1835 GI/2015
(1981)
dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=ky;
¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 23 vizSy 2015
dk-vk- 906-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973
¼1974 dk vfèfu;e lañ 2½ dh èkjk 24 dh mièkjk ¼8½ }kjk iznÙk
'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, t;iqj fLFkr jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; esa
fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼lhchvkbZ½ }kjk tkap fd, x, ekeyksa
rFkk muls mRiUu izklafxd vU; ekeyksa esa vfHk;kstu dk lapkyu]
vihy ,oa iqujh{k.k gsrq Jh vf'ouh dqekj 'kekZ] vfèoDrk dks
fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks½ ds fo'ks"k yksd
vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 225@42@2011&,ohMh&II]
vftr dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2015
S.O. 906.—In exercise the powers conferred by sub-
section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby
appoints Shri Ashwini Kumar Sharma, Advocate as Special
Public Prosecutor for the Delhi Special Police Establishment
(Central Bureau of Investigation) in the Rajasthan High
Court at Jaipur for conducting the prosecution, appeals,
revisions or other matters arising out of the cases
investigated by the Delhi Specil Police Establishment (CBI).
[F. No. 225/42/2011-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 907-—dsUnz ljdkj vkaèz izns'k ljdkj ds x`g ¼,llh,½]
foHkkx dh lgefr ls ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vfèfu;e]
1946 ¼1946 dk vfèfu;e lañ 25½ dh èkjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr èkjk
5 dh mièkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fnukad 1
vizSy] 2014 ds vfèlwpuk thñvksñ 69 ds vuqlkj d`".kkiêue]
dkdhukM+k rFkk fo'kk[kkiVue canjxkgksa ¼vkaèz izns'k½ ls ykSg v;Ld
ds voSè fu;kZr ds fy, iz;klksa] mdlkos rFkk lkft'kksa ds lacaè esa
mi;qZDr vijkèksa ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 19]
ubZ fnYyh] ebZ 3—ebZ 9] 2015] 'kfuokj@oS'kk[k 13—oS'kk[k 19] 1937
No. 19]
NEW DELHI, MAY 3—MAY 9, 2015, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 13—VAISAKHA 19, 1937
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)
1982
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dh 'kfDr;ksa ,oa U;k;kfèdkj {ks= dk foLrkj laiw.kZ vkaèz jkT; ij
djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 228@33@2014&,ohMh&II]
vftr dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th April, 2015
S.O. 907.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946),
the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home (SCA) Department
vide Notification G.O. Ms. No. 69 dated 1st April, 2014,
hereby extends powers and jurisdiction of the members of
the Delhi special Police Establishment to the whole of the
State of Andhra Pradesh for investigation/enquiry into the
illegal Iron Ore transport from Krishnapatnam, Kakinada
and Visakhapatnam Ports (Andhra Pradesh) and attempts,
abetments and conspiracies in relation to above mentioned
offences.
[F. No. 228/33/2014-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;
¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½
¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 908-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mifu;e ¼3½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, mRiknksa dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vfèlwfpr djrk gS%
vuqlwph
Hkkjrh; Hkkx
vuq& o"kZ
mRikn
bdkbZ
U;wure eqgjkadu 'kqYd
bdkbZ nj LySc esa
'ks"k izpkyu frfFk
ekud
Hkkx
cMs+ iSekus
NksV iSekus
LySc 1
bdkbZ;ka
la[;k
ij
ij
¼#-½
15532
&
&
2004 Qyksa ,oa lfCt;ksa ds fy, 100 ihl 72]500-00
58]000-00
45-00
lHkh
&
15-03-2015
IykfLVd ØsVl & fof'kf"V
[lanHkZ % lh,eMh&2@th&18]
fnukad% 20 vizSy] 2015
,eñ tsñ tkslQ] egkfuns'kd
MINISTRY OF CONSUMERS AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2015
S.O. 908.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation
1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the products given in the schedule:
SCHEDULE
IS No. Part
Sec
Year
Product
Units
Minimum Marking Fee
Unit
Units
Remain- Effective
Large
Small
Rate
in
ing
Date
Scale
Scale
Slab-1
Slab-1
15532
-
-
2004
Plastice Crates for
100
72,500.00
58,000.00
45.00
All
-
15 03 2015
Fruits and Vegetable Pieces
-Specification
[Ref: CMD-II/G-18]
Date: 20th April, 2015
M. J. JOSEPH, Director General
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
1983
ubZ fnYyh] 21 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 909-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mifu;e ¼3½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, mRiknksa dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vfèlwfpr djrk gS%
vuqlwph
Hkkjrh; Hkkx
vuq& o"kZ
mRikn
bdkbZ
U;wure eqgjkadu 'kqYd
bdkbZ nj LySc esa
'ks"k izpkyu frfFk
ekud
Hkkx
cMs+ iSekus
NksVs iSekus
LySc 1
bdkbZ;ka
la[;k
ij
ij
¼#-½
16289
&
&
2014 fpfdRlh; oL=kfn&psgjs
100 ihl 79]000-00
63]200-00
0-2
lHkh
&
04 03 2015
ds lftZdy udkc & fof'kf"V
[lanHkZ % lh,eMh&2@th&18]
fnukad% 21 vizSy] 2015
,eñ tsñ tkslQ] egkfuns'kd
New Delhi, the 21st April, 2015
S.O. 909.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation
1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the products given in the schedule:
SCHEDULE
IS No. Part
Sec
Year
Product
Units
Minimum Marking Fee
Unit
Units
Remain- Effective
Rate
in
ing
Date
Large
Small
Slab-1
Slab-1
Rs.
16289
-
-
2014
Medical Textiles—
100
79,000.00
63,200.00
0.2
All
-
04 03 2015
Surgical Face Masks Pieces
[Ref: CMD-2/G-18]
Date: 21st April, 2015
M.J. JOSEPH, Director General
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 910-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x;s gSaA
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh
LFkkfir
Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ tks fd
jí gksus dh
la[;k
la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
frfFk
jí gksus gSa] vxj gS] dh
frfFk
la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
1-
vkbZ ,l 3812 ¼Hkkx 1½% 2013
06 vizSy
vkbZ ,l 3812 ¼Hkkx 1½%
06 vDVwcj
pw.kZ b±èu dh jk[k & fof'kf"V
2015
2003 ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½
2015
Hkkx 1 lhesaV] lhesaV ds elkys ¼eksVkZj½
o daØhV esa ikstksykuk dh rjg iz;ksx
ds fy, ¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½
2-
vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 11114&2%
06 vizSy
vkbZ ,l@ vkbZ ,l vks
06 vizSy
2013 ifjoguh xSl flfyaMj&
2015
11114&2% 2000
2015
xSl ds la?kVd ls flfyaMj ,oa okYo
1984
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
lkexzh dh vuq:irk Hkkx 2
vèkRoh; lkefxz;k¡
3-
vkbZ ,l 13152 ¼Hkkx 1½ %
06 vizSy
vkbZ ,l 13152 ¼Hkkx 1½
06 vizSy
2013 lqokg; Bksl ck;kW &
2015
% 1991
2016
ekWl dqdLVkso ¼pwYgk½& fof'kf"V
¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg t+Qj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110 002 {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ fnYyh]
dksydrk] paMhx<+] psUubZ] eqcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;acrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] ukxiqj]
iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http//www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA
[lanHkZ% ih;wch@th,u-1 : 1-V-II]
fnukad% 06-04-2015
izHkkdj jk;] funs'kd
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2015
S.O. 910.—In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the second column
of Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it in third column. The particulars of the
standards, if any, which are given in the fourth column shall also remain in force concurrently till they are cancelled on the
date indicated against them in the fifth column.
SCHEDULE
Sl
No. & Year of the
Date of
No. & Year of the
Date of
No.
Indian Standards
Establishment
Indian Standards to
Cancellation
Established
be cancelled, if any
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1.
IS 3812 (Part 1) : 2013
06 April 2015
IS 3812 (Part 1) : 2003
06 October 2015
Pulverized Fuel Ash-
(Second Revision)
Specification: Part 1 for use
as Pozzolana in Cement,
Cement Mortar and Concerete
(Third Revision)
2.
IS/ISO 11114-2 : 2013
06 April 2015
IS/ISO 11114-2:2000
06 April 2015
Transportable Gas Cylinders-
Compatibility of Cylinder and
Valve Materials with Gas
Contents Part 2 Non-
Metallic Materials
3.
IS 13152 (Part 1) : 2013
06 April 2015
IS 13152 (Part 1) :
06 April 2016
Portable Solid Bio-
1991
Mass Cookstove (Chulha)-
Specification (First Revision)
Copies of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi—110002 and Regional Offices : Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:
Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Kochi.
[Ref: PUB/GN-1: 1-V-II]
Date: 06.04.2015
PRABHAKAR RAI, Director
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
1985
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 911-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%&
vuqlwph
Øñ
ykblsal lañ
Lohd`r djus dh
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ
Hkk ek lañ ¼Hkkx@
lañ
frfFk o"kZ@ekg
vuqHkkx½% o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¼6½
1-
6500003594
20150401
esllZ jhysDl ,Dok QkeZ
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan
IS 14543 % 2004
Vh ,l la- 902] psDdqdjkj rksV~Ve]
feujy ty ds vykok½
lqfj;u uxj ,DLVsa'ku]
,chVh eq[; lMd] fr:Iiqj&641 604
2-
6500003695
20150401
esllZ laxes'ojk feujYl
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan
IS 14543 % 2004
,l ,Q lañ 2@1 & 2@2] rqylh esVq rksV~Ve] feujy ty ds vykok½
Hkokuh CykWd] rYykdqye xkao]
ojUrkuYywj iksLV] bZjksM&638 302
3
6500003998
20150407
esllZ vkuUn iEi baMLVªhl
fuEetuh; iEilsV
IS 8034 % 2002
lañ 2] tkudhvEeky ys&vkSV]
vEcky uxj] 'kksHkk uxj jksM]
vkokjeiky;e] dks;EcÙkwj&641 006
4-
6500003897
20150407
esllZ gjh bathfu;fjax oDlZ
fuEetuh; iEilsV
IS 8034 % 2002
njoktk lañ 2F-1] ojnjktqyq uxj]
,y ,e MCY;w&,Q lh vkbZ jksM]
x.kifr] dks;EcÙkwj&641 006
5-
6500003796
20150407
esllZ gjh bathfu;fjax oDlZ
xgjs dqvksa ds fy, fuEetuh; IS 14220 % 1994
njoktk la 2F-1] ojnjktqyq uxj]
iEilsV
,y ,e MCY;w&,Q lh vkbZ jksM]
x.kifr] dks;EcÙkwj&641 006
6-
6500004192
20150408
esllZ oSfdax baMLVªhl
xgjs dqavksa ds fy, fuEetuh; IS 14220 % 1994
lañ 7 & 12] , lh Vkbe izk;osV baMfLVª;y
iEilsV
,LVsV LVªhV] flMdks] dqfjph]
dks;EcÙkwj & 641 021
7-
6500004293
20150410
esllZ f'koe VªsMlZ
pkanh ,oa pkanh feJ/kkrq,a]
IS 2112 % 2003
lañ 133] Jh dqeju raxkekfyxS]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh&'kq)rk
U;w ekdsZV LVªhV] fr:Iiqj & 641 604
,oa eqgjkadu
8-
6500004091
20150410
esllZ ,u ,u okj.koklh xkSUMj Tosyjh
pkanh ,oa pkanh feJ/kkrq,a]
IS 2112 % 2003
12] iksUu LVªhV]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh&'kq)rk
bZjksM&638 001
,oa eqgjkadu
9-
6500004394
20150415
esllZ ¶yks LVkj iEil
lkQ] BaMs ikuh ds fy,
IS 8472 % 1998
la- 66] byUxks uxj] vkojeiky;e]
vidsanzh; iqu#Riknd iEi
x.kifr iksLV] dks;EcÙkwj&641 006
10-
6500005093
20150415
esllZ osy iEilsV~l
fuEetuh; iEilsV
IS 8034 % 2002
66A&67A] vfriky;e jksM]
x.kifr] dks;EcÙkwj&641 006
11-
6500004903
20150415
esllZ osy iEilsV~l
fuEetuh; iEilsV ds fy,
IS 9283 % 2013
66A & 67A] vfriky;e jksM]
eksVj
x.kifr] dks;EcÙkwj&641 006
1986
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12-
6500004495
20150416
esllZ osyeq#xu feujYl
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan
IS 14543 % 2004
197&C, vuSiqnqj] fr:eq#xu iwUMw]
feujy ty ds vykok½
dksoS] eq[; jksM] vfoukf'k rkyqd]
fr#Iiwj&641 652
13-
6500004697
20150416
esllZ jsbuVªh chojstl
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan
IS 14543 % 2004
lañ 6@154&D dqIiqphiky;e] vYyykiq#e jksM] feujy ty ds vykok½
dkjSiqnqj xkao] ohjkikUMh iksLV]
fr#Iiqj&641 605
14-
6500004596
20150416
esllZ yfyrk Tosyjh ekVZ izk;osV fyfeVsM
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
IS 1417 % 1999
564] vksIiukdkjk LVªhV]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh&'kq)rk
dks;EcÙkwj&641 001
,oa eqgjkadu
15-
6500004798
20150417
esllZ ukxqjfruk baMLVªhl
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan
IS 14543 % 2004
,l ,Q lañ 399] ohjcrje rqUMq rksV~Ve]
feujy ty ds vykok½
lsoUreiky;e] fr#Iiqj&641 606
16-
6500005194
20150420
esllZ ,Yth vYVªk baMLVªhl fyfeVsM
flapkbZ miLdj&fLizadyj
IS 14151
,l ,Q 95@1B] vfoukf'k jksM]
ikbi&Hkkx 1 % ikyh,fFkyhu
¼Part 1) : 1999
rsUueiky;e] vjlwj iksLV]
ikbi
dks;EcÙkwj&641 407
17-
6500004899
20150420
esllZ Jh jaxkjkt bLikr baMLVªhl izkbosV fyfeVsM lkekU; lajpuk bLikr esa
IS 2830 % 2012
IykWV lañ MM1] 2] 4] 5] flidksV
iquosZYyu ds fy, dkWcZu]
baMfLVª;y xzksFk lsUVj] is#UnqjS]
<yoka bLikr fcysV baxV]
bZjksM&638 052
fcysV] Cywe ,oa LySc
18-
6500005295
20150427
esllZ d`"k VsDl
xgjs dqvksa ds fy,
IS 14220 %
,l ,Q lañ 255] ukyq dky rksV~Ve]
fuEetuh; iEilsV
1994
jkDdkph xkMZu ds ihNs] ef.k;djeiky;e]
x.kifr] dks;EcÙkwj&641 006-
[la- lh,eMh@13 % 11]
,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 911.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the
following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence
Grant
Name and Address (Factory)
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
No.
No.
Date
of the Party
Sec. Year
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¼6½
1.
6500003594
20150401
M/s. Reelax Aqua Farm
Packaged Drinking Water IS 14543 : 2004
TS No. 902, Chekkukarar Thottam,
(other than Packaged
Suriyan Nagar Extn, ABT Main Road Natural Mineral Water)
Tirupur-641 604
2.
6500003695
20150401
M/s. Sangameswara Minerals
Packaged Drinking Water IS 14543 : 2004
SF NO. 2/1 & 2/2, Thulasi Mettu
(other than Packaged
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¼6½
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
1987
Thottam, Bhavani Block,
Natural Mineral Water
Thallakulam Village,
Varatha Nallur (P.O.),
Erode-638 302.
3.
6500003998
20150407
M/s. Anandh Pump Industries
Submersible Pumpsets
IS 8034 : 2002
No. 2, Janakiammal Layout,
Ambal Nagar, Shobha Nagar Road,
Avarampalayam, Coimbatore-641 006
4.
6500003897
20150407
M/s. Hari Engineering Works
Submersible Pumpsets
IS 8034 : 2002
D No 2F-1, Varadharajulu Nagar,
Near LMW-FCI Road, Ganapathy,
Coimbatore-641 006
5.
6500003796
20150407
M/s. Hari Engineering Works
Openwell Submersible
IS 14220 : 1994
D No. 2F-1. Varadharajulu Nagar,
Pumpsets
Near LMW-FCI Road, Ganapathy,
Coimbatore-641 006
6.
6500004192
20150408
M/s. Viking Industries
Openwell Submersible
IS 14220 : 1994
No. 7 & 12, AC Type Private
Pumpsets
Industrial Estate Street,
SIDCO, Kurichi, Coimbatore-641 021.
7.
6500004293
20150410
M/s. Shivam Traders
Silver and Silver Alloys,
IS 2112 : 2003
No. 133, Sree Kumaran Thangamaligai,
Jewellery/Artefacts -
New Market Street,
Fineness and Marking
Tiruppur-641 604
8.
6500004091
20150410
M/s. N.N. Varanavasi Gounder
Silver and Silver Alloys,
IS 2112 : 2003
Jewellery 12, Ponn Street,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Erode-638 001
Fineness and Marking
9.
6500004394
20150415
M/s. Flow Staar Pumps
Centrifugal Regenerative
IS 8472 : 1998
No. 66, Elango Nagar
Pumps for clear, cold water
Avarampalayam, Ganapathy Post,
Coimbatore-641 006
10.
6500005093
20150415
M/s. Vel Pumpsets
Submersible Pumpsets
IS 8034 : 2002
66A & 67A, Athipalayam Road,
Ganapathy Coimbatore-641 006.
11.
6500004903
20150415
M/s. Vel Pumpsets
Motors for Submersible
IS 9283 : 2013
66A & 67A, Athipalayam Road,
Pumpsets
Ganapathy, Coimbatore-641 006.
12.
6500004495
20150416
M/s. Velmurugan Minerals
Packaged Drinking Wate
IS 14543 : 2004
197-C, Anaipudur, Thirumurugan
(other than Packaged
Poondi, Covai Main Road,
Natural Mineral Water)
Avinashi Taluk, Tiruppur-641 652
13.
6500004697
20150416
M/s. Raintree Beverages
Packaged Drinking Water IS 14543 : 2004
No.6/154-D, Kuppuchipalayam,
(other than Packaged
Allalapuram Road, Karaipudur Village,
Natural Mineral Water)
Veerapandi Post,
Tirupur-641 605
14.
6500004596
20150416
M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd.
Gold and Gold Alloys,
IS 1417 : 1999
564, Oppanakara Street,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Coimbatore-641 001
Fineness and Marking
15.
6500004798
20150417
M/s. Nagurathna Industries
Packaged Drinking Water IS 14543 : 2004
SF No. 399, Veerabathram Thundu
(other than Packaged
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¼6½
1988
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Thottam, Sevanthampalayam,
Natural Mineral Water)
Tirupur-641 606
16.
6500005194
20150420
M/s. Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd.
Irrigation Equipment-
IS 14151 (Part 1) :
SF 95/1B, Avinashi Road,
Sprinkler Pipes - Part 1:
1999
Thennampalayam, Arasur (P.O.)
Polyethylene Pipes
Coimbatore-641 407
17.
6500004899
20150420
M/s. Sree Rengaraj Ispat Industries
Carbon Steel Cast Billet
IS 2830: 2012
Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. MM1,2,4,5,
Ingots, Billets, Blooms and
SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre,
Slabs for re-rolling into
Perundurai,
Steel for general Structural
Erode-638 052
purposes
18.
6500005295
20150427
M/s. Krish Tex
Openwell Submersible
IS 14220: 1994
SF No. 255, Naalu Kaal Thottam,
Pumpsets
Behind Rakkachi Garden,
Maniyakaranpalayam, Ganapathy,
Coimbatore-641006.
[No. CMD/13:11]
M.SADASIVAM, Secientist 'F' & Head
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 912-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;eu 5 ds mifofu;eu ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZbZ xbZ rkjh[k ls jí@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS%—
vuqlwph
Øñ
ykblsal lañ
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk
LFkfxr fd, x,@ jí fd, x, ykblsal ds varxZr
jn~n gksus dh frfFk
lañ
lh,e@,y
oLrq@izØe lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
1-
6849496
esllZ tks;xhrk IykfLVd ikbIl
is;ty vkiwfrZ ds fy, mPp ?kuRo okys ikWyh,fFkyhu ikbIl
21@04@2015
274] foyUdqfjph jksM]
IS 4984% 1995
foyUdqfjph iksLV]
dks;EcÙkwj&641035
[la- lh ,e Mh@13%13]
,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 912.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below
have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence No.
Name & Address of the
Article/Process with relevant
Date of
No.
CM/L-
Licensee
Indian Standard covered by the
Cancellation
licence cancelled/suspension
1.
6849496
M/s. Joegeetha Plastic Pipes
High Density Polyethylene pipes
21/04/2015
274, VILANKURICHI ROAD,
for potable water supplies
VILANKURICHI (P.O.)
COIMBATORE-641035
IS 4984: 1995
[No. CMD/13:13]
M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¼6½
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
1989
foÙk ea=ky;
¼jktLo foHkkx½
¼dsUnzh; izR;{k dj cksMZ½
ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2015
¼vk;dj½
dk-vk- 913-—tcfd dsUnz ljdkj us vk;dj vfèfu;e]
1961 ¼1961 dk 43½ ¼ftls blesa blds ckn esa mDr vfèfu;e
dgk x;k gS½ dh èkjk 80&>d dh mi&èkjk ¼4½ ds [kaM (iii) }kjk
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjr ljdkj dh vfèlwpuk la[;k
dkñvkñ 50 ¼v½ fnukad 8 tuojh] 2008 ftls ckn esa vfèlwpuk
lañ dkñvkñ 1605 ¼v½ fnukad 2 tqykbZ] 2008 vkSj vfèlwpuk
lañ dkñvkñ 1210 ¼v½ fnukad 21 ebZ] 2010 ds rgr la'kksfèr
fd;k x;k gS] ds }kjk vkS|ksfxd ikdZ ds fy, ,d Ldhe rS;kj o
vfèlwfpr dh gS(
vkSj tcfd eSllZ nksLrh dkWjiksjs'ku ¼fiusdy½] ftldk iathd`r
dk;kZy; irk ykWjsal ,aM es;ks gkml] izFke ry] 276] MkWñ Mhñ ,uñ
jksM] QksVZ eqacbZ esa fLFkr gS] IykWV la[;k bZ&7 ,evkbZMhlh jksM uañ 22
okxys vkS|ksfxd {ks=] iapi[kM+h Fkkus ¼if'pe½] eqacbZ esa fLFkr ^^nksLrh
fiusdy** uked ,d vkS|ksfxd ikdZ fodflr dj jgk gSA
vr% vc mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 80&>d dh mi&èkjk ¼4½ ds
[kaM (iii) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj ,rn}kjk
bl vfèlwpuk ds vuqcaè esa mfYyf[kr 'krks± ,oa fucaèuksa ds vèhu
mDr [kaM (iii) ds iz;kstukFkZ eSllZ nksLrh dkWjiksj'ku ¼fiusdy½ }kjk
fodflr rFkk vuqjf{kr vkSj izpkfyr fd, tk jgs IykWV la[;k bZ&7]
,e vkbZMhlh] jksM uañ 22 okxys vkS|ksfxd {ks=] iapi[kM+h Fkkus
¼if'pe½] eqacbZ esa fLFkr ^^nksLrh fiusdy** uked miØe dks blds
izkjaHk gksus dh rkjh[k vFkkZr 29-03-2011 ls ,d miØe vkSj ifj;kstuk
ds :i esa vfèlwfpr djrh gSA
vuqcaè
os 'krs± vkSj fucaèu ftu ij eSllZ :ik baQksVsd ,aM baQzkLVªDpj
fyfeVsM] ubZ fnYyh }kjk ,d vkS|ksfxd ikdZ dh LFkkiuk ds fy,
Hkkjr ljdkj dk vuqeksnu iznku fd;k x;k gSA
(i)
vkS|ksfxd miØe dk uke
eSllZ nksLrh dkWjiksjs'ku
¼fiusdy½] eqacbZ
(ii)
izLrkfor voLFkku
bZ&7] ,evkbZMhlh] jksM uañ 22
okxys vkS|ksfxd {ks= iapi[kM+h
Fkkus ¼if'pe½] eqacbZ esa fLFkr
^^nksLrh fiusdy** uked ,d
vkS|ksfxd ikdZ fodflr dj
jgk gS
(iii)
fufeZr U;wure Q'khZ {ks=
15]000 oxZ ehVj
(iv)
izLrkfor vkS|ksfxd dk;Zdyki tSlk fd vkS|ksfxd ikdZ Ldhe]
2008 esa ifjHkkf"kr gS
(v)
vkS|ksfxd mi;ksx ds fy,
75 izfr'kr vFkok mlls vfèd
fuèkZfjr vkcaVu
;ksX; {ks=Qy dh izfr'krrk
(vi) okf.kfT;d mi;ksx ds fy,
10 izfr'kr vFkok mlls de
fuèkZfjr vkcaVu
;ksX; {ks=Qy dh izfr'krrk
(vii) vkS|ksfxd bdkb;ksa dh
30 bdkb;ka
U;wure la[;k
(viii) vkS|ksfxd ikdZ ds izkjaHk
29-03-2011
gksus dh frfFk
2- vkS|ksfxd ikdZ dks miØe }kjk izLrqr vkSj uoh eqEcbZ uxj
fuxe }kjk tkjh izek.ki= esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr izkjaHk gksus dh rkjh[k
vFkkZr 29-03-2011 dks fodflr gqvk ekuk tk,xkA
3- vkS|ksfxd ikdZ dk Lokeh ,d gh miØe gksuk pkfg,A
4- vfèfu;e ds vUrxZr miØe dks dj ykHk vkS|ksfxd ikdZ esa
U;wure rhl ;wfuVksa ds voLFkkfir gksus ds ckn gh miyCè gksxkA
vkS|ksfxd ;wfuVksa dh U;wure la[;k dh lax.kuk ds fy, fdlh O;fDr
rFkk mlds lac) m|eksa dh lHkh m|eksa dks ,d bdkbZ ekuk tk,xkA
5- lac) m|e dh bdkb;ksa lfgr dksbZ Hkh vkS|ksfxd bdkbZ vkcaVu
;ksX; {ks=Qy ds iPphl izfr'kr ls vfèd txg ugha ?ksjsxhA
6- vfèfu;e ds vUrxZr dj ykHk bl vfèlwpuk ds rgr
vfèlwfpr miØe dks gh miyCè gksxk u fd fdlh vU; O;fDr dks
tks ckn esa fdlh Hkh dkj.ko'k vfèlwfpr vkS|ksfxd ikdZ fodflr
djs] ;k fodflr rFkk izpkyu djrk gS vFkok vuqj{k.k rFkk izpkfyr
djrk gSA
7- miØe vU; 'krks± dks iwjk fd, tkus ds vèhu bl vfèlwpuk
esa mfYyf[kr vkS|ksfxd ikdZ ds izkjaHk gksus dh rkjh[k ds laxr
dj&fuèkZj.k o"kZ ls 'kq: gksus okys ianzg o"kks± esa ls fdlh fujarj nl
o"kks± ds fy, vk;dj vfèfu;e] 1961 dh èkjk 80&>d 4(iii) ds
rgr vius fodYi ij dVkSrh dk nkok dj ldrk gSA
8- vkS|ksfxd ikdZ esa fLFkr vkS|ksfxd bdkb;ka dsoy ogha
dk;Zdyki djsaxh ftUgsa vkS|ksfxd ikdZ Ldhe] 2008 esa fofufnZ"V
fd;k x;k gSA
9- miØe dks vkS|ksfxd ikdZ ds fy, vyx [kkrk&cgh j[ksxk
rFkk fu;Ùk frfFk rd vk;dj foHkkx dks viuh vk;dj fooj.kh
nkf[ky djsxkA
1990
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10- ;g vfèlwpuk rc vekU; gks tk,xh rFkk eSllZ nksLrh
dkWjiksjs'ku ¼fiusdy½ ,slh vekU;rk dh fdlh vizR;{k ifj.kkeksa
ds fy, iwjh rjg mÙkjnk;h gksxk] ;fn
(i)
vkosnu ftlds vkèkj ij dsUnz ljdkj }kjk Lohd`fr nh
xbZ gS] esa xyr lwpuk@feF;k tkudkjh ikbZ tkrh gS vFkok
dqN oLrqxr lwpuk blesa ugha nh xbZ gS]
(ii)
;g vkS|ksfxd ikdZ ds voLFkku ds fy, gS ftlds fy,
fdlh vU; miØe ds uke ij igys gh Lohd`fr tkjh dh
tk pqdh gSA
11- miØe izi= vkbZih,l&II esa ,d okf"kZd fjiksVZ dsUnzh; izR;{k
dj cksMZ dks izLrqr djsxkA
12- bl vfèlwpuk esa mfYyf[kr 'krks± ds lkFk&lkFk vkS|ksfxd
ikdZ Ldhe] 2008 esa 'kkfey 'krks± dk ml vofè ds nkSjku ikyu
fd;k tkuk pkfg, ftlds fy, bl Ldhe ds vUrxZr ykHk mBk, tkus
g®A dsUnz ljdkj mi;qZDr Lohd`fr dks okil ys ldrh gS] ;fn miØe
fdlh Hkh 'krks± dk ikyu djus esa vleFkZ jgrk gSA
13- dsUnz ljdkj dh Lohd`fr ds fcuk ifj;kstuk Iyku esa fdlh
la'kksèu vFkok Hkfo"; esa irk pyus vFkok vkosnd dh vksj ls fdlh
oLrqxr rF; dks izdV djus esa vleFkZrk ds dkj.k vkS|ksfxd ikdZ
dh Lohd`fr vekU; gks tk,xhA
[vfèlwpuk la- 44@2015@Qkñ lañ 178@06@2011&vkdfu&I½]
nhif'k[kk 'kekZ] funs'kd
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2015
(INCOME-TAX)
S.O. 913.—Whereas the Central Government in exercise
of the powers conferred by clause(iii) of sub-section (4) of
section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961)
(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), has framed and
notified a scheme for industrial park, by the notifications
of the Government of India vide number
S.O. 50 (E), dated the 8th January, 2008 subsequently
amended vide Notification No. S.O. 1605 (E), dated 2nd
July 2008 and vide Notification S.O. No. 1210 (E) dated
21.5.2010.
And whereas M/s. Dosti Corparation (Pinnacle) having
its registered office at Lawrence & Mayo House, 1st Floor
276, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai is developing an Industrial
Park named "Dosti Pinnacle" placed at plot No. E-7, MIDC,
Road No.22, Wagle Industrial Area, Panchpakhdi, Thane
(West), Maharashtra.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 80-IA of the said
Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the
undertaking from the date of commencement i.e. 29.03.2011,
being developed and being maintained and operated by
M/s. Dosti Corporation (Pinnacle), as an undertaking and
the project named "Dosti Pinnacle" placed at Plot No. E-7,
MIDC, Road No.22, Wagle Industrial Area, Panchpakhdi,
Thane (West), Maharashtra for the purposes of the said
clause (iii) subject to the terms and conditions mentioned
in the Annexure of the notification.
ANNEXURE
The terms and conditions on which the approval of the
Government of India has been accorded for setting up of
an industrial park by M/s. Dosti Corporation (Pinnacle),
Mumbai.
(i)
Name of the Industrial
:
Dosti
Corporation
(Pinnacle), Mumbai
(ii) Proposed location
:
E-7 MIDC, Road No.22,
Wagle Industrial Area,
Panchpakhdi, Thane
(West), Maharashtra
(iii) Minimum Constructed
:
15,000 square meters.
Floor Area
(iv) Proposed industrial
:
As defined in Industrial
activities
Park Scheme, 2008
(v) Percentage of allocable
:
75% or more
area earmarked for
Industrial use
(vi) Percentage of allocable
:
10% or less
area earmarked for
commercial use
(vii) Minimum number of
:
30 Units
industrial Units
(viii) Date of commencement :
29.03.2011
2. The Industrial Park shall be construed as developed
on the date of commencement i.e. 29.03.2011 as mentioned
in the Certificate furnished by the undertaking and issued
by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
Thane.
3. The Industrial Park should be owned by one
undertaking.
4. The tax benefits under the act will be available to the
undertaking only after minimum number of thirty industrial
units are located in the Industrial Park. For the purpose of
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
1991
computing the minimum number of industrial units, all units
of a person and his associated enterprises will be treated
as a single unit.
5. No industrial unit, alongwith the units of an associated
enterprise, shall occupy more than twenty five percent of
the allocable area.
6. The tax benefits under the Act will be available only
to the undertaking notified vide this notifciation and not
to any other person who may subsequently develop,
develops and operates or maintains and operates the
notified industrial park, for any person.
7. The undertaking subject to the fulfillment of other
conditions, may at its option claim deduction under section
801A (4)(iii) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for any ten
consecutive assessment years out of fifteen years
beginning from the assessment year relevant to the date of
commencement of industrial part mentioned in this
notification.
8. The Industrial units located in the industrial park shall
undertake only those activities as specified in Industrial
Park Scheme, 2008.
9. The undertaking must keep separate books of
accounts for the industrial park and must file its income
tax returns by the due date to the income-tax department.
10. The notification will be invalid and Dosti
Corporation (Pinnacle), Mumbai shall be solely responsible
for any repercussions of such invalidity, if
(i)
the application on the basis of which the approval
is accorded by the Central Government contains
wrong information/misinformation or some
material information has not been provided in it.
(ii)
it is for the location of the industrial park for which
approval has already been accorded in the name
of another undertaking.
11. The undertaking shall furnish an annual report to
the Cenrtal Board to Direct Taxes in Form IPS-II.
12. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well
as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2008
should be adhered to during the period for which benefits
under this scheme are to be availed. The Central Government
may withdraw the above approval in case the undertaking,
fails to comply with any of the conditions.
13. Any amendment of the project plan without the
approval of the Cenrtal Government or detection in future,
or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material
fact, will invalidate the approval of the industrial park.
[Notification No. 44/2015/F.No. 178/06/2011-ITA-I]
DEEPSHIKHA SHARMA, Director
foKkku ,oa izkS|ksfxdh foHkkx
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 914-—Jh fp=k fr:uky vk;q£oKku vkSj izkS|ksfxdh
laLFkku] f=osUnze vf/kfu;e] 1980 ¼1980 dh la[;k 52½ dh èkjk&6
dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ vkSj ¼2½ ds lkFk ifVr /kkjk&5 ds mi&/kkjk ¼ts½
ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj] yksd lHkk ds fuEufyf[kr nks lnL;ksa dk
fuokZpu] laLFkku ds fudk; ds lnL;ksa ds :i esa fd;k x;k gS%—
Øe lañ
lnL;ksa dk uke
fuokZpu dh rkjh[k
1-
MkWñ izhre xksihukFk eqUMs
18-03-2015
2-
Jh ,uñ dsñ izsepUnzu
18-03-2015
2- mi;qZDr fuokZfpr lnL;ksa dh inkof/k] mudk fuokZpu fd,
tkus dh rkjh[k ls ikap o"kks± vFkok muds lnu dh lnL;rk lekIr
gksus vFkok muds yksd lHkk ds v/;{k ;k mik/;{k vFkok ea=h cuus]
buesa ls tks Hkh igys gksxk] rd gksxhA
3- mi;qZDr lnL;ksa dh lnL;rk dh fp=k fr:uky vk;q£oKku
vkSj izkS|ksfxdh laLFkku] f=osUnze vf/kfu;e] 1980 ds vU; izko/kkuksa
ds v/;/khu gksxhA
[lañ ,vkbZ@,llhVh@08@2004]
chñ ,lñ jkor] funs'kd
DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
New Delhi, the 1st May, 2015
S.O. 914.—In terms of the provisions of Sub-section
(j) of Section 5 read with Sub section (1) and (2) of Section
6 of the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute of Medical Sciences
and Technology, Trivandrum Act, 1980 (No. 52 of 1980),
the following two members of Lok Sabha have been
declared duly elected to serve as Members of the said
Institute:
Sl.No.
Name of Members
Date of Election
1.
Dr. Pritam Gopinath Munde
18.03.2015
2.
Shri N.K. Premachandran
18.03.2015
2. The term of Office of the above elected members
shall be five years from the date of election and the same
shall come to an end as soon as they cease to be Members
of the House, or they become Speaker or Deputy Speaker
of House of the People, or a Minister, whichever is the
earliest.
3. The Membership of the above Members shall be
subject to other provisions of Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute
of Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum Act, 1980.
[No. AI/SCT/08/2004]
B.S. RAWAT, Director
1992
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ukxj foekuu ea=ky;
¼, , vkbZ vuqHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 915-—dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; foekuiÙku izkf/kdj.k
vf/kfu;e] 1994 ¼1994 dk lañ 55½ dh /kkjk 3 esa iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ukxj foekuu ea=ky; ds fuEufyf[kr vf/kdkfj;ksa
dks rRdky izHkko ls Hkkjrh; foekuiÙku izkf/kdj.k ds eaMy esa fu;qDr
djrh gS%—
1-
Jherh ,eñ lR;korh] ukxj foekuu egkfuns'kd dks
Jh izHkkr dqekj ¼iwoZ ukxj foekuu egkfuns'kd½ ds LFkku
ij insu lnL; dks :i esa( rFkk
2-
lqJh xkxhZ dkSy] la;qDr lfpo ,oa foÙkh; lykgdkj] ukxj
foekuu ea=ky; dks Jherh ,eñ lR;korh] iwoZ vij lfpo
,oa foÙkh; lykgdkj] ukxj foekuu ea=ky; ds LFkku ij
va'kdkfyd lnL; ds :i esaA
[lañ ,ñ ohñ 24015@2@2015&,,vkbZ&,evkslh,]
dsñ ohñ mUuhd`".ku] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION
(AAI SECTION)
New Delhi, 5th May, 2015
S.O. 915.—In exercise of the powers conferred under
Section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994
(No. 55 of 1994), the Central Government hereby appoints
following Officers of Ministry of Civil Aviation on the
Board of Airports Authority of India with immediate effect:
1.
Smt. M. Sathiyavathy, Director General of Civil
Aviation as Ex-officio Member vice Shri Prabhat
Kumar (Ex-DGCA); and
2.
Ms. Gargi Kaul, Joint Secretary and Financial
Adviser, Ministry of Civil Aviation as part-time
Member vice Smt. M. Sathiyavathy, former AS&FA,
Ministry of Civil Aviation.
