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/

267/91-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the SDO (Telegrah) Bilaspur

is justified in retrenching Shri Ghurau S/o Hiralal

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1083

w.e.f. 15-10-90? If not, to what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of

claim at Page 21 to 25. The case of workman is that he was

working with IInd party from 1984 to 15-10-90 as casual

labour. Vide order dated 15-10-90, his services were

terminated. In termination order, it was observed that

workman was terminated as per RTO No. MPPRE 01-59CL

dt. 12-1-90. The working period of workman was shown

February 84 to March 90. Workman was paid wages till

15-10-90. General Manager did not consider Para 2/1(2) of

Letter dated 12-1-90. The casual labour working for more

than 240 days acquire status of mazdoor. On said ground,

workman submits his termination is illegal. Principles of

natural justice were not followed while terminating his

services. Workman prays for his reinstatement.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 29 to 33.

The claim of workman was opposed by management

denying material contentions of workman. according to

IInd party, workman was engaged as casual labour. That

as per policy laid down for employment of casual labours

by CMPD Bhopal vide DO Letter dated 12-1-90, workman

did not fulfill conditions for being termed as casual labours

therefore he could not be retained further. The allegations

or discriminations are denied by IInd party. Workman is

not entitled to become ordinary mazdoor from casual

labours since he did not fulfill the requirement. That

workman absented unauthorisely from work. When his

work was going on, the management denied his status as

casual labour. Workman was engaged for particular job as

and when jobs were available. He worked as unskilled

workman in construction job. Such job was not available

regularly. IInd party denied that management violated

section 25 H of IDAct. Workman was temporarily engaged.

He could not be retained in service. On such ground, 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 SDO

In Negative

(Telegrah) Bilaspur is justified

in retrenching Shri Ghurau S/o

Hiralal w.e.f. 15-10-90?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his services

for violation of law. Workman filed affidavit of his

evidence. Workman has stated that he was working on

daily wages from February 1984 in establishment of Sub

Divisional Officer, Telegraph, Bilaspur. He was regularly

working till March 1985. His services were discontinued

from 16-2-85. The employees engaged after him were

continued on work. New persons were appointed. Some

persons discontinued from 1-4-85 were re-engaged by IInd

party. Workman himself was re-appointed after November

1987. He was continuously working on daily wages till

15-10-90. The work was available. The contractors were

engaged by IInd party for carrying the work. He could not

work with IInd party during April 85 to Nov-87 as he was

not re-appointed by IInd party. Workman in his cross-

examination says he was engaged on daily wage for

digging ditches and laying cable. He was working under

SDO(T). The work of laying cable is still continuing. He

denies that work of digging ditches and laying cable was

completed. He admits that for permanent appointment in

the department, names are called from Employment

Exchange. The post is used to be advertised. His name

was not sponsored through Employment Exchange.

Copy of order passed by CAT, Jabalpur bench in

Original Application is produced on record. In para-

28 of the order, it is observed that the petitioners

who were appointed after 22-6-88 are not entitled for

regularization or to get the temporary status.

However as and when vacancies arise, they shall be

entitled to get employment as held by the Supreme

Court in AIR 1995(S.C.W) 2413.

Para-7 of the order refers to Scheme run by

department known as Casual Labours (Grant of

Temporary Status and Regularisation ) Scheme of

the Department of Telecommunications, 1989. The

scheme came into force w.e.f. 1-10-89.

The caption “Temporary Status” reads- Temporary

status would be conferred on all the casual labourers

currently employed and who rendered a continuous

service of atleast one year, out of which they must

have been engaged on work for a period of 240 days

( 206 days in the case of offices observing 5 day

week).

The working days of workman shown in para-2 of

the Written Statement are more than 240 days in 84-85, 88-

89& 89-90/ workman is squarely covered for temporary

status. Document Exhibit W-3 admitted by IInd party which

shows that workman was paid compensation Rs. 517.50.

Exhibit W-2 is representation submitted by workman to

the management.

Management has not adduced evidence of any

evidence.

Services of Ist party were terminated as per Letter

dated 12-1-90 by Chief General Manager. When workman

had worked with IInd party from 1984-85 to 1990, he is

covered under the scheme. No reasons are given by

management why he was denied status of temporary labour.

Therefore the reasons for termination of workman are

1084

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

incorrect. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No.1 in Negative.

Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 the

action of management of IInd party is found illegal.

Workman was denied benefit of temporary status as per

the scheme of Casual Labours Grant of Temporary Status

and Regularisation Scheme 1989. The termination of

workman deserves to be quashed. The question arises

whether workman is entitled to reinstatement with back

wages. Workman was intermittently engaged as per

evidence. Considering the evidence and facts of the case,

workman was paid retrenchment compensation. The claim

for backwages cannot be allowed. The workman deserves

to be reinstated. In pursuance of the benefit of scheme

given to other employees, workman cannot be

discriminated. Accordingly I record my finding in Point

No.2.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the SDO (Telegrah) Bilaspur is justified

in retrenching Shri Ghurau S/o Hiralal w.e.f. 15-10-90

is not legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to reinstate workman as labour

according temporary status and continuity of service

without backwages.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 419-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d

vkWMZusUl iSQDVªh] tcyiqj 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@87@01) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@2@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2015

S.O. 419.—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.

CGIT/LC/R/87/01) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the General Manager,

Ordnance Factory, Jabalpur and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 25/02/2015.

[No. L-14012/2/2001-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/87/01

Shri Makboor Khan,

S/o Late Shri M. Mohammed Khan,

P.S.M. College,

Masjid Darikhana, Badi Omti,

Jabalpur

...Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Ordnance Factory,

Khamaria,

Jabalpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 27th day of January, 2015

As per letter dated 15-5-01 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-14012/

2/2001/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of

Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur in terminating

the services of their workman Shri Makboor Khan

S/o Late Shri Mohammed Khan, Ex-Darban w.e.f.

23-6-00 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Case of workman is that on 10-4-96, he was

appointed as Darban on compassionate ground in place

of his father. His probation period was of 2 years. That

during probation period, he worked successfully with

devotion to the satisfaction of IInd party. There were no

complaints about his working. That after completion of

probation period due to illness and disturbance in family,

he had to proceed on leave on some occasions. He

submitted applications with medical certificates. That due

to malafide intention and to harass him, leave applications

could not reach to the proper authority. He was marked

absence. Workman had already submitted reasons for his

absence. On 9-5-00, chargesheet was issued to him for

unauthorized absence. That due to lack of education and

his innocence, workman was not given proper chance for

his defence surprisingly his services were terminated from

24-6-00. Workman submits termination of his service is

illegal. No chargesheet was issued to him, any enquiry

was not conducted against him. Principles of natural justice

were not followed. He was denied charge for his defence.

On such ground, workman submits that punishment

imposed against him is highly excessive and

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1085

disproportionate. He prays for reinstatement with back

wages.

IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page 6/1

opposing claim of workman. Claim of IInd party is that

workman was appointed as Darban on compassionate

ground as per letter dated 3-4-96 after death of his father.

In appointment letter issued to workman, the condition

was clearly mentioned that his appointment was on

probation for 2 years. During probation period, his services

could be terminated without notice. The condition was

also mentioned that only on successful and satisfactory

completion of probation period, his services would be

regularized. IInd party submits that workman was regular

in attendance. He was lacking devotion. His service record

was not satisfactory. His probation period was extended

by two years on the basis of Assessment Report. Workman

had not completed probation period. His services were

terminated w.e.f. 23-6-00 for the reasons no longer required.

IInd party further submits that workman failed to improve.

One increment of workman was withheld with cumulative

effect for unauthorised absence. There was no need to

conduct enquiry against workman as per terms and

conditions in appointment. IInd party reiterates that

workman was habitual absentee from duty. He did not

complete probation period satisfactorily. Therefore his

services were terminated.

Workman submitted rejoinder at 8/1 to 8/2 reiterating

his contentions in statement of claim.

IInd party submitted reply to rejoinder at Page 9/1 to

9/3 raising contentions in Written Statement.

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 Ordnance Factory, Khamaria,

Jabalpur in terminating the services

of their workman Shri Makboor

Khan S/o Late Shri Mohammed

Khan, Ex-Darban w.e.f. 23-6-00

is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

Workman is

entitled to?”

not entitled

to any relief.

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of service

claiming that he had satisfactorily completed probation

period of two years. His services were terminated without

notice. He was not given opportunity of advancing his

defence. Management has produced copy of appointment

letter at Exhibit M-1. Condition No.2 clearly provides his

appointment was on probation period of 2 years. During

probation period, his services could be terminated without

notice. Probation period cannot be extended double of

the period of probation.

Workman submitted his affidavit of evidence

supporting his contentions in statement of claim. That he

was appointed on compassionate ground. After

completion of probation period, he remained absent from

duty for his illness. One increment of workman was stopped

on 16-4-99 without cumulative effect. Workman submits

that his services were terminated without giving him

opportunity. In his cross-examination, workman says he

was appointed on compassionate ground, confirmation

order was not received by him. He was appointed as Darban

in Security section. He did not remember for how many

times, he remained absent from duty during probation

period. He admits that he received treatment in hospital of

Ordnance Factory. The entries of treatment were recorded

in his Medical Card. He was absent during the period

17-8-98 to 11-9-98. He denies to have received any warning

as per Exhibit M-2. His probation period was extended but

order was not received. He received its information from

security section. He was absent from duty during 27-10-99

to 18-11-99. He was receiving pay slips of his salary.

Management’s witness Shri Surjit Das supported

contentions of management in his affidavit of evidence.

From his evidence, documents Exhibit M-1 to M-11 are

proved. Management’s witness in his cross says probation

of workman was not completed. He has produced

documents about his conduct. Exhibit M-2 unauthorised

absence of workman and Exhibit M-4 is penalty for

unauthorised absence. Assessment Report Exhibit M-6,

M-7 were not sent to workman. Exhibit M-3 is order of

extension of probation period was not sent to workman.

Copy of M-3 was not sent to workman. Perusal of

documents shows as per Exhibit M-3 probation period of

workman was extended for 2 years from 10-4-98. Exhibit

M-4 is order with-holding one increment of workman.

Exhibit M-5 is copy of said order. Exhibit M-6, 7 shows

performance of workman was average. He was irregular in

attendance. Probationary period was not completed. It

was recommended to extend probation period of workman

in Exhibit M-8,9 Assessment Report also, his performance

was reported average. The probation period of workman

was not confirmed satisfactorily. His services are terminated

as per Exhibit M-11 for the reasons his services were no

longer required.