[No. AV. 24015/2/2015-AAI-MoCA]
K. V. UNNIKRISHNAN, Under Secy.
dk;kZy; iz/kku egkys[kkdkj
¼lkekU; ,oa lkekftd {ks= ys[kkijh{kk½
rfeyukMq ,oa iqnqpsjh]
lsok lekfIr dh lwpuk
psUuS] 17 uoEcj] 2014
dk;kZYk; iz/kku egkys[kkdkj ¼lkañ ,oa lkañ{ksñysñiñ½] psUubZ 18
ds Jh 'kqHke nkl] vLFkkbZ ys[kkijh{kd ds laca/k esa muds vafre Kkr
irksa ij ubZ fnYyh@vkxjk dks iathd`r Mkd }kjk ikorh ns; izsf"kr dh
xbZ lsok lekfIr dh lwpuk] ^^,slk dksbZ O;fDr ugha** fVIi.kh ds lkFk
forfjr fd;s fcuk ykSVk nh xbZ FkhA vr% dsañflñlsñ¼vñlsñ½ fu;e]
1965 ds fu;e 5¼1½ ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj lsok lekfIr dh lwpuk
ljdkjh jkti= esa ,r}kjk vf/klwfpr dh tkrh gSA
dk-vk- 916-—dsUnzh; flfoy lsok,a ¼vLFkkbZ lsok½ fu;e
1965 ds fu;e 5 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa] eSa] ,rn~}kjk]
Jh 'kqHke nkl] vLFkkbZ ys[kkijh{kd dks lwpuk nsrk gwa fd bl uksfVl
ds mudks iznku gksus dh rkjh[k ;k@mudks izLrqr gksus dh rkjh[k ] tks
Hkh ekeyk gks] ls ,d eghus dh vof/k lekIr gksus dh rkjh[k ls
mudh lsok,a lekIr ekuh tk,xhA
fnukad 17-11-2014
[lañ iz e ys ¼lkñ ,oa lkñ {ksñ ysñ iñ½ iz'kklu III@
2014&15@361]
dsñ 'kadj] mi egkys[kkdkj ¼iz'kklu½ ,oa
fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh
Jh 'kqHke nkl] ys[kkijh{kd
Jh 'kqHke nkl]
lañ 2] fczt ,Udyso] U;w ljLorh uxj]
ys[kkijh{kd]
ckyds'oj] vkxjk mÙkj izns'k]
2@53] jes'k uxj]
fiudksM 282 004
ubZ fnYyh&110 011
OFFICE OF THE PRINICIPAL ACCOUNTANT
GENERAL (G & SSA),
TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY,
NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF SERVICE
Chennai, the 17th November, 2014
The notice of termination in respect of Shri Shubham
Das, Temporary Auditor of Office of Principal Accountant
General (G & SSA), Chennai 18 was dispatched to his last
known addresses at New Delhi/Agra by Registred post
Ack Due and the same were returned undelivered with the
remarks "no such person". Hence the notice of termination
is hereby notified in the official Gazette as per the
provisions of Rule 5(1) of CCS (TS) Rules, 1965.
S.O. 916.—In pursuance of sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of
the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965,
I, the undersigned, hereby give notice to Shri Shubham
Das, Temporary Auditor that his services shall stand
terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of
one month from the date on which this notice is served on
or, as the case may be, tendered to him.
[No. PAG (G&SSA)Admn.III/2014-15/361]
K. SANKAR, Dy. Accountant General (Admn.)
and Appointing Authority
Station:
Dt. 17.11.2014
Shri Shubham Das,
Shri Shubhum Das,
Auditor,
Auditor,
No. 2, Brij Enclave,
2/53, Ramesh Nagar,
New Saraswathi Nagar,
New Delhi-110011.
Balkeshwar, Agra,
Uttar Praesh,
Pin 282 004
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
1993
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 917-—k"Vªifr] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds fjDr in gsrq fyad
vf/kdkjh ds :i esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je
U;k;ky; uañ 1] fnYyh ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Jh ,ñ lhñ Mksxjk dks rhu
ekg dh vof/k rd vFkok fu;fer in/kkj.k dh fu;qfDr gksus rd]
buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks rc rd ds fy, vfrfjDr dk;ZHkkj lkSairs g®A
[lañ ,&11016@03@2009&lh,y,l&II]
,lñ dsñ flag] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2015
S.O. 917.—The President is pleased to entrust the
additional charge of the Post of Presiding Officer of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur to Shri A.C. Dogra Presiding Officer, Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 1,
New Delhi for a period of three months or till the post is
filled on regualr basis whichever is earlier.
[No. A-11016/03/2009-CLS-II]
S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 918-—jk"Vªifr] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uañ 2] eqEcbZ ds fjDr in gsrq fyad
vf/kdkjh ds :i esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je
U;k;ky; uañ 1] eqEcbZ ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Jh lR; iwr egjks=k dks
rhu ekg dh vof/k rd vFkok fu;fer in/kkj.k dh fu;qfDr gksus
rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks rc rd ds fy, vfrfjDr dk;ZHkkj
lk®airs g®A
[lañ ,&11016@03@2009&lhñ,yñ,lñ&II]
,lñ dsñ flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2015
S.O. 918.—The President is pleased to entrust the
additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Mumbai-II to Shri Satya Poot Mehrotra Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Mumbai-I for a period of three months or till the post is
filled on regular basis whichever is earlier.
[No. A-11016/03/2009-CLS-II]
S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 919-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k easa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh,eihMhvkbZ,y
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1@93½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@4@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@355@1991&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2015
S.O. 919.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/93) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad
as shown in the ANNEXURE, in the industrial dispute
between the management of M/s. CMPDIL and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
29/04/2015.
[No. L-20012/355/1991-IR (C-I)]
M.K SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
Reference: No. 01/1993
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act.
1947
Parties:
Employer in relation to the management
of C M.P.D.I.L. Ranchi
AND
Their workmen
Present :
Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers
:
Shri B.K. Sinha, Manager (P)
For the Workman.
:
None.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Date: 1/4/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/355/91-IR (C-I) dated 04/01/1993
the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
1994
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 M/s Central
Mine & Planning & Design Institute Ltd. Ranchi in
terminating the service of Sri Galua Gope from December,
1988 (Specified date is not given by the union/
Management) after employing continuously from
6/1/83 and retaining the services of junior workman is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
and from what date?"
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears
subsequently by the workman. 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] 29 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 920-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k Je
U;k;ky;] uñ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 05@93½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@04@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@210@1991&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2015
S.O. 920.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/93) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus.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 29/04/2015.
[No. L-20012/210/1991-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
Reference: No. 05/1993
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Parties:
Employer in relation to the management of Balihari
Colliery of M/S BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present :
Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Shri N.M. Kumar, Advocate
For the Workman.
:
None.
State
:
Jharkhand
Industry Coal
Date: 10/3/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/210/91-IR (C-I) dated 17/12/1992
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 date of Birth of Shri Bal Krishna Prasad,
Machanical Fitter in Balihari Colliery of M/s MCCI should
be treated as 05.01.38 as claimed by him or whether it
should be treated as 11.11.1930, as recorded by the
management.
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently
by the workman. 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] 29 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 921-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k] esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chñ lhñ lhñ ,yñ ds
izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uñ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 37@93½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@340@1991&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
1995
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2015
S.O. 921.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/93) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus.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 29/04/2015.
[No. L-20012/340/1991-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
Reference : No. 37/1993
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Parties:
Employer in relation to the management of
Munidih Project M/S BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present:
Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers
:
Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman.
:
None.
State
:
Jharkhand.
Industry Coal
Date: 11/3/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/340/91-IR (C-I) dated 04/01/1993
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 Moonidih
Project of M/S BCCL, P.O Moonidih, Dist-Dhanbad in
not paying wages to C.K. Tigga and 9 others at per with
Rajendra Ram and B.N. Rai with effect from the date of
their promotion to Category-V is justified? If not, to
what relief the concerned workman are entitiled?"
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WORKMEN
1. Shri S. N. Sharma
2. Shri Rajeshwari Pd. Singh
3. Shri Baleshwar Pd. Singh
4. Shri Rajnath Singh
5. Shri Baban Choubey
6. Shri R.K. Mondal
7. Shri Bipin Kumar Singh
8. Shri Ramacharitra Paswan
9. Shri A.N. Bihari
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently
by the workman. 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] 29 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 922-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uñ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 21@93½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@393@1991&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2015
S.O. 922.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/93) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. 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 29/04/2015.
[No. L-20012/393/1991-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
1996
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMNET
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO. 1, DHANBAD
Reference: No. 21/1993
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Parties:
Employer in relation to the management of
Alkusa Colliery, M/S BCCL
AND
Their workmen.
Present:
Sri R.K. Saran,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Shri U.N. Lall, Advocate
For the Workman.
:
None.
State
:
Jharkhand.
Industry
:
Coal
Date: 6/4/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/393/91-IR (C-I) dated 05/01/1993
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 workmen S/Shri M.N. Singh, J.N. Banerjee,
Amulya Bhatta charjee, Dinanath Singh and Rampher
Pasi are entitled for promotion as safety-cum-production
Assistant Tech, Grade-'B' with effect from 01/06/1998?
If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled and what
date?"
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently
by the workman. Case remain pending. It is felt that the
disputes between the parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence No Dispute Awardd is passed.
Communicate.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 923-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fVLdks ds izca/kra= ds
lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
uñ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 32@93½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@391@1991&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2015
S.O. 923.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/93) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, 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 29/04/2015.
[No. L-20012/391/1991-IR (C-I)]
M.K SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
Reference: No. 32/1993
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act., 1947.
Parties :
Employer in relation to the Management of 6
& 7 Pits of M/S TISCO
AND
Their Workmen.
Present:
Sir R.K. Saran,
Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers
:
Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman
:
None.
State
:
Jharkhand.
Industry
:
Coal
Date: 20/3/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/391/91-IR (C-I) dated 04/01/1993
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 Jamadoba 6
& 7 Pits Colliery of M/s. TISCO in treating the
employment of Shri H.L. Acharya w.e.f. 15.10.63 as
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
1997
dependant and on the strength of the service of
Shri H.P. Acharya, Sr. Overman is justified? If not,
whether any more dependant of Shri H.P. Acharya is
entitled for employment with the management as he has
rendered more than 40 years of service before
superannuating in 1988?"
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently
by the workman. 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] 29 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 924-—vkS|ksfxdh fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds izca/
kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uñ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 132@99½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@81@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2015
S.O. 924.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby published the Award (Ref. No. 132/99) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad
as shown in the ANNEXURE, in the Industrial dispute
between the management of M/s. ECL and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 29/04/2015.
[No. L-20012/81/1999-IR (C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
Reference: No. 132/1999
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act., 1947.
Parties :
Employer in relation to the
Management of Mugma Area of M/S ECL
AND
Their Workmen.
Present :
Sir R.K. Saran
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Shri U.N. Lall, Advocate
For the Workman
:
Shri Rajgrahi Sah,
Concerned workman
State : Jharkhand.
Industry — Coal
Dated 10/3/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/81/99/IR (C-I) dated 04/06/1999
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 Mandman
Colliery Under Mugma Area of ECL in not promoting Sri
Rajgrahi Saw in 1989 from Clerical Grade II to Gr.-I,
although junior workman Mr. Rambilash Singh was
promoted in Gr.-I in 1996 is correct? if not what relief
the workman is entitled to?"
2. This case is received from the Ministry on 15.06.1999.
During the pendency of the case concerned workman files
a petition for withdrawing ths reference. He is submitting
that our demand is fulfil. Now he was satisfied.
3. It is felt, dispute between parties is resoled. Hence
"No dispute" award is passed, communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 925-—vkS|ksfxdh fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds izca/
kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uñ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 07@93½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@252@1991&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2015
S.O. 925.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 07/93) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad
as shown in the ANNEXURE, in the Industrial dispute
between the management of M/s. ECL and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 29/04/2015.
[No. L-20012/252/1991-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
1998
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
Reference: No. 07/1993
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act., 1947.
Parties:
Employer in relation to the Management of
Rajpura Colliery of M/S ECL
AND
Their Workmen.
Present:
Sri R.K. Saran,
Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman
:
None.
State : Jharkhand
Industry — Coal
Dated 12/3/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/252/91/IR (C-I) dated 16/12/1992
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 M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Ltd., Kapasara Area in relation to their Rajpura
Colliery in not regularizing S/Shri Mintu Modak and 10
others as Water Supplier is justified? If not, to what
benefit the workmen concerned are entitled?
Sl.
Name
S/o
Vill
Post
Dist
1.
Mintu Modak
Shri Gorachand Modak
Rajpura
Kumardhubi,
Dhanbad
2.
Lagan Mahto
Shri Shambhu Mahto
Gopalpur
Nirsha
Dhanbad
3.
Mitan Rakhit
Shri Vagat Rakhit
Agarcoor
Kumardhubi
Dhanbad
4.
Gautam Rakhit
Shri Jagat Rakhit
Agarcoor
Kumardhubi
Dhanbad
5.
Ramrap Chauhan
Sri Ramkrishna Chauhan
Dihuri
Dihuri
Gaya
6.
Kisto Mahto
Shri Mahadev Mahto
Tiltoria
Kumardhubi
Dhanbad
7.
Sasti Mahto
Shri Basudeo Mahto
Tiltoria
Kumardhubi
Dhanbad
8.
Dhiran Rajwar
Shri Ghasi Rajwar
Tiltoria
Kumardhubi
Dhanbad
9.
Bideshi Rajwar
Shri Srikant Rajwar
Kalimoti
Kumardhubi
Dhanbad
10. Amar Singh
Shri Surjeet Ram Singh
Rajpura
Kumardhubi
Dhanbad
11. Dev Nandan Paswan
Shri Ramlal Paswan
Swalibari
Kumardhubi
Dhanbad
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently
by the workman. Case remain pending. It is felt that the
dispute between the parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed,
Communicate.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 926-—vkS|ksfxdh fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ
bankSj etZM fon Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 48@98½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@165@97&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 926.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 48/98) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
1999
the management of State Bank of Indore Merged with State
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/165/97-IR (B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/48/98
Shri Sanjay Harishchand Khatke,
through General Secretary,
All India State Bank of Indore
Employees Congress,
Hardev Niwas,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain.
...Workman/Union
Versus
Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of Indore, Head Office,
Indore
(Merged with State Bank of India)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 17th day of April 2015
1. As per letter dated 9-3-90 by the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of
I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/165/97-IR(B-
I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of Indore in terminating the services of Shri Sanjay
Harishchandra Khakte even after taking work of peon
cum farrash continuouly w.e.f. 17-6-91 to 3-6-93 is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the workman
concerned is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Statement of claim is filed by Union Secretary at
Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of Ist party Union is that he was
engaged for cleaning, sweeping work by Branch Manager
Shri Mundra. He was engaged on daily wages from
1-2-91. That he was working in the branch from 8 AM to
6 PM. He was paid wages from Monday to Saturday. After
transfer of Branch Manager Shri Mundra, workman was
called to work at Sanyogita branch Indore. That workman
was working as peon in the branch after 10.30 till 6 PM.
After transfer of Shri Mundra Branch Manager, Shri Sheikh
has joined the branch. As per his directions, workman was
submitting various kinds of bills. The payment orders were
drawn and Branch Manager was paying the wages. His
services were terminated from 30-4-96 without notice.
Workman had completed 240 days continuous services.
Termination of his service without notice is illegal. The
workman was not paid bonus. IInd party has violated
Section 25-F of ID Act. Para 504 of Sastry Award,
compensation was not paid to him, after his termination,
other employees were engaged 25 daily wage employee
are still working in the Bank. On such contentions, workman
prays for his reinstatement with back wages. Statement of
claim is not signed by workman rather it is signed only by
Shri Ram Nagwanshi.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/8
opposing claim of workman. IInd party has pleaded that
statement of claim is not verified by Shri Sanjay Khakte.
Such statement of claim is not tenable. Shri Sanjay Khatke
was not member of the Union. The General Secretary is not
authorized to represent the dispute. IInd party submits
that Managing Director of Bank is unnecessarily impleaded.
The case suffers from misjoinder of parties. Union at Ujjain
has no locus-standi to prosecute the claim from employees
working at Indore. All adverse contentions of workman
that he was engaged on 1991, he completed 240 days
continuous service have been denied. It is denied that
workman was continuously working. IInd party denied
violation of Section 23 of ID Act. It is denied that workman
was terminated from service without paying 3 months
pay. Workman was engaged at Yeshwant Road Branch or
Sanyogita branch as per exigencies. The wages agreed
were paid to them. On such ground, IInd party prays for
rejection of claim.
4. Workman has submitted rejoinder at Page 11/1 to 11/
3 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of State Bank
of Indore in terminating the
services of Shri Sanjay
Harishchandra Khakte even
after taking work of peon
cum farrash continuously
w.e.f. 17-6-91 to 3-6-93 is
legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
6. The reference order shows that the dispute was raised
by All India State Bank of Indore employees Congress
Union and not by the workman. Shri Ram Nagwanshi
2000
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
claimed to be office bearer of the Union. Thus the statement
of claim is submitted by Shri Ram Nagwanshi claiming to
be General Secretary of the Union cannot be said proper.
How daily wage employees submitted statement of claim is
not explained when the dispute was raised by General
Secretary, All India State Bank of Indore Employees
Congress. Claim of workman is denied outright by the
management.
7. Affidavit of evidence of workman was filed on
20-11-05. Again he filed affidavit of his evidence on
26-2-06 that he was working in the bank from February 93
to April 93 for 337 days. He worked more than 240 days.
That he was working in Sanyogita branch, Indore from
1-5-93. The services were terminated from 30-4-96 without
notice, without payment of retrenchment compensation.
Workman in his cross says that he was introduced with
the Branch manager on next day, he was told to join duties.
Appointment letter was not given to him, he was paid wages
Rs. 40/- per day. The bills in the name of Sharda Electrics
were prepared. Workman says documents P-13 to P-44 were
prepared by himself. Any order is not produced by him, he
claims ignorance whether P-14 is from which register.
8. Management's witness Prahlad supported contention
of IInd party managemnet denying that workman was
continuously workig from 1-1-1990 to 30-4-96. That the
workman Shri Sanjay Khatkar was engaged for sweeping,
cleaning work in the branch for 1 hour morning and 1 hour
evening. He was not continuouly working in Sanyogita
branch or Y.N. Road branch during 1991 to 1993. The
premission of Controlling Authority was not taken before
engaging workman in the work. Name of workman is not
recorded in Attendance Register. He claims ignorance who
paid wages to the workman, he claims ignorance about
notice for retrenchment or payment of compensation. The
evidence of Ist party workman is self serving statement.
His evidence shows that the bills in name of other persons
were prepared by him. Any co-employee is not examined in
support of his evidence. The documents produced by
workman have been denied. Evidence of workman is not
sufficient to establish that he was working more than 240
days in the Bank. Therefore workman is not entitled to
protection of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding
in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1)
The action of the management of State Bank of
Indore in terminating the services of Shri Sanjay
Harishchandra Khakte even after work of peon
cum farrash continuously w.e.f. 17-6-91 to 3-6-93
is proper and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 927-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
izca/k ra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 47@04½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@308@2003&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 927.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/04) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the ANNEXURE, in the industrial dispute between
the management of State Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/308/2003-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/47/04
General Secretary,
Daily Wages Bank Employees Association,
Hardev Niwas, 9,
Sanwar Road, Ujjain
Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Region-I, Zonal Office,
Hamidia Road,
Bhopal (MP)
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 21st day of April 2015
1. As per letter dated 27-4-04 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/
308/2003-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India, Region-I, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Manoj Ingle w.e.f.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2001
16-10-99 and not regularizing his services is justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim at Page 3/1
to 3/5. Case of Ist party workman is that he was working as
messenger on daily wages with IInd party at Sultania Road,
Bhopal Branch for 43 days in 1998, Hamidia Road for 164
days during 14-9-89 to 17-5-90 for 164 days, Bhuranpura
branch for 228 days in 1990-91. Workman submits as per
settlement dated 17-11-87, worked for 30 days are eligible
for absorption. The advertisement was published on 1-5-
91, 20-8-91 for absorption of temporary employees. He had
submitted application stating that he worked for total 435
days. Workman was called for interview on 19-2-97. After
his interview, his name was included in the panel list. He
was given intimation about his selection. On 8-9-97, he
was allowed to join on post of messenger. The employees
working for less number of days were absorbed as
permanent employees. Ist party workman further submits
that he completed 240 days continuous service. His services
were terminated without notice on 16-10-99. IInd party paid
amount of Rs. 8631 towards retrenchment compensation.
Amount Rs. 12,175/- towards arrears. Workman submits
that he is employee under Section 25 B of ID Act. His
services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID
Act. Principles of last come first go was not followed. IInd
party violated Section 25-G,N of I.D. Act. he was not
provided re-employment thereby IInd party violated Section
25-H of ID Act. On such grounds, workman prays for
reinstatement with back wages.
3. IInd Party submitted Written Statement at Page 10/1 to
10/9 opposing claim of workman. preliminary objection is
raised that Shri R. Nagwanshi was a dismissed employee.
He has no locus to represent the workman. IInd party has
admitted Ist party workman work for 164 days in Hamidia
Branch in Bhopal during 1989 to 90, 87 days in 1990 in
Govindpura Branch, 766 days during 1997 to 99 Hamidia
Road Branch. Workman was paid retrenchment
compensation Rs. 8631/- on 16-10-99. The cheque was
returned back.
4. Workman was engaged on contract basis at opening
hours and closing hours of the Bank. His engagement
ended at end of the day. His discontinuation is covered
under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act. Provisions of Section
25-F are not applicable. Settlement dated 17-11-87,
16-7-88, 28-10-88, 9-1-91 with Union are not disputed.
Workman was called for interview as per settlement. On
19-2-97 he was not found eligible for compassionate
appointment considering the seniority and certificate of
work. Ist party workman worked for 164 days and thereafter
for 87 days before cut off date 14-8-91. Workman was
appointed on daily wages casual labour. He was never
appointed on vacant post of messenger. Above contentions
are reiterated by IInd party and it is submitted that workman
is not entitled to any reliefs.
5. Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at page 11/1 to
11/3 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and dertermination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Asstt.
General Manager, State
Bank of India, Region-I,
Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Manoj
Ingle w.e.f. 16-10-99 and
not regularizing his
services is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
7. The terms of reference pertains to legality of
termination of services of Ist party workman and not
regularization of his services. Workman filed affidavit of
his evidence. However he remained absent for his cross-
examination. Therefore oral evidence of workman cannot
be accepted.
8. Management field affidavit of witness Shri Vinay
Kumar Singh. Management's witness in his affidavit of
evidence has narrated working days of workman 164 days
in 1989 to 1990, 87 days in 1991, 766 days in 1997 to 1999.
However the managment's witness has stated that workman
was engaged on daily wages. His services came to end of
every day. His discontinuation doesnot amount to
retrenchment under Section 2(oo) rather it is covered under
Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act. The affidavit of management's
witness is further devoted to the settlements between Union
and management. Its benefit was extended till 14-8-91.
Workman was interviewed but his working days were found
less. Workman had submitted certificate of 36 working days
till 14-8-91. The witness of management in his cross-
examination says he was not posted at Sultania Road
Branch, Hamidia Branch in 1988 to 1990. He was not posted
in Hamidia Branch in 97-99. Before engaging workman on
work, permission of Controlling Authority was not taken,
appointment letter was not issued to him. His attendance
register was not maintained. The contract under which
workman was engaged was not produced. He claims
ignorance whether list of daily wage employees was
displayed on notice board at the time of termination of
workman. Management's witness claims ignorance whether
retrenchment notice was issued to workman. The amount
of retrenchment compensation was sent by cheque. The
cheque is available in the Bank. Those documents are not
produced.
2002
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9. From evidence of managment's witness, working days
of workman are admitted. The documents of retrenchment
notice, payment of retrenchment compensation are not
produced on record.
10. Exhibit W-1 shows 87 working days of workman
during 1-1-91 to 14-8-91. In Exhibit W-2 working days of
workman are shown 164 days during 14-9-89 to 17-5-99,
Exhibit W-3 & 4 are copy of public days during 14-9-89 to
17-5-99, Exhibit W-3 & 4 are copy of public notice inviting
applications from temporary employees for their absorption.
Exhibit W-5 is copy of application submitted by workman
giving details of his working days. workman has shown 43
days working in 1988, 164 days in 1989-90, 228 days in
1990-91. It falsifies evidence of management's witness that
workman has shown 36 working days in his application. In
Exhibit W-6 admitted by IInd party, Asstt. General Manager
informed that number of working days is not prescribed for
absorption of casual employees. Exhibit W-7 is interview
call issued to workman calling for interview on 19-2-97.
Exhibit W-8 is certificate about working of Ist party by
Branch Manager. W-9 is reply filed by IInd party before
ALC. The payment of retrenchment compensation was
shown in the reply. Cheque Exhibit W-10 shows that
workman was paid amount of Rs. 8631, 12,175 were paid to
the workman in the year 2003. As per Exhibit W-11, Manager
requested to close the proceeding. W-12 is certificate about
working days to one Gopal Krishna Sarsiya. His working
days are shown 67 days in 1981-82. Exhibit W-13 is copy of
appointment letter issued to Shri G.K. Sarsiya. Exhibit W-14
is letter given by Asstt. General Manager calling
information of temporary employees. Exhibit W-15 is list of
selected candidates, it is incomplete. Exhibit W-16 is copy
of appointment letter issued to one Mangal Singh. The
documents Exhibit W-17, W-18, 19 pertains to engagement
of other persons. Exhibit W-20 is list of successful
candidates in computer operating test of the year 2007.
11. The evidence of IInd party is clear that the list of
casual employees was not displayed on notice board at
the time of discontinuation of workman. Working days of
Ist party workman were not considered at the time of
termination of services of Ist party workman is context of
the settlements. In Exhibit M-1, at Page 3 the daily wage
employees should have completed 240 days temporary
service in continuous block of 12 calendar months or less
after 1-7-75 are eligible for absorption. In Page-3 (II) (ii)(b),
it is provided that the aforesaid aggregate temporary
service of 270 days, 240 days, 70 days, 30 days should
have been put in temporary employee at any one or more
of the office branches falling within a module as existing/
defined as on 31-7-88. Document Exhibit M-2 to M-5 pertains
to settlement between management and Union. Exhibit
M-4 at Page 51 provides Clause I of settlement dated
17-11-87 as modified by settlement dated 16-7-88
substituted in the year 1992 with 1994. Similarly in clause
1(a) of the settlement dated 27-10-88 substituted 1988 to
1992, 1995 & 1996. Said settlement also provides for
conducting interviews for permanent appointment by
Selection Committee at preparation of panel. Copy of select
list produced at Exhibit M-6 shows working days of the
candidates appointment by IInd party. 143 days of Kailash
Chandra, Meena Lal Gehlod, 133 days of Bharatlal Kori, 90
days of Nandlal, 89 days of B.Satyanaran. The working
days of workman are quite more than that the working
days of workman are quite more than that the working
days of adove candidates. The name of workman is found
at Sl. No. 186 with remarks "Suitable in SC Category". The
working days proved from evidence on record are 164 days
during 89-90, 87 days in 1991 as per affidavit of evidence
filed by management's witness. It clearly shows that working
days of workman were not carefully shows while the select
list was prepared. It was the reason why workman was
denied opportunity for absorption. Considering his working
days proved from evidence, workman is wrongly denied
benefit of regularization as per settlement dated 28-10-88
which was extended to 14-8-91.
12. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri Khare advanced
argument considering the working days of Ist party
workman before cut off date 14-8-91 were only 36 days. It
is contrary to the evidence on record. Workman was paid
retrenchment compensation and arrears of the salary but
list of daily wage employees was not displayed on notice
board as contemplated under Section 25 G and Rule 77 of
ID Act. Thus termination of service of workman is illegal.
Instead of regularising services of workman, he was
illegally terminated by IInd party. For above reasons, I
record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
13. Point No. 2—while dealing with Point No. 1, it is
found that the working days of workman were not properly
considered. Instead of regularizing his services, workman
was terminated. Question remains whether workman is
entitled for reinstatement with backwages/regularization.
The evidence discussed while dealing with Para 1 working
days of workman are much more than the candidates
appointment from select list Exhibit M-6. Workman is
wrongly denied benefit of regularization showing lesser
number of working days in the list. The termination of
workman also suffers from illegality as seniority list of
the casual temporary employees working in IInd party
was not displayed in notice board. Reasons for termination
of his services were also not informed to the workman.
considering above aspects, workman is entitled for benefit
of regularization. On point of relief to be granted for
violation of section 25-F of ID Act, Advocate for
management relies on ratio in case of:
Incharge officer and another versus Shankar Shetty
reported in 2010(9)SCC 126. Their Lordship dealing with
the point, what relief to be granted for violation of Section
25-F of ID Act held respondent engaged as a daily wager
in 1978, worked intermittently for 7 years upto his
retrenchment which was about 25 years back. Order of
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2003
reinstatement was set aside and compensation Rs. One
Lakh was awarded.
The facts of present case are not available. Workman
was denied benefit of settlement dated 17-11-88. His
working days were not carefully considered. Services of
workman were terminated from 16-10-99 therefore
compensation for violation of Section 25-F would be
justified. As the workman is also entitled for regularization
of his services in pursuance of settlement dated
17-11-88. Considering all the aspects, workman is entitled
for reinstatement. Workman has not appeared for his
cross-examination. His evidence cannot be considered.
Therefore claim of workman for back wages cannot be
allowed. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
14. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India, Region-I, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Manoj Ingle w.e.f.
16-10-99 and not regularizing his services is not
legal.
(2) Management is directed to reinstate workman as
messenger with continuity of service. The claim for
backwages is rejected.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
15. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 928-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds
izca/kra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼56@05½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@153@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 928.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 56/05) of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in
the ANNEXURE, in the industrial dispute between the
management of State Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/153/2004-IR (B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/56/05
General Secretary,
Daily Wages Bank
Employees Association,
9, Sanwar Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Band of India, Region-V,
Zonal Office, Hamidia Road,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 22nd day of April, 2015
1. As per letter dated 20-6-05 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/
153/2004-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of India, Region-V Bhopal in terminating the services of
Shri Ramnath Singh Sengar w.e.f. 25-1-03 is legal and
justified? Whether the claim of the workman for his
regularization in services as an Armed Guard is justified?
In the facts and circumstance of the case what relief is
the workman entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at page 3/2
to 3/7. Case of workman is that on 30-10-98, he was called
for interview by Branch Manager, Shri P.M. Karkare, some
on day, he was engaged as Security Guard. He was
continuously working as Security Guard. Shri Satram Singh,
Bhagwan Singh Baish, L.S. Bhadoriya. C.S.P. Mishra also
working as Security Guard. During leave vacation of the
Security guards, he was engaged. He was paid wages as
per scale. He was also required to work night. Nightpass
was issued to him on 7-8-99. He completed 240 days
continuous service during each of the year. On 23-11-02,
he submitted application for regular appointment. He had
worked for 921 days. His services were terminated of without
notice from 25-1-03. During pendency of conciliation
proceedings, on 7-2-03 his services were terminated in
violation of Section 33-A of ID Act. 1st party workman
reiterated that he had completed 240 days continuous
service. His services are terminated in violation of Section
25-F, G of ID Act. Principles of last come first go was not
2004
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
followed. On such ground, 1st party for his reinstatement
with backwages.
3. IInd party filed Written statement at Page 10/1 to 10/
9 opposing claim of workman. Preliminary objection is raised
that Shri Ram Nagwanshi is terminated from Bank service,
he is not competent to raise dispute. The reference is not
tenable. In para-1 of the Written Statement, IInd party has
shown working days of workman 52 days in 1998, 258 days
in 1999, 234 days in 2000, 287 days in 2001, 269 days in
2002-total 1100 days.
4. IInd party submits that workman was not appointed
as regular employee. He was engaged casually as per
exigencies of work on daily wages. His engagement came
to end at end of the day. His discontinuation of workman is
covered under Section 2(oo) (bb) of ID Act. It doesnot
amount to retrenchment. Workman had not worked
continuously for 240 days during any of the year. Workman
is not entitled to benefits of settlement dated 17-11-87,
16-7-88, 20-10-88, 9-1-91. As per provisions of those
settlements, applications were called from candidates and
after interview, panel of selected candidates were prepared.
Workman did not work prior to the cut off date 14-8-91. He
was never appointed as regular employee. Workman is not
covered under Section 25 B of ID Act. Violation of Section
33 of ID Act is denied. Termination of services of workman,
violation of Section 25-F is also denied. IInd paprty
reiterates that workman had not completed 240 days
continuous service. His engagement on daily wages was
ending at end of the day. Violation of Section 25-G, H of ID
Act is not denied. Workman is not entitled for absorption
as messenger.
5. 1st party submitted rejoinder at page 12/1 to 12/3
reiterating his contentions is statement of claim.
6. Considerting pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of State Bank
of India, Region-V Bhopal
in terminating the services
of Shri Ramnath Singh
Sengar w.e.f. 25-1-03 is
legal and justified?
(ii) Whether the claim of the
In Affirmative
workman for his regulari-
zation in service as an
Armed Guard is justified?
(iii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
7. The terms of reference relates to legality of termination
of service of workman, denial of regularisation as Armed
Guard. IInd party in its written Statement Para-1 has shown
working days more than 240 days during the year 1999 to
2001-02. In subsequent paras, other IInd party has denied
completion of 240 days continuous service of workman.
The documents admitted by IInd party Exhibit W-1 is
application submitted by workman. In Exhibit W-2, his
address is shown at Ujjain. In Exhibit W-3, workman had
requested that he may be allowed permission for appearing
in the interview conducted by Bank for absorption of
temporary employees. Similar request was made by
workman in Exhibit W-4, W-5. Though IInd party had denied
completion of 240 days continuous service by workman,
certainly Exhibit W-6 admitted by IInd party shows 1st
party workman worked for total 921 days during December,
1998 to August, 2002. Exhibit W-7 is notice issued by ALC,
Bhopal to IInid party. Exhibit W-8 is letter given by workman
dated 25-1-03 requesting to issue order of his termination.
Exhibit W-9 is showcause notice issued by ALC w.r.t.
violation of Section 33(1) of ID Act. Exhibit W-10 is copy of
same notice addressed to General Secretary of Union.
W-11 is copy of submission of IInd party before ALC.
Document Exhibit W-12 to 15 admitted by IInd party pertains
to the working days of 1st party workman. Those
documents support evicdence of workman that he
completed more than 240 continuous service. Other
documents admitted by IInd party are the copies of issued
notice by ALC. Policy in the matter of recruitment Exhibit
W-21. Exhibit W-22, 23, 24 are copy of Para 522(1) of Sastry
Award.
8. Workman submitted affidavit of his evidence covering
his contention in statement of claim that he was
continuously working more than 240 days from 31-10-98
till 23-11-02. His service were terminated from 25-1-03.
Workman in his cross-examination says he was not engaged
as per advertisement of the Bank. He was going to the
Bank for deposit of amount while he was working in cloth
mill. He denies that he was paid wages in the evening after
his working in the Bank. In his cross-examination, he admits
that as per settlement, employees working during 1-1-1975
t0 14-8-91 were called for interview. The engagement of
workman is not prior to the cut off date 14-8-98 as per
settlement. Copies of settlements are produced on record.
Name of workman is not found in the select list produced
on record. The evidence of workman about completing 240
days continuous service is not shattered rather it is
corroborated by the documents discussed earlier.
9. When management's witness Shri Sunil has also given
working days in Para-1 of his affidavit that the workman
had worked for 1100 days, the details are given. The
evidence of management's witness corroborates evidence
of workman. Management's witness in his cross says
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2005
contract about engagement of workman was oral, any
contract was not produced. Workman was not called for
interview in 1997. He claims ignorance about payment of
retrenchment compensation or notice of termination issued
to workman. The evidence discussed above shows that
workman completed 240 days continuous service. His
services were terminated without notice. Workman was
not paid retrenchment compensation. The workman was
engaged after cutt off date 14-8-98 therefore he is not
entitled for regulariziation as per the settlement. The
termination of his service 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 in Affirmative.
10. Point No. 3—in view of my finding in Point No. 1, 2
termination of service of workman is in violation of Section
25-F of ID Act, question remains for consideration is whetehr
workman is entitled for regularization, reinstatement with
backwages. On the point, learned counsel for IInd party
Shri V.K. Khare relies on ratio held in case of:
State of Karnataka and other Versus M.L. Kesari and
other reported in 2010(9)SCC 247. Their Lordship dealing
with question of regularization of casual labour only
irregular appointees are entitled to regularization in terms
of Para 53 of Umadevi case held appointment of qualified
persons made against sanctioned post without following
process of open competition are irregular appointments.
In case of Incharge Officer and another versus Shankar
Shetty reported in 2010(9) SCC 126. Their Lordship
considering engagement of daily wager intermittently for 7
years upto his retrenchment, which was baout 25 years
back. High Court's order for reinstatement was set-aside
awarding compensation Rs. One Lakh.
In present case, workman was not engaged following
recruitment process is clear from evidence in cross-
examination. The 1st party workman worked from October,
98 till 23-1-03 for a period more than 4 years. Reinstatement
would not be justified. However services are terminated in
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, compensation Rs.
75,000/- would be reasonable. Accordingly I record my
finding in Point No. 3.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of terminating the services of
Shri Ramnath Singh Sengar w.e.f. 25-1-03 is illegal.
Action of denial of regularization of workman is
proper and legal.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 75,000/- to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per annum
from the date of award till its realization.
12. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 929-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d
izca/kra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼64@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&12012@6@2001&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 929.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 64/2001) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of State Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/6/2001-IR (B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/64/2001
Shri Ram Prasad Ahirwar
R/o Jhuggi No. 14, Vallabh Nagar,
Near Satpura,
Chaand Cycle Service,
Ward No. 35, Bhopal (MP)
Workman
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Region-I, Zonal Office,
Bhopal (MP)
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 1st day of April, 2015
As per letter dated 28-30/3/2001 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
recieved. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/
6/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
2006
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of India, Region-I. Bhopal in terminating the services of
Shri Ram Prasad Ahirwar w.e.f. 1-5-2000 is justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. 1st party workman filed statement of claim at page
3 to 11. The case of workman is that he was appointed in
1987. His work was satisfactory. Since 1987 he was working
with IInd party the advertisement was issued in 1991 for
absorption of part time employees. Ist party workman
submitted application. On 21-9-99, Ist party workman was
informed that he was appointed on probation for period of
six months. The documents of medical certificate, character
certificate etc. were to be produced. If such documents
were produced, workman will be given appointment w.e.f.
29-5-99. It is reiterated that his appointment was on
probation of six months as per order dated 5-11-99. The
appointment of workman was considered from 29-5-99 and
difference of wages were paid to him. On 1-4-00, explanation
was called from him. That he passed higher secondary
examination in 1982. He suppressed said information and
his educational qualification was shown only 8th standard.
Workman had given reply to letter. Without considering
his reply, his services were terminated as per order dated
1-5-00. Workman was paid one months pay.
3. Ist party workman submit that he was granted status
of permanent employee after completion of probation
period. Termination of his service is in violation of Section
25 of ID Act, as such illegal retrenchment. On such ground,
workman prays for his reinstatement with back wages.
4. Management filed Written Statement on 7-7-05
opposing claim of workman. Case of IInd party is that 1st
party employee was engaged on daily wages in 1987 for
filling water in cooler for 60 days. IInd party has evolved
procedure for selection of the staff. The provisions of
various agreements, eligibility criteria etc. are to be followed
while making permanent appointments. Previously
temporary employees who completed minimum service
during 1-7-75 to 31-7-88 were considered. Said period was
extended till 14-8-91. The casual employees who completed
minimum wages during above said period were given
chance of permanent employment. Ist party employee was
called for interview vide order dated 21-9-99. He was offered
1/3rd part time permanent employment on post of general
attendant. Thereafter he was appointed as part time from
6-11-99 on probation period for a period of six months. The
services of Ist party workman wre liable to be terminated
giving one months notice without assigning reasons. It is
reiterated that workman had suppressed information
passing higher secondary examination in 1992 and
submitting information that he had passed only 8th
standard. On account of giving false information, services
of Ist party workman were terminated giving one months
notice. The termination of workman is legal. The
appointment of Ist party workman based on wrong
information is void-ab-initio. The termination order of
workman does not call for interference. On such ground, it
is submitted that workman is not entitled to any relief.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of State Bank
of India, Region-I, Bhopal
in terminating the services
of Shri Ram Prasad
Ahirwar w.e.f. 1-5-2000 is
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is engiled to?"