10.

Learned counsel for IInd party Shri A.K.Shashi

during course of argument emphasized that probation

period of workman was not completed. His services were

not confirmed. Workman was habitual absentee from duty.

There is termination without notice. As per conditions in

the appointment letter, learned counsel placed reliance on

ratio held in

“Case of Registrar, High Court of Gujarat versus

C.G. Sharma reported in 2005 LAB.I.C.203. Their

1086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Lordship dealing with Gujarat Judicial Service

Recruitment Rules 1961 Rule 5(4), and deemed

confirmation of probationer held cannot claim

automatic confirmation as of right since Rule

provides existence of vacancy and satisfactory work

as pre-requisite.”

The above cited case related to judicial officer.

Workman cannot be equated with a Judicial Officer.

Therefore ratio cannot be applied to present case.

Next reliance is placed on ratio held in case of

Krishnadevaraya Education Trust Versus L.A.

Balakrishna reported in AIR-2001SC-625. Their

Lordship of the Apex Court dealing with Article 16

of the Constitution in context of letter of

appointment right to terminate his services. In order

to avoid the allegations that order is stigmatic the

employer should not state any reasons why services

are terminated.

In present case, Exhibit M-1 contains conditions

that services of workman can be terminated without notice.

The probation period can be extended twice of the initial

probation period. Exhibit M-11, any reason for termination

is not shown. Only it is referred no longer required. The

termination of workman cannot be said illegal. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Ordnance Factory,

Khamaria, Jabalpur in terminating the services of

their workman Shri Makboor Khan S/o Late Shri

Mohammed Khan, Ex-Darban w.e.f. 23-6-00 is proper

and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 420-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lkexzh izca/u

tcyiqj ds dekaMsaV dkWyst 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@177@2000) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14011@33@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2015

S.O. 420.—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.

CGIT/LC/R/177/2000) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the

Commandant, College of Material Management Jabalpur

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 25/02/2015.

[No. L-14011/33/2000-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/177/2000

Shri Sukratlal,

Vill Padari (Gangai),

PO Padaria,

Tehsil Kundam, Kundam Road,

Jabalpur

...Workman

Versus

The Commandant,

College of Material Management,

P.B. No. 3,

Jabalpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 3rd day of February, 2015

As per letter dated 28-9-00 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-14011/

33/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of College

of Material Management, Jabalpur in punishing

compulsory retirement to Shri Sukratlal, Ex-

Chowkidar is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page

2/2 to 2/9. Case of workman is that he was initially

appointed as watchman in 1979 by IInd party. He was

honestly doing his job. Chargesheet was issued to him on

12-9-92 alleging unauthorized absence on different periods.

Workman replied chargesheet explaining circumstances

for his absence. It is further pleaded that when workman

appeared in enquiry and oral assurance of the Enquiry

Officer was given that he will not be ousted from

employment. On such assurance, he accepted the charges.

The admission of charges was not unconditional,

unqualified and unequivocal. Enquiry Officer submitted

his report without recording evidence. Punishment of

compulsory retirement was imposed against workman.

order was challenged filing Original Application 242/94

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1087

before CAT. When said matter was finally heard by CAT

on 20-6-97, the order of punishment was set-aside. The

matter was remanded back for taking decision after

furnishing copy of Enquiry Report to the workman. The

directions were also issued that workman shall continue

under suspension. As per order passed by CAT, Jabalpur,

workman submitted representation dated 9-7-97 requesting

reinstatement. He also requested for paying suspension

allowance. His representations were not considered.

It is submitted that management supplied Enquiry

Report on 27-8-97. After receiving said report, workman

submitted representation dated 8-9-97 explaining

circumstances for his absence. Despite of representation

submitted by workman, management imposed punishment

of compulsory retirement on 30-9-97. Workman has pleaded

that enquiry was not proper and legal. Chargesheet was

vague. He had not admitted charges unconditionally.

Enquiry Officer acted as prosecutor instead of Judge. The

major penalty was imposed against workman is excessive/

disproportionate. On such ground, workman prays for his

reinstatement with consequential benefits. He also prays

direction for payment of subsistence allowance.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/8.

Preliminary objection is raised by IInd party that the

reference is not tenable. That punishment of compulsory

retirement was imposed after issuing chargesheet and

conducting enquiry against workman. punishment is

proportionate to the proved charges. Workman was

appointed on 31-4-79. Punishment of withholding

increment was imposed against him on 12-9-92. Workman

was absent without leave. He was disobeying orders of

his superiors. He was irregular in attendance. Enquiry

Officer was appointed. Enquiry was conducted as per rules.

documents were supplied to workman. Enquiry Officer

found charges against workman proved. Workman did not

challenge punishment order within period of humiliation.

It is reiterated that for proved misconduct of unauthorized

absence, punishment of compulsory retirement imposed

against workman is proper and legal.

Workman filed rejoinder at Page 11/1 to 11/6

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

Enquiry conducted against workman is found

vitiated as per order dated 15-5-2013. Management was

granted permission to prove misconduct in Court.

Considering pleadings on record and order 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 of IInd

In Negative

party proves charges of unauthorized

and habitual absence against

workman?

(ii) Whether punishment of compulsory

In Negative

retirement against workman is

proper and legal?

(iii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Point No. 1, 2- Enquiry conducted against workman

is found illegal/vitiated as per order dated 15-5-2013.

Management was granted permission to prove misconduct

in Court. Management filed affidavit of evidence of Lt.

Colonel Sanjay Bharati. The management’s witness in his

affidavit has stated that workman admitted charges against

him feeling guilty of misconduct. The enquiry was closed.

He has further stated that workman was not punctual in

attendance. As such several warnings, showcause was

issued to him. despite of warnings, showcause notice and

chargesheet, workman not shown improvement. Workman

was placed under suspension due to his long absence.

Enquiry was held on 2-11-92. Punishment of compulsory

retirement was imposed. That in view of workman’s

confessional statement, the assessment of documentary

evidence by Disciplinary Authority was not suffering from

any procedural informative. The entire affidavit of

management’s witness doesnot disclosed the exact period

of unauthorized absence of workman. the enquiry

conducted against workman is found vitiated and

management is permitted to prove misconduct in Court.

Affidavit of management’s witness is not disclosing the

period of unauthorized absence. Secondly witness of

management remained absent for his cross-examination

and therefore his evidence could not be considered. Thus

there is no evidence of management by management to

prove the charges of unauthorised and habitual absence

of workman. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Negative.

Point No. 2, 3- In view of my finding in Point No. 1

charges of unauthorized absence are not proved against

workman, the punishment of compulsory retirement

therefore cannot be sustained. The punishment imposed

against workman is illegal and deserves to be quashed

and set-aside. Workman has claimed suspension

allowance. When charges are not proved against workman

and punishment of compulsory retirement imposed against

him is illegal, workman would be entitled to consequential

reliefs. Therefore it is not appropriate to pass separate

directions for payment of subsistence allowance. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 2 in Negative.

Issue No. 3 is covered in the final order.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of College of Material

Management, Jabalpur in punishing compulsory

retirement to Shri Sukratlal, Ex-Chowkidar is not legal

and proper.

1088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2)

IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with

continuity of service and back wages.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 421-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]

xu dSfjt iSQDVªh] tcyiqj 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@10@04) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@23@2003&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2015

S.O. 421.—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.

CGIT/LC/R/10/04) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the General Manager, Gun

Carriage Factory, Jabalpur and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 25/02/2015.

[No. L-14012/23/2003-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/10/04

Shri Suraj Prasad Nikhar,

C/o Shri Sanjay Tiwari, LIC Colony,

Maheshpur, Madanmahal,

Premnagar Post Office,

Jabalpur

...Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Gun Carriage Factory,

Jabalpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 4th day of February, 2015

As per letter dated 29-1-04 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-14012/

23/2003-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Gun

Carriage Factory, Jabalpur MP in imposing the

penalty of compulsory retirement on Shri Suraj

Prasad Nikhar, Ex-Labour T.No.5249/MM Section

vide order dated 23-12-91 is just and legal? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim at Page

3/1 to 3/7. Case of ist party is that he was appointed on

post of Turner Grade C on 8-2-61. He was continuously

performing his duties. In 1989, workman fell sick.

Information was sent to Section Incharge of GCF, Jabalpur

through co-worker Shri D.Pinth. Co-worker handed over

this application to the Incharge. It was told that his

application would be conveyed to the management by

Incharge after few month when workman was sick, went

to Factory Hospital, Satpuda Jabalpur. He was admitted

for treatment. The Incharage Doctor was asking Factory

Pass, I Card and other documents. Management never

issued I Card or any letter to him. He was unable to show

documents to the Doctor as per his request. He further

submits that in condition of sickness, he went to factory.

He was permitted to sit in Visitor’s room. When he send

information to Labour Officer and Section Incharge, they

refused to give I Card, Factory Pass unless he joined duty.

It is further submitted that the factory pass and I card

could not be handed over. He was compelled to receive

treatment from Private Doctors. He submitted application

alongwith Medical Certificate. Workman submits that he

remained absent because of illness. His wife died in 1967

leaving 2 minor children. His application sent through co-

worker Pinth was not considered. Workman has further

contented that chargesheet was issued to him. Enquiry

was not properly conducted. Documents submitted to

management were not called. The punishment of

compulsory retirement was imposed against him without

considering the documents. Appeal preferred by him was

also rejected without considering the documents submitted

by him. On such ground, workman prays to set-aside order

of compulsory retirement with consequential benefits.

Management filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to

9/4 opposing relief claimed by workman. it is submitted

that workman was issued chargesheet for his unauthorized

absence from 15-11-89. Workman was earlier penalized on

13 occasions. In 1972, penalty of removal from service

was imposed for misconduct of absence from duty. In

appeal, said order was modified and workman was

reinstated from 4-1-1973. After chargesheet issued to

workman on 5-3-91, workman denied the charges. Court of

enquiry was constituted consisting Shri N.K.Swamy,

Enquiry Officer, D.K.Mukhopadhyay Presenting Officer.