REASONS
6. Workman is challenging termination of his services
for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman has
produced documents Exhibit W-1 forwarding termination
order dated 1-5-00. Workman is removed from service giving
one months pay. The reasons are given that he had
suppressed information of passing HSc in 1992. Exhibit
W-2 is notice advertising the post. The required
qualification for massengers are shown 8th standard
passed, non-matriculate will be considered. Other than the
post of messenger passing HSc, SSc, Matriculation or
equivalent examination in 3rd or 2nd class while not
performing duties in the Bank shall be eligible for the
post if high qualification was not the basis of securing
any other employment. Exhibit W-3 is letter dated 21-9-99
calling documents of educational qualification character
etc. Exhibit W-4 is appointment letter dated 5-11-99. The
Ist party was appointed on 1/3rd of basic and allowances
on probation to six months period. Exhibit W-5 is
memorandum issued to workman calling explanation that
he shown his qualification 8th standard suppressing
educational qualification of passing HSc in 1992. Exhibit
W-6 is reply given by workman admitting his mistake.
Exhibit W-8 is copy of certificate of his residence.
7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting
his contentions is statement of claim. In his cross-
examination, workman says on 6-11-99, he joined on the
post of messenger. He was appointed as per the settlement
with Union. Affidavit of his evidence was drafted by the
Advocate, he signed on it reading the contents. Exhibit
W-9 is order of removal of workman giving one months
pay. Exhibit W-10 is certificfate issued by Branch Manager
that workman was working in Udyanchal Branch of SBI at
Bhopal from Dec-90 to July 97. Exhibit W-11 is copy of
public notice. Exhibit W-12 is copy of residential proof.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2007
Similar documents are produced earlier. Management has
produced document Exhibit M-1 is declaration submitted
by workman. His educational qualification is shown 8th
standard in 1978. Exhibit M-2 is copy of letter dated
21-9-99, M-3 is copy of letter dated 5-11-99. Workman was
directed to produce declaration of fadility rules of conduct,
domicile and undertaking to serve in the Branch. Copy of
explanation submitted by workman is produced at Exhibit
M-5. Copy of memorandum produced at Exhibit M-6.
Identical set of documents are produced at Exhibit M-7, 8,
9 & 10.
8.
Management's witness Shivkant Chaturvedi filed
affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions of
management that management had entered in agreement
with Bank Staff Federation providing opporotunity giving
one change. The agreements were entered on 17-4-87,
16-7-88. 27-10-88 & 9-1-91. That as workman has suppresed
information of passing 12th standard, his appointment was
void. Workman is not entitled to protection of Section
25-F of ID Act. Management's witness in his cross-examination
says workman had worked for some days in 1987. He was
unable to tell exact working days in 1987. After agreement
with Union, workman was engaged on probation for fix
months. He was terminated during said period as he
suppressed information about his educational qualification
passing Hsc. There was no other reason for termination of
his service. Notice was issued to workman was replied by
him. He admitted information about educational
qualification for appointment as messenger is 8th standard.
Domestic enquiry was not conducted against workman.
On completion of six months service Bank employee is
confirmed. Management's witness denies that workman
was working on daily wages from 87 to 89. Management's
witness says that muster from 87 to 89 is not produced.
9. The advertisement notice Exhibit W-2 clearly provides
that higher qualification acquired by such employees
passing matriculation in 3rd or 2nd Division would be
considered for post other than messenger. The management
has not produced copies of settlements between
management and Union pertaining to the absorption of
casual or part time employees. The evidence of workman
that he was working with the Bank from 1987 to 1-5-00
remained unchallenged. Any document is not produced
by IInd party that higher qualification of casual or part time
employees would be disqualification for absorption on
permanent post. The service of workmen are terminated
after completion of the probation period of six months.
10. Learned counsel for 1st party workman Shri Ashok
Srivastava during course of argument submits that the
termination of workman is covered as unfair labour practice
under Section 2(r) of I.D. Act. Higher qualification cannot
be a disqualification. The service of workman are not
terminated during probation period. Workman is not paid
retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of I.D.Act.
11. Learned counsel of IInd party Shri Vijay Tripathi
emphasized that workman suppressed information of
passing higher secondary examination. He admitted his
mistake in Reply Exhibit M-6 Workman was paid one
month's pay as per Exhibit M-8. The termination of workman
as per conditions of appointment is legal.
12. Reliance is placed on ratio held in "Case of State of
MP and others reported in Shyama Pardhi and others
reported in 1996(7) SCC-118. The ration held in the case
relates to persons not possessing the pre-requisite
qualifications prescribed by statutory rules wrongly
selected and after successful Completion of training
appointed as Auxilary Nurse-cum-Midwife. In such
cirumstances, their initial selection to undergo training being
per se illegal, termination of their appointment did not attract
principles of natural justice.
Above cited case relates to not possessing requisite
qualification. Present case relates to workman posses higher
qualification was not disclosed therefore ration cannot be
applied to present case at hand.
Next reliance placed on ratio held in case of Rajajinagar
Coop Bank Ltd. Versus K. Gururaj and another reported in
2001(10) S.C.C. 681. their Lordship dealing with Section
25-F under Section 10(4)(a) of I.D. Act held termination of
service of probation prior to the expiry of probation period
in terms of appointment order, held doesnot attract Section
25-F of I.D. Act.
In present case, the services of workman are not
terminated during probation period considering the
performance of workman, his services are terminated in the
ground that he had suppressed information of higher
educational qualifications. The ratio cannot be applied to
present case.
13. The evidence of workman that he was working with
IInd party from 1987 to 2000 remained unchallenged.
Workman was not paid entrenchment compensation.
Therefore termination of services 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.
14. Point No.2-in view of my finding in Point No.1,
termination of services of workman is illegal, quastion arises
whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with
backwages. The evidence discussed while dealing with
Point No.1 is that workman was working with IInd party
from 1987 to 2000 as casual employee as per settlements
with Union. Workman as absorbed for permanent post. His
services were terminated for suppressing his educational
qualification. Possessing higher education in 1982 long
before the workman was engaged as casual employee. No
agreement between management and Union is produced
that such higher qualification was a disqualification for
absorbing casual employees. Workman cannot be held
2008
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
responsible for termination of his services. Evidence of
workman that he was rendered unemployed after
termination of his services remained unchallenged. The
evidence of management's witness is silend that workman
was in gainful employment after termination of his services.
Learned counsel for workman Shri Ashok Srivastva relies
on ratio held in.
Case of Gyan Sudha Mishra and V. Gopala Gowda
reported in 2014-LAB-I.C.2643. the award of Labour Court
for reinstatement with full back wages was upheld by their
Lordship setting aside the order of High Court holding
that workman resigned and awarding compensation
Rs. 1,00,000/- was allowed.
In case of Jasmer Singh versus State of Haryana and
another reported in 2015(144) FLR 837. Their Lordship of
Apex court held provisions of Section 25-F.G. & H not
complied with neither any notice was served on him nor
any retrenchment compensation was paid. Principal of last
come first go was not followed. The award of reinstatement
with continuity of service and full back wages was upheld.
Even in present case, workman was not in employment
of IInd party when he passed HSc examination in 1982. The
higher qualification cannot be a disqualification for
absorption on permanent post. Termination of Ist party
workman is illegal. Therefore the reinstatement of workman
with full back wages deserves to be allowed. Accordingly
I record my finding in Point No. 2.
15. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of State Bank of
India, Region-I, Bhopal in terminating the services
of Shri Ram Prasad Ahirwar w.e.f. 1-5-2000 is not
proper and legal.
(2) IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with
continuity of service with full back wages.
16. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 930-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk
14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
izcaèra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼64@02½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@424@2001&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5 May, 2015
S.O. 930.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref.64/02) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/424/2001-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT
LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO.CGIT/LC/R/64/02
General Secretary,
Daily Wages Bank
Employees Association,
Hardev Niwas, 9,
Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Region-I, Zonal Office,
Hamidia Road,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 23rd day of March, 2015
1. As per letter dated 4-4-02 by the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of
I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/424/2001-IR
(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Assistant
General Manager, State Bank of India, Region-III Bhopal
by not regularizing the services of Shri Sumer Singh
after working for 20 years of service and depriving him
from the terminal benefits is justified? If not, what relief
the workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Statement of claim is submitted through General
Secretary, Daily wage Bank employees Union Shri
R.Nagwanshi at Page 2/1 to 2/4 as well as 5/2 to 5/4. Case of
Ist party is that he was engaged as Arm Guard on daily
wages in the city branch Indore. The date of birth of
workman in 16-1-1936. He retired from Military service on
1-2-1979. He was engaged by IInd party from
22-3-79. He honestly performed his duties. Even after
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2009
attaining age of 60 years, workman on request of Branch
manager, his services were continued till age of 63 years.
On 24-4-99,he submitted application of Branch Manager
Mr. More. That due to old age, he was unable to perform
his duty, his resignation may be accepted. Thereafter
workman was retired from service. He was not allowed retiral
benefit. Gratuity was not paid to him. it is submitted that
workman was continuously working more than 240 days.
He was continued as badly watchman. He was not allowed
benefit of settlement dated 27-10-88, 9-1-91. His services
were regularised despite he was working more than 240
days as per the settlements. His request for appointment
as permanent employee was not accepted on ground that
at the time of initial appointment, the age should be 18 to 26
years. At the time of initial engagement,his age was 43
years. On such ground, Ist party workman is praying for
retiral benefits as permanent employee.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/6
opposing claim of workman. IInd party submits that
workman was working as badly watchman during 23-3-79
to 24-4-99. Workman has not completed 240 days
continuous services. Workman had not worked during the
period 1983 to 1985, 94 to 96. workman is not entitled for
gratuity., It is denied that workman worked till
24-4-99. On his resignation, he was retired. There was no
question of voluntary retirement of workman engaged as
badly watchman. The engagement of workman was
temporary on contract basis. At the time of engagement of
workman, his age was 43 years 2 months., He was not
eligible for appointment as regular permanent employee.
As workman has not complated 240 days continuous
service during any of the year, he is not entitled to retiral
benefits. On wuch ground, IInd party prays for rejection of
claim. Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 12/1
to 12/2 reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Assistant
General Manager, State
Bank of India, Region-III
Bhopal
by
not
regularizing the services
of Shri Sumer Singh after
working for 20 years of
service and depriving him
from the terminal benefits
is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
5. The parties are not in dispute about engagement of
workman as Security Guard/watchman after his retirement
from Military service. IInd party has pleaded that workman
not completed 240 days continuous service during any
of the year. Age of workman was 43 years, 2 months to
time of his initial engagement. Therefore workman was
not eligible for appointment as regular employee.
Documents produced by workman Exhibit W-1 shows date
of discharge of workman 1-2-1979 and pension Rs. 600
p.m. The date of birth of workman is shown 16-1-36. Exhibit
W-2 is public notice issued inviting applications for
absorption of part time employee. The public notice shows
age of candidate should be between 18 to 26 years.
6. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence but as he
failed to appear for his cross-examination, his evidence
cannot be considered.
7. Management has produced copies of settlements at
Exhibit M-1 to M-5. Settlement Exhibit M-1 page 10
pertaining to requirement of temporary guards/watchman
provides:—
Army service should be ex-servicemen, having
completed their normal colour service rather than those
who were discharged from service. Further ex-servicemen
should preferably be from the fighting arms and well
versed in handling fire arms, sentry and security duties.
At Page 11 under II(iii) relaxation to ex-service men to the
extent of defence service rendered by candidate plus 3
years.
Thus Ist party workman retired from military service
on 1-2-1979 was entitled for relaxation of 3 years after his
retirement from Military service. Workman was engaged
in Marchy 1979 hardly after one month of his retirement.
Workman is entitled for relaxation in age as per Exhibit
M-1. IInd party has not considered above provisions while
denying the benefit of settlement dated 17-11-88 to Ist
party workman. as per above settlement dated 17-11-88 to
Ist party workman. as per above settlement, the workman
was entitled to regularisation in age. Though IInd party
had contented that workman had not completed 240 days
continuous service, Ist party had not worked during year
1983 to 1985, 1994 to 1996 IInd party has not produced
documents about working days of Ist party.
8. Management's witness Santosh Kumar supported
contentions in Written Statement of workman on the point.
Management's witness in is cross-examination says Ist
party workman was retired defence personnel. After is
retirement, he had submitted application, he was engaged
temporarily as security from 22-3-1979. Management's
witness claims that the details of his working days are
produced in the matter Counsel for IInd party fairly pointed
2010
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
out that no such chart is produced, neither there is
reference in Written Statement. Management's witness
denies that Ist party was paid as per pay scale. That
workman was engaged as per oral order as per the
exigencies. Attendance Register was maintained. It is not
produced on record. The management's witness admits
Exhibit W-3. He further says age of Ist party workman
was 43 years at the time of his initial engagement. He had
not completed 240 days during any of the year. His
services were not regularised.
9. As discussed above, the workman was entitled for
relaxation of 3 years in age after retirement from Military
service therefore denial of regularization to workman on
the ground of overage cannot be accepted. Workman was
engaged in the year 1979. He was continued as badly
watchman till his retirement form service in the year 1999.
Continuing employee as badly for years together is unfair
labour practice under Item 10 Schedule V of ID Act which
provides—
"To employee workman as badlis, casuals or
temporaries and to continue them as such for years with
the object of depriving them of the status and privileges
of permanent workmen."
Workman was also denied benefit of settlement dated
17-11-88 therefore action of management is illegal. For
above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Negative.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Assistant General
Manager, State Bank of India, Region-III Bhopal
by not regularizing the services of Shri Sumer Singh
after working for 20 years of service and depriving
him from the terminal benefits is illegal.
(2) IInd party is directed to give status of permanent
employee to the Ist party workman from settlement
dated 17-11-88. IInd party is also directed to give
retiral benefits to workman within 2 months from
date of publication of award.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 931-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼85@02½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@478@2001&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 931.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby published the Award (Ref. No. 85/02) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown
in the ANNEXURE, in the Industrial dispute between the
management of State Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/478/2001-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/85/02
General Secretary,
All India State Bank of Indore
Employees Association,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Hamidia Road,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 20th day of April, 2015
1. As per letter dated 28-5-02 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section- 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.
L-12012/478/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Asstt.
General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in not
regularizing the services of Shri Anil Kumar
Shrivastava is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim at page 6/4
to 6/9. Case of Ist party workman is that he was engaged as
temporary messenger by Branch Manager Shri N.R. Khatri
from 1-1-1985. He was working with devotion. He was
working under different Branch Managers. Only peon
working in the branch Pramila Raikwar was attending his
duty from Sujalpur. He was leaving office early and
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2011
attending office late. That workman was required to do
additional duties on daily wages paid Rs. 13 during 86 to
96. He was required to do perform duty of regular peon like
distribution of correspondence, opening and closing cash,
stiching bundles etc. he was paid full scale wages. During
1986 to 1996, he was paid wages in different names in bogus
bills.
The
benefits
of
settlement
dated
27-10-88 were extended till 1991. The casual daily wage
employees working for 270/240/70 or 30 days were given
opportunity for absorption on permanent post. Workman
was called for interview on 27-12-90. After interview of Ist
party, he was continued on daily wages in Maksi branch.
Again advertisement was published calling applications
for appointment as per settlement. Workman submits that
he was again interviewed on 18-8-92. He was continued on
daily wages in Maksi branch. He received information that
his name was in select list as per letter dated 24-3-93. He
was continuously working till july 1996. He was not paid
8% statutory bonus. On such ground, workman prays for
regularization of his service and direction for payment of
bouns etc.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 10/1 to
10/7 denying claim of workman. That Shri Ram Nagwanshi
General Secretary of Daily Wage Employees Union is not
concerned with IInd party. The reference is not tenable.
IInd party has also referred to award passed in R/194/99
and submits that claims of workman is not tenable. That as
per settlement between management and Uinion, the
applications were called by public notice from daily wage
employee working during 1-7-75 to August 1991. 67
applications were received. The daily wage employee were
called for interview on 6-5-91. Name of workman was not
found in the seniority list therefore he could not be
appointed. Shri R. Nagwanshi is not a employee, he has no
locus standi to represent the workman. Workman was
employed as messenger for 67 days in Sujalpur branch in
the year 1995. He was engaged on daily wages. His service
came to end every day. His discontinuation is covered
under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of ID Act,. The settlement dated
31-7-88 to 14-8-91 provided opportunity for permanent
employment. Workman was called for interview but his
name was much below in the Waiting List. He could not be
appointed. On such contentions IInd party submit that
workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. Ist party has submitted rejoinder at Page 4/1 to 4/3
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. It is alleged
that the IInd party has engaged in unfair labour practice
after interview on 27-12-90, 18-8-92 considering 67 working
days, his name was included in Waiting List, at Sl. No. 1
and name of Devilal at Sl. No. 2.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Whether
the
action
of
the
management of Asstt.
General Manager, State
Bank of India, Bhopal in
not regularizing the
services of Shri Anil
Kumar Shrivastava is
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
The terms of reference relates to denial of regularization
of services of Ist party workman the terms of reference do
not include any other grievance like non-payment of bonus
to the workman.
7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting
contentions of his claim. That he worked for 67 days as
messenger in Maxi branch before the cut off date. He was
called for interview for absorption on permanent post. On
18-8-92, he was called for interview for 3rd time in the year
1997. However he was not interviewed on the ground that
he was interviewed earlier. Workman in his cross says he
started working in the branch from 1-1-1985. The post was
advertised. The appointment letter was not given to him.
He was not interviewed at that time. He worked from January
85 to April 85. The settlement between management and
Union was for regularization of the employees working
in1975 to 1991. He submitted application as per
advertisement. He was interviewed on 22-12-90, his name
was at Sl. No. 1 in the Waiting List. List is produced on
record. He admits that whenever work was available, he
was engaged. He was paid Rs. 30/- per day. He has not
produced document that Devilal was junior to him.
8. Management produced documents at Exhibit M-1 to
M-6. The settlements between management and Union is
not in dispute. Exhibit M-1 provides aggregate service of
270, 240, 70, 30 days should be put in by temporary
employee as on 31-7-88. There is no dispute that workman
had worked for 67 days in 1985. Exhibit M-2 has no direct
bearing. Exhibit M-4 deals with settlement dated
17-11-87. In Select list Exhibit M-6 the names of selected
candidates are shown category wise for post of messenger.
The category C pertains to employees working 70/30 days
2012
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
during the cut off period. The candidates found suitable/
eligible are shown. Evidence of workman does not show
that employees having less working days in the list are
appointed in the Bank. Document P-6 copy of the public
notice advertising the post shows that public notice was
issued for absorbing temporary employees against
permanent post. the select list Exhibit M-6 was prepared
showing the working days against name of selected
candidates. Any person having less working days than
workman is not appointed. The claim of workman for
regularization is not acceptable.
9. The argument advanced by Shri R. Nagwanshi about
violation of Section 25-F and non-payment of retrenchment
compensation cannot be considered in present reference
as legality of termination of workman is not covered under
terms of reference. For above reasons, I record my finding
in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
10. In the result, award is passed under:—
(1) The action of the management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal is not
regularizing the service of Shri Anil Kumar
Shrivastava is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
11. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 932-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 86@02½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@479@2001&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 932.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby published the Award (Ref. No. 86/02) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown
in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
management of State Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/479/2001-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/86/02
General Secretary,
All India State Bank of Indore Employees Association,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain
Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Hamidia Road,
Bhopal (MP)
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 20th day of April 2015
1. As per letter dated 30-5-02 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section- 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-
12012/479/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates
to:
"Whether the action of the management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in not regularizing
the services of Shri Ashok Sisodia is justified? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim at page 2/5
to 2/11. Ist party workman submits that he was called by
Branch Manager on 30-6-84 and engaged on work. He was
interviewed on 27-4-85. As per settlement dated
17-11-87, temporary employees working for 30, 70 days
during 1-7-75 to 31-8-88 are eligible for absorption against
permanent post. That as per advertisement dated 1-8-88,
he worked for 90 days during relevant period. He was called
for interview on22-9-89/ 23-9-89. he was interviewed, he
was selected for absorption on permanent post. On
16-8-94, he was called by Branch Manager. He was told
that on submission of affidavit, he would be allowed to
join. He submitted affidavit on 15-8-94. He was working
against vacant post from 17-8-94. He completed 240 days
continuous service. He was orally discontinued from
3-12-95. His services were terminated without notice, he
was not paid retrenchment compensation. On 11-12-98,
other employees Mukesh, Sham, Sanjay, Harish, Roop
Naryan and others were paid retrenchment compensation.
He was not called for interview in 1997 as he was earlier
interviewed in 1989. That during the period 17-8-94 to
30-11-95, he worked for 470 days excluding holidays 383
days. He was not paid bonus. He reiterated that his services
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2013
were terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation
was not paid to him. He was rendered unemployed. Bonus
was not paid to him. On such grounds, he prays for
regularisation of his services.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/11
denying claim of workman. That Shri Ram Nagwanshi
General Secretary of Daily Wage Employees Union is not
concerned with IInd party. The reference is not tenable.
IInd party has also referred to award passed in R/194/99
and submits that claim of workman is not tenable. That as
per settlement between management and Union, the
applications were called by public notice from daily wage
employee working during 1-7-75 to August 1991. 67
applications were received. The daily wage employee were
called for interview on 6-5-91. Name of workman was not
found in the seniority list therefore he could not be
appointed. Shri R. Nagwanshi is not a employee, he has no
locus standi to represent the workman. IInd party submits
that during 1-4-84 to 30-6-84, workman worked for 92 days,
during 94-95 for 84 days, in 1995-96 for 135 days. The
workman was engaged as casual daily water. His
discontnuation is covered under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of ID
Act,. IInd party denies workman completed 240 days
continuous service provided Section 25 B of ID Act. The
settlement dated 17-11-87, 16-7-88, 20-10-88 were extended
till 14-8-91 providing opportunity for selection on permanent
post. It is reiterated that workman had worked for 92 days
during cut off period. It is denied that workman worked for
470 days during the period. Violation of Section 25-F ID
Act is denied. On such contentions IInd party submits
that workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. Ist party has submitted rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/3
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Asstt.
General Manager, State
Bank of India, Bhopal in
not regularizing the
services of Shri Ashok
Sisodia is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
6. The terms of reference relates to denial of
regularization of services of Ist party workman. The terms
of reference donot include any other grievance like non-
payment of bonus to the workman.
7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting
contentions of his claim. That he was interviewed on
22-9-89 considering that he worked 92 days during 1-4-84
to 3--6-84. From 17-8-92, he was engaged on post of
messenger. He was discontinued from 30-11-95 without
notice. Retrenchment compensation was not paid to him.
In 1997, other persons were called for interview and
appointed by IInd party. In his cross-examination, workman
says he worked in the Bank from 1-4-84 to
30-6-84. He had not submitted application for employment.
He was interviewed on 27-4-85. Appointment letter was
not isued to him. He was continuously working from
17-9-94 to December 1995. The settlement between
management and Union was for regularization of casual
employees. After application submitted by him, he was
called for interview on 27-4-85. He claims ignorance about
the select list. He admits he worked for 135 days during
1994 to 1995-96. The suggestion is denied that his name
was not included in select list.
8. Management's witness Ms. Nirupa Joshi in affidavit
of her affidavit of evidence has stated working days of
workman during April, 84 to june 84—92 days, in
1994-95 for 84 days, in 1995-96 for 135 days. As cut off date
is 14-8-91, working days for 1994-95, 95-96 cannot be
considered for regularization as per the settlement. The
terms of reference is restricted to denial of regularization to
the workman. The legality of termination of workman is not
rendered therefore pleadings or evidence about violation
of Section 25-F cannot be considered. Management's
witness in her cross says that workman was working as per
oral orders. Appointment letters was issued to him. Muster
register was not maintained. Wages were paid in cash.
Workman was not called for interview on 27-4-85. He was
called for interview on 22-9-89. Management's witness says
select list of 1989 is not produced. Workman was not called
for interview in 1997 as he was found unsuitable in 1989. In
select list Exhibit M-6, name of workman is not included.
9. Learned counsel for IInd party relies on ratio held in
2006(5) SCC 173, 2010(9) SCC-126, II (1996) BC 387(SC) &
2014(5) SCC 300. The ratio in above cited cases needs no
detailed discussion as on factual matrix, workman has failed
to make out his claim for regularization.
10. Management produced documents at Exhibit M-1 to
M-6. The settlement between management and Union is
not in dispute Exhibit M-1 provides aggregate service of
270, 240, 70, 30 days should be put in by temporary
employee as on 31-7-88. Exhibit M-2 has no direct bearing.
Exhibit M-4 deals with settlement dated 17-11-87. In select
list Exhibit M-6, the name of workman is not found. Any
person having less working days than workman is not
appointed. Workman has not adduced specific evidence
that other candidates having less number of working days
2014
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
are appointed overlooking his working days. The claim of
workman for regularization is not acceptable.
11. The argument advanced by Shri R. Nagwanshi about
violation of Section 25-F and non payment of retrenchment
compensation cannot be considered in present reference
as legality of termination of working is not covered under
terms of reference. The pleading ad evidence devoted about
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act is beyond terms of
reference needs no discussion. For above reasons, I record
my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
12. In the result, award is passed is under:—
(1) The action of the management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in not regularizing
the services of Shri Ashok Sisodia is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
13. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding OfficerZ
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 933-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; jsyos ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k]
tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼93@02½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41012@200@1997&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 933.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 93/02) of the Cent.
Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Central Railway and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-41012/200/1997-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/93/02
Shri Arvind Singh,
S/o Shri Pannalal,
Old Basti, Kasturba Ward,
Piparia,
Distt. Hoshangabad (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway,
Jabalpur Mandal,
Jabalpur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 30th day of March, 2015
As per letter dated 7.6.2002 by the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of
I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-41012/200/1997-IR
(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of DRM, Central
Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri
Arvind Singh S/o Shri Panna Lal w.e.f. 1989 is justified?
If not, what relief the concerned applicant is entitled
to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim at page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of workman is that he was
working as casual labour/MRCL under PWI, Sohagpur from
1979 to 1989 (broken period—total working says—2070 days.
Service card is in possession. Workman was arbitrarily
stopped from 19.3.89. Workman was not received any notice
in writing. He was orally stopped from work without allowing
any opportunity for defence. That workman was enjoying
temporary status. He was drawing monthly pay therefore
his services could not be terminated without followiing
proper procedure under Discipline and Appeal Rules.
3. Workman submit that his representations to DRM,
Jabalpur, were not considered. Workman raised dispute
before ALC, Jabalpur, On failure report submitted by ALC
to Ministry of Labour, the dispute was not referred on the
ground of delay. Only after diretion issued by High Court
in Writ Petition No. 240/02, the dispute has been referred. It
is reiterated that his services are terminated in violation of
Article 311(2) of constitution, that discontinuation from
work is in violation of Article 311(2) of constitution, that
discontinuation form work is in violation of discipline and
appeal rules. On such ground, workman prays for
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement on 5.2.09 opposing
claim of workam. Preliminary objection is submitted that
the dispute is raised after lapse of 9 years is not tenable.
The Railway records of casual labours are preserved for
5 years as per the rules. After prescribed limit, the record is
destroyed. It is submitted that workman was working on
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2015
permanent basis but he was not regular in his duty. He was
unauthorisely absent from 18.1.90 to 18.2.91. Chargesheet
for major penalty was issued to workman. The workman
remained absent during enquiry. Charges alleged against
workman were proved. Therefore punishment of removal
from service was imposed against workman. It is reiterated
that chargesheet was issued to workman for unauthorized
absence and for proved charges, punishment of removal
imposed against workman is legal. It is further submitted
that if workman was suffering from illness, he should have
admitted in Railway Hospital Sohagpur where free treatment
is provided to Railway employees. Railway employees are
bound to report his sickness to Railway Hospital and Officer
incharge. It is submitted that enquiry conducted against
workman is proper and legal. Removal of workman is also
legal. It doesnot call for any interference.
5. As per order dated 11.11.2013, enquiry was found
legal.
6. 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 charges alleged
In Negative
against workman are proved
from evidence in Enquiry
proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment of
removal imposed against
In Negative
workman is proper and legal?
(iii) If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to?"
As per final order
REASONS
As per order dated 11.11.2013, enquiry conducted
against workman is found proper and legal. Issue No. 1 is
framed whether management is entitled to prove misconduct
in Court. Issue has become redundant after enquiry is found
legal, only evidence in Enquiry Proceedings needs to be
considered for deciding whether the charges alleged
against workman are proved or not. Management is not
required to prove the charges in Court. Workman has not
participated in reference proceedings. No evidence is
adduced by workman. Management's witness Ramsingh
Patel filed affidavit of his evidence. The documents Exhibit
M-1 to M-6 are proved from his evidence. Management's
witness was not cross-examined. Perusal of documents
proved by IInd party shows as per letter Exhibit M-1, it was
informed that the old record relating to workman was not
traced. The record was damaged. Exhibit M-2 is notice of
enquiry issued to workman, enquiry was fixed on 28.6.91.
Exhibit M-3 is order of punishment of removal from service
dt. 21.9.91. Exhibit M-4 is notice of enquiry fixed on 3.8.91.
Exhibit M-5 is order of appointment of Enquiry Officer Shri
O.P. Tiwari, M-6 is chargesheet issued in standard form
finds enclosure attached with it of 331 days. It is difficult to
understand whether the Annexure is about absence from
duties. The number of working days shown in Annexure
are considered. The same appears to be working days.
Except those documents, any evidence recorded before
Inquiry Officer is not produced. Any document produced
before Enquiry officer are also not produced. When there
is absolutely no evidence about unauthorized absence of
workman, alleged chargesheet Exhibit M-6. The charges
are not supported by any evidence. Even report of Enquiry
Officer is not on record.
8. As per Exhibit M-3, the punishment order was issued
on 21.9.91 for unauthorised absence from 18.1.90 to 18.2.91.
There is no report of Enquiry Officer, enquiry proceedings
recording evience of any witness is produced. Charges
against workman are not proved therefore I record my
finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
9. Point No. 2—In view of my finding in Point No. 1
charges against workman are not proved, punishment of
dismissal form service of workman cannot be sustained.
The workman cannot be blamed for delay. When dispute
was raised, Govt. refused to refer the dispute. Workman
had approached Hon'ble High Court and only after order
passed by High Court, the dispute was referred. IInd party
was party to conciliation proceeding as well as party to
Writ Petition filed before Hon'ble High Court.
10. Considering the facts, dismissal order cannot be
sustained as charges are not proved from evidence in
Enquiry Proceedings. Workman deserves to be reinstated.
The dispute was referred after about 9 years and workman
has not adduced any evidence that he is unemployed
therefore claim for back wages cannot be accepted. The
reinstatement of workman without backwages deserves to
be allowed. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of DRM, Central
Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri
Arvind Singh S/o Shri Panna Lal w.e.f. 1989 is
quashed.
(2) IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with
continuity of service but without backwages.
12. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
2016
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 934-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV c®d vkWQ
bankSj etZM ,t Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k
¼118@03½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@161@2002&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 934.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 118/03) of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of State Bank of Indore Merged as State Bank
of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/161/2002-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM
LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/118/03
Shri Mandakini Vyas,
W/o Shri Shankarlal Vyas,
H. No. 189, Siddhpuram Colony,
Annapurna Road,
Indore
...Workman
VERSUS
General Manager (Operations),
State Bank of Indore,
Merged as State Bank of India
Local Head Office,
Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 13th day of April, 2015
1. As per letter dated 30.06.03 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/
161/2002-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:—
"Whether the action of the management of General
Manager (O), State Bank of Indore in terminating the
services of Smt. Mandakini Vyas W/o Shankarlal Vyas
w.e.f. 13-1-2000 is justified? If not, what relief the workman
is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 3/1
to 3/3. Case of workman is that she was working in
management Institute Indore where State Bank of Indore
opened extension counter in Naulakha branch. Thus
workman was already working. She was taken into service
of IInd party Bank in extension counter. She expected
confirmation in service. Ist party workman and other staff
of extension counter made constant efforts through
personal contacts with the persons residing in that area
attracting banking transactions and securing the customers.
That workman was provided employment as full time job of
peon. She accepted the job showing her relationship with
institute of management. However she was treated as daily
wage employee. She was not appointed for stipulated
period. She rendered services from 2-8-98 without break.
That she rendered continuous service under Section 25B
of ID Act. It is alleged that instead of confirming him in
service, IInd party discontinued her. Her services were
terminated without issuing notice, retrenchment
compensation was not paid to her. She completed 490 days
service during the period 2-8-98 to 13-1-00. Her services are
terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. The record
of her service like Attendance Register, payment vouchers,
peon book are in custody of IInd party. She prayed for
production of record of her service by IInd party. For
violation of section 25-F of ID Act, workman prays for
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at page II/1 to 11/7
opposing claim of IInd party. IInd party submits that service
conditions of workman employed by Bank are covered by
Sastri Award, Desai Award, Bipartite settlements. As per
the awards and settlements sub staff of the Bank are entitled
to different kinds of leave like Sick Leave, Casual Leave,
privilege leave. Considering pendency of sub staff
remaining absent from duty without notice, the daily wagers
are also engaged whenever there is temporary workload.
Workman was not sponsored through Employment
Exchange for empanelment. She was engaged as casual
labour in Naulakha branch, extension counter for cleaning,
sweeping premises 2-3 hrs. She was paid wages. Her
engagement came to end on each of the day. There is no
employer employee relationship. Workman was not
appointed following selection process. The reference is
not tenable, it deserves to be rejected. IInd party reiterates
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2017
that the workman was not appointed following recruitment
process. She was engaged on daily wages on casual basis.
Her services automatically stood terminated.
4.
IInd party referred ratio held in various cases
emphasizing that workman was not appointed by the Bank.
There is no employer employee relationship. The dispute
is referred after long lapse of time is barred by latches.
Workman is not entitled to any relief. It is also submitted
that workman had not completed 240 days continuous
service. She is not entitled to any relief.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and dtermination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of them for
the reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of General
Manager (O), State Bank of
Indore in terminating the
services of Smt. Mandakini
Vyas W/o Shankarlal Vyas
w.e.f. 13-1-2000 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
6. Ist party workman has challenged termination of her
services for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. She has
contented that she was continuously working from 1998 to
2000. Workman filed affidavit of her evidence however she
remained absent for her cross-examination. Therefore her
evidence cannot be considered.
7. Management failed to adduce evidence. Evidence of
management was closed on 7-10-2014. Workman has failed
to appear for her cross-examination. Therefore her evidence
cannot be considered. Management has not adduced
evidence. The parties failed to properly participate in the
reference proceeding. For want of evidence, the
contentions of workman cannot be accepted. Therefore I
record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of General Manager (O),
State Bank of Indore in terminating the services of
Smt. Mandakini Vyas W/o Shankarlal Vyas w.e.f.
13-1-2000 is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
9. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 935-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947] ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad]
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]
tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 132@03½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUæh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@1@2002&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 935.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 132/03) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of State Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/1/2002-IR (B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/132/03
General Secretary,
Daily Wages Bank Employees Association,
Hardev Niwas, 9,
Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
VERSUS
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Hamidia Road,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 21st day of April 2015
1. As per letter dated 24-7-03 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-
12012/1/2002-IR (B-I). The dispute under reference relates
to:—
"Whether the action of the management of Asstt.
General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in
2018
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
terminating the services of Shri Suresh Bagora w.e.f.
11-12-98 and not regularizing him is justified? If not, to
what relief workman is entitled?"
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Page 3/1 to 3/5 through General Secretary, Daily Wage
Bank Employees Union, Ujjain. Case of Ist party is workman
was engaged for cleaning, sweeping work from 23-3-93 by
Branch manager Mr. Bapat at Marimata square Indore
branch. He was working with devotion. Everyday between
8.30 to 10.30 AM, he was doing work of cleaning, sweeping,
filling water. From 10.30 AM to 6 PM, he was performing
work of messanger. Workman was paid Rs. 15/- to 25/- per
day for sweeping etc. work. He was paid Rs. 600 to 1200 per
month for other works performed by him. On 11-12-98,
Branch Manager called him that correspondence was
received. On request of workman, Branch Manager told
his services were discontinued.
3. Workman submits that he had completed 240 days
continuous service. His services were not regularized. Bonus
was not paid to him. Dispute was raised before ALC. In
proceeding before ALC, IInd party had admitted his working
and agreed to pay bonus. Workman has shown his working
days in Para-14 of his statement of claim. 180 days in 1994-
95, 330 days in 1995-96, 365 days each in96-97 & 97-98 - 269
days in 1998-99. Workman submits that his services are
terminated without retrenchment notice, list of daily wage
employees was not displayed on notice board. He was not
paid retrenchment compensation. Considering his plea, last
pay Rs. 650 in extension site and Rs. 1200 pm for his working
in MPEB. Workman submits that he was paid Rs. 2665/-
whereas other employee Trilok Chand was paid
retrenchement compensation and notice pay Rs. 15,795/-.
On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with
back wages.
4.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 11/1 to
11/12 opposing claim of the workman. Preliminary objection
is raised that Shri R.Nagwanshi is not an employee of the
Bank, he has no locus to represent workman. IInd Party
has shown working days in Para-1 of the Written Statement.
During the year 1995-96, 98-99, his working days are shown
more than 240 days every year. IInd party submits that
workman was engaged on contract basis on daily wages
for discontinution of work at the end of the day, his services
were terminated is covered under Section 2(oo) (bb) of ID
Act. The discontinuation of workman doesnot amounts to
illegal retrenchment. W.r.t. settlement dated 17-11-87, 16-7-88,
27-10-88 & 9-1-99, the period was extended till 14-8-91. Daily
wage employees were given opportunity for absorption as
permanent employee. Workman had not worked in the Bank
prior to 14-8-91 therefore his claim could not be considered
under the scheme. The services of workman were
discontinued. He was paid wages Rs. 2665/- and
retrenchment compensation Rs. 5850/-. Workman was not
appointed on permanent post. His engagement was on
contract basis. Workman is not entitled for regularization
of his services as per the settlements. All adverse
contentions of workman are denied. It is reiterated by IInd
party that workman was paid retrenchment compensation
Rs. 5850/-, provisions of section 25-F of ID Act are not
violated. It is denied that IInd party has violated section
25-G of ID Act. Shri Trilok Chand was interviewed and
found suitable therefore he was appointed in the Bank.
Workman is not entitled to reinstatement with back wages.
On such ground, IInd party prays for rejection of claim.
5.
Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at page 14/1
to 14/3 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
6.
Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of them for
the reasons as below:—
(i) "Whether the action of
the management of Asstt.
General Manager, State
Bank of India, Bhopal in
terminating the services
of Shri Suresh Bagora
w.e.f. 11-12-98 and not
regularizing him is
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
7.
The terms of reference includes legality of
termination of services of workman and denial of
regularization to him in service. So far as claim for
regularization of service of workman, the settlements is
produced by IInd party of Exhibit M-1. The relevant clause
at Page 3 deals with the aforesaid aggregate temporary
service of 270 days, 240, 70,30 would have been put in by
temporary employee at any one or more of the offices of
branch as on 31-7-88. Said scheme was extended till
14-8-91. As per statement of claim submitted by workman,
he was engaged by IInd party in the year 1993 after the cut
off date 14-8-91. Therefore workman cannot be extended
benefit of settlement since he is engaged after cut off date.
Though Union Representative Shri R. Nagwanshi
submitted that the name of workman was included in select
list, I do not find name of workman in Select list ExhibitM-
6 even after examining the list minutely. The statement of
claim submitted by workman is silent when he was called
for interview. He has not disclosed the date of interview.
There is absolutely no basis for including his name in the
select list.
8.
W.r.t. termination of his service in violation of
Section 25-F, G of ID Act, IInd party in its Written Statement
had admitted working days of workman 330 days in 95-96,
In Negative
As per final order.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2019
365 days each in 1996-97 & 97-98, 269 days in 1998-99.
Workman is therefore covered under Section 25 B of ID
Act, He is entitled to termination under Section 25-F.
9.
IInd party has contented that workman was paid
retrenchment compensation Rs. 5850 before termination of
his services. The documents produced by Ist party have
been admitted P-23.
10.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting
his contentions in statement of claim. However he failed to
appear for his cross-examination therefore his evidence
cannot be considered. As IInd party has admitted working
days of workman more than 240 days every year from 95-96
to 98-99, question remains for consideration whether IInd
party has violated Section 25-F of ID Act.
11.
On the point evidence of witness of IInd party
needs to be considered. Management's witness Shri Rajiv
Saurabh supporting contentions of IInd party states that
workman was not continuously engaged. Workman was
engaged on contract basis on daily wages. Workman was
paid retrenchment compensation Rs. 5850/- on 11-12-98 in
lieu of retrenchment notice. Wages Rs. 2665/- were paid as
wages for 11 days. Evidence of management's witness is
devoted on the point that provisions of Section 25-G of ID
Act are not applicable in the matter. When evidence of
management's witness shows that workman worked more
than 240 days continuous service, provisions of Section
25-G of ID Act are applicable. Evidence of management's
witness is silent about preparing and displaying notice of
casual temporary employees at the time of termination of
service of workman. As per ID Rule 77, the termination of
services of workman would be illegal.
12.
Management's witness in his cross says any
process was not followed before engaging workman.
Permission of competent authority was not taken,
appointment letter was not issued to workman. He admitted
documents Exhibit W-1, W-2 about period of working by
workman. The contract of engagement of workman was
oral, documents were not produced. When management's
witness was not working in IInd party branch during 1993
to 1998 admitted in his cross-examination, evidence of
management's witnes on the point cannot be accepted.
The services of workman are discontinued/terminated in
violation of Section 25-G of ID Act therefore I record my
findings in Point No. 1 in partey Negative.
13.
Point No. 2 In view of my findings in Point No. 1,
question remains for decision is whether workman is
entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Learned counsel
for IInd party Shri V.P. Khare relies on ratio held in .
Case of Nand Kumar Versus State of Bihar and others
reported in 2014(5) SCC 300. Their Lordship dealing with
casual labour daily wager held daily wages are not
appointed in strict sense after they donot hold post. It was
further held that daily wagers were appointed during proper
procedure and hence consequence of their appointment
being temporary was within their knowledge. They cannot
invoke theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed
in post.
The facts of present case are not comparable. Ist party
workman is not entitled to regularization as per settlements
as he was engaged after cut off date 14-8-91. The ratio in
above cited case cannot be beneficially applied. The
termination of services of workman are terminated in
violation of Section 25 G of ID Act. Workman was working
as casual daily wage employee during 93 to 98, reasonable
compensation would be appropriate. Considering the
working period of Ist party, compensation Rs. One Lakh
would be appropriate.
14.
In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in terminating
the services of Shri Suresh Bagora is not proper and
legal.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. One
Lakh to the workman within 30 days from the date of
publication of award.
In case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per
annum from the date of award till its realization.
15.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 936-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947] ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ
banksj etZM bu Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh;
ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la[;k 144@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks
05@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@516@98&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 936.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 144/99) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of State Bank of Indore Merged in State
Bank of India and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/516/98-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
2020
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/144/99
Shri Purushottam Namdeo,
S/o Munnalal Namdeo,
R/o Parashar Mohalla,
Opp. Hanuman Mandir,
Ashok Nagar,
Distt. Guna (MP)
...Workman
VERSUS
General Manager,
State Bank of Indore,
Head Office, 5, Yeshwant Niwas Road,
Indore
Merged in State Bank of India
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 6th day of Apri, 2015
1. As per letter dated 26/26-3-99 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-
12012/516/98/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates
to:
"Whether the action of the management of General
Manager, State Bank of Indore in terminating the services
of Shri Purushottam Namdeo S/o Munnalal w.e.f. 18.11.97
is justified? if not, the what relief the workman is entitled
for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at Page
5 to 11. Case of workman is that he was engaged as peon/
sweeper, farash at Ashok Nagar branch of State Bank of
Indore, Distt. Guna during May-94 to Nov-97. He had
continuously worked more than 240 days during
preceding year of his termination. That IInd party
dismissed his services from 10-11-97 without giving
retrenchment compensation. Termination of his service is
in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. It is illegal
retrenchment. Ist party further submits that IInd party
had continued persons junior to Ist party workman in
violation of Section 25-G of ID Act. Workman was illegally
retrenched. Termination of Ist party workman is violative
of rules made under ID Act, Articles 14, 16 of the
constitution. On such ground, workman is praying for his
reinstatement with backwages.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement denying claim of
Ist party workman. preliminary objection is raised that
workman was not Bank employee. He was purely temporary,
workman engaged for few hours as Ist party was not
appointed as employee, provisions of ID Act are not
applicable. It is further submitted that Section 25B, F, G of
ID Act are not applicable in the matter. IInd party further
contends that workman was engaged on contingency basis
as and when his services were required for cleaning,
sweeing. Workman was paid wages agreed to him. Even if
it is presumed that he was engaged as contingent employee
on part time basis, provisions of ID Act are not applicable
to such employee. That recruitment of peon sweeper cum
farash is made after publication of advertisement in news
paper calling names from Employment Exchange. Ist Party
was not appointed following such procedure. The Bank
employed two peons. In view of their appointment, there
was no need of any other peon in the Bank. That workman
as informed that the contingency services will not be
required. It is further contented that part time employee is
not covered under ID Act. Workman had not completed
240 days continuous service. As workman was never
appointed by the Bank, question of termination/
retrenchment compensation does not arise. Case of
workman is not covered under provisions of ID Act. The
Bank has neither appointed nor terminated services of
workman. On such contentions, IInd party prays for
rejection of claim.
4. Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 31 to
39 reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
management of General
Manager, State Bank of
Indore in terminating
the services of Shri
Purushottam Namdeo
S/o Munnalal w.e.f.
18.11.97 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
Workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
6. Workman is challenging termination of his service
for violation of Section 25-F, G of ID Act. IInd party has
denied all material contentions of workman. Workman filed
affidavit of his evidence supporting his claim that he was
working with IInd party continuously as peon/Secretary
from May, 94 to Nov., 97. He was continuously working for
more than 240 days in calendar year preceding his services
In Negative
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2021
were dispensed with on 10.11.97. That Bisen Sharma and
Rajnu Namdev have been engaged by management on post
of peon/sweeper. In his cross-examination, workman claims
ignorance whether the post on which he was appointed
was published in newspaper. He passed 8th Standard. His
date of birth is 6.8.78. He claims ignorance whether Bisen
Sharma and Raj Kumar have passed 10th, 12th examination
and selected following selection process. Workman denied
that he was engaged for 2-3 hours. He reaffirmed that he
was working for 28 days in a month.
7. Management's witness Shri Raj Keshar Singh Korte
in his affidavit of evidence has supported contentions of
management in Written Statement that workman was
engaged on daily wages for cleaning toilets. He was paid
wages Rs. 25, 30, 40 per day during the year 1995 to 1997.
That Ist party workman was never engaged on permanent
post of peon. Workman has not completed 240 days
continuous service. Management's witness in his cross
says that he was not working in the Ashok Nagar branch
during 94 to 97. He had seen Written and court file before
filing affidavit. He did not seen documents about payments
made to workman. He was unable to say whether workman
was paid wages daily, weekly or monthly. Management's
witness was unable to say whether wages were paid to
workman after obtaining signature in voucher or wage
register. That Attendance Register was not maintained.
Workman was engaged by Branch Manager. Management's
witness claims ignorance whether any action was taken
against Branch manager. That he has not seen any
document about attendance of workman. On basis of facts
in Written Statement, he filed affidavit of his evidence.
That workman had not completed 240 days continuous
service. Management's witness claims ignorance whether
cash book is permanent record and not destroyed. The
evidence of management's witness is not cogent and reliable
as he has no knowledge of the relevant documents.
Management's witness admits that workman was not paid
retrenchment compensation. Workman was not terminated
for any other misconduct. He admits that entires of payment
vouchers are taken in cash book. If evidence of workman is
considered along with evidence of management's witness,
evidence of workman is cogent and reliable instead of
evidence of management's witness. Therefore I hold that
workman had completed 240 days continuous service
preceding his termination. His services were terminated
without notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid
to him. termination of workman is in violation of Section
25-F of ID Act. Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1
in negative.
8. Point No. 2—In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
termination of service of workman is found illegal, question
arises whether workman is entitled to reinstatement with
back wages. Workman is his cross examination says he
passed 8th standard, post was not advertised. He was not
selected following selection process. Therefore workman
cannot be reinstated. As per evidence of workman, he
worked for about 3 years in the Bank. Considering working
period and his engagement on daily wages, compensation
Rs. 50,000/- would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my
finding in Point No. 2.
9. IN the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The Whether the action of the management of
General Manager, State Bank of Indore in
terminating the services of Shri Purushottam
Namdeo S/o Munnalal w.e.f. 18.11.97 is not 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.
10. Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India Ministry of Labour and Employment
as per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 937-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 166@01½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@154@2001&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 937.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.166/01) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/154/2001-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/166/01
General Secretary,
Daily Wages Bank employees Association,
2022
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hardev Niwas, 9, Sanwer Road,
Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager
State Bank of India
Zonal Office, Region-III, Office,
Hamidia Road,
Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of April, 2015
As per letter dated 31.10.2001 by the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi the reference is received. The
reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D.
Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/154/2001-IR(B-1).
The dispute under reference relates to :
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of India not regularizing the services of
Shri Gopalkrishna Sarsia S/o Kashiram is justified? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 4/2
to 4/7. Case of Ist party is that Bipartite Settlement was
arrived on 27-10-88. As per settlement, daily wage employees
working 270 days, 240 days, 70 days, 30 days were eligible
for absorption on permanent post. IInd party had advertised
for appointment on permanent post. Workman had submitted
application. He was called for interview on 19-2-97 as well as
on 20-2-97. He was interviewed on 19-2-97. He was issued
appointment letter dated 31-3-97 as Sub Staff part time General
Attendant cum sweeper/Farrash/messenger at Jhawar
branch. Workman was directed to remain present along with
documents. In case of his failure, the appointment letter
stands cancelled. Workman submits on 15-4-87, he had
attended Jhawar branch for joining duties. Branch Manager
did not allow him to join on the ground that he was busy. He
was directed to come afterwards. On 25th April he again
attended branch for joining duty. Branch Manager did not
allow him to join. Workman was given closed envelope
directing him to submit certificate of medical examination
from Indore. When he opened the letter, name of doctor was
not mentioned in it. Workman repeatedly approached Branch
Manager but he did not get any response.
Workman further contents that he had submitted
representations that as part time employee, it was difficult
for him to give HRA and maintain his family, he requested
appointment at any branch at Indore, the request was not
considered. Any reply was not given. The Union had also
raised his grievance to consider his request sympathetically.
As IInd party did not gave any response, the dispute was
raised. Ultimately Government has referred the dispute. It
is reiterated that Branch Manager Jhawar did not allow him
to join duty on 15th April, 25th April, 1987. His request for
appointment is any branch at Indore was not considered.
The letter given by Branch Manager was not disclosing
the name of Doctor for his medical examination. On such
ground, workman prays for part time appointment at Indore
and any other appropriate relief.
4. IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page 11/1
to 11/5 opposing claim of workman. Preliminary objection
raised that Shri Ram Nagwanshi is dismissed employee of
SBI is not competent to prosecute the dispute under
reference. After failure of conciliation, the dispute is referred
by Government it is further contented that as per settlement
dated 17-11-87, 16-7-88, 28-10-88, 9-1-91, the daily wage
employees discontinued during 1-7-75 to 31-7-88 were
called for interview, list of selected candidates was
prepared. Workman was also selected. Appointment letter
was issued to workman on 31-3-97 posting workman at
Jhawar Branch. Workman was called with certificates on
15-4-97. Workman did not produce certificate of his medical
examination. Workman has represented that his brother
Gopi was in Bank service. He had complete knowledge
about the Doctor. Workman did not report. Thereafter he
was not willing for employment. Workman had requested
appointment in any branch at Indore. His request could
not be accepted. It is reiterated that appoinment letter dated
31-3-97 was issued as part time General Attendant Sweeper/
Farrarh/Messenger. Workman failed to join as per the
appointment letter. It is denied that workman was not
allowed to join duty on 25-4-97. It is reiterated that workman
had submitted that his brother Gopi was in Bank service
and he had full knowledge about the name and address of
the Doctor for medical examination. On such contentions,
IInd party submits that workman is not entitled to any
claim.
5. Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 12/1 to
12/2 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
management of State
Bank of India in not
regularizing the services
of Shri Gopalkrishna
Sarsia S/o Kashiram is
justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
As per final order
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
6. Terms of reference pertains to denial of regularization
to Ist party workman, as per pleadings between parties,
In Negative
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2023
there is no dispute that as per Bipartite Settlements,
workman was called for interview after his selection,
appointment letter was issue to workman on 31-3-97.
7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting
his contentions that after his interview on 19-2-97,
appointment letter was issued to him on 31-3-97. He
reported Jhawar on 25-4-97. He was directed to submit
medical certificate from Doctor at Indore. The name of
Doctor was not mentioned in the letter. Workman remained
absent for his cross-examination. His evidence cannot be
considered on that ground. The copies of settlements are
produced are admitted.
Settlement dated 17-11-87, Para 3(II)(ii)(b) provides—
"The aforesaid aggregate temporary service of 270 days,
240 days, 70 days or 30 days should have been put in
by a temporary employee at any one or more of the
offices/branches falling within a module as existing/
defined as on 31-7-88."
Para 6 and 7 provides—
If the waiting list prepared after completion of interviews
of the temporary employees in subordinate cadre who had
completed 90 days of service and above as on 31st October,
1984 has not yet been exhausted, it will be valid upto the
31st July, 1988 and vacancies arising up to that date should
be filled form this panel.
The admitted documents are inadvertenly marked as
D-1 to D-5 instead of M-1 to M-5. The copy of select list D-6
name of Ist party appears at Page 114 in Ex-servicement in
Caste wise category with remark "appointed".
8. Management's witness Shri Prahlad Saranghar
submitted his affidavit supporting contentions in Written
Statement filed by management, that as per Bipartite
settlement, workman was called for interview on 19-2-97,
appointment letter was issued on 31-3-97. Workman did
not submit required certificate. Workman abandoned job.
Workman could not be appointed at the places of his choice
at Indore. Management's witness in his cross-examination
admits workman was called interview, his name was in
select list, appointment letter was issued to him. Workman
had attended for joining duty. Workman did not submit
medical certificate. There was not condition in appointment
letter-Exhibit W-3 to produce medical certificate. In letter
W-4, name of Doctor was not mentioned, no reminder was
issued to workman for producing medical certificate.
9. Daily wage employees are given benefits for
absorption against permanent post by Bipartite Settlement,
management has not even taken care to issue reminder to
the workman to produce medical certificate. Appointment
letter Exhibit W-3 doesnot contain such condition. There
is no cogent evidence that the brother of workman was in
service at Indore and he was knowing the details of
documents from whom the workman is to be examined.
The evidence of management's witness is clear that any
notice was not issued to workman for cancellation of his
appointment on the ground of its failure to produce
medical certificate. When workman was interviewed and
he was selected and appointment letter was issued to
him as part time sweeper/messenger etc. It is difficult to
believe that workman himself has abandoned the job.
For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
Negative.
10. Point No. 2-workman was interviewed and he was
selected for post of part time sweeper messenger,
appointment letter was issued on 31-3-97. Workman was
directed to submit medical certificate by Branch Manager,
Jhawar. The pleadings of Ist party workman in his
statement of claim shows that he had requested for
appointment in any branch at Indore. It find difficult to
pay HRA and maintain his family as part time employee at
Jhawar. Workman has not appeared for his cross-
examination and his evidence cannot be considered. There
is no evidence on record as to what work workman is
doing after 25-4-97. Therefore workman cannot be awarded
backwages. However workman is entitled for regularization
as part time sweeper/messenger as per appointment letter
dated 31-3-97. Accordingly I record my finding in Point
No. 1.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of State Bank of India
in not regularizaing the services of Shri Gopalkrishna
Sarsia S/o Kashiram is not proper.
(2) IInd party is directed to allow workman to work as
part time sweeper/messenger as per appointment
letter dated 31-3-97. The claim of workman w.r.t. back
wages is rejected.
12. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 938-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ bankSj
etZj fon Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 50@00½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@405@99&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
2024
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 938.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 50/00) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of State Bank of Indore Merged
with State Bank of India and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/405/99-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/50/00
General Secretary,
Daily Wages Bank employees Association,
9, Sanwar Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Assistant General Manager-I,
State Bank of Indore, Head Office,
5, yeshwant Niwas Road, Indore
(Merged with State Bank of India)
Managing Director,
State Bank of Indore, Head Office,
5, Yeshwant Niwas Road, Indore
(Merged with State Bank of India)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 17th day of April, 2015
1. As per letter dated 18-2-00 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-12012/
405/99/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of Indore in not regularizing Smt. Kamla Bai W/o
Shri Manohar Kalyan after completing more than 240
days in a calendar year and not paying 1/2 the wages is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
for?
2. After receiving reference, notice were issued to the
parties. On behalf of the Ist party Smt. Kamla Bai, statement
of claim is filed by Shri Ram Nagwanshi, Union
Representative. The case of workman is that she is member
of Daily Wage Bank Employees Union. Since last 20 years,
she is working in Raja Mohalla Branch Indore of IInd party
doing cleaning sweeping work. Work of peon/farrash was
also extracted from her in addition to the cleaning work.
Workman was paid daily wages by IInd party. Its record is
with IInd party. On 1-12-1998, on advice of Branch Manager,
Shri R.L. Kuiya, she had submitted application. Para-3 of
the application was deleted on advice of Branch Manager
as he assured that he would certify about here working.
The acknowledgement of application was given to her by
Branch Manager. Workman further submits that she was
working as permanent peon in leave vacancy. She was
paid Rs. 30, 40 per day for additional work of peon. After
voluntary retirement of permanent peon Shri Mayaram and
death of Shri L.N. Purohit, the post was not filled. She was
continuously working since past 20 years as peon.
Workman has prayed for regularization submitting that she
would not claim anything for the past service. In the Indian
Bank Branch Indore peon Kamlesh was paid half wages of
the pay scale. On such contentions, workman prays for
regularization of her service.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of
the workman. It is submitted that IInd party is established
under Banking Company's Act 1959. The Bank has branches
in different cities. Bank has rules and regulations for
appointment of Class III, IV employees called sub staff.
The Branch Manager has no authority to appoint peon
messengers, security guard on permanent post. The
appointment are made following recruitment rules, workman
was not working as permanent peon in the Bank at any
time. Her services were engaged for sweeping, cleaning
work. The Branch was opened about 1 1/2 hours before for
cleaning work. As per exigencies, workman worked as casual
daily wage employee for 2 hours. Workman has no right for
regularisation of her services. Workman was not terminated
by IInd party. She had not completed 240 days continuous
service as claimed. There is no employer employee
relationship. Ist party is not covered as workman under ID
Act. Only on completion of 240 days continuous service,
she does not get right for regularization.
4. IInd party has referred to ratio held in various cases
and reiterates that workman is not entitled for regularization
of her services. That Shri Ram Nagwanshi General Secretary
of Daily Wage Bank employees is dismissed from service.
Thus he is not competent to represent the workman.
5. Ist party filed rejoinder reiterating its contentions in
statement of claim.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
management of State
In Affirmative
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2025
Bank of Indore in not
regularizing Smt. Kamla
Bai W/o Shri Manohar
Kalyan after completing
more than 240 days in a
calendar year and not
paying 1/2 the wages is
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not entitled
workman is entitled to?''
to any relief.
REASONS
7. The terms of reference pertains to denial of
regularisation and non-payment of 1 1/2 wages to Ist party
workman.Workman has failed to adduce evidence in
support of her claim. Evidence of Ist party is closed on
19-11-2013. Management's witness Shri Sunil Bundela filed
affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions of IInd
party that workman was engaged temporarily as per
exigencies on daily wages. Wages agreed were paid to her.
Workman was never engaged against vacant post following
recruitment process. She has no right for regularization. In
his cross-examination, management's witness denied that
workman was doing cleaning, sweeping work since past 20
years. Management's witness claims ignorance since when
workman was working in the Bank. For engaging workman
as causal temporary basis, any process for selection was
not followed. Management's witness denied that building
of Rajmohalla is double storied. He has not discussed the
matters with Branch Manager. It is denied that workman
was not paid wages as per settlement. Management's
witness did not remember at what rate the workman was
paid her wages. Management admitted document Exhibit
W-1 reply submitted before ALC. IInd party has admitted
that Smt. Kamla Bai was doing work of sweeping, cleaning
work of bathroom etc. IInd party had denied workman was
working as peon in leave vacancy. Document Exhibit W-2
is copy of policy resulting to working less than 3 hours
used to be paid @ Rs. 750/- per month. If part time employee
works between 3-6 hours such employees will be paid
Rs. 1500/- per month. Workman has not adduced any
evidence about here working hours therefore her claim for
payment of wages at the rate prescribed under Exhibit W-2
cannot be accepted. For above reasons, I record my finding
in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of State Bank of Indore
in not regularizing Smt. Kamla Bai W/o Shri Manohar
Kalyan after completing more than 240 days in a
calendar year and not paying 1/2 the wages is proper
and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
9. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 939-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ
banksj etZM fon bu Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/kra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
29@98½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@138@97&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 939.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 29/98) of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shwon in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of State Bank of Indore Merged with State
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/138/97-IR (B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/29/98
General Secretary,
All India State Bank of Indore Employees congress,
Hardev Niwas,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of Indore, Zonal Office,
Kanchanbagh, Indore
(Merged with State Bank of India)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 24th day of April, 2015
1. As per letter dated 17-19/-2/90 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
2026
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/138/
97/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of Indore in not regularizing Shri Mukesh Sher is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. On behalf of workman, statement of claim is
submitted by Shri Ram Nagwanshi, Secretary, Daily Wage
Bank Employees Union at Page 3/1 to 3/4. Case of workman
is that he was engaged on daily wages as permanent peon
at Branch of State Bank of Indore from 1-4-94. He was
working with devotion without any grievance against him.
He was paid wages weekly under voucher. He completed
240 days continuous service during each of the year. He
was paid bonus Rs. 749.65 for 1994-95, Rs. 869.65 for 1995-
96. His services were discontinued from 2-3-96, without
any notice. Retrenchment compensation was not paid to
him. He was covered as employee under Section 25 B of ID
Act. His services are terminated in violation of Section 25
of ID Act, Para 507, 524 of Sastry Award. IInd party not
followed principles of last come first go. His services are
terminated in violation of Section 25-G, N of ID Act. On
such ground, workman prays for reinstatement with back
wages.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/4
opposing claim of the workman. Preliminary objection is
raised that General Secretary, Daily Wage Bank Employees
has no locus standi to rise the dispute. Workman was not
member of said Union. No authority for raising dispute
was given. The Union has no jurisdiction to raise dispute.
That Managing Director of the Bank is unnecessarily made
party. Claim suffers from misjoinder of parties. Statement
of claim is not submitted as per rules therefore the dispute
is not tenable.
4. IInd party submits that the casual employees were
engaged temporarily as per exigencies for filling water,
cleaning work. Casual employee were paid Rs. 10/- per day
for filling water, Rs. 25/- per day for cleaning, sweeping
work. Workman was not appointed as peon against vacant
post. He was intermittently engaged for cleaning, sweeping
work and for filling water. Workman has not completed 240
days service. Violation of Section 25-F, G.H of ID Act is
denied.
5. Ist party submitted rejoinder at Page 13/1 to 13/4
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
management of State
Bank of Indore is not
regularizing
Shri
Mukesh Sher is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
7. The terms of reference covers denial of regularization
to workman. Legality of termination of his services is not
referred for adjudication.
8. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. Workman
has narrated that he was engaged as peon on daily wages
on 1.4.94. He was paid Rs. 25/- per day. The wages were
increased to Rs. 45/-. He worked more than 240 days in
each of the year. His servies were terminated without notice,
retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. One
Mahendra was engaged by the Bank after his termination.
From his evidence, documents Exhibit W-1 to W-6 are
proved. Workman in his cross says that he has passed 8th
standard. From 1.4.94 to March 1996, he was working in the
Bank. He was doing all work of peon in the Bank. He was
submitting vouchers duly filled. Branch Manager was
sanctioning the same. The documents Exhibit W-1 is
voucher about payment of Rs. 130/-, W-2 is payment of
Rs. 325/-, W-3 is payment of Rs. 25/-, W-4 is copy of entry
of peon book dated 11.5.95. Exhibit W-5 is copy of entry in
peon book. The document about payment of bonus is
admitted. It shows payment of wages workman Rs. 750/-
per month from April 94 to March 95 and different amount
during the period April, 95 to March 96. On said amount,
bonus was calculated and paid to the workman.
9. The terms of reference doesnot include termination
of service of workman. The dispute under reference relates
to denial of regularization. Settlement dated 13.7.93 between
management and Union is produced at Exhibit W-6. At
Page 2, Item 1, it is clear that one time opportunity for
absorption in permanent basis in subordinate cadre as peon
cum farrash will be given to temporary employees who
have in more than 240 days of service in a period of twelve
consecutive months provided they satisfy the eligibility
criteria as on the date they were first engaged as temporary
employees laid down under the Bank's rules such minimum
educational qualifications, age etc.
10. As per pleadings in statement of claim and evidence
of workman, he was engaged from 1.4.94 i.e. subsequent to
settlement Exhibit W-6. Therefore workman is not covered
under Settlement Exhibit W-6. Merely working more than
240 days doesnot confer right for regularization of his
service. From said evidence, workman is covered as
employee under Section 25 B of ID Act but he doesnot get
right for regularization.
In Affirmative
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2027
11. The evidence of management's witness Umesh
Chaturvedi is on the point of workman not completed 240
days continuous service. Management's witness in his
cross-examination says workman was not engaged
following selection process. Permission of Controlling
Authority was not taken before his engagement. Workman
was not paid retrenchment compensation, notice of
termination was not served on him. MW-2 Sushil Jain has
re-affirmed that the workman had not completed 240 days
continuous service. He was engaged as per exigencies for
2-3 hours in a day. In his cross-examination, MW-2
admitted Exhibit W-7. The statement of bonus is admitted
in evidence at Exhibit M-1. MW-2 also admits that
workman was not paid retrenchment compensation.
Termination notice was not issued to him. However as
discussed above, legality of termination of workman is
not included in terms of reference therefore the claim in
that regard cannot be decided. So far as claim under
reference relating to denial of regularization of workman
is not established as workman was engaged subsequent to
settlement Exhibit W-6.
12. Incidentally I am also referred to the citation relied
by the learned counsel for IInd party between Mehboob
Deepak versus Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and another
reported in 2008(1) SCC 575. Their Lordship dealing with
termination of service of casual labour held appellants
claim for regularization, held not sustainable but having
regard to the fact that he had completed 240 days of work
and required compliance with the provisions of Section
6-N of the UP Industrial disputes Act compensation Rs.
50,000 was allowed.
In case between State of J&K and others versus Sajad
Ahmed Mir reported in 2006(5) SCC 766. Claim for
compassionate appointment raised after 12 years was not
accepted.
Ratio held in both cases cannot be applied to present
case at hand as considering the evidence, workman is not
covered under Settlement Exhibit W-6. There is no
question of regularization of his service. The legality of
termination is not covered under terms of reference.
Therefore compensation cannot be allowed in present
case for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. For above
reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
13. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of State Bank of
Indore in not regularizing Shri Mukesh Sher is
proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
14. Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 940-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 1947 dk
14 dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ banksj
etZM Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼29@94½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@247@93&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 940.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 29/94) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus/Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of State Bank of Indore Merged in State
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/247/93-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/29/94
Shri Ram Nagwanshi,
General Secretary,
All India State Bank of Indore Employees Congress,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager (DGM),
State Bank of Indore,
Anchalik Office, Gheema Chambers,
163, Kanchanbag, Indore
Merged in State Bank of India
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 31st day of March, 2015
1. As per letter dated 24-3-94 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
2028
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/247/
93-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of Indore in not treating the periods from 31-5-84 to 6-5-
85 and from 3-3-86 to 3-3- 87 as duty withholding one
increment with cumulative effect and withdrawal of
special allowances for five years in respect of Shri R.P.
Nagwanshi, cashier is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Page 3/3 to 3/11. Case of workman is that from 17-2-08,
he was working as cashier-cum-godown keeper in Bank
of Indore at Indore. His wife died on 21-7-82. His son was
suffering from blood cancer and repeatedly requiring
blood transmission. He was transferred from Indore to
Patni branch, Ujjain. He taken charge at Patni Bazar. It is
submitted that on 4-6-83, Mahalakshmi utensil shop was
granted loan of Rs. 10,800 against raise of pressure cooker.
That the pressure cookers were not received in godown.
Ist party workman further submits that said Donge
Maharaj had performed programme of religious sermons.
On 8-1-81, amount of Rs. 1360/- was deposited with cashier
Madhan Joshi by Mr. Kanhaiyalal. On 29-5-84, entry of
Rs.7/- was sent to him through peon book. Workman
claims that as he belongs to SC, he was boycotted and
amount was sent in such manner. That in collisison,
employees in Bank had prepared document MEX-1
alleging that workman had burnt papers in the branch.
That Ist party workman had behaved indecently with the
officers, that 1st party workman had come to a shop and
burnt documents in oven. Ist party workman alleged that
charges against him were false. That enquiry was
conducted against him. The statements of witnesses Smita
Bhave and V.N.Vyas were inconsistent. Workman claimed
to have false implicated. Earlier report was submitted
against him. It was found that any offence was not
committed by workman. Proceeding under Section 107
was initiated against Anandila lto SDM,Ratlam. Shri Garg
was released on bail of Rs. 5000/-. It is reiterated that in
their statements before Enquiry officer, witnesses was
given different versions. That the papers were loose, roled,
spread. Workman submits that Enquiry Officer had
committed error while submitting his report. Enquiry was
not properly conducted. Witnesses Mr. Garg and Mr.
Sengar in their statements had said that any misconduct
or indecent act was not committed against them by the
workman. Despite of it, the punishment of dismissal was
imposed against him without notice. In appeal, the
punishment was reduced to withholding one increment
without cumulative effect. Special allowance was stopped.
Workman submits that order of punishment is illegal and
deserves to be quashed.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/14
opposing claim of workman. IInd party raised preliminary
objection that the reference is barred by limitation. The
punishment order was issued on 27-4-85. The dispute is
raised after lapse of long time. The transfer of workman
from Indore to Patni bazaar branch Ujjain is not disputed.
W.r.t. transfer of Ist party workman from Ratlam to Indore,
it is submitted that transfer order was wrongly issued due
to similarity of names. The incident of burning papers
and fraud alleged against workman was reported to Police
Station, Manak Chowk on 29-5-84. The charges alleged
against workman were different from the allegations in
preliminary report. IInd party further denies that evidence
of witnesses was not properly considered by Enquiry
Officer. It is denied that findings of Enquiry officer are
illegal. Workman was suspended on 3-3-86 w.r.t. charges
alleged against him. IInd party denied that enquiry
conducted against workman was illegal. It is denied that
Mr. Garg and Sengar had denied misbehavior by workman
against them. It is reiterated that enquiry was conducted
allowing workman opportunity for his defence. Enquiry
is conducted as per rules. It is denied that suggestions of
Mr.Sengar was not considered. The charges alleged
against workman were proved in Enquiry Proceedings.
Notice was issued to workman. In appeal, the punishment
imposed against workman was modified on humanitarian
ground as workman had given undertaking not to repeat
such incident. The special allowance of workman was
stopped. The period of suspension was treated as period
off duty. IInd party reiterates that punishment is proper
and legal.
4. As per order dated 3-4-01, enquiry was found proper
and legal.
5. Considering pleadings on record and findings on
preliminary issue, the points which arise for my
consideration and determination are as under. My findings
are recorded against each of them for the reasons as
below:—
(i) Whether the misconduct
In Affirmative
alleged against workman is
proved from evidence in
Enquiry proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment of
dismissal imposed against
In Affirmative
workman is proper and
legal?
(iii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not entitled
workman is entitled to?"
to any relief.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2029
REASONS
6. In view of finding in Issue No. 1 that enquiry is found
legal, evidence on point adduced by parties needs no
discussion. Whether charges alleged against workman are
proved or not needs to be decided as per the evidence in
Enquiry proceedings. Affidavit of evidence submitted by
management's witness Deepak Kothari therefore needs no
discussion. In his affidavit, he has narrated details of
enquiry conducted against workman and order passed by
Appellate Authority.
7. IInd party management produced copy of settlements
between management and the employees Union. Para No.
19.5 pertains to gross misconduct. Clause 19.5(c) pertains
to drunkenness or riotous or disorderly or indecent behavior
on the premises of the bank; (d) will ful damage or attempt
to cause damage to the property of the bank or any of its
customers; (e) willful insubordination or disobedience or
any lawful and reasonable order of the management or of a
superior.
8. Enquiry officers held that for disorderly or indecent
behavior, it is not necessary that the delinquent employ
should be under intoxication. I donot find illegality in said
observation.
9. Dealing with the question whether charges alleged
against workman are proved or not, the evidence recorded
by Enquiry officer shows that the incident was reported to
police on 29-5-84. The incident had taken place between
workman Ram Prasad and Anandilal Garg. Statement of
Shri Prakash admitted his signature on MEX-1-statement
given by him. He also admitted his signature on MEX-2, 3.
The witness was cross-examined extensively. Management's
witness has replied that he was present at the time of
incident. That Shri R.P.Nag and Branch Manager Sengar
were quarrelling loudly in Manager's cabin. The witness
did not recollect names of all persons present at time of
incident. He retraced that he had seen Mr. Sengar and
workman. The witness was unable to tell number of persons
present at the time of occurrence of incident. The witness
was unable to tell exact time of incident. In reply to Q. at
Page 45, witness says workman after going out of cabin
had immediately returned back. He was unable to tell exact
time. He further says that workman had gone to the place
where Moolchand was sitting. He lifted scissor from the
place and came to the place where Mr.Sengar was sitting.
Workman had cut the papers in his hand and burnt those
papers and let off the cabin of Manager. There were 3-4
papers in hand of workman. Astrey was on the table. Burning
papers were brought by CSE Nagwanshi and thrown near
the chair. There was no crowd at the door from which CSE
Nagwanshi had come. Clothers or any other papers were
not burnt with the burning papers thrown by Nagwanshi.
When witness tried to put off burning papers, he was pulled
by CSE. In his further cross-examination, management
witness says while throwing burning papers, CSE
Nagwanshi said it was gift from him. The Godrej almirah
having documents was in his cabin. Workman has
threatened to see the witness when he tried to put off
burning papers. When contradictoroy statements were
brought to the notice of witness, he submitted that both
statements were correct. The evidence of management's
witness Shri V.N .Vyas says that he received knowledge
about incident on telephone. As per report, CSE Nagwanshi
posted in Ratlam branch had come to cabin and burnt
papers. The report was submitted by Assistant General
Manager. Branch Manager had pointed out the place of
incident point out finger. The photograph was not snapped
in his presence. He had inspected the allegations in his
report drawing panchnama regarding statement of
witnesses. Workman had participated in enquiry. The
evidence of management witness No. 3 Shri Garg admitted
his signatures on DX-2 on the point that zerox copy was
not supplied by him to CSE Nagwanshi. Workman may
have obtained it without his permission. Ist party workman
at the time of argument submits that Enquiry Officer did
not considered the evidence properly. These consistencies
in evidence were ignored. Findings of Enquiry Officer re
proper. The scope of judicial review in the matter of Enquiry
Proceedings is limited. Rather Tribunal cannot re-appreciate
the evidence as Appellate Authority. While dealing with
the points whether charges alleged are proved form
evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. If Tribunal finds that
findings of Enquiry officer are not supported by any
evidence, the Tribunal can exercise its jurisdiction. In
present case, findings of Enquiry Officer are supported
from evidence discussed above.
10. Management's Representative Shri Deepak Kothari
relies on ratio held in
Case of M.R.Muley versus State Bank of Indore reported
in 2011(1) MPLJ 385. Their Lordship considering
appellant clerk cum godown keeper was chargesheeted
for engaging three persons on daily wages without any
power and authority, the factum of engaging said
persons was accepted by the appellant by explaining
the circumstances under which they were engaged prior
permission to engage them not obtained by the appellant.
Their Lordship held the explanation offered would not
come within purview of denial of charges. Disciplinary
Authority as well as the appellate authority did not commit
any error in holding the charge to be proved against the
appellant and thereby imposing penalty of withholding
one annual increment without cumulative effect.
Ratio held in above case is on the point of disproportionate
punishment and not w.r.t. adequacy of evidence. Ratio
cannot be applied to present case at hand. As findings of
Enquiry Officer are supported form evidence discussed
above, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
11. Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.1, charges
are proved against workman, Ist party workman about
2030
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
burning papers in cabin of Branch Manager, certainly it
amounts to a disorderly act. On the point of proportionate
of punishment, management representative Shri Deepak
Kothari relies on ratio held in.
Case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. versus
N.B.Narawade reported in 2005(3) SCC 134. Their
Lordship of Apex Court dealing with scope of section
11-A . When the discretional power to be used held
discretion is certainly not unlimited and can only be
exercised 1 the following cases (1) punishment being
so disproportionate to gravity of misconduct so as to
disturb conscience of court or existence of any
mitigating circumstances which require reduction of
the sentence or past conduct of workman.
Ist party workman has not adduced any evidence about
utility circumstances or his past conduct justifying
reduction of punishment.
12. Considering the proved misconduct, Ist party
workman had burnt papers in cabin of Branch Manager,
the punishment imposed by Appellate Authority
withholding increment without cumulative effect stopping
special allowance cannot be said excessive. Therefore no
interference would be justified. For above reasons, I
record my finding in Point No. 2 in Affirmative.
13. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1 ) The action of the management of State Bank of
Indore in not treating the periods from 31-5-84 to
6-5-85 and from 3-3-86 to 3- 3-87 as duty
withholding one increment with cumulative effect
and withdrawal of special allowances for five years
in respect of Shri R. P. Nagwanshi, cashier is legal
and proper.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
14. Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 941-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ banksj
etZM fon bu Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k
¼187@98½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@337@97&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 941.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 187/98) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of State Bank of Indore Merged with State
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/337/97-IR (B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/187/98
General Secretary,
Daily Wages Bank Employees Association,
Hardev Niwas,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain.