Enquiry was conducted on various dates. Workman

admitted charges against him. He requested Enquiry Officer

that he will plead the case with help of Assisting Officer.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1089

On his request, Enquiry Officer granted time. On 19-8-91,

workman again accepted charges against him. He did not

bring Assisting Officer for his defence. As workman

admitted charges, Enquiry Officer submitted report to

Disciplinary Authority. After careful consideration,

leniency was shown to workman and punishment of

compulsory retirement was imposed against him. All

adverse contentions of workman are denied. IInd party

has given details of earlier punishments imposed against

workman. It is reiterated that enquiry was conducted as

per law. Enquiry not suffered from any kind of infirmity.

Workman has not produced medical certificate explaining

his absence from duty during course of Enquiry

Proceedings. On such contentions, IInd party submits that

claim of workman deserves no merit.

Workman filed rejoinder reiterating his contentions

in statement of claim.

As per order dated 23-11-2012, enquiry against

workman was found legal and proper. Considering

controversy between parties and orders passed on

Preliminary Issue, the points which arise for my

consideration and determination are as under. My findings

are recorded against each of them for the reasons as

below:-

“(i) Whether the misconduct alleged

In Affirmative

against workman is proved from

evidence in Enquiry proceedings?

(ii) Whether the punishment of

In Affirmative

dismissal imposed against

workman is proper and legal?

(iii) If not, what relief the workman is

Workman is

entitled to?”

not entitled to

any relief.

REASONS

As per finding on preliminary issue, enquiry is found

legal. Question remains for decision that charges against

workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry

Proceedings. Whether punishment of compulsory

retirement imposed against workman is proper and legal.

The record of enquiry is produced by management Exhibit

M-1 is article of charges. The charges alleged against

workman pertains to habitual absence from duty since

15-11-89. The chargesheet was issued on 12-1-91.

Workman has not disputed his absence from duty rather

he claims that he submitted application through co-worker.

However said co-worker Pinth is not examined before

Enquiry Officer. Enquiry was adjourned time to time.

Workman had submitted application for reinstating in

service. Workman had submitted application dated 21-10-

91 to General Manager contending that he was not aware

of Enquiry Proceedings. On say of Enquiry Officer that

there was no substance in the matter he would write in his

favour. He had agreed to the charges. He was not mentally

sound. He was attending duties. The attendance

particulars of workman are produced at Page 22. Enquiry

Officer submitted his report observing that workman had

accepted charge and pleaded guilty. In application to

General Manager, he has admitted that he committed grave

mistake by remaining absent from duty. He prays for

leniency. Page 14 of enquiry proceedings shows that

workman had admitted charges against him. his

contentions that Enquiry Officer had assured favour to

him appears afterthought. In view of admission of charge,

no other proof is required. In view of Section 58 of Evidence

Act, the charges against workman stands proved. With

respect to Point No. 2, management has produced service

details. Workman was censured in 1961. He was warned

thrice from 1963 to 1964, he was censured thrice from 66 to

67. Workman was removed from service on 18-12-72 on

the ground of absence from duty. In 1979, his one increment

was withheld, in 1981, his pay was reduced to one stage.

In 1983, one increment was with held and his pay was

reduced by one stage. In 1982, he was censured and warned

and in 1988, his pay was reduced to minimum for 3 years,

in 1989,one increment was stopped. In 1989 again he was

warned. The service details of workman shows that his

service record was very much adverse. He was habitual

absentee. He was given reinstatement in service in 1972.

That workman not shown improvement in his conduct.

Considering the service record of workman,

punishment of compensation against him cannot be said

illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

Nos. 1, 2 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Gun Carriage

Factory, Jabalpur MP in imposing the penalty of

compulsory retirement on Shri Suraj Prasad Nikhar,

Ex-Labour T.No. 5249/MM Section vide order dated

23-12-91 is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 422-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] ljdkj viQhe

vkSj mi{kkj fuekZ.k] eanlkSj 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@303@97) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@150@96&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

1090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2015

S.O. 422.—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.

CGIT/LC/R/303/97) 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 Govt. Opium

and Alkaloid Works, Mandsaur and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 25/02/2015.

[No. L-42012/150/96-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/303/97

Shri Pawan, S/o Late Nemichand,

Through Shri G.S. Mangal, 86,

Hudco Colony,

Neemuch, Distt Mandsaur

...Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Works,

Neemuch, Distt. Mandsaur.

Chief Controller of

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factories,

13, Adarsh Nagar, Murar,

Distt. Gwalior

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 27th day of January, 2015

As per letter dated 27-10-97 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-

42012/150/96-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates

to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Govt.

Opium & Alkaloid Works, Neemuch, Distt. Mandsaur

in imposing punishment of dismissal on Shri Pawan

S/o Shri Nemichand Khatod , Ex-Lab Assistant vide

order dated 12-5-95 and then converting punishment

of dismissal to compulsory retirement is legal and

proper? If no, to what relief the concerned workman

is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman filed statement of claim at Page 3/1

to 3/5. Case of workman is that from 22-3-79, he was

working as Lab Assistant. As per order dated 29-4-97, he

was suspended. On 5-7-93, chargesheet was issued to

him. workman had denied charges. Workman has pleaded

that enquiry against him was not proper and legal. He was

not given translated copy of chargesheet in Hindi. Enquiry

was not properly conducted, documents were not supplied

to him. Principles of natural justice were not followed. He

was not given opportunity to cross-examine management’s

witness. The findings of Enquiry Officer are contrary to

the evidence as such perverse. Standing orders are not

applicable. Alleged misconduct is not covered. The

punishment of compulsory retirement imposed against him

is illegal. On such ground, workman prays for his

reinstatement with back wages.