...Workman/Union
Versus
Managing Director,
State Bank of Indore, Head Office,
5, Yeshwant Niwas Road, Indore,
(Merged with State Bank of India)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 17th day of April, 2015
1.
As per letter dated 10-8-98 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/
337/97-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of Indore in terminating the services of Shri Rajkumar
Samarwal w.e.f. 4-1-97 is justified? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled for?"
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party General Secretary, Daily Wages Bank
employees Association submitted statement of claim on
behalf of workman. Case of Ist party is that workman was
engaged on daily wages from 17-5-88 on vacant post of
peon. Workman was doing clearing sweeping, dusting etc.
work from 17-5-88 from 8 to 10 A.M. Thereafter he was working
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2031
in the branch as peon from 10.30 to 6 P.M. That after transfer
of Branch Manager Shri Jahsiwala, workman was working
under Branch Manager Shri Khandelwal, Pote,
Vijayvargeey, Kashmire and others.When workman claimed
full salary and bonus, he was terminated from 4-1-97.
Workman further submits that Ishwar Prasad and Laxmi
Narayan are still working. Their wages are paid by drawing
bogus bills. Workman submits that he completed 240 days
service. He acquired status of regular employee under
section 25-F of ID Act. The services of Ist party workman
were terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation
was not paid. The termination of his service is in violation
of Section 25-F and Para 507, 524 of Sastry Award. It is
further submitted that IInd party do not follow principles
of last come first go. As such termination of workman is in
violation of section 25-G of I.D. Act. Workman was not
given opportunity to work after his termination of service.
IInd party has thereby violated Section 25-H of I.D. Act.
On such ground, workman is praying for reinstatement
with back wages.
3. IInd party has filed Written Statement at page 12/1
to 12/11. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 12/1 to
12/11. IInd party raised preliminary objection that workman
was not appointed by IInd party and not completed 240
days service, therefore reference is not tenable. That Shri
Ram Nagwanshi so called General Secretary of the Union
was dismissed from Bank service. He is not competent to
represent workman. IInd party Bank is incorporated under
SBI Act 1959 for appointment of staff, sub staff. As per
policy of the Bank, sub staff is appointed after following
recruitment process, names sponsored through
Employment Exchange, candidates are selected after
interview. Workman was not appointed following such
selection process. It is submitted that services of workman
were utilized as per exigencies for few hours. Workman
was paid agreed wages. The disengagement of workman is
covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act. Workman was
not terminated by IInd party. It is further submitted that Ist
party is not covered as workman under ID Act. There is not
employer employee relationship between parties. The daily
wage employees are not entitled for reinstatement. IInd
party has referred to ratio held in various cases and submits
that workman is not entitled to reliefs claimed by him.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of them for
the reasons as beolow:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of State Bank
of Indore in terminating the
services of Shri Rajkumar
Samarwal w.e.f. 4-1-97 is
justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
As per final orders.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
5.
Workman is challenging termination of his
services from 4-1-97 for violation of Section 25-F, G,
H of ID Act. IInd party denied employer employee
relationship. It is contented that workman was not
appointed by IInd party. Workman as not completed 240
days service. Provisions of ID Act are not applicable.
6.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence in
support of his contentions in statement of claim.
Workman has stated that he was engaged on daily wages
in Sujalpur Mandi branch by Branch Manager
Khandelwal in March 1989. He was working from 8 to
10 AM for cleaning te branch and from 10.30 to 7 PM,
he was performing duties of peon. He was working more
than 8 hours. He was paid Rs. 20/- per day. He worked
under different Branch Managers. His services were
terminated from 6-1-97 after demand for bonus and
regular pay. He was not served with notice, retrenchment
compensation was not paid to him. In his corss-
examination, workman says he was working in Sujalpur
Branch doing cleaning, sweeping work. He was working
in this branch from 1980 to 1997. He denies that
intermittent breaks were given to him.Shri Vishnu Prasad
and Laxmi Narayan were working in the same branch.
He was unable to tell exact period of their working.
Workman denies that he was engaged when regular
employee was used to be on leave.
7.
Management's witness Shri Sanjeev Verma filed
affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions of
management that workman was engaged as per exigencies
and that workman was not continuously working from
1980 to 4-1-97. That Ist party workman was doing
graduation during 90 to 93. Management’s witness in his
cross-examination says permission of Controlling
Authority was not taken before engaging the workman.
Sastry Award, Desai Award are applicable to the services
of the workman. Workman was not given appointment
letter. His attendance was not maintained in the register.
Management's witness claim ignorance how wages were
paid to the workman management's witness denies
payment of bonus to workman.
8.
The evidence of workman is supported by
documents Exhibit W-4. Workman was paid bonus of
Rs. 3393/- Exhibit W-5 is settlement for payment of bonus
to workman and others. Exhibit W-6 shows working days
of workman 119 days in 1990, 91 days in 1997, 184 days in
1991, 250 days in 1995, 221 days in 1996. Exhibit W-6 shows
payment of bonus of Rs. 3393/- to workman. Exhibit W-8 is
zerox copy of the cheque of payment of bonus to workman.
From above document, it is clear that workman worked
more than 240 days in 1995 & 1996. Workman was not
served with notice, retrenchment compensation was not
paid to him. Management's witness claims ignorance on
the point therefore it is proved that the termination of
2032
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
service of workman is in violation of Section 25-F of ID
Act. Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
Negative.
9.
Point No. 2—during course of argument, Shri R.
Nagwanshi Union Representative after pointing out
evidence submits that termination of workman is illegal,
workman was working during 88 to 97, he is entitled for
regularization. However the terms of reference does not
relate to regularization. Settlement dated 13-7-97 produced
at Exhibit W-2 provides—
"A one time opportunity for absorption on permanent
basis in subordinate care as peon cum farrash will be given
to temporary employees who have put in more than
240 days of service in a period of twelve consecutive
months provided they satisfy the eligibility criteria laid
down under the Banks rules such as minimum educational
qualifications, age etc."
As terms of reference do not include denial of
regularisation, workman cannot be allowed such benefit
beyond the terms of reference. Workman was working with
IInd party from 1990 to 1996. As per document Exhibit W-6,
he was paid bonus, his services are terminated without notice.
Workman was not appointed following selection process.
Compensation Rs. One Lakh would be appropriate.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
10.
In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of State Bank of
Indore in terminating the services of Shri Rajkumar
Samarwal w.e.f. 4-1-97 is not proper and legal.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. One
Lakh to the workman within 30 days from the date of
publication of award.
In case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per
annum from the date of award till its realization.
11.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 942-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947] ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ
banksj etZM ,t Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼70@04½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015 izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@23@2004&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 942.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 70/04) of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of State Bank of Indore Merged as State Bank
of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/23/2004-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/70/04
General Secretary,
Daily Wages Bank Employees Association,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain.
...Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager (Operations)
State Bank of Indore,
Merged as State Bank of India
Local Head Office,
Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 17th day of April 2015
1.
As per letter dated 21-6-04 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-12012/23/2004-IR(B-I). The dispute under
reference relates to:—
"Whether the action of the management of General
Manager (O), State Bank of Indore, Indore in not
granted appointment on compassionate ground in r/o
Smt. Varsha Tiwari is justified? If not, to what relief
she is entitled for?"
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued
to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim at Page 12/1 to 12/3. Ist party workman submitted
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2033
that her husband B.K. Tiwari was murdered on 12-9-99
leaving Ist party workman is widow, son Adarsh and
daughters Adarshika and Darshika, mother shantidevi.
Deadbody of Shri B.K. Tiwari was found near Simron road.
That workman, her brother and husband of her sister were
proisecuted for offence under Section 302 IPC in Case No.
405/99. IInd party had issued circular dated 19-10-91
providing employment on compassionate ground. That
workman alongwith 3 children had visited regional office
of the Bank at Indore requesting compassionate
employment. She was told by officers that criminal case
was pending. After its decision, she will be allowed
compassionate appointment after decision of criminal case.
That as per judgment dated 1-11-00, workman was acquitted
vide letter dated 26-4-01. Assistant General Manager
informed her that her claim for compassionate mployment
could not be considered as such claim was to be submited
within one year of the death of the employee.
3.
Ist party workman further submitted that her claim
for compassionate employment was not considered in 1999
to 1-11-00 on the ground that criminal case was pending.
After dispute was raised before conciliation officer, amount
of Rs. 20,521.41 was paid towards gratuity. On such ground,
workman is praying for compassionate employment.
4.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 13/1 to
13/9 opposing claim of workman preliminary objection is
raised by IInd party that Shri Ram Nagwanshi Union
representative was a dismissed employee of the Bank, as
such he is not competent to represent the case. That Shri
B.K. Tiwari H/o workman was employee of the Bank posted
as Arm Guard in Zonal Office, Indore. His dead body was
found on 13-9-99. The police had prosecuted workman and
dinesh Kohli for his murder. After completion of trial,
addtional session Judge acquitted workman and Dinesh
Kohli on 1-11-00. Under claim for appointment on
compassionate ground, request should be received by
Bank earlier before completion of one year from death of
the employee. Ist party workman applied for employment
on compassionate ground after 20 month of death of her
husband. Her application was submitted after period of
one year. Therefore workman is not entitled for
compassionate employment. Workman was negligent. All
adverse contentions of workman have been denied. Bank
had not given any assurance to workman for giving
employment on compassionate ground after acquittal in
criminal case.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
management of General
Manager (O), State Bank
of Indore, Indore in not
granting appointment on
compassionate ground in
r/o Smt. Varsha Tiwari is
justified
(ii) if not, what relief the
workman is not entitled
workman is entitled to?"
to any relief.
REASONS
6. Workman is claiming employment on compassionate
ground after death of her husband. As per Exhibit W-1,
General Manager of the Bank had directed that application
for compassionate ground should be submitted alongwith
relevant documents with check list. Document Exhibit W-2
is letter dated 26-4-01 informing workman that her
application for compassionate appointment could not be
considered as application was not submitted in prescribed
time. Exhibit W-3 is copy of application submitted by Union
Representative to ALC. Copy of judgment of criminal case
in session Case 405/99 is produced at P-6. Workman and
Dinesh were acquitted on 1-11-00. Copy of rules in the
matter of appointment on compassionate ground are
produced. 1st party has admitted said documents.
Para-5 at Page 295 provides-Request for appointment
under the scheme should be received by the Bank within
one year from the date of death of the employee. In case
the dependant is a minor or does not possess suitable
minimum qualification his/her case can be considered within
four years of the death of the employee to enable him/her
to so qualify in terms of age or qualification.
Clause IV(b) relates to appointment in subordinate cadre.
A dependent who can prove to the satisfaction of the
Appointing Authority that he possesses a simple
knowledge of reading and writing English or any other
regional language may be eligible for appointment and
requirement of his having passed any examination in school
may not be insisted upon.
7. Workman filed affidavit of her evidence. However
she failed to appear for cross-examination. Her evidence
was closed on 6-5-2014.
8. Management's witness Shri Deepak Kothari filed
affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions in
Written Statement of IInd Party that application for
compassionate appointment was submitted after
20 months of death of her husband. Workman was not
entitled for employment on compassionate ground. In his
cross-examination, management's witness was unable to
tell the date of death of her husband of workman. He was
also unable to tell workman had gone to the office claiming
employment on compassionate ground. At that time, she
In Affirmative
2034
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
was told criminal case was pending. Workman was
acquitted. He claims ignorance whether she has filed
appeal against order. As workman failed to appear for her
cross-examination, her evidence cannot be considered.
There is no evidence that workman had visited regional
office claiming employment on compassionate ground.
9. The application was not submitted within one year
of death of the husband of workman as provided in Para-5
discussed above. Therefore I record my finding in Point
No. 1 in Affirmative.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of General Manager
(O), State Bank of Indore, Indore in not granting
appointment on compassionate ground in r/o
Smt. Varsha Tiwari is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
11. Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 06 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 943-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;qdks c®d ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼52@2010½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y& 12012@46@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, 6th May, 2015
S.O. 943.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/2010) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of UCO Bank and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/46/2010-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/52/2010
Shri Nathulal,
S/o Shri Mangilal,
H. No. 70, R/o Gwal Toli
Distt. Neemuch (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Dy. General Manager,
UCO Bank, Regional office,
380, Saket Nagar,
IInd Floor, Indore
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 13th day of March 2015
1. As per letter dated 26-11-2010 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/
46/2010-IR (B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Assistant
General Manager, UCO Bank, Indore in dismissing the
services of Late Nathulal w.e.f. 26-11-99 was justified?
What relief the workman's family is entitled for?"
2. The dispute is referred as per order dated 26-11-10.
The dispute is of dismissal of workman Late Nathulal.
Management appeared through Advocate Bhattacharjee.
Initially dispute relating to dismissal of services of workman
deceased is not proper or legal. Dispute between
management and deceased workman cannot be decided as
the workman is not alive. Management was directed to
furnish particulars of family members of deceased workman.
The details are not furnished. It is surprised to say the
dispute under reference is incomplete with respect to the
parties.
3. In the result, dispute cannot be adjudicated.
Accordingly reference is disposed off.
4. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 944-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M flaè c®d
ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 15@06½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12011@182@2005&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2035
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015
S.O. 944.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/06) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Punjab & Sindh Bank and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12011/182/2005-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/15/06
Gneral Secretary,
Prathadith Karmachair Kalyan Manch,
9, Sanwar Road,
Ujjain (MP)
...Workman/Union
Versus
Zonal Manager,
Punjab & Sindh Bank,
Zonal Office, E-3/114,
Arera Colony,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 24th day of March, 2015
1. As per letter dated 28-4-2006 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-
12011/182/2005-IR (B-II). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the Zonal Manager, Punjab &
Sindh Bank, Zonal Office, Bhopal to deny permanent
appointment to Shri Rajkishore Sharma is justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Statement of claim is submitted by workman
at page 2/2 to 2/5. Case of workman is that he was engaged
on vacant post of peon from 30-8-81 in Jayendragani Bank
of Pubjab & Sind Bank at Gwalior. He was working with
devotion. He was doing work of cooking meals, cleaning
utensils, taking care of his children. He was also working
as watchman at residence to Branch Manager Shri Surjit
Singh Kindra. He continuously worked from 30-8-81 to
19-12-86 at place of work of Shri Surjit Singh at Gwalior,
Amritsar. That he worked on 365 days in an year at residence
of Surjit Singh Kindra. Interview call was also issued to
him after application Submitted by him. He was interviewed.
His name was at Sl. No. 5 of Select list. After transfer of Shri
Surjit Singh to Amritsar, Ist party workman was working at
Amritsar on 30-12-00. Workman submitted application for
his appointment as regular employee. Ist party workman
further submits he raised Industrial Dispute. He was
persuaded to withdraw dispute raised by him assuring him
to appoint against permanent post. He further submits that
thereafter he was engaged on daily wages. Some writing
was obtained from him on stamp papers. After he was again
discontinued from work, he had raised dispute before ALC.
During pendency of conciliation proceedings, management
had correspondence with Union Representative Ram
Nagwanshi. After failure report submitted by ALC, the
dispute has been referred, Workman submits that he was
denied appointment for permanent post is illegal. Workman
prays that action of the management denying him
appointment on permanent post is illegal.
3. IInd party management filed Written Statment at Page
9/1 to 9/8. Preliminary objection is raised by IInd party that
after voluntary withdrawal of earlier dispute, the reference
is not tenable. Workman has not acquired right for
appointment against permanent post. The referene
deserves to be rejected. The claim of workman for
appointment against permanent post is not legal. Workman
had not completed 240 days continuous service during
any of the calender year. Merely completing 240 days
service doesnot give him right for appointment on
permanent post. All material contentions of workman
continuously working in the Bank is denied. It is rather
contented that workman was working as domestic servant
to Branch Manager Surjeit singh. He was performing duties
in the branch has been denied. The documents relied by
workman doesnot give him right for appointment against
permanent post. Workman voluntarily withdrawn his claim
assuming that his name was at Sl. No. 5 of select list. The
document submitted by workman is not select list rather it
is information submitted w.r.t the employees working in
the Bank. On such contentions, IInd party party prays for
rejection of claim of workman.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
Zonal manager, Punjab &
Sindh Bank, Zonal Office,
Bhopal to deny permanent
appointment to
2036
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Shri Rajkishore Sharma is
Justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workan is not entitled
workman is entitled to?"
to any relief.
REASONS
5. Workman has raised dispute. The terms of reference
pertains to denilal of permanent appointment to workman
Raj Kumar Sharma by management of IInd party. The IInd
Party had denied claim of workman on various grounds
contending that he never completed 240 days continuous
service in the Bank. Workman does not get right for
appointment against permanents post. Workman did not
participate in reference proceeding, no evidence is adduced.
Evidence of workman is closed on 20-4-2011. However
documents produced by workman are admitted by IInd
party. Exhibit W-1 is order of reference. W-2 is copy of
letter dated 1-5-99 submitted by Branch Manager to Dy.
General Manager in the matter of temporary peons. The
Contents of said letter are with reference ot your letter on
capitioned subject were given below the names of
temporary peon who completed 240 days and above in 12
preceding consecutive months and list of all remainig
persons including those who have completed 90 days and
above. Name of workman is appearing at Sl. No. 5 letter is
not clear whethr workman completed 240 days service or
he completed more than 90 working days. The names of 25
employees are shown in the letter. Exhibit W-3 is application
submitted by workman withdrawing conciliation
proceeding before ALC bearing No. ALC/7/28-2001. Exhibit
W-4 is order treating dispute as withdrawn and conciliation
proceedings was closed. Exhibit W-5 is letter given by Sr.
Manager to Zonal Manager of Punjab and Sind Bank dated
1-1-2001. Letter find reference of representation through
Jaibhan Singh, member of parliament stating that the
workman had worked as temporary peon in branch office,
Jayendragarh Exhibit W-6 shows working days of workman,
31 days in August of September 1981, 30 days from 2-11-81
to 3-12-81, 31 days from 12-12-81 to 23-1-81, 31 days from
1-3-82 to 31-3-82, 30 days from 4-4-82 to 4-5-82, 30 days
from 12-7-82 to 10-8-82, 31 days from 24-8-82 to 24-9-82.
Exhibit W-7 is letter issued by RLC, Bhopal to Zonal
Manager of Punjab and Sind Bank dated 22-2-05 to remain
present with record. workman has not adduced evidence.
IInd party has not admitted workman had completed 240
days continuous service.
6. Management filed affidavit of evidence of
Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey stating that workman was never
appointed as peon in the Bank against vacant post. That
1st party workman had worked in the Bank as and when his
services were required. He was paid remuneration.
Workman not worked continuously for 240 days from
12 calender months prior to the reference. The Bank Office
never assured workman to give permanent appointment.
7. Management's witness in his cross says that he was
not posted in branches where workman was working. He
has not discussed about claim of workman with his
predecessors. Only he seen the documnets. Before
engaging workman, post was not advertised, any selection
process was not followed. Exhibit W-8 admitted by
management's witness was interview call given to the
workman. That he doesnot konw about conciliation
proceeding initiated by workan before ALC, Bhopal for
regularization. When workman has not participated in
reference, he has not adduced any evidence about the
working days. Claim of workan is not substantiated by
any kind of evidence. Union Representative Shri Ram
Nagwanshi produced copies of awards passed in R/180/
00, R/4/07, R/105/07, R/27/04. I have carefully gone through
those awards. When workman has not adduced any
evidence about completed 240 days continuous service
and period of his working or termination of his service,
the copies of awards cannot be relief for persouasion
purpose.
8. Learned consel for IInd party Shri Jaiswal submits
that Ist party workman is not in employment. He was
discharged. Workman is not entitled for regularization.
Thopugh my attention was pointed out to document
P-3/8, I do not find such documents on record, to be
priceise in absence of evidence on part of workman,
claim of workman for regularization cannot be upheld.
Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
Affirmative.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the Zonal Manager, Punjab & Sindh
Bank, Zonal Office, Bhopal to deny permanent
appointment to Shri Rajkishore Sharma is proper
and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
10. Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government to India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 945-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;qdks cSad ds izca/kr=
ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxdh vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 48@05½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@12@2005&vkbZvkj ¼ch& II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2037
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015
S.O. 945.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the publishes the Award (Ref. No. 48/05)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No.-L-12012/12/2005-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/48/05
Shri Parasmal Jain,
S/o Shri Nemichand Jain,
R/o 437, Gumasta Nagar,
Indore
...Workman
Versus
Regional Manager,
UCO Bank,
Regional Office, 380
Saket Nagar,
Opp K.D. Hospital,
Indore.
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 23rd day March, 2015
1. As per letter dated 26-5-05 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour New Delhi the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/
12/2005-IR (B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Regional
Manager UCO Bank Indore in dismissing the services of
workman Shri Parasmal Jain S/o Shri Nemichand Jain w.e.f.
31-8-99 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist Party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 3/1 to 3/18. Case of workman is that he was serving
with IInd party Bank at Indore as clerk from
9-11-1982 till 4-5-199. Workman was dismissed on
31-8-99 without conducting fair and proper enquiry. The
facts which led to dismissal from services are narrated in
details. That Mrs. Rajkmari Valecha, Sunil Valecha had given
instructions. Manager cheque of Rs. 41,350/- was prepared
by Shri Ravindra Jain, clerk. Manager's cheque was signed
by Non-applicant No. 3 and two other officers of Bank.
Payment of said cheque was made according to the rules
of Bank after completing formalities in joint name of Shri
Mahendra Ajmera, Smt. Kiran Ajmera and Shri Parasmal
Jain by Transfer entry. A certificate of having given
instruction for payment of money is supported by affidavit.
That account holders have no complaint about payments
made as per instructions of Shri Rajkumar Valecha and Sunil
Velecha. That payment was made directly as per norms of
the Banks and duly authorized officers of the Bank. No
harm was caused to the Bank. Disciplinary Authority of
the Bank had issued chargesheet on 13-4-88 departmental
enquiry was conducted on different dates. Enquiry Officer
submitted his report on 20-7-99. Disciplinary Authority
imposed punishment of dismissal on 31-8-99.
3. Workman has reiterated that enquiry was not properly
conducted. That Shri Sunil Valecha was produced at DE-1
before Enquiry officer. Said witness had produced
certificate DE-4 showing payment was made as per their
instructions. Enquiry officer not considered those
documents while submitting his report to the Disciplinary
Authority. Examination-in-chief of DW-1 Sunil Valecha was
complied while he was cross examined. Due to sudden
demise of his grand father, the defence witness could not
be cross-examined. Workman further submits managers
cheque were not produced despite of his request. The
documents ME-1 to ME-31 are not concerned with the
workman. The workman is not concerned with writing those
documents. The author of those documents were different.
Management's witness Shri Ram Keshwar has not deposed
anything about tampering of documents. His evidence is
silent about the fraud committed by workman. The
documents is question were written by Shri T.D. Modak,
R.C. Khandelwal, Prakash Maheshwari, Jyoti Bithare,
Apurva, Mahesh Lala, Dilip, Apurva Choudhary, Udai Ram,
Ravindra Jain, J.B. Kumar. Cheque of Rs. 41,350/- was
prepared by Ravindra Jain. After preparation of Manager,
cheque, the entry in FDR in transfer scroll were made by
Shri Ravindra Jain, P. Jain. It is reiterated that workman had
not taken any of the entries. Documents were not examined
by handwriting expert. The report of handwriting expert
was not produced in enquiry. The findings of Enquiry
Officer are perverse. The punishment of dismissal on report
of Enquiry Officer is illegal. On such grounds, workman is
praying to set aside order of his dismissal and reinstatement
with back wages.
4. Management filed Written Statement at Page 11/1 to
11/9 opposing claim of workman. All material contentions
of workman that enquiry was not properly conducted,
documents were not supplied to him. The order of dismissal
is passed illegally are denied. Documents produced by
workman is addressed to general public and not Branch
Manager, it has no value. The velocity of documents was
2038
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
not examined by cross-examination. Management admits
that DW-1 was charged in enquiry. He made deposition in
examination in chief and left enquiry. He avoided cross-
examination. The documents produced by management
ME-1 to ME-31. Its genuiness was verified after inspection
by workman. It is denied that enquiry conducted against
workman is illegal. Principles of natural justice were not
violated. On merit, it is submitted that amount of FDI was
transferred in joint accounts of workman and other account
holders. Workman withdrawn amount from it. There is
sufficient evidence to prove charge against workman. The
findings of Enquiry officer are not perverse. Considering
serious nature of proved charges, punishment of dismissal
imposed against workman is proper and legal.
5. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 12/1 to 12/8
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
6. As per order dated 12-10-12, enquiry against workman
is found legal and valid. Considering pleadings on record,
the points which arise for my consideration and
determination are as under. My findings are recorded
against each of them for the reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the misconduct
alleged against workman
is proved from evidence
In Affirmative
in Enquiry proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment
of dismissal imposed
In Affirmative.
against workman is proper
and legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not entitled
workman is entitled to?''
to any relief.
REASONS
7. As stated above, enquiry conducted against workman
is found legal, valid as per order dated 12-10-12 filed by my
predecessor. The question remains for consideration is
whether charges alleged against workman are proved from
evidence in Enquiry Proceedings, whether the punishment
of dismissal is proper and legal. 1st point is whether the
charges alleged against workman are proved against
workman needs to be decided considering the evidence in
Enquiry proceedings. Learned counsel for workman Shri
Tripathi during course of argument submits that
chargesheet was issued to workman on 13-4-98 abusing
misconduct of fraud committed by workman. That sole
witness Shri Ram Keshwani was examined in Enquiry
proceedings. His evidence is silent about torning or ultering
any documents. Chargesheet Exhibit W-3 pertains to fixed
deposit of Rs. 25,000. That model standing order Clause
19.5(d)(j) does not cover the alleged misconduct. Joint
account was opened. Amount of Fixed deposit was paid
Rs. 41,350/- and 15,000/- in name of Kiran Ajmera,
Mahendra Ajmera, Parasmal. There is no evidence to
support tampering of record or acts causing harm to Bank.
There is no charge pertaining to monetary loss caused to
the Bank in statement of claim of management's witness
Ram Keshwani. It is further submitted that in findings of
Enquiry Officer charges of tampering record are not
supported. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri
Bhattacharjee pointed out my attention to document ME-1
to ME-31 produced in Enquiry proceedings. DE was held
valid. The charge was under clause 19.5.(d)(j) of standing
orders. Learning counsel pointed out that the amount of
FDR was splilled and payment was made Rs. 41,350/-,
15,000/- fraudulently deposited in SBI Account. The amount
was withdrawn. The documents ME-14 to 23 were not
disputed by CSE. Learned counsel submits that chages
against workman are proved. Learned counsel for workman
Shri Tripathi relies on several citations in support of
arguments.
In case of Rasik Lal versus Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation reported in AIR 1985-SC 504. Their Lordship
dealing with question that dismissal of petitioner employee
on grounds of misconduct petitioner shown to be guilty of
suppression of material fact which would weight with any
employer in giving him employment. Their Lordship held
case consideration under article 136.
The facts of present case are not comparable as charges
do not pertain to suppression of material information for
employment of the workman. Therefore ratio cannot be
applied to case at hand.
In case of Ministry of Finance and another versus S.B.
Ramesh reported in 1998(3)SCC 227, their Lordship dealing
with departmental enquiry and standared of proof Govt.
servant charged of living together and having extra marital
sexual relationship with a lady. The CAT setting aside the
punishment of compulsory retirement on account of want
of evidence to substantiate the charge after finding that
Enquiry officer had not attempted to question the
delinquent employee under Rule 14(18) of CCS CCA Rules
on the evidence appearing against him although such
opportunity ought to have been afforded despite having
set him exparte.
The facts of present case are not comparable. Charges
against workman are different and enquiry conducted
against workman is found legal and valid. Ratio held in the
case cannot be applied to present case at hand.
Reliance is also placed by counsel for workman
Shri Tripathi on ratio held in
Case of Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank
reported in 2009(2)SCC-570. In para-23 of the judgment
their Lordship dealing with admission of charged employee
held if admission made by charged employee before police
was taken into consideration his subsequent acquittal by
criminal court could not be ignored.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2039
The facts of present case are different. Case against
workman is not based on admission or confession but
enquiry was found legal and valid and evidence in enquiry
proceedings needs to be considered. Therefore ratio held
in above case cannot be applied to case at hand.
In case of Union of India and others versus Gyan Chand
Chattar reported in 2009(12) SCC 78 their Lordship dealing
with judicial review in departmental enquiry. The
department found workman guilty of several charges
including charges of demanding bribes.
In present case, evidence in enquiry Proceedings needs
to be considered as Ist party workman was not prosecuted
in criminal, there is no question of considering such points.
Ratio cannot be applied to case at hand. So far as relief
upholding 50% pay and allowance etc. are matter of
consideration if charges against workman are not proved
from evidence in Enquiry.
8. Learned counsel for management Shri Bhattacharjee
produced copy of award passed in R/98/05 by CGIT
Nagpur. It is surprised to say that the judgment of CGIT are
not binding on this Tribunal.
Ratio held in case of State of Tamil Nadu versus Thiru
K.V. Perumal and others reported in 1996 SCC(L&S) 1280.
That duties of the authorities is only to supply relevant
documents and not each and every document asked by
delinquent. In view of enquiry conducted against workman
is found legal and received finality, ratio cannot be applied
to present case at hand.
In case of State Bank of India and another versus Bela
Bagchi and others reported in 2005(SCC) L & S 940. Their
Lordship held absence of any loss to the Bank is no defence.
Bank employee has to exercise a higher degree of honesty
and integrity. Money received by the employee from
account holder for depositing it in his saving bank account
not so deposited and a fraudulent or fictitious credit entry
made in pass book of account holder. Contention that the
account holder had withdrawn his grievances and no loss
was caused to the Bank held would not condone the
misconduct. Charges against employee were not casual
but serious in nature.
In case of Suresh pathrella versus Oriental Bank of
Commerce reported in 2007(1) SCC (L&S) 224. Their
Lordship considering the misconduct and propriety Bank
Officer misappropriation of customers money by without
causing loss to the Bank held nonetheless a misconduct
not warranting a lenient view.
9. Counsel for workman Shri Tripathi relief in
Case of Union of India and other versus. J. Ahmed
reported in 1979(2)SCC286 their Lordship dealing with
what is explained deficiencies in personal character or
personal ability donot constitute misconduct for taking
disciplinary proceedings. Negligence in performance of
duty are not acts of commission or omission.
In case of State of UP and other versus Ramesh Chandra
Mangalik report in 2002(3) SCC 443 their Lordship
concluded it also however been observed that
negligence in duty may amount to misconduct in certain
cases where consequences may be directly attributed
to the negligence of the delinquent resulting in heavy
losses.
10. Keeping above legal position in view, the evidence
of management's witness needs to be considered. Exhibit
W-3 is chargesheet issued to workman. 8 charges are
alleged against workman. Charges pertains to transaction
of FDR of Rs. 25,000 deposited on 14-3-88. FDR No. 808472
issued for the amount was kept as security for a cash
credit limit of Rs. 50,000 sanctioned in favour of
M/s. Sunil and Company. 2nd charge pertains to transfer
of overdue FDR on 26-9-90 and renewal of FDR on
28-1-91. The renewal FDR bearing No. 727618 dated
20-1-91 was subsequently transferred to overdue FDR
Head on 30-9-93 proceeds being Rs. 42,236/-. On 31-5-96,
overdue FDR was renewed for 48 months. 11% interest to
mature on 14-3-97. FDR was foreclosed on 17-7-96 paying
Rs. 14,114 as interest on it and thus total amount of
payment being Rs. 56,3350/-. Payment was made by
splitting amount of Rs. 41,350 and Rs. 15000 for issuance
of Managers cheque and an FDR respectively in name of
Rajmumari valecha and Sunil Valecha. As per charge No.
4 on 20-7-96 CSE Parasmal Jain in most fraudulent manner
prepared Managers cheque of Rs. 41,350 was prepared in
joint name of Mrs. Kiran Ajmera, Mahendra Ajmera and
Parasmal Jain (CSE). Charge No. 5 pertains to withdrawal
of Rs. 18,600 by cash and transfer of sum of Rs. 12000 to
FDR Loan account No. 2872 by withdrawing the same
from your account No. 6547/37. Withdrawal of Rs. 10,800
by CSE on 22-7-96 utilising sum of Rs. 2525/- from above
said SB Account. The CSE denied charges against him as
per Exhibit W-4. There was no dispute that management
produced documents ME-1 to ME-31 were inspected by
CSE. The CSE confirmed verification of documents at Page 36
of Exhibit W-4. Sole management’s witness Ram Keshwani
working as Asstt. Manager in his evidence has narrated
the details of the documents produced before Enquiry
officer. At Page 5/22 of Enquiry Proceedings, witness of
management says it is evident that ME-14 Unit 12 that
FDR Rs. 42,236 was included by Rs. 14,113 as interest and
amount paid Rs. 42,236 FDR supplementary ME-12.
Management witness at Page 5/21 of Enquiry proceedings
says FDR No. 808472 Rs. 30,460 further renewed on 23-1-
91. FDR Register confirmation to ME-7 was also removed/
tampered with by CSE. The CSE in attempt to removal/
transfer with branch records also renewed DD register
folio in confirmation to ME-8 having the entry of BD FDR
Rs. 42,236. On 31-5-96, as evident the FDR was renewed
by DD FDR Rs. 46,236/-. At page 5/23, management’s
witness says ME-25 FDR No. 880133 Rs. 15000 was in
writing of Shri Parasmal Jain. Writingof Rs. 44 as per debit
2040
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
voucher was in hand writing of Shri Jain. FDR Rs. 25000
was received. Shri Sunil Valecha and Rajkumari Valecha
is evident that while ME-29 it was kept as security. At
page 5/26 of Enquiry Proceedings, there is clear reference
about DRF of Rs. 15000 was issued and Manager Cheque
of Rs. 41,350 was issued in favour of beneficiary Sunil
Valecha and Rajkumari Valecha. On 17-7-96 above
transaction was made by transferring entries which were
recorded in transfer scroll. The CSE tampered with the
records of the transfer scroll dated 17-7-96 which is evident
from ME-10 which is non transfer scroll cheque, the entries
made on 16-7-96, 18-7-96, 19-7-96. They are having no
record of 17-7-96. Same was made with malafide intention
removing the concerned vouchers by CSE. At same page
of Enquiry Proceedings, he observed with subject of
tampering was made by CSE on 20-7-96. CSE most
fraudulently
managed
credit.
ME-22
Rs. 41,350 which is further evident from ME-16 dated 20-
7-96. At page 5/27, it finds reference that credit of Rs.
41,350 by transfer entry to Saving Account 6547/37 SB
Account of CSE as per ME-24. Evidence in Enquiry
Proceedings clearly shows that payment of Rs. 41,350/-
was transferred to SB Account 6547/37. The account was
jointly held by workman along with others. Workman had
withdrawn amount of Rs. 12000, 3000 etc. The cross-
examination of management witness was adjourned again.
However there is absolutely no cross examination on the
evidence discussed above. The charges of fraud alleged
against workman is supported by evidence. The amount
of manager cheque Rs. 41,380 was deposited in Joint
account in name of CSE and other account holders. CSE
had withdrawn amount. FDR were deposited as Security
for the loan taken by other account holders. Therefore
the argument advanced by learned counsel for workman
that charges alleged against workman for fraud and
tampering are not supported by evidence cannot be
accepted. Document W-5 rather ME-1 to 31 produced in
Enquiry Officer have been admitted by CSE and careful
consideration of those documents shows that though
workman was not entitled to receive any amount from
FDR amount was deposited in Joint Account 6547/37 and
CSE withdrawn amount from it. The document Exhibit M-
2. M-3 shows that amounts were deposited by CSE. As
per Exhibit M-3 amount Rs. 10,800 was withdrawn
requesting to take debit entry. Therefore the charges
alleged against workman are supported by documentary
evidence and oral evidence of MW-1 Ramkeshwani. For
above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. in
Affirmative.
11. Point No. 2 the charges proved from evidence in
Enquiry Proceedings relates to deposit of amount of FDR
in Joint Account by CSE with other account holders.
However CSE withdrawn amount from said joint Account,
when establishing his right to receive his amount of FDR.
The charges proved against workman are of serious
nature. Workman has not produced any evidence that he
has no right to receive amount of FDR deposit in joint
account. Workman has withdrawn amount from Joint
account amounts to grave misconduct. The transaction
constituting misconduct are cleverly carried out by CSE.
The evidence in normal cases of fraud and tampering
could not be expected in such a case. It is surprising to
say that findings of Enquiry Officer are supported by
same evidence. The findings of Enquiry Proceedings are
not perverse. Any serious misconduct of tampering and
fraud committed by workman is supported by evidence.
Punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said
excessive or disproportionate. In my considered view,
punishment of dismissal does not call for interference.
For reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point
No. 2 in Affirmative.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Regional Manager,
UCO Bank, Indore in dismissing the services of workman
Shri Parasmal Jain S/o Shri Nemichand Jain w.e.f. 31-8-99
is legal and proper.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
13. Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 946-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ egkjk"Vªk]
ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k @Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 258@99½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@39@99&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015
S.O. 946.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No. 258/99) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Bank of Maharashtra and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
05/05/2015.
[No. L-12011/39/99-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2041
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/258/99
Dy. General Secretary,
Union of the Maharashtra Bank Employees,
Jabalpur Unit Hanuman Mandir Gate,
Yadav Colony,
Jabalpur.
...Workman/Union
Versus
Regional Manager,
Bank of Maharashtra,
Regional Office,
Wright town,
Jabalpur.
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 23rd day of March, 2015
1. As per letter dated 16-7-99 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L 12011/39/
99-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“(i) Whether the management of Bank of Maharashtra
is justified in imposing the penalty of Censure upon
Shri P.S. Phatak, Typist? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(ii) Whether the recover of Rs. 4715/95 ordered from
the salary of the workman for the loss suffered by
the management is in accordance with the provisions
of Sastri Award/Desai Award/bipartite settlement?
If not, what relief, is the said workman entitled to?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Statement of claim is filed by Dy. General secretary
of Union at Page 3/1 to 3/3/. Case of 1st party Union is that
workman Shri P.S. Pathak was working as typist in IInd
party Bank from 16-8-83. He was working with with sincerity
and honesty. His service conditions of Bank are covered
by Sastry Award, Desai award and Bipartite settlement.
That vide order dated 19-3-97, punishment of censor was
imposed against workman. Amount of Rs. 4715.95 was
recovered from him by management. Union submits that
punishment is unreasonable, unjustified.
3. It is further submitted that the management had issued
chargesheet to workman on 6-2-95. the charges were vague,
workman submitted reply to chargesheet. Management did
not consider his reply. Enquiry was initiated is illegal.
Enquiry Officer was appointed to the employee in pay of
the Bank. From such Enquiry Officer, fair enquiry cannot
be expected. Enquiry officer acted as prosecutor other than
a judge. Enquiry was not conducted following proper
procedure. Workman was not given opportunity for his
defence. Principles of natural justice were not followed on
28-12-1976 Enquiry Officer submitted his findings. Findings
of Enquiry Officer that charges against workman are proved
are perverse. Enquiry Officer not given importance to the
defence of workman. Workman has not committed any
misconduct alleged in chargesheet. He is punished without
his fault. The findings of Enquiry officer are illegal.