IInd party submitted Written Statement at Pages 9/1

to 9/3. IInd party denied all material contentions of

workman. It is reiterated that enquiry was properly

conducted. Workman was given opportunity for his

defence. Management relied documentary evidence.

Workman did not produce any witnesses. Enquiry was

closed. Considering findings of Enquiry Officer that

charges were proved sympathetic view was taken.

Moderate punishment of compulsory retirement was

imposed. Appeal was rejected, punishment cannot be said

harsh and disproportionate.

Workman submits rejoinder at Pages 10/1 to 10/2

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

Enquiry against workman is found illegal as per

order dated 12-9-2013.Considering pleadings on record

and findings on Enquiry, 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 dismissal

In Negative

imposed against workman is proper

and legal?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Enquiry conduced against workman is found illegal.

Despite of repeated adjournments, IInd party did not

adduce evidence to prove misconduct alleged against

workman. After enquiry against workman is found illegal,

both parties not adduced any evidence. When enquiry is

found illegal, order of punishment cannot be sustained.

The charges against workman are not proved from

independent evidence. Counsel for workman had placed

reliance on numerous citations. I have gone through the

ratio held in citations relied by learned counsel for

workman. As charges alleged against workman are not

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1091

proved, detailed discussion of citations is not necessary.

As charges are not proved, punishment cannot be

sustained. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No.1 in Negative.

Workman in his affidavit of evidence has stated that

he was unemployed, his family consists of two sons and

ailing wife. His daughter is to be married and his sons are

studying. The evidence of workman remained

unchallenged. IInd party not participated nor cross-

examined him. As order of punishment of compulsory

retirement cannot be sustained for proof of the charges

alleged against workman, workman deserves reinstatement

with back wages. Accordingly I record my finding in Point

No.2.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Govt. Opium &

Alkaloid Works, Neemuch, Distt. Mandsaur in

imposing punishment of dismissal on Shri Pawan

S/o Shri Nemichand Khatod , Ex-Lab Assistant vide

order dated 12-5-95 and then converting punishment

of dismissal to compulsory retirement is not proper.

(2)

IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with

continuity of service and back wages.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 423-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] Mkd foHkkx]

rfeyukMq ldZy 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 6@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

25@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@89@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2015

S.O. 423.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 6/2015)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Department of Posts, TN Circle

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 25/02/2015.

[No. L-40012/89/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Monday, the 16th February, 2015

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 6/2015

(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 Director of Postal Services and their

workman)

BETWEEN :

Sri P. Ganesan

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Director of

2nd Party/1st Respondent

Postal Services

Department of Posts

O/o the Post Master

General, Western Region,

T.N. Circle

Coimbatore-641002

The Superintendent

2nd Party/2nd Respondent

of Post Offices

Post Office,

Salem West Division

Salem-636005

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/

None

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

Sri M. Liagatali, Advocate

1st & 2nd Respondent

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-40012/89/2014-IR (DU)

dated 05.01.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the management of Postal

Authority regarding termination of the petitioner

Sri P. Ganesan is justified or not? If not, to what

relief the petitioner is entitled for?”

1092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 6/2015 and issued notices to both

sides. On receipt of notice the Respondents have entered

appearance through their counsel.

Notice was issued to the petitioner also. As could

be seen from the endorsement on the postal cover, the

petitioner has refused to accept notice even though the

same was taken to him. In spite of this refusal, a second

notice was issued to him and intimation regarding this is

also seen given to him. However, the petitioner has not

claimed the notice and the notice was again returned un-

served. It could be seen from the conduct of the petitioner

in refusing to accept the notice that he is not interested in

prosecuting the matter. So the matter is to be disposed in

his absence.

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/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/1st &

None

2nd Management

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner and Managements side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 26 iQjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 424-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mkd ?kjksa mi

laHkkx fo#/quxj 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 12@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

25@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@105@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2015

S.O. 424.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 12/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Post Offices Sub Division,

Virudhunagar and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 25/02/2015.

[No. L-40012/105/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 17th February, 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 12/2014

(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 Asstt. Superintendent of Post Offices

and their workman)

BETWEEN :

Sri P. Ramachandran

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The Assistant Superintendent :

2nd Party/

Post Offices Aruppukkottai

1st Respondent

Sub-Division

Virudhunagar-626101

2. The Senior Supdt. of

2nd Party/

Post Offices

2nd Respondent

Virudhunagar District

Virudhunagar

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/

M/s. R. Malaichamy, Advocates

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/ :

Mrs. K. Akhilandeswari, ACGSC

1st & 2nd

Respondent

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-40012/105/2013-IR (DU)

dated 19.02.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the claim of Sri P. Ramachandran, GDS

BPM for reinstatement and regularization in service

by the Postal Department is justified? If not, to what

relief is the workman entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 12/2014 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their

counsel and have filed their claim and counter statement

respectively. The petitioner has filed rejoinder in reply to

the Counter Statement.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1093

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner has started to work at Thottiankulam

Branch Post Office as Extra-Departmental Agent (EDA)

now known as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) in the year 1996.