Workman challenged order of his dismissal filing appeal. It
is reiterated that the order of punishment was issued by
Competent Authority. On such ground, Union is praying
to quash the order of punishment.
4. Management of IInd party submitted Written
Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/5/ opposing claim of Union. IInd
party denied allegation of Union. It is reiterated that the
punishment imposed against workman of censor and
recover of amount towards the loss suffered by the
management. It is submitted that Shri P.S. Pathak workman
was working as clerk. He was deputed to Jabalpur branch
for handling saving Bank counter on 4-8-90. The balance
of Rs. 20511.60 at the foot of the account on the ledger
folio No. 54 of S.B. Ledger NO. 14 in respect of Saving
Bank Account No. 5176 of Shri Harbans Singh was carried
over by him at Page No. 122 of the same ledger. Workman
posted one debit entry i.e. cheque No. 018606 on 4-8-90
reducing the balance to Rs. 10511.60 while carrying over
the balance at Page 122 of same ledger, balance was not
recorded as per Page 54 of the ledger. Lapse on his part
resulted into two debit posting of Rs. 10,000 and 3000 on
same page on different dates. Workman Shri Pathak omitted
posting of Rs. 10,000. Chargesheet was issued to workman
about negligence in duties. Because of lapse on part of
workman, overdraft of Rs. 9431 was created. Enquiry was
conducted against workman. After receiving report of
Enquiry Officer, punishment of censor was imposed against
workman and 50% amount of the loss suffered was incurred
by him. Action of management is proper and legal.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the management
In Affirmative
of Bank of Maharashtra is
justified in imposing the
penalty of Censure upon
Shri P.S. Pathak, typist?
2042
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(ii) Whether the recovery of
In Affirmative
Rs. 4715/95 ordered from
the salary of the workman
for the loss suffered by
the management is in
accordance with the
provisions of Sastri
Award/Desai Award/
bipartite settlement?
(iii) If not, what relief the
workman is not entitled
Workman is entitled to?” to any relief.
REASONS
6. Workman raised dispute through Union. Statement
of claim is filed at Page 3/1 to 3/4 . Written Statement is filed
at Page 5/1 to 5/5. However the Union failed to participate
in reference proceeding. Evidence of 1st party workman
was closed on 21-2-2014 and again as per order sheet 12-8-
2014. Management also failed to adduce evidence. Evidence
of management is closed on 1-12-2014. Both parties failed
to participate in reference proceeding despite repeated
notices issued. Copy of Enquiry Proceeding are produced
on record. Workman has failed to adduce any evidence to
establish that enquiry conducted against him is not proper
and legal.
7. IInd party also failed to participate in reference
proceeding and proved the documents of Enquiry
Proceedings. On failure of both parties to participate in
reference proceedings, the action of management cannot
be said illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in
Point No. 1, 2 in Affirmative.
8. In the result, award is passed is under:—
(1) Action of the management is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
9. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 947-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds
izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 20@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@18@95&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 06 May, 2015
S.O. 947.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/99) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12011/18/95-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/20/99
Secretary,
Bank of India Employees Union,
Through Bank of India,
Regional Office, Napier Town,
Russel Chowk,
Jabalpur
...Workman/Union
Versus
Regional Manager,
Bank of India,
Govind Kunj Colony,
Napier town,
Russel Chowk, Jabalpur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 23rd day of March, 2015
1. As per letter dated 4-12-98 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12011/
18/95-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of bank of India
Jabalpur in not regularizing the services of the 13 casual
workmen working against the vacant posts of sub staff
from the dates of their appointment and terminating the
services of five of them as shown below is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief these workman are
entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted individual statement
of claims.
3. IInd party management filed Written Statement at Page
26/1 to 26/13 opposing claim of workmen.
4. Application on behalf of workman is filed for withdrawal
of the case. Management has no objection. As workman
has withdrawn his claim, the dispute between parties ceased
to exist. The reference stands disposed off as withdrawn.
5. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2043
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 948-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;qfu;u cSad
vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k @Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼315@97½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@96@97&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015
S.O. 948.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 315/97) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/96/97-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/315/97
Shri Sunderlal Sahu,
S/o Ayodhya Prasad Sahu,
R/o Patloni,
Post Gangotri Complex,
TT Nagar, Bhopal
...Workman
Versus
Chief Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Aanchalik Office,
Gangotri Complex,
T.T. Nagar,
Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 12th day of March 2015
1. As per letter dated 20-11-97 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/
96/97-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Union
Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri
Sunder Lal Sahu w.e.f. 30.9.94 is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the said workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
through General secretary Bank Employees Union at page
3/1 to 3/6. The Case of workman is that he was appointed
as peon in IInd part Bank on 30-12-93. After his name was
sponsored through Employment Exchange he was
interviewed. He was posted at Chopra branch. It is alleged
that Branch Manager do not give his information about the
books and registers maintained in the Bank. Ist party
workman was carrying his work with held of other peon.
Workman alleges that he was required to work both at
residence of the Branch Manager and office for more than
12 hours every day. Workman was tired. He expressed his
difficulties. It was also alleged that Branch Manager was
sending him far distance on foot for purchase of cigarette
and vegetables etc. the workman had complained against
the Branch Manager to the Regional Office. By this
complaint, Branch Manager spoiled his appraisal report.
Branch Manager recommended his termination from service.
Workman submits that he was appointed on probation
period. His probation period was extended for 3 months on
22-6-94. It is also alleged that Branch Manager had
submitted appraisal report in pursuance of letter dated 13-
8-94. The report was sent adverse spoiling his character.
His services were terminated from 30-9-94 without any
notice or paying one month's salary. When workman raised
dispute, the conciliation failed and dispute has been
referred. Workman submits that he had continuously worked
for 270 days from30-12-93. Termination of his service
without notice or without payment of retrenchment
compensation is illegal. On such ground, workman prays
for his reinstatement with back wages.
3. IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page 9/1 to
9/7. IInd party submits that workman was appointed on
probation. He not shown improvement in his performance.
Therefore his services were terminated from 30-9-94 as per
terms of appointment order. It is reiterated that the service
of workman was not satisfactory his probation was extended
for 3 months. Despite of it, workman not shown any
improvement. Workman was appointed on probation as
per letter dated 30-12-93. Condition No. 2 of the
appointment order provides his appointment on probation
for 3 months. The probation period is not automatically
completed. Unless the service is found satisfactory,
appointment on probation period cannot be confirmed. That
workman was terminated as his work was not found
satisfactory during probation period or extended period
of probation for 3 months. The allegations against Branch
Manager were found frivolous and afterthought. The
workman had secured copies of confidential appraisal form
2044
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
therefore he is not entitled to any relief. On such ground,
IInd party prays for rejection of claim.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Union Bank of
India in terminating the services
of Shri Sunder Lal Sahu w.e.f.
30-9-94 is legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final
workman is entitled to?"
order.
REASONS
5. Workman is challenging termination of his service for
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Management has denied
submissions on the ground that workman was terminated
as his service during probation period was not found
satisfactory. Workman did not show improvement in his
work.
6. Ist party workman filed affidavit of his evidence
supporting his contentions in statement of claim. That he
had taken charge as peon 30.12.93. He was appointed in
handicapped quota. He was required to work 12-14 hours
every day. He was required to do domestic work at residence
of Branch Manager. He was arrested by Branch Manager.
His appraisal reprots were also spoiled. His probation period
was extended by 3 months. He completed more than 240
days continuous service. His services are terminated
without notice. In his cross-examination, workman says he
is literate person. He received appointment letter from Bank.
He denies that his work was not satisfactory during
probation period. He also denies that he did not improve
his performance during extended probation period. He
denies that he was terminated from service as his
performance during probation period was not satisfactory.
7. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Bhaurau
Koche supporting contentions of IInd party in Written
Statement as workman was appointed on probation. His
work was not found satisfactory during probation period
and extended period of probation. In his cross-examination,
management's witness admits that workman was selected
from quota of handicapped persons. Workman was working
under his as peon. That at the time of submitting approval
report, he noticed that workman was not properly working.
He was unable to take appropriate record. He was not able
to give proper forms to the customers. Workman had
difficulty in walking. While working in the Bank he was
required to go from one room to the other but he could not
walk easily. Management's witness claims ignorance about
complaint submitted by workman to the higher authorities
that workman was not able to read the documents called
through him. He submitted report that his work was not
satisfactory. Workman was not given one months pay. Any
enquiry was not conducted against workman. Workman
was not terminated by him. On directions of Regional office,
workman was terminated.
8. Workman was appointed on 30-12-93 and terminated
on 30-9-94 as such he completed more than 240 days
continuous service.
9. Learned counsel for workman submitted written notes
of argument. It is emphasized that the conditions in
appointment order cannot prevail over statutory provisions.
The termination without conducting enquriy caused stigma
on workman. The complaints made by workman were not
inquired. The evidence of management's witness that
allegations made cannot be accepted. Workman is entitled
to protection as per Section 47 of Protection of
Handicapped Persons Act 1995. Learned counsel for
workman pursuing his argument relied on ratio held in
Case between management of K.S.R.T. Corporation
Bangalore versus M. Boraiah reported in AIR 1983-SC-1320.
Their Lordship held retrenchment as defined in Section
2(oo) covers every case of termination of service except
those which have been embodied in the definition,
discharge from employment or termination of service of a
probationer would also amount to retrenchment. As such
where while discharging a probationer requirements of
Section 25-F had not been complied with the same was
void.
In case of Syed Azam Hussaini versus Andhra Bank
Ltd. reported in AIR 1995 SC-1352, their Lordship held
termination of services before expiry of extended period
without showing any reasonable cause amounts to
retrenchment. One months wages in lieu of notice not paid
at the time of such retrenchment but subsequently
termination was held illegal.
During course of argument, there was no dispute that
IInd party is an Industry and workman is covered under
Section 2(s) of ID Act. The services of workman are
terminated without notice in violation of Saction 25-F of ID
Act. Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
Nagative.
10. Point No. 2—Ist Party workman was appointed on
30-12-93. His services are terminated form 30-9-94. As held
in AIR-1995 SC-1352, the workman was granted
compensaiton Rs. 50,000- observing that services sere
terminated 24 years back, In present case, services of
workman are terminated on 30-9-94 about 21 years before
therefore compensation Rs. 75,000/- would be appropriate.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Union Bank of
India in terminating the services of Shri Sunder Lal
Sahu w.e.f. 30-9-94 is not legal and proper.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2045
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.
75,000/- within 30 days from the publication of
award.
In case of default, amout shall carry 9% interest per
annum from the date of award till its realization.
12. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 06 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 949-—vks|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad vkWQ
bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 29@2007½
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@23@2007&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015
S.O. 949.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2007)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus . Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Central Bank of India and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
05/05/2015.
[No. L-22012/23/2007-IR(B-I1)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/29/2007
Date: 14.01.2005
Party No.
:
The Regional Manger,
Central Bank of India,
Kakani Oil Mill Compound,
Nr. Dhramadaya Cotton Fund,
Fund, Amravati, Maharashtra.
Versus
Party No. 2
:
Sh.NileshManohar Ambulkar
C/o. Sh. Pravin Deshmukh
Pravin Nagar, behind VMV
College, Amravati, (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: the 14th 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 employer, in relation to the
management of Central Bank of India and their workman,
Shri Nilesh Manoher Ambulkar, for adjudication, as per
letter No. L-22012/23/2007-IR (B-II) dated 28.05.2007, with
the following Schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Central
Bank of India, through its Regional Manager,
Amravati in awarding the punishment of discharge
of the workman namely Shri Nilesh Manohar
Ambulkar from Bank's service vide order dated
11.08.2004 is legal and justified and whether the
workman is entitled to be reinstated in the Bank with
full back wages and all consequential benefits? If
not, to what relief is the workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to
file their respective statement of claim and written statement,
in response to which, the workman, Shri Nilesh Manohar
Ambulkar, ("the workman" in short) filed the statement of
claim and the management of Central Bank of India ("party
no. 1" in short) filed the written statement.
The case of the workman as projected in the statement
of claim is that he was appointed as a clerk on
compassionate ground in the services of party no. 1, vide
order dated 25.07.1992 and lastly he was posted as such at
Sakkaarsath, Amravati branch and problems cropped up in
his family life and 20 days after his marriage, i.e. on
25.02.2003, his wife left him and went to her maternal house
at Dewas and initiated a proceeding under section 125 of
the code of criminal procedure against him for maintenance
and he was required to attend the court frequently at Dewas
and to bear considerable expenses and the court passed
order to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month as maintenance
to his wife and due to the said happening, he sustained
heavy financial burden and required to raise money from
private money lenders and the moneylenders used to
thereaten him from recovery, due to which, he sometimes
used to remain absent from duty and he also suffered from
kidney problem and was hospitalized in the hospital of Dr.
Sune at Amravati and due to such burdens, he want into
depression and developed suicidal tendency and attempted
to commit suicide and he was mentally derailed and was
person of unsound mind and was under the treatment of a
psychiatrist and was not in a position to understand the
consequences of his acts and omissions and due to his
absence from duties, the party no. 1 issued show-cause
notices to him and he gave his explanation and he was
hospitalized for his treatment for mental illness, in the
2046
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
hospital of Dr. Srikant Deshmukh, Psychiatrist at Amravati
from 25.04.2003 to 15.11.2005 and some of the notices issued
to him by party no. 1 returned un-severed due to the fact
mentioned above and so also, due to change of residence.
The further case of the workman is that on 05.08.2004,
public notice was published in daily "Hindustan" of
Amravati, calling upon him to remain present for the enquiry
and as he was under the attack of mental ill health at that
time, his brother sent a telegram to Bank, informing that
due to illness, he (workman) would not be able to remain
present in the enquiry and on 30.12.2005, he went to the
Bank and came to know that he had been discharged from
services and he received two letters at the same time from
the Bank and was informed that all the records pertaining
to his enquiry had been sent to Nagpur and the enquiry
was held ex-parte and no proper notices were served on
him and hence, the enquiry was held against him in violation
of the principles of natural justice and he was prevented
from attending duties for sufficient cause, which was
beyond his control and as such, the order of his discharge
from services needs to be set aside.
The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service
with full back wages.
3. The party no. 1 in its written statement has placed
inter-alia that the father of the workman was working was
employed as a clerk with it and as he died in harness, the
workman was employed as a clerk on compassionate
ground, vide appointment order dated 21.07.1992 and the
workman was working at Sakkaarsath Branch, Amravati,
before his discharge from service by way of punishment
and the track record of the workman was absolutely
unsatisfactory and he was a habitual absence and he used
to remain absent unauthorisedly and earlier, it had taken
lenient view and had inflicted only minor punishments,
with a view to give opportunity to the workman to improve
his performance and to become regular in attending his
duties, but there was no improvement in the attendance
record of the workman and he did not mend his behavior
and continued to be in the habit of remaining absent
without intimation and when his explanations were called
for, he accepted his mistakes and he was awarded with the
punishment of "censure" on two occasions and the Bank
management has no knowledge about the personal
difficulties of the workman, but the Bank management was
aware of the fact of filing of the case under section 125 of
the criminal procedure code against he workman for
maintenance in the court at Dewas. The party No. 1 has
denied the allegations of the workman raising loans from
private money lenders and of his remaining absent from
duty, due to the threats given by the money lenders and
about the workman suffering from kidney problem and
mental illness and depression. It is pleaded by party No. 1
that such defence has been raised by the workman as an
afterthought, to cover up his own misconduct of
unauthorized absence and infact, when it had called upon
the workman to resume duty by issuing memos and show
cause notices, he did not respond positively and continued
to remain absent and he is seeking excuse on the ground of
his alleged ill-health, mental disorder, depression etc. and
due to continuous absence of the workman from duty,
show-cause notice was issued to him and initially a memo
dated 27.09.2003 was issued to the workman for the period
of his continuous absence from 22.5.2003 and onwards,
but he failed to submit any reply to the same, therefore,
charge sheet dated 04.11.2003 came to be issued and it was
at that stage, the workman submitted one reply dated
06.11.2003 seeking lame excuses for his absence from duty
and the reasons put forth by him in his said reply were
altogether different than those mentioned by him in the
statement of claim, particularly in relation to his alleged
illness and in the medical certificate produced by the
workman before the ALC during conciliation proceedings,
thought it was mentioned that he was under medical
treatment for mental illness, the said certificate did not speak
of hospitalization at all and therefore, falsifies the
contentions of the workman and most of the notices, letters
and notices of enquiry etc issued to the workman in his
last known address available with the Bank came back un-
served, as he was found unavailable at his residence and
the workman had never informed the Bank about change
of his residential address and the same clearly demonstrates
the callous and indifferent attitude of the workman towards
his employment.
The further case of the party No. 1 is that Shri S.S.
Gaidhane was appointed as the Enquiry officer and the
first sitting of the enquiry was fixed on 03.05.2004 and notice
of the enquiry dated 27.04.2004 was sent to the workman
by registered post with A.D. but the same was returned
back without service, so attempt was taken to serve the
notice by hand delivery through a messenger, but the notice
could not be served, as the workman was not available in
his residence, so the enquiry was adjourned to 12.05.2004
and the notice same to be published in the local news
paper, "Hindustan" on 04.05.2004 and during the course of
the enquiry dated 12.05.2004, the Enquiry Officer took on
record a telegram purportedly sent by one Shir Sunanda
Vichare, but however, the relationship between the workman
and the sender of the telegram, Shri Vichare was not made
known to the Enquiry Officer, even then, to give an
opportunity to the workman to take part in the enquiry, the
Enquiry Officer adjourned the case to 19.05.2004 and notice
was sent to the workman in his last known address, but the
workman did not respond and failed to attend the enquiry,
so the Enquiry Officer closed the enquiry ex-parte, after
taking note of all the documents which were placed on
record by the presenting officer, in support of the charge
sheet and therefore, the workman has falsely alleged about
his mental illness during the period in question and that he
could not remain present in the enquiry and the Enquiry
Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2047
on 22.05.2004 and second show cause notice dated
22.07.2004 was issued to the workman by registered post
with A.D. but the same was returned back without service,
as he was not found at his last known address and for that,
the Bank published the second show cause notice in the
local daily from Amravati, "Hindustan" on 23.07.2004 and
the workman did not respond to the said notice, so the
Disciplinary Authority finally passed the order of discharge
of the workman from service on 11.08.2004, taking a lenient
view in the matter by not dismissing the workman from
services and thereby entitling the workman to claim
provident fund and gratuity etc. and the order of discharge
was sent to the workman by R.P.A.D., but as the same
returned un-served, the order of discharge was published
in the local newspaper, Amravati, "Hindustan" on
12.08.2004 and a copy of the said order was also displayed
on the notice board of the Bank and after his discharge, the
workman on 30.12.2005 approached the Bank for the first
time and he was asked to contact Sakkaarsath Branch to
collect the copy of his discharge and the workman has to
blame himself for his indifferent conduct and approach
towards the enquiry and the workman is not entitled for
any relief.
4. No rejoinder has been filed by the workman.
5. As this is a case of discharge of the workman from
service as a punishment in the departmental enquiry
conducted against him, the fairness or otherwise of the
departmental enquiry was taken up for consideration as a
preliminary issue and by order dated 16.03.2012, the enquiry
conducted against the workman was held to be illegal,
improper and not in accordance with the principles of natural
justice.
As the part No. 1 had made prayer in the written
statement itself, to give them the chance of proving the
charges against the workman by adducing evidence before
this Tribunal, in case of holding the departmental enquiry
not to be fair and proper, party No. 1 was given the scope
to adduce evidence to prove the charges levelled against
the workman.
7. For better appreciation of the matter, I think it proper
to mention the charge levelled against the workman in the
charge sheet dated 04.11.2003. The same reads as follows:
"Mr. N.M. Ambulkar, while working at our Shivaji
Nagar branch remained unauthorisedly absent
without intimation with effect from 22.07.2003 for a
period exceeding 30 days.
This act on the part of Mr. N.M. Ambulkar tentamounts
to gross misconduct. Mr. N.M. Ambulkar is therefore
charged with gross misconduct for the above act under
para 19.05(p) of the Bipartite settlement."
8. In order to prove the charge against the workman,
party No. 1 has examined one witness, namely, Shri Deepak
S. Bansod, besides placing reliance on the documentary
evidence produced by it.
In rebuttal, the workman has examined himself as a
witness.
9. So far the oral evidence is concerned, Shri Deepak,
the witness for the party No. 1 in his examination-in-chief
on affidavit has reiterated the facts mentioned in the written
statement by the party No. 1. This witness has also proved
the leave applications submitted by the workman on the
ground of sickness dated 25.07.2003, 02.08.2003, 05.08.2003
and 16.08.2003 as Exts. M-III to M-VI respectively and the
muster roll for the period from July, 2003 to November, 2003
as Ext. M-VII.
In his cross-examination, the witness for the party No. 1
has admitted that the workman had filed the leave
applications on the ground of his sickness.
10. The evidence of the workman on affidavit is more or
less in the same line of the facts mentioned by him in the
statement of claim.
In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted that
he remained absent from duty from 22.07.2003 and vide Ext.
M-II, for the first time, he requested the Bank on 25.07.2003,
for sick leave from 24.07.2003 to 30.07.2003, on the ground
his not feeling well and along with Ext. M-III, he did not file
any medical certificate in support of his sickness and in the
muster roll, he was shown as absent from duty from
24.07.2003 to 30.07.2003 by the management at first, but
after receipt of Ext. M-III, management corrected the muster
roll and shown him to be on sick leave and without resuming
his duty on 31.07.2003, or going to the Bank personally, he
sent applications, Exts M-IV to M-VI, for sick leave for the
periods from 31.07.2003 to 02.08.2003, 04.08.2003 to
09.08.2003 and 11.08.2003 to 16.08.2003 respectively, on
the ground of "not feeling well" and along with his
applications, he did not submit any supporting documents
regarding his illness and as he did not submit any
supporting document, his leave application dated 31.07.2003
was rejected and he was shown absent from duty. The
workman has further admitted that he remained absent from
duty till 04.11.2003 and he does not have any document to
show that after 16.08.2003, he had submitted any application
to the Bank about the reason of his remaining absent from
duty and he has also not filed any such document on record
and he did not file any reply to the memo dated 27.09.2003,
Ext. M-VIII and to the charge sheet dated 04.11.2003 and
even after submission of the charge sheet, he did not submit
any document before the management of the Bank in
support of his illness. The workman has also admitted that
vide Ext. M-IX, the order dated 14.05.2002 he was censured
by the Disciplinary Authority for remaining unauthorized
absent from duty.
11. In the written notes of argument, it was submitted
by the learned advocate for the party No. 1 has adduced
2048
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
both oral and documentary evidence to prove the charge
levelled against the workman and it is clear from the
evidence of the witness, Shri Dipak that the workman
remained unauthorized absent from duty from 22.07.2003
for a period exceeding 30 days and the muster roll also
indicates that the workman remained absent from duty from
22.07.2003 to 04.11.2003, the date of submission of the
charge sheet and the workman casually moved some leave
application and except his first leave application for leave
from 24.07.2003 to 30.07.2003, the other applications were
rejected and subsequently, the workman did not submit
any leave application and he was marked absent from duty
in the muster roll from 01.08.2003 and though, the witness
for the party No. 1 has been cross-examined at length, his
evidence has not been shaken and there is hardly any
contradiction in his evidence and this witness has
mentioned that the workman was discharged from service
for his unauthorized absence, by way of punishment.
It was further mentioned by the learned advocate for
the party No. 1 that the workman in his cross-examination
has admitted about his remaining unauthorized absent from
duty and he has cited various reasons for his remaining
such absent including physical and mental illness and most
of the reasons were cited for the first time before this
Tribunal and such pleas were not taken in the statement of
claim and from the evidence adduced by the party No. 1
and so also, from the evidence of the workman himself, it is
crystal clear that party No. 1 has been able to prove the
charge levelled against the workman of remaining
unauthorized absent from duty from 22.07.2003 for a period
exceeding 30 days and as such, there is no scope to interfere
with the punishment.
12. Per contra, in the written notes of argument, it as
submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that
due to domestic problems and suffering from kidney
problem, the workman suffered from mental depression and
he was under the treatment of psychiatric at Dr. Shrikant
Deshmukh Hospital at Amravati from 25.04.2003 to
15.11.2005 and during the said period, he was not in proper
mental condition and the said fact has been duly
corroborated by Ext. W-IX, the medical certificate given by
Dr. Shrikant Deshmukh and due to illness, which was
beyond the control of the workman, he was unable to attend
his duty and Party No. 1 has failed to prove the charge that
the workman remained unauthorized absent from duty
without any reasonable cause and the workman is entitled
for reinstatement I service wit continuity and full back
wages.
In support of the contentions, the learned advocate for
the workman has placed reliance on the decisions reported
in 1991(11) CLR-228 (Kashinath Vs General Manager) and
1996(1) CLR-439 (Dharamraj Natekar Vs Unique Industries
and others).
13. At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention about
the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Constitutional
Bench of the Apex Court in the decision reported in 1970 II
LLJ-1 (SC) (The Management of Travancore Titanium
Products Ltd. Vs Their Workman) regarding the procedure
to be adopted by the Tribunal, where the departmental
enquiry is held to be unfair and the employer is allowed to
lead evidence to prove the charges against the workman.
The Hon'ble Apex court have held that:
"Before the Tribunal, the preliminary question which
arose for decision was whether the domestic enquiry
held against Pillai was fair or not. It is well settled
that if the domestic enquiry held against an industrial
employee is fair, the findings recorded by the Enquiry
Officer cannot be successfully challenged unless it
is shown that the said findings are perverse in the
sense that they are not based on any evidence at all.
If, on the other hand, the enquiry is held to be unfair,
the said findings do not justify the order of dismissal;
and it could be opened to the employer to justify the
dismissal by leading evidence before the Tribunal.
In the present case, the employer has adopted this
alternative course; and as we shall presently point
out, the Tribunal has dealt with the evidence led
before it by the appellant, because it held that the
enquiry was unfair and had, therefore, to examine
the merits of dismissal itself.
It is well settled that where dealing with an industrial
dispute arising from the dismissal of an industrial employee,
the employer fails to prove to the satisfaction of the Tribunal
that the domestic enquiry was fair, it is opened to him to
lead evidence justifying the impugned dismissal; and in
such a case the Tribunal has to consider the evidence
itself and decide whether the dismissal was justified or not.
Ordinarily, the decision of such a question depend upon
appreciating evidence, both the oral and documentary."
14. I also think it proper to mention here the principles
enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision
reported in AIR 1976 (SC)-98 (Bharat Iron Works Vs
Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel). The Hon'ble Apex Court have
held that:
"If on the other hand, there is violation of the
principles of natural justice, the Tribunal will then
give opportunity to the employer to produce
evidence, if any and also to the workman to rebut it if
he so chooses. In the later event, the Tribunal will be
entitled to arrive at its own conclusions on merits on
the evidence produced before it with regard to the
proof on the misconduct charged; and the Tribunal,
then, will not be confide merely to consider whether
a prima facie case is established against the
employee. In other words, in such an event, the
employer's findings in the domestic enquiry will lapse
and these will be substituted by the independent
conclusions of the Tribunal on merits."
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2049
So, keeping in view, the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above, now, the present
case in hand is to be considered to find out as to whether,
the Party No. 1 has been able to prove the charge levelled
against the workman.
15. On perusal of the documentary evidence produced
by the Party No. 1 and so also the oral evidence adduced
by it, it is found that the workman remained absent from
duties from 22.07.2003 and he submitted leave applications,
Exts. M-III to M-VI on the ground of "not feeling well" for
leave up to 16.08.2003 and thereafter also, he remained
absent from duties exceeding 30 days without any leave
application or without any intimation to the concerned
authority of Party No. 1 or without any sanction leave.
As already mentioned before hand, the workman in his
cross-examination has admitted that he remained absent
from duty from 22.07.2003 and along with his leave
applications he did not submit any supporting document
in support of his illness and as such, his leave application
was rejected and he was shown absent from duty and he
has no document to show that after 16.03.2003, he had
submitted any application to the bank intimating about the
reason of his remaining absent from duty and he has not
filed any such document on record and he did not file any
document in support of his illness, even submission of the
memo and charge sheet dated 04.11.2003 against him by
the Party No. 1.
The workman has taken a plea that soon after his
marriage, his wife filed a case against him U/s 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance and he also
suffered from kidney problem and he raised money from
private money lenders and due to the pressure given by
the said money lenders for realization of the loan amounts,
he suffered from mental illness and remained under the
treatment of Dr. Shrikant Deshmukh, Psychiatrist at
Amravati from 25.04.2003 to 15.11.2005. In the statement of
claim, the workman has mentioned that in 2004, he was
hospitalized in the hospital of Dr. Shrikant Deshmukh.
Except a certificate issued by Dr. Shrikant Deshmukh dated
15.11.2005, the workman has not filed any other document
in regard to his illness. According to the said certificate,
the workman was under the treatment of Dr. Shrikant
Deshmukh from 25.04.2003 to 15.11.2005, for severe
depression. The said certificate does not show that the
workman was hospitalized in 2004. The workman has not
filed a single document to show that he suffered from
kidney problem or urine stone as claimed by him in his
show cause dated 06.11.2003. The workman has mentioned
in his show cause that on medical examination, it was found
that he was suffering from urine stone and he was under
medical treatment. In his show cause dated 06.11.2003, the
workman had not whispered a single word regarding his
suffering from mental depression and that he was under
the treatment of Dr. Shrikant Deshmukh. In his statement
of claim, the workman has mentioned that he suffered from
kidney problem and was hospitalized in the hospital of Dr.
Sune at Amravati but not a single document has been filed
in regard to the same. From the materials on record, it is
clear that the workman has taken the plea of suffering from
mental depression and kidney problem as an after thought.
So, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of the
workman and so also on the certificate of illness to hold
that due to mental depression or any other illness, the
workman remained absent from duties.
From the materials on record, it is found that the workman
remained unauthorized absent from duties for a period
exceeding 30 days and Party No. 1 has been able to prove
the charge levelled against the workman.
16. Now, the only question remains for consideration is
the quantum of punishment imposed against the workman.
According to the learned advocate for the workman, the
punishment of discharge of the workman from services is
unjustified. In support of the contention, the learned
advocate for the workman placed reliance on the two
decisions reported in 1991 II CLR-228 (supra) and 1996 I
CLR-439 (supra). However, with respect, I am of the view
that the decisions cited by the learned advocate for the
workman have no clear application to the case in hand, as
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions are quite different from the facts and
circumstances of the present case in hand.
It is clear from the materials on record that the workman
had been awarded punishment of "Censure" twice for
remaining unauthorized absent from duties earlier. Inspite
of such punishments, the workman did not amend his
behaviour and against remained unauthorized absent from
duty for more than 30 days, which is a gross misconduct
according to the Bi-partite settlement, under the provisions
of which, he was charge sheeted. Hence, the punishment
of discharge from services passed against the workman
cannot be said to be unjustified. So, there is no scope to
interfere with the punishment. Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of Central Bank of India,
through its Regional Manager, Amravati in awarding the
punishment of discharge of the workman namely Shri Nilesh
Manohar Ambulkar from Bank's service vide order dated
11.08.2004 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled
to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 950-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj dkuMyk iÙku U;kl
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
2050
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
U;k;ky; vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 70@2011½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&37011@01@2011&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015
S.O. 950.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishesthe Award (Ref. No. 70/2011) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as
shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between
the management of Kandla Port Trust and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No.—L-37011/01/2011-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present....
Binay Kumar Sinha,
Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad, Dated 6th August, 2014
Reference: (CGITA) No.-70/2011
The Chairman,
Kandla Port Trust,
Post Box No.-50,
Gandhidham, Kutch (Gujarat)
And
Their Workman
Through The General Secretary,
Transport & Dock Workers Union,
21, Yogesh Building, Plot No. 586/12-C,
Gandhidham,Kutch-370201
For the 1st party
Shri K.V. Gadhia, Advocate
Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate
For the Second Party:
None
AWARD
The Central Government/Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi vide order No. L-37011/01/2011 - IR (B-II) dated
19.09.2011 referred the dispute for adjudication in respect
of the matters specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Kandla
Port Trust in not absorbing Shri Harish Shivnani in
the post of Maistry in Civil Engineering Department
is legal and justified? What relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?"
2. The 1st party appear through lawyer by executing
Vakalatnama (Ext. 5), but the 2nd party failed to appear in
spite of service of notice and even given several
adjournment in the case for filing the S/c by the 2nd party.
The 2nd party has failed to submit statement of claim and
appears to have lost interest in this case. In such view of
the matter, the terms of reference as per schedule is answered
in affirmative that the action of the management of Kandla
Port Trust in not absorbing Shri Haresh Shivnani in the
post of Maistry in Civil Engineering Department is legal
and justified and the concern workman is not entitled to
any relief.
Accordingly the reference is dismissed. No order of
cost.
Let a copy of the award be sent for publication to the
appropriate Government.
BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 951-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ cM+ksnk ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 8@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12011@157@2004&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th, May, 2015
S.O. 951.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 8/2005) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12011/157/2004-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present....
Binay Kumar Sinha,
Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad, Dated 14th August, 2014
Reference: (CGITA) No. 8/2005
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2051
Adjudication Order No. L-12011/157/2004-IR(IB-II)
Regional Manager,
Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office,
Manoj Chambers,
Summair Club Road,
Jamnagar-361003
...First Party
And
Their Workman
Smt. Ladhiben D. Siyani,
Through the Assistant Secretary,
Gujarat Bank Workers Union,
Rambar, 8, Jagnath Plot,
Post Box No. 10,
Rajkot-360001
....Second Party
For the 1st Party:
Shri Vikram K. Mashar,
Advocate
For the Second Party:
None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi vide order No. L-12011/157/2004-IR
(B-II) dated 11.01.2005 referred the dispute for adjudication
to this Tribunal in respect of the matters specified in the
Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of
Baroda, Jamnagar Regional Office in not giving the benefits
of regular part time sweeper, w.e.f. 05.02.1987 to Smt.
Ladhiben Siyani, as per appointment order No. JJL/151/
dated 5th February, 1987 and giving the benefit of this
order w.e.f. 01.01.1997 is legal and justified? If not, what
relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. In response to notice parties to the reference appeared
and submitted respective pleadings viz statement of claim
(Ext. 6) by the 2nd party/Union and written statement/(Ext/
9) by the management (1st party. The S/c was filed on
15.02.2010 and W/s was filed on 14/09/2011. The matter is
running for leading evidence by the 2nd party since pretty
long time but neither the Union nor the concerned workman
is attending the court. The onus is upon the workman/
Union to prove the claim in terms of reference but 2nd
party has slept over the matter and appeared to have lost
interest. So, not desirable to give more opportunity to the
2nd party. The 1st party's lawyer Shri V.K. Mashar filed
application (Ext. 10) on 07.08.2014 for passing necessary
order and order was passed below Ext. 10 for closure of
right of the 2nd party/Union/workman to lead evidence
and for putting the record for passing award.
3. In the above circumstances the terms of reference as
per schedule is answered in affirmative. The workman
concerned Smt. Ladhiben D. Siyani is not entitled to any
relief.
The reference is, therefore, dismissed. No order of any
cost.
Let two copies of the award be sent to the appropriate
Government for publication u/s 17 of the I.D. Act.
BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 952-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn cSad ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 145@2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@26@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015
S.O. 952.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 145/2003) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Allahabad Bank and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/26/2003-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/145/2003 Dated: 2.12.2014.
Party No. 1 :
The Regional Manager,
Allahabad Bank,
Regional Office,
Palm Road, Civil Lines,
Nagpur (Maharashtra)
Versus
Party No. 2:
Shri Prakash Ramchandra Kali,
C/o Kishore Neware, Advocate,
Shastri Ward, Ramtek,
Nagpur. (Dead)
Substituted by :
(a) Smt. Nutan W/o Late Prakash
(b) Shri Amit S/o Late Prakash
(c) Shri Abhimanyu
S/o Late Prakash.
2052
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
(Dated: 2nd December, 2014)
I 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 the Regional Manager, Allahabad Bank and
their workman, Shri Prakash R. Kali, for adjudication, as per
letter No.L-12012/26/2003-IR (B-II) dated 19.05.2003, with
the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Allahabad
Bank, Nagpur (M.S.) in awarding the penalty of
dismissal w.e.f. 04.03.2002 to Shri Prakash R. Kali,
Clerk-cum-Cashier, Allahabad Bank, Civil Line
Branch, Nagpur is justified? If not, what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to
file their respective statement of claim and written statement,
in response to which, the workman Shri Prakash R. Kali,
("the workman" in short) filed the statement of claim and
the management of Allahabad Bank ("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 as a clerk-cum
cashier on 01.03.1978 by the party No. 1 and was posted at
Chandrapur Branch and he performed his duties with
sincerity and honesty and he was transferred from one
place to another and on 04.03.1979, he was posted at
Nagpur Branch, Nagpur and on 25.05.2000 party No. 1
issued a charge sheet against him, on the allegation of his
conducting misconduct and he submitted his reply to the
charge sheet on 01.06.2000 and party No. 1 finding his
reply to be unsatisfactory, decided to initiate the
departmental enquiry against him and on 10.08.2000, he
filed an application before the Regional Manager and the
Disciplinary Authority stating therein that the enquiry
initiated against him was violative of the provisions of
clause 19.4 of the Bipartite settlement, on the ground that
the Branch Manager had lodged a police report against
him in respect of the alleged misconduct mentioned in the
charge sheet dated 25.05.2000 and a criminal case was
registered against him and the same was sub-judiced before
the competent court and he requested to stay the
departmental enquiry against him, but his application was
rejected by party no. 1 on 12.10.2000 and the Enquiry Officer,
by letter dated 22.12.2000 informed of fixing the enquiry to
15.01.2001 and again he was informed by the enquiry Officer
by letter dated 22.02.2001 that the enquiry was fixed to
05.03.2001 and on 05.03.2001, he filed an application under
clause 19.12 of chapter XIX of First Bipartite settlement for
grant of permission to engage an advocate as his defence
representative and also to stay the departmental enquiry
till taking of a decision on his application and a copy of his
application was given to the Enquiry Officer and his said
application was rejected by the party No. 1 on 08.03.2001
and a bare perusal of the proceedings of the departmental
enquiry would reveal that though the Enquiry Officer had
specifically directed the presenting officer to inform and
supply the copies of the proceedings to him, at no point of
time, the same was supplied to him and on 07.03.2001, the
Enquiry Officer recorded the evidence of the witnesses in
his absence and adjourned the enquiry to 09.03.2001 with a
direction to send the copies of the proceedings to him by
post and on 12.03.2001 at 4.30 P.M., he received the letter
dated 08.03.2001 issued by the Enquiry Officer along with
the copies of the departmental proceedings and after going
through the said letter, he came to know that the enquiry
was fixed to 09.03.2001 and on perusal of the envelop in
which the said letter was sent revealed that actually the
said letter and other papers were posted on 09.03.2001 at
14.09 hours and such facts revealed that the Enquiry Officer
was bent upon to see that no opportunity should be given
to him to participate in the enquiry and on 13.03.2001, he
made an application to the enquiry Officer and requested
him for granting him an opportunity to him to defend the
charges, but to his best of knowledge, no order was passed
on his said application and vide letter dated 24.05.2001, the
order of his suspension came to be revoked and on
16.01.2002, a show cause notice was issued by party No. 1,
calling upon him to explain as to why the punishment
"dismissal without notice" should not be imposed upon
him and vide letter dated 02.02.2002, he submitted his
explanation to the said show cause notice, but without
considering and applying its mind to the facts mentioned
in his reply, the Regional Manager-cum-Disciplinary
Authority vide order dated 27.02.2002, imposed the
punishment of his dismissal from services of the Bank and
being aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal
on 28.02.2002, before the Appellate Authority and the
Appellate Authority also, without applying its mind, vide
order dated 20.06.2002 rejected his appeal and upheld the
order of dismissal dated 27.2.2002 and the order dated
27.02.2002 is bad in law and suffers from non application of
mind by the party No. 1 and the departmental enquiry
conduced against him was against the basic principles of
natural justice and the Enquiry Officer acted as a puppet of
the management representative and reasonable
opportunities were not given to him to defend himself and
opportunity to lead oral evidence was not given to him and
as such, the enquiry was bad in law, null and void and the
findings of the Enquiry Officer were based merely on
conjunctures and surmises and the entire approach of the
Enquiry Officer in conducting the enquiry was biased and
such biased approach led the Enquiry Officer to submit an
unwarranted, illegal and perverse report and the order
impugned based on such perverse findings is liable to be
quashed and set aside and the punishment imposed is
shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2053
It is also pleaded by the workman that documents filed
by the management before the Enquiry Officer were not
supplied to him and on that ground also, the enquiry is
liable to be set aside and at the time of passing of the order
of punishment, his past service record and the extenuating
circumstances were not considered and as such, the
impugned order of dismissal is liable to be quashed and set
aside.
The workman had prayed for his reinstatement in service
with continuity, full back wages and all other consequential
benefits.
3. It is necessary to mention here that during the
pendency of the reference, the workman died on 25.07.2013,
so, his legal heirs, namely, Smt. Nutan (wife), Shri Amit and
Shri Abhimanyu (Both sons) were substituted in his place.
4. The party No. 1 in the written statement, after denying
all the adverse allegations made in the statement of claim,
has mentioned inter-alia that the workman while working
as a clerk-cum-cashier committed fraud intentionally and
deliberately, by manipulating the records of the bank and
as such, he was served with the charge sheet and the
workman submitted his reply to the said charge sheet and
as the reply of the workman was found not to be satisfactory,
initiation of the departmental enquiry against him was
ordered and the application dated 10.08.2000 filed by the
workman was rejected by it on 12.10.2000, as the pendency
of the criminal proceeding was not a bar to initiate the
departmental enquiry against the workman and no illegality
was committed by it in conducting the departmental enquiry
and though the workman was given various opportunities,
he did not appear in the departmental enquiry to defend
himself and went on writing frivolous letters one after the
other and in the departmental enquiry, the charges levelled
against the workman were found to have been proved in
accordance with law and the Disciplinary Authority after
considering the materials on record of the enquiry, passed
the order of punishment of dismissal of the workman from
services and the appeal filed by the workman against the
punishment imposed against him was rejected by the
Appellate Authority on 02.06.2002, after due consideration
and the departmental enquiry conducted against the
workman was legal, proper and in accordance with the
principles of natural justice and the workman was given all
opportunities to defend himself in the enquiry, but he did
not avail the same and the Enquiry Officer was not biased
and the punishment is not shockingly disproportionate
and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
5. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from
service, as a punishment in the departmental enquiry
conducted against him, the fairness of the departmental
enquiry was taken up for consideration as a preliminary
issue and by order dated 21.11.2014, the departmental
enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be
legal, proper and in accordance of the principles of natural
justice.
6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the party No. 1 that by order dated 21.11.2014,
the Tribunal has already held the departmental enquiry
conducted against the workman to be legal, proper and in
accordance with the principles of natural justice and the
findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence
on record and the same are not perversed and the
punishment imposed against the workman is not shockingly
disproportionate and there is no scope to interfere with the
punishement and as the workman was not entitled to any
relief, his legal heirs are not entitled to any relief.
7. It is to be mentioned than no argument was advanced
on behalf of the legal heirs of the deceased workman, as on
the date of argument, neither any of them nor anybody
else including their advocate appeared to make the
argument.
8. So, far the question of perversity of the findings of
the enquiry officer and proportionality of the punishment
are concerned, on perusal of the record and taking into
consideration the submissions made by the learned
advocate for the party No. 1, it is found that this is not a
case of no evidence or that the findings of the enquiry
officer are totally against the evidence on record. It is also
found that the enquiry officer after assessing the evidence
on the record of the enquiry in a precise manner and has
arrived at the findings. The findings of the enquiry officer
are not as such, which cannot be arrived at by any prudent
man on the evidence on record. Hence, the findings of the
enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse.
So far the proportionality of the punishment is
concerned, grave misconduct of committing fraud
amounting to Rs. 1,75,000/- and causing of willful damage
to the property of the Bank has been proved against the
workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry. It
appears from record that the party No. 1 has lost confidence
in the workman. So, the punishment of dismissal from
services imposed against the workman cannot be siad to
be shockingly disproportionate to the grave misconduct
proved against him. Hence, there is no scope to interfere
with the order of punishment. Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of Allahabad Bank,
Nagpur (M.S.) in awarding the penalty of dismissal w.e.f.
04.03.2002 to Shri Prakash R. Kali, Clerk-cum-Cashier,
Allahabad Bank, Civil Line Branch, Nagpur is justified. The
workman concerned is not entitled to any relief. So, the
legal heirs of the workman are also not entitled to any
relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
2054
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 953-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ cM+ksnk ds
izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ,jukdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 20@2010½dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y & 12012@26@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015
S.O. 953.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2010)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/26/2010 - IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri. D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B.
Presiding Officer
(Tuesday the 30th day of September, 2014/8th Asvina,
1936)
ID 20/2010
Workman
: Ms. R. Sasikala
W/o late Gireesh
Kattilakuzhy
Thadatharikathu Veedu
Elangium PO
Peringamala - 695563
By Adv. Shri R V Sujit Kumar
Management
: The Asstt. General Manager,
(Kerala Region)
Bank of Baroda, Regional Office
Vasudeva Buildings
T D Road
Ernakulam- 682011
By M/s B S Krishnan Associates
This case coming up for final bearing on 30.09.2014 and
this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day passed
the following:
AWARD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government
of India/Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-12012/26/
2010-IR(B-II) dated 31.05.2010 referred the industrial dispute
scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this tribunal.
2. The dispute is:
"1. Whether the domestic enquiry conducted into
the charges levelled against Ms. R. Sasikala, Ex-Peon
[Daftary] was proper and in accordance with the
principles of natural justice?
2. Whether the quantum of punishment awarded to
the workman was proportionate to the misconduct
committed by workman?"
3. The workman was employed as a peon in the services
of the management bank. While she was working at the
Alamcode branch of the bank a chargesheet dated
09.01.2007 was issued to her levelling charges for three
major misconducts and two minor misconducts.
4. The charges levelled against her are as follows:—
"(i) You have committed wilful insubordination or
disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order
of a superior which is a gross misconduct under
clause 5(e) of Memorandum of Settlement dated
10.04.2002
(ii) You have committed breach of rules applicable to
you thereby committed an act prejudicial to the
interest of the Bank, which is a gross misconduct
under clause 5(i) of Memorandum of Settlement
dated 10.04.2002
(iii) You remained unauthorisedly absent without
intimation continuously for a period exceeding 30
days which is a gross misconduct in terms of clause
5(p) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated
10.04.2002.
(iv) You neglected your work as an employee of the
Bank which is a minor misconduct under clause
7(c) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated
10.04.2002
(v) You remained absent without leave, which is a minor
misconduct under clause 7(a) of the Memorandum
of Settlement dated 10.04.2002."
5. Mr. S Paulraj, Senior Branch Manager of the Varkala
branch of the bank was appointed as the enquiry officer.
After conducting enquiry he had submitted enquiry report
dated 05.06.2007 to the disciplinary authority. All the five
charges levelled against her were found to be proved by
him. The disciplinary authority after furnishing a copy of
the enquiry report to her and after considering her
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2055
submission imposed the penalty of 'Removal from Bank's
service with superannuation benefits, i.e. Pension and/or
PF Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules or
regulations prevailing at the relevant time without
disqualification from future employment'. Challenging the
order of imposition of penalty she filed an appeal before
the Appellate Authority. The appeal was dismissed
confirming the findings and the punishment imposed on
her. Hence she raised the industrial dispute which resulted
in this reference.
6. Workman after appearance before this tribunal filed
claim statement challenging the validity of the enquiry
alleging that it was an ex-parte enquiry conducted in a
baised, unfair and partisan manner without affording
sufficient opportunity to her to participate in the enquiry.
The penalty imposed on her was challenged alleging that it
was imposed based on the perverse and erroneous findings
of the enquiry officer entered into without any satisfactory
evidence.
7. Management filed written statement denying the
allegations in the claim statement as to the validity of the
enquiry and the imposition of penalty. It is contended that
the enquiry was properly conducted without any violation
of the principles of natural justice after affording sufficient
opportunity to the workman and that the findings were
entered into by the enquiry officer after having a proper
consideration of the evidence. It is because of the failure
of the workman to participate in the enquiry in spite of
granting sufficient opportunity the enquiry was to be
conducted ex-parte. The enquiry officer has judiciously
and independently analyzed the evidence and entered into
the findings. The Punishment was imposed by the
disciplinary authority after affording opportunity of being
heard and also considering the previous instances of
imposition of penalty on her for similar charges. The
punishment imposed is in proportion to the proved
misconducts as per the provisions of the Bipartite
Settlement and it does not call for any interference by this
tribunal. Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal
after considering her submissions and evaluating the entire
evidence. The enquiry was conducted in a fair and judicious
manner and the findings were entered into based on the
evidence. The punishment imposed on her is legal, proper,
proportionate and justified and hence she is not entitled to
any relief.
8. The challenge as to the validity of the enquiry was
considered as a preliminary issue. For that purpose MW1
was examined and the enquiry file was marked as Ext.M1.
The enquiry was found to be valid by this tribunal as per
the Preliminary Order dated 11.08.2014. After that the case
was posted for final hearing but the workman remained
absent without any representation on the subsequent
posting dates. Hence the argument of the learned counsel
for the management was heard.
9. The points for determination are:—
(i) Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against
the workman was proper and in accordance with
the principles of natural justice?
(ii) Whether the findings entered into against the
workman in the enquiry call for any interference by
this tribunal?
(iii) Whether the punishment imposed on the workman
is proportionate to the misconducts?
(iv) Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?
10. Point No. (i):— As per the preliminary order dated
11.08.2014 it was found that the enquiry was conducted
after affording reasonable opportunity to the workman
without violating the principles of natural justice. As the
enquiry was found to be valid as per the preliminary order
no further probe is required with regard to that issue and
the preliminary order will form part of this award.
11. Point Nos.(ii) & (iii):— As it is already found that the
enquiry is valid it is not necessary to have a reappraisal of
the entire evidence as in an appeal since the findings were
arrived at by the enquiry officer based on the evidence
adduced by the management in the enquiry. The evidence
is to be looked into only for the limited purpose of
considering the question as to the imposition of penalty.
12. Before considering the evidence it is to be pointed
out that in disciplinary proceedings the standard of proof
required is that of preponderance of probabilities and not
proof beyond reasonable doubt line in a criminal case. If
there are some relevant materials accepted by the
disciplinary authority which reasonably support the
conclusion that the workman is guilty it is not the function
of the tribunal to review the materials. If the enquiry has
been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability
of evidence cannot be canvassed before this tribunal.
13. In the decision reported in BC Chathurvedi Vs. Union
of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 it was held:
"Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of
proof of fact or evidence as defined therein apply to
disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts
the evidence and conclusion receives support there
from, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold
that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge.
The court/tribunal in its power of judicial review does
not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the
evidence and to arrive at its own independent
findings on the evidence. The court/tribunal may
interfere, where the authority hold the proceedings
against the delinquent officer in a manner
inconsistent with the rules or natural justice or in
violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of
enquiry or whether the conclusion or finding reached
by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence,
2056
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
if the conclusion or findings be such as no reasonable
person would have reached, the court/tribunal may
interfere with the conclusion or finding and mould
the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of
the case".
14. The jurisdiction of the tribunal to interfere with
disciplinary matters for punishment cannot be equated with
an appellate jurisdiction and the tribunal cannot interfere
with the findings of the enquiry officer or competent
authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse.
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 and 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.
15. In the decision reported in The General Secretary,
South Indian Cashew Factories Workers Union Vs. The
Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development
Corporation Ltd. & Ors., AIR-2006 SC 2208 it was held by
the Apex Court that when enquiry was conducted fairly
and properly in the absence of any allegations of
victimization or malafides or unfair labour practice Labour
Court has no power to interfere with the punishment
imposed by the management.
16. It is also to be pointed out that in Chathurvedi's case
(Supra) it was held:
"A review of the above legal position would establish
that the disciplinary authority and in appeal the
Appellate Authority b1eing fact finding authorities
have exclusive power to consider the evidence with
a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with
the discretion to impose appropriate punishment
keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the
misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal while
exercising power of judicial review cannot normally
substitute its own conclusion or penalty and impose
some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by
the disciplinary authority or appellate authority
shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it
would appropriately mould the relief, either directly,
the disciplinary/Appellate Authority to reconsider
the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it
may by itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose
appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in
support thereof."
17. Keeping in mind the above principles enunciated in
those decisions it is to be considered whether there is any
reason to interfere with the penalty imposed on the workman
as it is already found that the enquiry was conducted in a
fair and proper manner without violating the principles of
natural justice. There is no scope for any interference with
the findings of the disciplinary authority unless it is
perverse or based on no evidence.
18. Habitual absenteeism and unauthorized absence of
the workman resulted in initiation of disciplinary
proceedings against her by issuing charge sheet dated
09.01.2007. After receipt of the copy of the chargesheet on
13.01.2007 she had not cared to give any explanation. She
did not participate in the enquiry in spite of granting
reasonable opportunity by adjourning it to different dates
and giving notice to her. The enquiry officer was
constrained to proceed with the enquiry ex-parte and to
enter the findings based on the evidence adduced by the
management. The findings of the enquiry officer were
accepted by the disciplinary authority after giving an
opportunity to her to make her submission. In the reply
dated 06.08.2007 given by her pursuant to the issuance of
the notice of the proposed punishment it was expressed
by her that it was because of the illness of her mother and
her son she was unable to attend her duties. There was
previous instance of absenteeism for which she was
imposed with the penalty of bringing down the basic pay
to lower stage by two stages. The enquiry officer after
analyzing the evidence in the enquiry entered into the
findings after assigning valid reasons. It is not necessary
to have a detailed discussion of the evidence as there is no
reason to hold that the findings are perverse. Conclusion
reached by the enquiry officer cannot be said to be in such
a nature as no reasonable person would have ever reached.
On a careful scrutiny of the evidence adduced in the enquiry
I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the
enquiry officer which were accepted by the disciplinary
authority and upheld by the appellate authority.
19. The penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority
for the three misconducts is "removal from bank's service
with superannuation benefits, i.e. pension and/or PF
gratuity as would be otherwise due under the rules or
regulations prevalent at the relevant time". Warning was
given for the two minor misconducts.
20. The penalty imposed for the three gross misconducts
as well as for the minor two misconducts cannot be said to
be shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct
against her especially in view of the previous penalty
imposed on her as well as the other facts and circumstances.
In the decision reported in State of Rajasthan Vs.
Mohammed Ayub Naz 2006 (1) KLT 581 (SC) it was held
that absenteeism from office for prolong period of time
without prior permission the punishment of removal from
service can be imposed. Therein it was held:
“In determining the quantu, role of administrative
authority is primary and that of Court is secondary,
confined to see if discretion exercised by the
administrative authority caused excessive
infringement of rights. The court/tribunal cannot
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2057
interfere with the findings of fact based on evidence
and substitute its own independent findings and that
where findings of disciplinary authority or appellate
authority are based on some evidence Court/Tribunal
cannot re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its
own findings.”
There is no reason to interfere with the findings as to
the charges levelled against her and the imposition of
penalty by the disciplinary authority which was confirmed
by the appellate authority. Hence it can be held that the
penalty imposed on the workman is not disproportionate
to the misconducts and it does not call for any interference
by this tribunal.
21. Point No. (iv):— In the result an award is passed
holding that the domestic enquiry conducted against the
workman as to the charges levelled against her was proper
and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and
the penalty imposed on her is not disproportionate to her
misconducts. Hence she is not entitled to any relief.
The award will come into force one month after its
publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed
by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 30th day of
September, 2014.
D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the workman
-
NIL
Witness for the management
MW1
15.05.2013 Shri Paulraj
Exhibit for the workman
-
NIL
Exhibit for the management
M1
-
Enquiry file.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B., Presiding
Officer
(Monday the 11th day of August, 2014/20th Shravana,
1936)
ID No. 20/2010
Workman
:
Ms. R.Sasikala
W/o late Gireesh
Kattilakuzhy
Thadatharikathu Veedu
Elangium PO
Peringamala-695563
By Adv. Shri R.V. Sujit Kumar
Management
:
The Assistant General Manager,
(Kerala Region)
Bank of Baroda
Regional Office
Vasudeva Buildings, T.D. Road
Ernakulam-682011
By M/s. B.S. Krishnan
Associates
This case coming up for final hearing on 18.07.2014 and
this Tribunal-cum-Labour court on 11.08.2014 passed the
following:
Preliminary Order
This is a reference under Section (10(1)(d) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947).
2. The issue referred for adjudication is whether the
domestic eqnquiry conducted into the charges levelled
against the workman was proper and in accordance with
the principles of natural justice and the quantum of
punishment awarded was proportionate to the misconduct
committed by her.
3. While she was working as peon at the Alamcode
Branch of the management bank a chargesheet dated
09.01.2007 was issued to her. The charges levelled against
her are as follows:—
"i. You have committed willful insubordination or
disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order
of a superior which is a gross misconduct under
clause 5(e) of Memorandum of Settlement dated
10.04.2002.
ii. You have committee breach of rules applicable to
you thereby committed an act prejudicial to the
interest of the Bank, which is a gross misconduct
under clause 5(j) of Memorandum of Settlement
dated 10.04.2002.
iii. You remained unauthorisedly absent without
intimation continuously for a period exceeding 30
days which is a gross misconduct in terms of clause
5(p) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated
10.04.2002.
iv. You neglected your work as an employee of the
Bank which is a minor misconduct under clause
7(c) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated
10.04.2002.
v. You remained absent without leave, which is a minor
misconduct under clause 7(a) of the Memorandum
of Settlement dated 10.04.2002."
4. Mr. S. Paulraj, Senior Branch Manager, Varkala Branch
was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry as to
the charges levelled against her. After conducting enquiry
he had submitted enquiry report dated 05.06.2007 to the
2058
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
disciplinary authority after finding that all the charges
levelled against her are proved. The disciplinary authority
furnished a copy of the enquiry report to her and after
considering her submissions she was imposed with the
punishment of 'removal from Bank's service with
superannuation benefits' as per order dated 10.08.2007. The
appeal filed by her before the Appellate Authority was
dismissed confirming the punishment imposed on her.
Hence she raise the industrial dispute which resulted in
this reference.
5. Challenge as to the validity of the enquiry is made in
the claim statement by making the allegations that the
chargesheet was issued without issuing show cause notice
and affording sufficient opportunity to her to participate in
the enquiry violating the principles of natural justice. It
was an ex-parte enquiry conducted in a biased, unfair and
partisan manner. The punishment was imposed on the basis
of allegations, charges and clauses of misconducts in the
Bipartite Settlements which are patently vague and lacking
in material particulars. The workman was deprived of clear
understanding of the allegations levelled against her. The
findings were entered into without any satisfactory
evidence. The punishment was imposed illegally based on
perverse and erroneous findings. No act of gross
misconduct has been proved against her for the imposition
of the penalty of 'removal from services with superannuation
benefits'. The entire disciplinary proceedings was initiated
and proceeded with on a pre-concocted assumption that
the workman had committed the alleged misconducts and
charges and hence it is liable to be set aside.
6. In the written statement filed by the management all
the allegation made in the claim statement challenging the
validity of the equiry and the imposition of penalty are
denied and it is contended that the enquiry was properly
conducted without any violation of the principles of natual
justice. The enquriy officer issued notice to the
chargesheeted employee to attend the preliminary hearing
on 15.03.2007. After the receipt of the notice she did not
turn up and hence the enquriy was postponed to 09.04.2007.
Notice was issued to her to atend the hearing on that day.
On that day also she did not appear and yet another
opportunity was given to her to attend the hearing by
posting it to 30.04.2007. She did not turn up on that day
also and hence the enquiry officer after analyzing the
evidence submitted from the said of the management arrived
at his findings. She was given ample opportunity to
participate in the enquiry. She had deliberately avoided the
opportunity to present her case. It is after affording
sufficient opportunity to her the enquiry officer entered
into the findings. It is baseless to allege that the enquiry
officer was biased and has violated the principles of natural
justice by denying reasonable opportunity to defend her
case. The enquiry was conducted in a judicious and fair
manner. It was because of her fault the enquiry had to be
conducted ex-parte. The charges levelled against her are
clear and there is no ambiguity or vagueness. The enquiry
officer has judiciously and independently analyzed the
evidence and entered in to the findings. The disciplinary
authority after service copy of the enquiry report and
getting her submissions imposed the penalty. The
punishment imposed is is proportion to the proved
misconduct. The disciplinary action taken against her is
not vitiated in any manner. The Appellate Authority, after
considering her submissions, all the evidence and related
documents, found that a fair and proper enquiry was
conducted against her and upheld the decision of the
diciplinary authority. The punishment was imposed on her
as per the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement after
conducting a legal and proper enquiry.
7. As the validity of the enquiry is under challenge it is
being heard after treating it as a preliminary issue.
8. For the purpose of deciding that issue the enquiry
officer was examined as MW1 and the enquiry file was
marked as Ext. M1.
9. Now it is only to be considered whether the enquiry
was conducted in a fair and proper manner without
violating the principles of natural justice by affording
reasonable opportunity to the workman. The allegation in
the claim statement that show cause notice was not issued
before issuing the chargesheet does not deserve any
serious consideration as it is not mandatory to issue a
show cause notice before issuing chargesheet. Failure to
issue show cause notice will not in any way affect the
validity of the enquiry.
10. Out of the five charges in the chargesheet three are
for gross misconduct and the remaining two are for minor
misconducts. The charges are specific and there is no
meaning in saying that there is vagueness in the charges.
After receipt of the chargesheet no objection is seen raised
by her as to the vagueness of any of the chages.
11. She was afforded three opportunities to participate
in the enquiry by the enquiry officer. Initially the enquiry
was posted to 15.03.2007. As she failed to attend on that
day the enquiry was posted to 09.04.2007. She did not turn
up on that day also and hence the enquiry was again posted
to 30.04.2007. On all the three occasions prior notice was
issued to her informing the date of enquiry. It is because of
her failure to participate in the enquiry the enquiry officer
had to conclude and arrive at the findings based on the
evidence submitted by the presenting officer. There is no
reason to hold that reasonable opportunity was not afforded
to her to participate in the enquiry.
12. The enquiry officer when examined as MW1 has
stated that sufficient opportunity was given to the workman
to participate in the enquiry and it is only afterwards it was
proceeded ex-parte. He was not cross examined by the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2059
workman. Workman has not made any challenge with
regard to the validity of the enquiry by cross examining
him. Before this tribunal also she was continously absenting
herself without any representation on serveral posting dates
and even without availing the opportunity to cross examine
him.
13. There is nothing to suggest that there was any bias
for the enquiry officer. It was because of her failure to
participate in the enquiry he had proceeded with ex-parte.
It is based on the documentary evidence submitted by the
presenting officer the findings were entered into by him.
14. Disciplinary authority imposed the punishment only
after serving a copy of the enquiry report to her. In the
reply submitted by her there is no challenge as to the validity
of the enquiry and no bias is attributed against the enquiry
officer. The reasons for her chronic absenteeism is stated
to be the illness of her mother and son. There is also the
undertaking that she would not avail leave without
permission of the bank and the misconducts will not be
repeated. Nothing is stated about the vagueness in the
chargesheet and the violation of principles of natural
justice.
15. The enquiry is not liable to be set aside for the mere
reason that it was an ex-parte enquiry. It is only to be looked
into whether reasonable opportunity was afforded to the
workman to participate in the enquiry. Here in this case it is
after affording three opportunities the enquiry was closed.
There is no reasons to hold that the enquiry is not valid.
There is no irregularity or impropriety in conducting the
enquiry and the imposition of penalty. Hence I find that the
enquiry is valid.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed
by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 11th day of
August, 2014.
D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witnesses for the Workman
Nil
Witnesses for the Management
MW1-15.05.2013
Shri S. Paulraj
Exhibit for the Workman
Nil
Exhibit for the Management
M1 - Enquiry file
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 954-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkuMyk iÙku U;kl
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼101@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&37011@4@2011&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015
S.O. 954.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 101/2012) of the Central
Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, Ahemdabad as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Kanda Port Trust and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05.05.2015.
[No. L-37011/4/2011-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Binay Kumar Sinha,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad, dated 7th August, 2014
Reference: (CGITA) No. 101/2012
The Chairman,
Kandla Port Trust,
Post Box No. 50,
Gandhidham, Kutch (Gujarat)
..........First Party
and
Their Workman
Through the President
Kandla Port Karmachari Sangh,
TCX-5-94,
Gandhidham,
Kutch-370210
..........Second Party
For the 1st party:
ShriK. V. Gadhia, Advocate
Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate
For the Second Party:
None
AWARD
The Central Government/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi
vide order No. L-37011/4/2011-IR(B-II) dated 23.05.2012
referred the dispute for adjudication in respect of the matters
specified in the schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the M/s ABG Kandla Container Terminal
Ltd. working as Container Terminal Operator under
2060
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
agreement with Kandla Port on Berth No.11 and 12 is
covered under stevedoring? 2. If so, whether the
action of non-booking of Dock/shore workers/
winchman at berth No. 11 and handled by M/s. ABG
Kandla Container Terminal Ltd. is legal and justified?
What relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?"
2. Inspite of service of notice the 2nd party (union)
failed to appear and file S/c whereas the 1st party responded
to notice making appearance through lawyer by executing
Vakaltanama (Ext. 5). Several adjournment were given for
filing S/c but the 2nd party appears to have lost interest.
So, the 1st part of terms of reference is answered in negative
and the 2nd part of terms of reference is answered in
affirmative. Accordingly it is held that M/s. ABG Kandla
Container Terminal Ltd. working as Container Terminal
Operator under agreement with Kandla Port on berth No.
11 and 12 is not covered under agreement with Kandla Port
on berth No. 11 and 12 is not covered under stevedoring
and so, the action of non-booking of Dock/shore workers/
Winchman at berth No. 11 and 12 handled by M/s. ABG
Kandla Container terminal Ltd. is legal and justified. So the
concern workman are not entitled to any relief.
Accordingly the reference is dismissed. No order of
cost.
Let a copy of the award be sent for publication to the
appropriate Government.
BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 955-—vkS|ksfxdh fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad
vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] v:.kkdqye ds iapkV ¼28@2010½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@50@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015
S.O. 955.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No. 28/2010) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam as
shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between
the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/50/2010-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COUR,
ERNAKULAM
Present : Shri D Shreevallabhan, B.Sc., L.L.B., Presiding
Officer.
(Monday the 02nd of February, 2015/13th Magha, 1936)
ID 28/2010
Workman
:
Shri Manoj V
S/o. Shri Velayudhan
Mattukkad House
Copalmannam PO
Palghat-678702
By M/s. H B Shenoy Associates
Management
:
The Deputy General Manager
Union Bank of India
Nodal Regional Office
Ernakulam
By Adv. Shri K S Ajayagosh
This case coming up for final hearing on 02.02.2015 and
this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day passed
the following:
AWARD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause(d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government
of India/Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-12012/50/
2010-IR(B-II)] dated 07.10.2010 referred the iudustrial
dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this
tribunal.
2. The dispute is:
"Whether the action of the management of Union
Bank of India in not considering the candidature of
Shri Manoj for regular appointment and subsequent
action in terminating him from its services without
adhering to the provisions of the ID Act is fair and
justifiable? What relief the workman is entitled to?"
3. Workman after appearance before this tribunal filed
claim statement. The allegations therein, in brief, are that
he was employed as a part time sweeper of the management
bank in August, 1997 and afterwords he ws in continuous
service without any break until termination of his service
on 27.11.2005. He was employed against a regular and
permanent vacancy of part time sweeper for the discharge
of the duties of a regular and permanent part time sweeper.
But he was discharging the duties of a regular and
permanent peon and at times that of a regular and permanent
clerk. Management had not extended any of the privileges
or benefits commensurate with that of a permanent part
time sweeper exployed in the bank. No additional
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2061
remuneration or any compensation was given for the
discharge of the duties as a peon or clerk. He was given
privileges and benefits much lower than that of a
permannent part time sweeper. He was illegally terminated
from service without complying with the mandatory
procedure provided under Section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act and in violation of the provisions in
paragraphs 522 to 524 of the Shastri Award. The
retrenchment of his service is bad also on the count that
persons junior to him were retained in service by the
management in violation of Section 25G of the ID Act and
also paragraph 507 of Shastri Award. Immediately after
termination of his service fresh and new hands were taken
in service without affording hhim opportunity of re-
employment in violation of Section 25H of the Industrial
Disputes Act, clause 20, 12 of the First Bipartite Settlement
dated 19.10.1966 and paragraph 493 of Shastri Award. He
was treated by the management as a temporary workman
against permanent vacancy just to deprive him of the status
and privileges of a permanent workman. Management was
employing sweepers and peons as temporaries against
vacancies and replacing them by new hands. It is an unfair
labour practice prohibited under Section 25T of the
industrial Disputes Act. It is in violation of paragraphs 20.7
and 20.8 of the First Bipartite Settlement and also
paragraphs 495 and 522 of Shastri Award. Management is
not at all justified in retrenching the service of the workman
and hence he is entitled to be regularized and to be afforded
regular appointment in the permanent services of the
management bank. Hence to prays for his reinstatement
with continuity of service, full back wages and other
attendant benefits as a permanent part time sweeper.
4. Managemnet field written statement contending that
the workman was not employed through selection process
and he is not a workman under Section 2(s) of the industrial
Disputes Act. He was not employed by the management
bank against a regular/sanctioned/permanent post. Hence
there is no question of retrenchment as envisaged under
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and paragraphs
507, 522 to 524 of the Shastri Award. He is not entitled for
reinstatement or for regularisation as claimed by him.
5. Workman filed replication denying the contentions in
the written statement and reaffirming the allegations in the
claim statement.
6. At the time when the case stood posted for evidence,
he was continuously absenting himself and he was set ex-
parte on 11.07.2013 and an award was passed on 12.07.2013.
Afterwards the workman field IA 76/2013 to set aside the
ex-parte award and the same was allowed as per order dated
23.10.2014. After setting aside the ex-parte award the case
was posted for evidece. Even after that the remained absent
without any representation and hence set ex-parte.
Management did not adduce any evidence representing
that the burden of proof lies on the workman to prove his
case in view of the contentions raised in the written
statement.
7. Since it is contened by the mnagement that he is not
a workman coming within the definition of Section 2(s) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence there is no
question of retrenchment the initial burden is on him to
prove his case by adducing evidence. As he did not adduce
any evidence to discharge the initial burden case upon him
it cannot be held that he is a workman as defined under
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and his service
was illegally terminated by the management in violation of
the statutory procedure provided under Section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act. Hence it can only be held that the
action of the management in not considering the
candidature of the workman for regular appointment and
the termination of his service is legal and justifiable.
8. In the result an award is passed finding that the action
of the management terminating the services of the workman
considering his candidature for regular appointment is fair
and justifiable and hence he is not entitlted to any relief.
The Award will come into force one month after its
publication in the Official Gazette.
Dicated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed
by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 02nd day of
February, 2015.
D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX-NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 956-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj l®Vªy c®d vkWQ
bafM;k ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; v:ukdqye ds iapkV ¼03@2010½dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&12011@80@2009&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015
S.O. 956.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 3/2010) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12011/80/2009-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
2062
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri. D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding
Officer
(Thursday the 29th day of January, 2015/09th Magha,
1936)
ID 3/2010
Workman
:
Shri K V Manikandan
183, Arunoottimangalam Nagar
Mangad PO
Kollam
Kerala
By Advs. Shri Manoj R Nair
Shri N S Raveendranathan
Management
:
The Regional Manager
Central Bank of India
Regional Office
Gopal Building, Thyvila Road
Thiruvananthapuram—695001
Kerala
By M/s. Peter & Karunakar
This case coming up for final hearing on 13.01.2015 and
this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 29.01.2015 passed the
following:
AWARD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government
of India/Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-12011/80/
2009-IR(B-II) dated 23.11.2009 referred the industrial dispute
scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this tribunal.
2. The dispute is:
"Whether the domestic enquiry against Shri K V
Manikandan, Ex-Head Cashier, Central Bank of India,
Kulathupuzha Branch was conducted in accordance
with the principles of natural justice by affording fair
opportunities to the workman to defend himself
against the charges leveled against him and whether
the findings of the Enquiry Officer was justified? To
what relief the workman was entitled to?'
3. The workman while working as Head Cashier-II in the
Kulathupuzha branch of the management bank, he was
issued with a memo of charges dated 06.06.2006 on
15.06.2006. The charges under the seven heads in the
chargesheet are:
"1. On 31.01.2006, one Smt. Kumari tendered `2,500/-
to Mr.K V Manikandan for remittance into her gold
loan account (P)36/1101. Mr Manikandan who was
sitting in the Receipts and Payments of Cash counter
on that day, accepted the cash from Smt. Kumari and
acknowledged receipt of the amount on the reverse
of the gold loan card. Instead of accounting the
amount as receipt on that day, Mr. Manikandan took
the money for himself. Thus Mr. Manikandan
defalcated ` 2,500/-.
2. On 04.11.2005, one Mr. Ajit Kumar gave ` 1,150/- to
Mr. Manikandan who was sitting in cash receipt/payment
counter to be remitted into his loan account No.350203
with the branch. Mr. Manikandan accepted the cash but
did not remit it into loan account No.350203 but took the
money for himself. But Mr. Manikandan made an entry in
the loan pass book for having received the amount. Thus
Mr. Manikandan defalcated `1,150/-.
3. On 03.03.2006, one Smt. Shafia Basheer gave `10,000/-
to Mr. Manikandan who was sitting in Cash Receipt and
Payment counter to be remitted into her gold loan account
No.(P)36/382 with the branch. The remittance was scrolled
by Mr. V P Muralidharan and verified by C L Kochappan,
Deputy Manager. Mr. Manikandan received the cash and
took ` 10,000/- for himself. Mr. Manikandan cancelled the
scroll entry from the system, to prevent the mischief to come
into light. Mr. Manikandan however acknowledged receipt
of cash by making an entry on the reverse of the gold loan
card. Thus Mr. Manikandan defalcated ` 10,000/-.
4. On 27.12.2005 one Mr. Abdul Rasheed Vaidyar gave a
sum of ` 3,000/- to Mr. K V Manikandan who was sitting in
the cash counter to be remitted to his gold loan account no
36/1318 with the branch. Mr. Manikandan received the cash
but without remitting the amount into the loan account
took the money for himself. Mr. Manikandan made an entry
in the gold loan card, under his signature, for having
received the cash. Thus Mr. Manikandan defalcated ` 3,000/-.
5. On 18.03.2006, one Smt Geetha, Secretary of SHG
Reshmi Kudumbashree handed over ` 11,250/- (wrongly
mentioned as ` 11,150/- in our Memo dated 04.05.2006) to
Mr. Manikandan for remitting to their Term Loan account
No.350098. Mr. Manikandan who was attending the cash
counter received cash and acknowledged receipt of the
amount by making an entry in their loan pass book under
his signature but pocketed the amount of ` 11,250/- for
himself without crediting the same in the loan account.
Thus Mr. Manikandan defalcated ` 11,250/-
6. Mr. Manikandan issued cheques in his savings
account No.13740 with Kulathupuzha branch, cheque
No.213577 dated 27.03.2006 to M/s. LIC of India, Kollam
for ` 3,105/-, which was presented by UTI Bank Ltd, Kollam
and had to be returned for want of funds on 04.04.2006.
7. Mr. Manikandan issued cheque No.213575 dated
11.03.2006 for ` 2,350/- to CBIEU(K) A/c Conference Fund.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2063
The said cheque which was received for collection from
Trivandrum branch under FSCM No.110155 dated
14.03.2006 was returned unpaid on 28.03.2006 for want of
funds."
4. He was charged with gross misconduct under clause
5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary
Action Procedure for workmen dated 10.04.2002. Since the
charges are about gross misconduct management
appointed Mr. Somasundaram, the Branch Manager,
Kalanjoor branch as the enquiry officer. After enquiry he
had submitted his findings to the disciplinary authority on
10.10.2006. After serving copy of the enquiry report to the
workman and getting his comments and also after issuing
notice with regard to the proposed punishment the
disciplinary authority after having a personal hearing
imposed the punishment of "dismissal without notice".
The appeal filed by the workman before the appellate
authority was disposed of on 01.07.2008 after finding that
there is no reason to disagree with the findings of the
disciplinary authority and the punishment awarded to him.
Hence he raised this industrial dispute which resulted in
this reference.
5. Workman after his appearance before this tribunal
filed claim statement challenging the validity of the enquiry,
findings of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority
as well as the penalty imposed on him. The validity of the
enquiry is challenged on the ground that the enquiry officer
turned down the request of the workman to get himself
examined as a witness in the enquiry. The findings of the
enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority were
challenged for the reason of denial of opportunity to adduce
sufficient evidence by the workman to prove his case.
6. Management filed written statement contending that
the enquiry was fairly and properly conducted by the
enquiry officer after affording sufficient opportunity to the
workman to adduce evidence. The punishment was imposed
by the disciplinary authority after serving a copy of the
enquiry report and also after having a personal hearing.
The punishment imposed on the workman commensurates
with the gravity of the misconduct and is legally
sustainable. The workman while dealing with public money
was to act with absolute integrity and honesty expected
from a bank employee. There is no reason to interfere with
the penalty imposed on him and hence he is not entitled to
any relief.
7. Workman filed rejoinder denying the contentions in
the written statement and reiterating the allegations in the
claim statement as to the validity of the enquiry and the
findings of the enquiry officer.
8. Challenge as to the validity of the enquiry was
considered treating it as a preliminary issue. For that
purpose one witness from the side of the management was
examined as MW I and the enquiry file was got marked as
Ext.M1. The enquiry was found to be invalid by this tribunal
as per the preliminary order dated 29.12.2011. Since the
enquiry was found to be unsustainable opportunity was
afforded to the management as well as the workman to
adduce evidence. From the side of the management one
more witness was examined as MW2 and Exts.M 1(a) to M
1(x) and M2 to M11 were marked. From the side of the
workman he was examined as WW1 and Exts.W1 to W8
were marked. After that the arguments for both sides were
heard.