He had worked at various places as GDS, though

intermittently. When the Branch Post Master of Sempatti

was promoted to the post of Postman, the petitioner was

appointed to work as Branch Post Master, Sempatti for

two months by order dated 19.10.2009. The petitioner joined

the post on the same day. He was working as Branch Post

Master continuously for more than 240 days. The

petitioner was permitted to work as Branch Post Master

till 05.05.2011. He worked against a clear vacant post. The

Respondents denied work to the petitioner from 06.05.2011.

The Postal Department in which the petitioner was working

is an industry. The service conditions of the Branch Post

Master are governed by instructions issued by the

Directorate from time to time. The Department of Posts,

Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2011

has not been framed under Article-309 of the Constitution

of India. So the service conditions of the GDS are deemed

to be governed by Industrial Law. The petitioner having

put in more than 240 days of work is eligible for absorption

as Branch Post Master in the Respondents’ Postal

Division. An order may be passed directing the

Respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity in

service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.

The Respondents have filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The petitioner was an outsider and was working as

leave substitute in leave vacancies of GDS at

Aruppukkottai Sub-Division. He was temporarily engaged

as EDDA at Thottiankulam Branch Post Office for the

period from 12.10.1995 to 31.12.1996. He was again

provisionally engaged as EDDA at Panaiyur Branch Post

Office for 60 days. He worked as GDS BPM, Kuchampatti

Branch Post Office for the period from 03.10.2000 to

03.01.2001 and at Thottiankulam branch from 11.10.2002

to 08.01.2003. He was engaged as GDS BPM at Sempatti

Branch for two months w.e.f. 19.10.2009 on stop-gap

arrangement. The Second Respondent is the appointing

authority for GDS BPM post. The First Respondent has

no authority to make appointment in this post. He has no

power to issue notification also. The engagement of the

petitioner was terminated on 06.12.2009 when another

outsider was engaged. The Second Respondent has issued

local notification and recruited deserving candidate for

the post of Branch Post Master at Sempatti Branch. When

the regular incumbent joined the post the petitioner was

terminated. The petitioner having worked on stop-gap

arrangement for some time is not entitled to be absorbed

in the department. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

In the rejoinder filed, the petitioner has denied the

contentions in the Counter Statement and has reiterated

his case in the Claim Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext.W14 and Ext. M1 to Ext. M23.

The point for consideration are:

(i)

Whether ihe petitioner is entitled to be

reinstated and regularized in the service of

the Postal Department?

(ii)

If not, what if any is the relief to which he is

entitled?

The Points

The petitioner has filed affidavit in lieu of Chief

Examination asserting his case in the Claim Statement. He

has stated that he has worked for more than 240 days

under the Respondents and therefore he is entitled to be

absorbed in service. He has claimed that initially he has

worked as Gramin Dak Sevak and subsequently he has

worked as Branch Post Master. According to him he is

eligible to be absorbed in the Postal Department. However,

he was terminated from service on 06.05.2011.

It is admitted by the Respondents in the Counter

Statement itself that the petitioner was working as Gramin

Dak Sevak and as Branch Post Master for some time. But

according to the Respondents the engagement was only

intermittently. When regular incumbent was recruited and

has joined service the engagement of the petitioner was

terminated.

10.

Exts.W1 and Ext.W2 are the memos issued by the

First Respondent with copy to the petitioner showing the

engagement of the petitioner as EDDA for a particular

period Ext.W1 shows that the petitioner was working in

the capacity of EDDA for the period from 12.10.1995 to

12.01.1996. Ext.W2 shows that the petitioner had worked

as EDDA for a period of 60 days w.e. f. 02.09.1998. Ex.W3

is the certificate issued by a Branch Post Master stating

that the petitioner had worked as GDSBPM at Kuchampatti

Branch from 03.10.2000 to 03.01.2001. Ext.W4 is still another

certificate showing that he worked from 11.10.2002 to

08.01.2003. Ex.W5 is a certificate showing his engagement

for two months w.e.f. 19.10.2009. Ext.W7 shows that on

05.05.2011 the petitioner had handed over charge of

Sempatti Branch Office to the newly appointed person.

Ext.W8 is a report of surprise inspection by Assistant

Superintendent of Aruppukkottai Sub-Division revealing

that the petitioner was acting as Branch Post Master on

05.05.2011, the date of inspection. The Respondents have

produced Ext.M2 showing the details of the period during

which the petitioner had worked. As seen from this, the

petitioner was engaged as Branch Post Master during the

period from 19.10.2009 to 04.05.2011 on 20 different

1094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 28, 2015/PHALGUNA 9, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

occasions. However, the engagement was only

intermittently, the maximum being 27 days and even for 3

days at the minimum. When the details given in Ext.M2

are compared with the documents produced by the

petitioner and already referred to, it could be seen that

this must be a correct account of the details of work done

by the petitioner. Even though copy of the memo of

engagement must have been issued to the petitioner also

as seen from Ext.W1 and Ext.W2 issued while he was

working as EDDA, such memos showing engagement as

Branch Post Master are not produced by the petitioner.

He has only produced certain certificates showing that

the engagement was on stop-gap arrangement. However,

the certificates, do not give the details of the date of

engagement, date of termination, etc. It could be seen from

Ext.M2 that the petitioner has not completed 240 days of

work in any year even though he has worked for more

than 240 days as Branch Post Master altogether from

October 2009 to May 2011.

11.

The engagement of the petitioner was only as an

outsider. It was only intermittently he was working. On

the last occasion he worked just for 3 days. The

engagement prior to that was only for 22 days. Whenever

engagement was made it was after specifying the period.

So the petitioner was automatically to be terminated from

the engagement by the end of the period for which he was

engaged. Naturally, when a person is recruited as per the

procedure the engagement of the petitioner came to an

end. The very nature of the employment of the petitioner

was as a substitute for the regular hand and that also only

occasionally. So the claim of the petitioner to be reinstated

and regularized in service is without any justification. The

petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

12.

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 P. Ramachandran

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

MW1, Sri A. Alagarsamy

Managements

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

31.01.1996

Memo of 1st Respondent

Ex.W2

01.09.1998

Memo of 1st Respondent

Ex.W3

13.01.2003

Certificate issued by Branch

Postmaster, Kuchampatti B.O.

Ex.W4

13.01.2003

Certificate issued by Branch

Postmaster, P. Thottiankulam

B.O.

Ex.W5

16.10.2009

Order of 1st Respondent

Ex.W6

21.10.2009

Acknowledgement

card

received from Secretary, Salem

Postal

Employees

Co-

operative Society

Ex.W7

05.05.2011

Pay-Slip/Relieving Order

Ex.W8

05.05.2011

Inspection Report

Ex.W9

05.10.2011

Order of 1st Respondent

Ex.W10

08.12.2012

Claim Petition

Ex.W11

April 2013

Reply statement to the Claim

Petition by the Respondents

Ex.W12

14.05.2013

Rejoinder by the petitioner to

the reply filed by the

Respondents to the Claim

Petition

Ex.W13

19.02.2014

Order of the Government

Ex.W14

03.03.2014

Notice of this Hon’ble Tribunal

On the Managements side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

21.10.2009

Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices,

Virudhunagar Division Memo

No. B6/9/2009 - Selection of Sri

P. Muniyandi, GDS BPM,

Sempatti BO as Postman

Ex.M2

—

The period of Sri P.

Ramachandran,

outsider

worked as GDS BPM, Sempatti

under

stop-gap

arrangement

Ex.M3

—

Outsiders worked period as

GDS BPM, Sempatti BO under

stop-gap arrangement

Ex.M4

17.01.2011

Local notification issued by

Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices,

Virudhunagar

Division,

Virudhunagar letter no. B5/139/

Sempatti BO for the selection

of the post of GDS BPM,

Sempatti BO

Ex.M5

17.01.2011

Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices,

Virudhunagar

Division,

Virudhunagar letter No. B5/

139/Sempatti addressed to

Employment

Exchange,

Virudhunagar for sponsoring

the candidates - selection for

the post of GDS BPM,

Sempatti BO

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 28] 2015@iQkYxqu 9] 1936

1095

Ex.M6

14.02.2011

Application of Selvi R. Ajitha,

IlIupaiyur for the post of GDS

BPM IlIupaiyur BO with

enclosures

Ex.M7

27.04.2011

Tabular statement for the

appointment of GDS BPM,

Sempatti BO

Ex.M8

29.04.2011

Provisional appointment of

GDS BPM Sempatti BO. vide

SSP, Virudhunagar Memo No.

B5/139/Sempatti

Ex.M9

—

Delegation of powers for

appointment of GDS BPM

(Extract)

Ex.M10

—

Method of recruitment for the

post of GDS BPM (Extract of

Rules)

Ex.M11

—

Department of Posts, Gramin

Dak Sevaks (Conduct and

Engagement) Rules, 2011 with

delegation of powers for

selection to the post of GDS

BPM (Extract).

Ex.M12

17.09.2003

Directorate letter no. 22-12/

2001 - GDS dated- Selection of

GDS on merit

Ex.M13

17.11.2005

Post Master General, Southern

Region, Madurai - 2 letter no.

STC/87-32/04 dated 17.11.2005

(Copy of Circle Office, Chennai

- 2 letter no. STC/13-11/2001

dated 02.11.2005

Ex.M14

20.04.1990

CAT, Chennai Judgment in

OA No. 811/1988

Ex.M15

19.11.2013

CAT, Chennai Judgment in

OA No. 61 of 2012

Ex.M16

15.12.2010

CAT, Chennai Judgment in

OA No. 1197/09

Ex.M17

22.11.2012

CAT Judgment in OA No. 220/

20-11 and MA 374/2011

Ex.M18

30.06.2014

Ministry of Communication

and IT Letter no. 66-50/2014 -

SPB - 1 dated - Supreme Court

Judgment in Civil Appeal No.

3595, 36/2/1999 for casual

labourers

Ex.M19

18.11.2011

Sri S. Venkatachalapathy,

Acting GDS MD, Kallumadam

BO Letter

Ex.M20

24.10.2011

RL Delivery Slip

Ex.M21

18.11.2011

Sri S. Pandi, Slo Subburam,

Kallumadam letter

Ex.M22

18.11.2011

Sri S. Pandi, Slo Sakkarai

Thevar, 2/238 Kallumadam

letter

Ex.M23

24.10.2011

Branch Office slip issued by

Sub

Post

Master,

Reddiapatty Post Office.

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi.110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi.110054.