9. The points for determination are:
(i) Whether the management has succeeded in
proving all or any of the charges levelled against
the workman?
(ii) Whether the punishment imposed on the workman
by the management calls for any interference by
this tribunal?
(iii) Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?
10.
Point No.(i):— Except charge No.5 all the other
charges were found to have been proved by the enquiry
officer based on the evidence adduced before him and the
findings as such were accepted by the disciplinary authority
as well as the appellate authority. It is only for the reason
that there was denial of opportunity to the workman to
adduce evidence due to the refusal of the request made by
him for examining him as a witness the enquiry was held to
be invalid by this tribunal. Since the enquiry was found to
have been unsustainable it is necessary to have a detailed
consideration of the evidence adduced before this tribunal
to find out whether the charges can be held to be proved
against the workman. Each of the seven charges levelled
against him can be considered independently in order to
have separate findings on those charges.
11. The first charge is as to the embezzlement of an
amount of ` 2,500/- received by the workman from one Smt
Kumari on 31.01.2006 for crediting it to her gold loan A/c
No.(P)36/1101 without making credit of it in that account
and making entries in the account of the management bank.
The workman would admit that he had received an amount
of ` 2,500/- from Smt Kumari on 31.01.2006 and entry was
made by him with regard to the receipt of that amount on
the reverse side of Ext.M7 gold loan card relating to that
account. He would also admit the signature in Ext.M7
relating to that entry as that of him. That amount was not
credited or accounted and the same is evidenced by the
scroll marked as Ext.M1(c) and the copy of the statement
of account of that gold loan marked as Ext.M1(x). No
explanation was offered by him for not accounting it in the
claim statement or by filing a reply to the memo of charges.
In the proof affidavit he would admit the receipt of ` 2,500/-
from Smt. Kumari on 31.01.2006 as part payment. But it is
averred that the same was adjusted towards another loan
2064
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
availed by her without scoring the entry in Ext.M7. It is for
the first time such a case was put forward by him.
12. By placing reliance on Ext.M9 learned counsel for
the workman has argued that the amount of ` 2,500/-was
adjusted towards another loan with A/c No.3601629. There
is no reliable evidence in this case to prove that there was
any such adjustment of that amount after making entry of
its receipt in Ext.M7. No valid explanation is offered for the
failure to score off the entry in Ext.M7 as to the receipt of
that amount if there was any such adjustment. Learned
counsel for the workman has submitted that it is because
of the negligence of the workman it was not being scored.
Such an explanation cannot in any way be accepted about
such a money transaction with the bank. The workman
when examined as WW1 has stated during his cross
examination that he came to know that the amount was not
accounted only after the receipt of the memo calling upon
his explanation. It is not consistent with the case put
forward by him in the poof affidavit. During the cross
examination of WW1 it was expressly admitted by him that
the entry in Ext.M7 as to the receipt of ` 2,500/- on
31.01.2006 was made by him and it was not accounted.
Hence the burden is on him to disprove the case that it was
not appropriated by him. It is not proved by adducing any
reliable evidence. The customer Smt Kumari could have
been examined to prove his case as to the adjustment and
return of the credit voucher. From Ext.M2 complaint made
by Smt Kumari to the bank it can be seen that the amount
of ` 2,500/- was given back by him on 28.03.2006. It is true
that Kumari Johny who made the complaint was not
examined as a witness in this case. Learned counsel for the
workman has submitted that there is difference in the name
in Ext.M7 and Ext.M2. The name is given as Kumari in
Ext.M7. But from Ext.M1(x) it can be seen that her name is
given as Kumari Johny in the statement of accounts relating
to that gold loan. The account number in Ext.M7 as well as
in Ext.M1(x) is the same. Without any valid explanation for
not scoring the entry in Ext.M7 as to the receipt of ` 2,500/
- on 31.01.2006 and not for accounting it, it can very well be
held that the amount of ` 2,500/- received from her was
appropriated by the workman without making entries in
the accounts of the bank. Hence it can be reasonably held
that the management has succeeded in proving the first
charge levelled against him.
13. In order to prove the second charge about the receipt
of ` 1,150/- by the workman on 04.11.2005 from the customer
Mr. Ajit Kumar for remittance towards his loan account
after making entry in the passbook and appropriating the
same without accounting it management relies on
Exts.M1(d) to M1(f) and deposition of MW2. Ext.M1(d) is
the copy of the passbook wherein entry is made as to the
receipt of `1,150/- on 04.11.2005. Ext.M1(e) is the copy of
the statement of accounts and Ext.M1(f) is the scroll of
04.11.2005 and those were produced to prove that the
amount received from that customer was not credited by
making entries in the account of the management bank.
Workman would deny the receipt of the amount and making
of the relevant entry in Ext.M1(d). The initial in that entry
was denied by him. There is no reliable evidence in this
case to prove that the entry was made by him with his
initial. Except the admission of WW1 during his cross
examination that he was the cashier on 04.11.2005 there is
no other evidence to prove that the entry was made by
him. Ext.M5 is said to be the copy of the complaint given
by the customer on 05.04.2006 about the non-accounting
of the amount of ` 1,150/- paid by him on 04.11.2005.
14. The initial in Ext.M1(d) is not similar to the initials in
Exts.W1 and M11 muster rolls admitted to be that of the
workman. There is similarity in hand writing in the entries
on different dates in Ext.M1(d) but it cannot be definitely
said that the entry was made by him without any supporting
evidence. The workman was admitted to be the cashier on
that day but that by itself is not sufficient to say that the
entry was made by him. There must be some independent
evidence to prove that the entry was made by the workman
after receipt of the amount from Mr. Ajikumar since he would
deny the initial which appears to have no resemblance
with the admitted initials. Mr. Ajikumar who is said to have
made Ext.M5 complaint was not examined as a witness in
this case to prove the receipt of the amount and making of
the entry by the workman. In Ext.M5 complaint it is not
stated that it is the workman who had received ` 1,150/-
from him on 04.11.2005. What is stated is that an amount of
` 1,150/- was received by the cashier and made entry in the
passbook. It cannot be conclusively held that it is the
workman who received ` 1,150/- from that customer and
made entry in Ext.M1(d) passbook. Hence it cannot be
held that charge No.2 is proved.
15. The third charge as to them is appropriation of an amount
of ` 10,000/- remitted by Smt Shafia Basheer towards her
gold loan account on 03.03.2006. The workman would admit
during his cross examination that he had received ` 10,000/-
from her and an entry was made with regard to the same in
the gold loan card marked as Ext.M1(g). There is no entry
as to that amount in the statement of account in respect of
that loan and in the scroll of that day which were
respectively marked as M1(i) and M1(j). According to the
management the amount was appropriated after cancelling
the credit voucher marked as Ext.M1(h) and cancelling the
entry in the scroll of that day. The cancellation of entry in
the scroll is proved through Ext.W2. The cancellation is
admitted to have been made by the workman. As the entry
in Ext.M1(g) gold loan card with his signature is not seen
scored it cannot be said that the amount was not received
by him. The case put forward by the workman in the proof
affidavit that at the time of counting there was a shortage
of ` 500/- and hence returned the cash to her cannot be
believed even for a single moment in view of the other
evidence in this case. There is no independent evidence in
this case to prove that the amount was returned to her. If it
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2065
was returned as stated by him the entry in the gold loan
card was to be cancelled. It cannot easily be said that he
made the entry before counting the currency notes received
from her. Since the cancellation was made by the workman
himself in the scroll it can be seen that the same was done
by him for the appropriation of the amount received from
her. There is ample evidence in this case to prove that the
amount remitted by her was not accounted and was
appropriated by the workman after cancelling the scroll
entry. Hence it can very well be held that charge No.3 is
proved.
16. In order to prove charge No.4 as to the unaccounting
of ` 3,000/- received by the workman from the customer
Mr. Abdul Rasheed Vaidhyar on 27.12.2005 management
relies on Ext.M8, Ext.M1(1) and Ext.M1(m) and the
admission of WW1 during his cross examination as to the
entry made in Ext.M8 as to the receipt of ` 3,000/- from that
customer. Ext.M8 is the gold loan card relating to the loan
availed by that customer from the management bank. The
entry as to the receipt of amount of ` 3,000/- is admitted to
have been made by the workman in Ext.M8. It was not
accounted and the same is evidenced by Ext.M1(l), the
copy of the statement of accounts and Ext.M1(m), the copy
of the scroll as to the daily transactions on 27.12.2005.
WW1 would expressly admit that the amount was not
accounted by him. The case put forward by him in his chief
affidavit is that the entry was made by him before counting
the cash and at the time of counting it was found that there
was ashortage of ` 200/- and hence he returned the cash,
gold loan card and the voucher to the customer. It was
admitted by him during his cross examination that such a
case was put forward only at the time of filing the proof
affidavit and not earlier on any occasion. It cannot in any
way be believed that the entry was made without counting
the cash and the gold loan card was returned with the
entry without scoring it when the cash was said to have
been returned to the customer on seeing that there was
shortage of ` 200/-. As he would admit the entry in Ext.M8
with his signature as well as the receipt of cash from the
customer the burden is on him to prove that the cash was
returned to the customer. There is no reliable evidence in
this case to prove the same. It cannot easily be accepted
merely based on the evidence of WW1. There is no reason
to believe that the cash was returned without scoring the
entry in Ext.M8. Such an instance is not to happen when a
head cashier receives cash from a customer. The case put
forward by the workman at the time of filing proof affidavit
and not before that is highly improbable and unacceptable.
Hence it can reasonably be held that the management has
succeeded in proving charge No.4.
17. There is no convincing evidence in this case to prove
charge No.5 as to the receipt of `11,250/- on 18.03.2006
from Smt. Geetha for crediting it towards the loan of Reshmi
Kudumbashree and defalcation of that amount by the
workman without accounting it by making entries in the
account of the management bank. Ext.M1(n) is the copy of
the passbook relating to the loan in respect of M/s. Reshmi
Kudumbashree wherein the entry is stated to have been
made by the workman as to the receipt of that amount.
Ext.M1(o), the copy of statement of account of that loan
and Ext.M1(p), the copy of the scroll of 18.03.2006 were
produced to prove that it was not accounted by the
workman by making entries in the account of the
management bank. Workman would deny the making of
the entry in Ext.M1(n) passbook and the initial in it. The
initial has not got resemblance with the admitted initials in
Ext.M11. Except the admission of the workman that he was
the head cashier there is no other evidence to prove that
the entry was made by him. In such circumstance it was
necessary to examine Smt. Geetha as a witness to prove
the same. Ext.M3 complaint stated to have been made by
her bears no date. The contents of the complaint are also
not proved through her examination. As the workman would
deny the making of the entry as well as the initial in it
management has to adduce satisfactory evidence to prove
the receipt of the amount by adducing independent
evidence. There is no reliable evidence in this case to prove
that he had received the said amount as stated in the charge.
Hence it cannot be held that charge No.5 is proved.
18. Charge Nos.6 & 7 are with regard to dishonor of two
cheques issued by the workman for want of funds. One
cheque dated 27.03.2006 was issued to M/s. LIC of India,
Kollam for ` 3,105/- and the other cheque dated 11.03.2006
was issued to CBIEU(K) for ` 2,350/-. The issuance of
those two cheques from his account in the Kulathupuzha
branch of the management bank as well as the dishonor of
the same is not disputed by the workman. According to
him those cheques were issued in his personal capacity as
post dated cheques and the same were happened to be
dishonoured due to the subsequent events which made it
unnecessary to make payments. Whatever it be it cannot
be said that it will amount to a misconduct under clause 5(j)
of the Bipartite Settlement. Those transactions bring about
only the relationship of banker and customer. It is not a
case of excessive borrowing making it as a misconduct
attracting clause 5(j) of that Bipartite Settlement. There is
nothing on record to satisfy that the misconduct under
Section 5(j) would include the dishonor of the cheques
issued in his personal capacity.
19. From the foregoing discussion it is found that charge
Nos.1, 3 and 4 are proved and charge Nos.2 and 5 are not
proved. Charge Nos.6 and 7 even if found to be proved
cannot be termed as misconduct inviting penalty under
clause 5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement.
20. Point No.( ii):— Disciplinary authority imposed the
penalty of "dismissal without notice" as per clause 6(a) of
Memorandum of Settlement vide Disciplinary Action
Procedure dated 10.04.2002 and it was confirmed by the
Appellate Authority. Now it is to be considered whether it
2066
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
is shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconducts.
In the decision reported in State Bank of India and another
Vs. Bela Bagchi and Others (2005) 7 SCC 435 it was held by
the Apex Court that the charge with regard to receipt of
money from an account holder for depositing in his saving
bank account and making fraudulent or fictitious credit
entry in the passbook by the employee of the bank is serious
in nature and the contention that no loss was caused to
the bank is no defence. Therein it was also held:
"A bank officer is required to exercise higher
standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with
money of the depositors and the customers. Every
officer/employee of the bank is required to lake all
possible steps to protect the interests of the bank
and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity,
honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing
which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good
conduct and discipline are inseparable from the
functioning of every officer/employee of the bank.
Even acting beyond one's authority is a misconduct.
The charges against the employee were not casual
in nature and were serious. That being so, the plea
about absence of loss is also without substance".
21. Taking into consideration of the embezzlement of
money of the customers, the financial indiscipline as well
as the other facts and circumstances it cannot be said that
the punishment imposed on him is shockingly
disproportionate to the proved misconducts. Hence there
is no necessity to have any interference with the
punishment imposed by the management bank on him.
22. Point No.(iii):— As charges 1, 3 and 4 are found to
have been proved, for which the penalty imposed is found
to be justified he is not entitled.to any relief.
The award will come into force one month after its
publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed
by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 29th day of
January, 2015.
D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the workman
WW1
22.07.2014
Shri K V Manikandan
Witnesses for the management
MW1
01.11.2011
Shri Somasundaram
MW2
20.05.2013
Shri P Prasannan
Exhibits for the workman
W1
-
Copy of Muster Roll for the month of August,
2005 of Central Bank of India, Kulathupuzha
branch.
W2
-
Copy of list of cancelled entries as on
03.03.2006 of Central Bank of India,
Kulathupuzha branch
W3
-
Copy of letter dated 11.07.2006 addressed to
the workman by the Branch Manager, Life
Insurance Corporation of India, Kollam
W4
-
Copy of letter dated 25.08.2006 addressed to
the Assistant Regional Manager, Central Bank
of India, Regional Office, Thiruvananthapuram
by the General Secretary, Central Bank of India
Employee's Union (Kerala), Trivandrum.
W5
-
Copy of letter No.ZO:RD:2001-02:326 dated
12.02.2002 addressed to the Regional Office,
Trivandrum by the Chief Manager(RD), Zonal
Office, Central Bank of India, Chennai.
W6
-
Copy of the Circular No.C.O.:PRS:2002-2003:19
dated 29.04.2002 with copy of Disciplinary
Action Procedure issued by the Deputy
General Manager(PRS), Central Bank of India,
Central Office, Mumbai
W7
-
Copy of Certificate of appreciation dated
25.07.2005 issued by the Assistant General
Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional
Office, Trivandrum to the workman
W8
-
Copy of appreciation dated 14.12.1998 issued
by the Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India,
Chennai Zone to the workman
Exhibits for the management
M 1
-
Enquiry file.
M1(a)
-
Charge Sheet dated 06.06.2006 issued by the
Disciplinary Authority/Regional Manager,
Central Bank of India, Regional Office,
Thiruvananthapuram to the workman
M1(b)
-
Copy of the gold loan card of Smt. Kumari
M1(c)
-
Copy of scroll of 31.01.2006
M1(d)
-
Copy of pass book of loan account No.350203
of Shri Ajikumar
M1(e)
-
Copy of statement of account of the loan
account No.TLPMRY/350203 of Shri Aji Kumar
for the period from 27.02.2004 to 07.07.2006
M1(f)
-
Copy of scroll of 04.11.2005
M1(g)
-
Copy of gold loan card of Mrs Shafiya Basheer
M1(h)
-
Copy of credit voucher dated 03.03.2006 in the
name of Mrs Shafia Basheer for `10,000/-
M1(i)
-
Copy of statement of account of the
loan account No.GLAGRI/360382 of
Mrs Shafiya Basheer for the period from
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2067
03.02.2004 to 07.07.2006
M 1(j)
-
Copy of scroll of 03.03.2006
M1(k)
-
Copy of gold loan card of Mr Abdul Rasheed
Vaidyar
M1(l)
-
Copy of statement of account of the
loan account No.GLAGRI/3601318 of
Mr Abdul Rasheed Vaidhyan for the period
from 03.02.2004 to 07.07.2006
M 1(m) - Copy of scroll of 27.12.2005
M 1(n)
-
Copy of Loan Pass Book of Reshmi
Kudumbashree for Loan A/c No.350098
M1(o)
-
Copy of statement of account of the loan
account No.GLAGRI/350098 of Resmi Sthree
Sakthi for the period from 27.02.2004 to
07.07.2006
M1(p)
-
Copy of scroll of 18.03.2006
M1(q)
-
Copy of Cheque No.2I3577 dated 27.03.2006
for `23,105/- drawn in favour of LIC of Inida,
Branch No.2, Kollam
M1(r)
-
Copy of Cheque Return Memo dated 04.04.2006
M1(s)
-
Copy of forwarding letter dated 04.04.2006
M1(t)
-
Copy of Cheque No.213575 dated 11.03.2006
for `2,350/- drawn in favour of CBIEU(K)- A/c
Conference Fund
M1(u)
-
Copy of Cheque Return Memo dated 28.03.2006
M1(v)
-
Copy of statement of accounts of account
No.SB/13740 of Shri Manikandan and Smt
Geethakumari Manikandan for the period from
01.01.2006 to 05.04.2006
M 1(w) -
Show Cause Memo dated 23.01.2007 issued
by the Assistant General Manager, Disciplinary
Authority, Central Bank of India, Regional
Office, Thiruvananthapuram to the workman
M1(x)
-
Copy of statement of account of the loan
account No.GLAGRI/3601 101 of Mrs Kumari
Johny for the period from 03.02.2004 to
07.07.2006
M2
-
Copy of the letter dated 28.03.2006 addressed
to the Manager, Central Bank of India,
Kulathupuzha by Smt Kumari Johny
M3
-
Copy of the letter dated NIL addressed to the
Central Bank Manager, Kulathupuzha by the
President and the Secretary, Resmi
Kudumbasree, 50 Acre
M4
-
Copy of the letter dated 12.04.2006 addressed
to the Manager, Central Bank of India,
Kulathupuzha Branch bySmt Shafiya Basheer
M5
-
Copy of the complaint dated 05.04.2006
addressed to the Branch Manager, Central
Bank of India, Kulathupuzha Branch by Shri
Ajikumar R
M6
-
Copy of the letter dated 12.04.2006 addressed
to the Manager, Central Bank of India,
Kulathupuzha Branch byShri Abdul Rasheed
Vaidyar
M7
-
Gold loan card of Mrs Kumari
M8
-
Gold loan card of Shri Abdul Rasheed Vaidyar
M9
-
Cash credit voucher dated 31.01.2006 for an
amount of `46,664/- as to the Gold Loan A/c
No.GLAGRI 3601629 of Smt Kumari
M10
-
Pay-in-Slip dated 03.03.2006 for an amount of
`10,000/-
M 11
-
Copy of staff muster roll for the period from
01.01.2005 to 19.04.2006 maintained in
Kulathupuzha branch
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 957-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj c®d vkWQ cM+ksnk ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼70@2007½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12011@11@2007&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015
S.O. 957.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 70/2007) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12011/11/2007-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present....
Binay Kumar Sinha,
Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad, Dated 11th December, 2014
Reference: (CGITA) No-70/2007
2068
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Order No. L-12011/11/2007-IR (B-II)
Assistant General Manager,
Bank of Baroda,
Regional office, Surat Plaza-Ill,
5th Floor, Sayajiganj, Vadodara,
Vadodara (Gujarat) (management)
...First Party
And
Their Workman
Shri Dinshkumar Dahyalal Seth
Through the General Secretary,
Gujarat Bank Workers Organisation,
C/o. Nimesh Dave,
Satyanarayan Mandir,
Sankdisheri,
Kesur Mama Chakla,
Bharuch-392001(workman)
...Second Party
For the first party:
Shri Y.S. Panchal,
Advocate
For the Union/Second party:
Shri Ravi Nayan
Shah, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi
vide Order No. L-12011/11/2007-1R (B-II) dated 24.07.2007,
referred the dispute for adjudication in respect of the matters
specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of
Baroda in imposing the punishment of reduction by one
stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year
during which he would not earn increment and the reduction
will have effect of postponing his future increments,
withdrawal of Head Cashier allowance on permanent basis
and recovery of Rs. 2,40,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Forty
Thousands Only) by way of administrative action in sixty
equal monthly instalment of Rs.4000/- plus interest is legal,
proper and just? If not, to what relief the workman Shri
Dinshkumar Seth is entitled to?"
2. Parties appeared a filed respective pleadings viz.
statement of claim by the workman/2nd party (Ext.11) on
19.12.2012 and written statement by the Bank (1st party)
Ext. 12 on 11.10.2013. According to workman, he was
innocent and has been punished without proof of his
negligence/ dishonest intention to cause loss of Bank's
money to the tune of Rs. 2,40,000/- inquiry has not been
conducted properly. Chargesheet was issued after lapse of
one year suspension reasonable opportunity was denied
etc. Prayer is made for setting aside the order of punishment
and for repayment of recovered amount of Rs. 2,40,000/-
and to any other relief to which he is found entitled. On the
other hand, contention of the 1st party Bank is that due to
negligence of the workman working as Head Cashier at
Vapi branch bank suffered a loss of Rs. 2,40,000/- missing
from the cabin of the workman since he left the cabin without
keeping the cash in cashbox and lock it. Inquiry under the
chargesheet was conducted properly following the
principles of natural justice and the punishment imposed
on him is proper, legal and just and so the workman is not
entitled to any relief and the reference is to be dismissed.
3. While the case record was running for leading
evidence by the workman/2nd party, the 2nd party workman
filed a withdrawal pursis (Ext.13) on 13.10.2014 and the 1st
party's lawyer Shri Panchal noted no objection on this
pursis. Both sides were heard on this withdrawal pursis
which is in order. The workman voluntarily and
unconditionally intend to withdraw from this reference case.
1st party Bank has also no objection in disposing of the
case on withdrawal. So, the withdrawal pursis (Ext.13) is
allowed.
There is no need for adjudication on the terms of
reference as per Schedule. Simply in view of allowing
withdrawal pursis (Ext.13), the terms of reference is answered
in affirmative justifying the action of the management of
Bank of Baroda in imposing the punishment so awarded to
the workman Shri Dinshkumar Dahyalal Seth.
Accordingly, the reference is dismissed as withdrawn
by the workman. No order of cost.
This is my award. Let copies of the award be sent to the
appropriate Govt. for publication under section 17 of the
I.D. Act, 1947.
BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 958-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QñlhñvkbZñ ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 39@2014½ izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-04-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22011@17@2014&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 958.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 39/2014) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Food Corporation of India, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
21/04/2015.
[No. L-22011/17/2014 - IR(CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2069
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 19th March, 2015
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 39/2014
(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 Food Corporation of India and their
workman)
BETWEEN
Sri K. Rajendran:
1st Party Petitioner
AND
The Area Manager
: 2nd Party/
Food Corporation of India
Respondent
District Office, Post Box
No. 2911, Tatabad
Coimbatore-641012
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: M/s V. Ajoy Khose,
Advocate
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
: M/s M. Imthias,
Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-22011/17/2014-IR (CM-II)
dated 02.04.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
"Whether the action of the Management of Food
Corporation of India, in not providing work to Sri K.
Rajendran, Ancillary Worker under the Direct Payment
System (DPS) of Food Corporation of India w. e. f.
16.11.2012 is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID 39/2014 and issued notices to both sides.
Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel
and have filed their claim and counter statement
respectively.
3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner had been working as ancillary labour
under Direct Payment Scheme in the FCI Depot at
Peelamedu, Coimbatore for the past 25 years. The
petitioner who was a member of Food Corporation of
India Workers Trade Union had refused to participate
in an agitation against the Management on
27.03.2012. He had started a new union by first week
of April, 2012. Because of the refusal of the petitioner
to join the agitation on 27.03.2012, he was beaten up
by some union activists and a case has been
registered on the basis of the complaint made by the
petitioner. When the petitioner reported for duty on
28.03.2012 the Trade Union members who are accused
in the criminal case prevented him from attending
work and threatened that he would not be allowed to
continue in work. The petitioner informed the
Peelamedu Police Inspector and the Inspector tried
for a compromise, but even after this the petitioner
was not allowed to join duty. Finally, as instructed
by the District Manager the Depot Manager provided
work to the petitioner on 09.11.2012. He reported for
duty on the said day and his attendance was marked,
but he was not provided with work. He continuously
reported for duty till 15.11.2012. Still he was not
provided with work. After 16.11.2012 the Quality
Control Manager refused work to the petitioner
stating that he is to compromise with the union
leaders if work is to be given to him. Even since his
termination from service the petitioner was not able
to get any job. An order may be passed setting aside
the oral termination of the petitioner by the
Respondent and directing the Respondent to
reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of
service, back wages and other attendant benefits.
4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as follows:
The petitioner is an ancillary worker working under
Direct Payment Scheme at the Food Storage Depot
at Peelamedu since the year 1996. The Respondent
has no knowledge of the allegations made by the
petitioner against the Trade Union members. The
Respondent also does not know if a new union was
started by the petitioner. The petitioner has applied
for Medical Leave for 27 days from 29.03.2012 to
04.05.2012 and also for further 184 days from
08.05.2012 to 08.11.2012. The petitioner has signed
the Attendance Register from 09.11.2012 to 15.11.2012
but had not turned out for work at the work spot.
The contention that the District Manager instructed
the Depot Manager to provide work to the First Party
w.e.f. 09.11.2012 is not correct. The petitioner was a
chronic defaulter absenting from duty without any
responsibility. The allegation against the Quality
Control Manager is not true. He did not ask the
petitioner to effect a compromise with the Trade
Union members. The Respondent has issued memo
to the petitioner for his unauthorized absence from
2070
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
duty. Notice was sent to the petitioner on 17.09.2013
asking his explanation for his absence from duty from
01.07.2013 to 31.07.2013. He has not given any
explanation. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of
WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Exts. W1 to
Ext. W19 and Exts. M1 and Ext. M2.
6. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the petitioner was orally terminated by
the Respondent w.e.f. 16.11.2012?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to an order of
reinstatement in the service of the Respondent or
for any other relief?
The Points
7. The petitioner was admittedly working as ancillary
labour in the FCI Depot at Peelamedu. Coimbatore. It is
alleged by the petitioner that he was denied work w.e.f.
16.11.2012 by the Quality Control Manager of the
Respondent which in effect amounts to his oral termination
from this date. According to him, the members of the Union
of which he was earlier a member had become inimical
towards him and had assaulted him consequent to which a
crime had been registered against them. In retaliation they
are said to have prevented him from attending work. It is
the case of the petitioner that the Quality Control Manager
of the Respondent also sided those Trade Union Members
and wanted him to strike a compromise with them without
which he was denied work.
8. The case of the Respondent is that the petitioner was
chronic absentee from work and it was not a case of denial
of work. It is stated that notice has been sent to the petitioner
seeking his explanation for his absence from duty.
9. Even though it is not specifically stated in the Counter
Statement, the case of the Respondent seems to be that
the petitioner was actually not terminated from work, but
he was only absenting himself from duty.
10. The petitioner has given evidence asserting that he
has reported for work but he was denied work. An Officer
of the Respondent has given evidence as MW1. On going
through the version of this witness during cross-
examination it could be seen that it must not have been a
case of absence from duty on the part of the petitioner but
denial of work by the Respondent, amounting to termination
from service. The petitioner has complained in the Claim
Statement itself that even though he had reported for duty
on 09.11.2012 and continued to do so until 15.11.2012 and
had signed the Attendance Register he was not allotted
any work. This case seems to be true from the version of
MW1. During cross-examination initially he has stated that
the petitioner was not allotted any work during this period
though he later corrected that it was the case of the
petitioner not doing any work though he was allotted work.
At the same time MW1 has admitted that if a workers is not
doing any work even though work is allotted to him, the
Respondent will not be keeping quiet but action will be
taken. There is no case for the Respondent that action was
taken against the petitioner for not working from 09.11.2012
to 15.11.2012 even though he was allotted work. According
to the petitioner, from 16.11.2012 he was totally prevented
from doing any work. A memo has been issued to the
petitioner seeking explanation for his absence but this was
much later on 13.03.2013, after dispute was raised by the
petitioner on 12.02.2013. Thus for almost for three months
there was no action on the part of the Respondent for the
alleged absenteeism by the petitioner. When this aspect is
considered alongwith admission made by MW1 that he
was not allotted any work even though he joined duty on
09.11.2012, the case of the petitioner that he was totally
denied work after 16.11.2012 seems more probable. This
amounts to termination of the petitioner from the service of
the Respondent. Now the contention on the part of the
Respondent is that actually there was no termination of
the petitioner from service but action was taken against
him for absence and he continued to be in service and
therefore the dispute itself is a premature one. Certainly,
this case of the Respondent is to be rejected when the
circumstances are considered. The petitioner is to be treated
to have been terminated from service. The petitioner is
entitled to be reinstated in the position in which he was.
11. The petitioner has claimed back wages also alongwith
reinstatement. However, the petitioner will not be entitled
to back wages in the background of the case. He will be
entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity of
service and other benefits.
12. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to reinstate
the petitioner in service within a month of the award with
continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 19th March, 2015)
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/
: WW1, Sri K. Rajendran
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/
: MW1, Sri S. Kumar
Management
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
01.11.2012
Copy of the FIR (Translated)
Ex.W2
13.03.2013
Show Cause Notice issued
by the Management alleging
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2071
the 1st party was absenting
for 121 days 16.11.2012 to
07.03.2013
Ex.W3
15.06.2013
Letter to the Assistant
Labour Commissioner,
Madurai
Ex.W4
22.03.2013
Explanation letter to the
above Show Cause Notice
Ex. W5
18.04.2013
Another Show Cause Notice
making the same
allegations that he was
absenting for 154 days
Ex.W6
26.04.2013
Explanation to the above
Show Cause Notice
Ex.W7
17.09.2013
Another Show Cause Notice
making same allegation
absenting from duty w.e.f.
01.07.2013 to 31.07.2013 and
01.08.2013 to 31.08 2013
Ex.W8
12.10.2013
Explanation to the above
Show Cause Notice
Ex.W9
12.02.2013
Copy of the petition filed
under Section-2(A)(1) of the
ID Act 1947 filed before
Assistant
Labour
Commissioner, Madurai
Ex.W10
13.07.2013
Reply statement filed by the
management before the
Assistant
Labour
Commissioner to the above
petition
Ex.W11
-
Rejoinder statement filed by
the 1st Party before the
Assistant
Labour
Commissioner
Ex.W12
30.01.2014
Failure report by the
Assistant
Labour
Commissioner
Ex.W13
08.11.2011
Order in WP No. 204467 to
204488 / 2011 by the High
Court of Madras praying
direction for permanency of
the 1st Party by the 2nd Party
(1st Party in WP No. 24480/
2011)
Ex.W14
01.11.2012
FIR in Crime No. 950 of 2012
Ex.W15
16.06.2012
Representation letter to
Depo Manager, FCI
Ex.W16
21.07.2012
Representation letter to
Depo Manager, FCI
Ex.W17
06.11.2012
Representation letter to
Depo Manager, FCI
Ex.W18
14.04.2012
Engg. Anna Thozhilalar
Sangam
Subscription
Receipt
Ex.W19
16.04.2012
General Body Meeting of the
Union
On the Management's side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.M1
-
Sick leave statement of FSD
Peelamedu DPS Workers
Ex. M2
-
Register of Attendance for
DPS Workers at FSD
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 959-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ ds izcaèra=
ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 17@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21&04&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@93@2005&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 959.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2006) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
21-04-2015.
[No. L-22012/93/2005-IR (CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 17 OF 2006
PARTIES: The management of Nimcha (R)
Colliery of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri Raj Kumar Bhuiya
2072
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REPRESENTATIVES
For the management:
Sri P. K. Goswami, Ld. Adv.
For the union (Workman):
Sayantan Mukherjee, Ld.
Adv.
Industry: Coal
State: West Bengal
Dated: 18.03.2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section(1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
93/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 13.06.2006 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Nimcha (C)
Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing
Sh. Raj Kumar Bhuiya, U.G.Loader from service w.e.f.
05 07.2004 is legal and justified? If not. to what relief the
workman is entitled to? "
Having received the Order No. L-22012/93/2005-IR(CM-
II) dated 13.06.2006 of the above said reference from the
Govt. of India. Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 17 of 2006
was registered on 11.07.2006 and accordingly an order to
that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
Sri P K. Goswami, Ld. Adv. appears on behalf of the
management but none appears on behalf of the union/
workman. The union/workman is neither appearing nor
taking any step from the beginning.
On perusal of the case record I find that notices were
issued to the union on 19 07.2006, 12.01.2012 and 29.09.2014.
Even the case was ordered ex-parte against the union by
the then P.O. So far 37 opportunities have been granted to
the workman / union but to no effect. It seems to me that
the union is now not at all interested to proceed with the
case further. As such the case is closed and accordingly a
'No Dispute Award' may be passed.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour. New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 960-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QñlhñvkbZñ ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 213@1991½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21&04&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@270@,Q@1991&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 960.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 213/91) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management Food Corporation of India, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 21-04-2015.
[No. L-22012/270/F/1991-IR (C-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/213/91
Shri Sugriv Sai,
C/o Shri Ghanshyam Yadav,
North Forest Office,
Raj Talab,
Workman
Raipur
Versus
Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Chetak Bhawan,
Maharana Pratap Nagar,
Bhopal
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 18th day of February 2015
As per letter dated 13-11-1991 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/
270/F/91-1R(Coal-II). The dispute under reference relates
to:
" Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India in relation to their Kapa Division
in dismissing/ terminating the services of Shri Sugriv
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2073
Sai, Assistant Grade-I (Depot) w.e.f. 31-3-87 is justified
and proportionate to the gravity of the offence
committed by him? If not, to what relief the workman
entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 3/1 to 3/2. Case of Ist party workman is since
termination of his service, he is unemployed and has no
source of income for his livelihood. He totally depends on
mercy of his friends and relatives. That he is in hand to
mouth situation. The workman is handicapped. Looking to
his pathetic condition, he prays for mercy from Court. He
also requests to explain benefit of Government's policy is
relevant in the matter.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/5
opposing claim of workman. IInd party claims ignorance
about employment of 1st party workman. If workman is
allowed legal assistance, management also requests
permission to engage Advocate in the case. It is submitted
that Ist party was employed on the post of asstt. Grade I.
He was working as Depot Incharge, Damoh. During the
relevant period, depot suffered substantial loss on account
of shortage of stocks. Chargesheet was issued to workman
under regulation 58 of FCI Staff Regulation Act, 1971.
Workman was allowed opportunity for his defence. It is
further contented that order of suspension of workman
was revoked on 28-6-84. Workman had not submitted
statement of claim. During enquiry proceeding workman
was extended opportunity for his defence. Principles of
natural justice were followed. Enquiry Officer submitted
his report on 12-2-87 holding charges against workman
proved. Considering the report of Enquiry Officer,
punishment of dismissal was imposed against workman.
The appeal filed by workman was dismissed on 18-9-89.
IInd party reiterate that enquiry was conducted properly.
IInd party also submits if enquiry is found vitiated
opportunity to prove misconduct be given to the
management. Punishment of dismissal is imposed after
finding of Enquiry Officer is legal. It is submitted that
workman received wages more than 1600 per month. He is
exercising managerial power as such not covered as
workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act.
4. Ist party filed rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/6 reiterating
his contentions in statement of claim. He has contented
that he was not given opportunity to cross-examine
witnesses of management. After taking over charge,
workman was working as Depot Incharge.
5. Management filed reply to rejoinder at Page 12/1 to
12/10 reiterating contentions in Written Statement.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the enquiry
conducted against
In Affirmative
workman is proper
and legal?
(ii) Whether the alleged
misconduct is proved from
evidence in Enquiry
Proceedings?
(iii) Whether the punishment
of dismissal imposed against
In Affirmative
workman is proper and
legal?
(iv) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
7. Present matter is very old. Workman has not adduced
evidence in reference proceeding despite of repeated
chances granted to him. Management filed affidavit of
evidence of witness Mrinal Singh supporting contentions
of management that chargesheet was issued to workman,
enquiry was conducted following principles of natural
justice. Enquiry Officer Shri M.N. Mukherjee submitted his
report. Despite of public notice in newspaper workman
failed to appear in Enquiry Proceedings. Evidence of
management's witness remained unchallenged as the
workman failed to appear and cross-examine the witness of
the management. Documents of Enquiry Proceedings are
produced. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point
No. 1 in Affirmative.
8. Point No. 2, 3— workman has failed to adduce
evidence. The copies of Enquiry Proceedings are produced.
The evidence of management's witnesses Shri Jain Gupta
shows shortage of different kinds of grain during the period
workman was incharge of Damoh Department. The
evidence of management's witness Shri N.P. Singh, A.K.
Ghosh, S.K. Katara is not challenged in cross-examination.
Witness Shri C.L. Kori, Sheikh Abrahim is not challenged
in cross-examination. I find no reason to discard
unchallenged evidence of management's witness. The
evidence of management's witness is sufficient to prove
charges against workman. Therefore I record my finding in
Point No. 2 in Affirmative.
9. Point No.3— the evidence on record shows that
charges about shortage of food grains while workman was
incharge of Damoh Depot of FCI are proved from evidence.
Considering nature of charges, punishment of dismissal
could not be interfered or cannot be said excessive or illegal
therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
2074
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Food Corporation
of India in relation to their Kapa Division in
dismissing/ terminating the services of Shri Sugriv
Sai, Assistant Grade-I (Depot) w.e.f. 31-3-87 is legal
and proper.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 961-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñbZñlhñ,yñ ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 36@2001½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@72@2000&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 961.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 36/2001) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of SECL and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 21-04-2015 .
[No. L-22012/72/2000 -IR (C-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/36/2001
Shri Bhaiya Lal Lodhi,
Ex-Clipman,
Jhiriya Mohalla,
Purani Basti,
School ke Upar,
Vill./PO Dhanpuri,
Distt. Shahdol
...Workman
Versus
Sub Area Manager,
Chachai & Vivek Sub Area of SECL,
PO Dhanpuri,
Distt. Shahdol
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 27th day of March 2015
1. 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-22012/72/2000-IR
(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager, Amlai
and Chachai Sub Area of SECL PO Dhanpuri, Distt.
Shahdol (MP) in terminating the services of Shri
Bhaiyalal Lodhi Ex-Clipmen, Vivek Mine w.e.f. 22/23-
6-1995 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 4/1
to 4/2. Case of Ist party workman is that he was appointed
as clipmen on 1-6-1974 against clear vacant post. His
services are covered by standing orders and Service Rules
Regulations of SECL. He continuously worked from 1974
to 1995. He acquired status of permanent employee. That
workman was seriously ill and was under treatment from
31-10-94 to 4-12-94. He could not attend his duties. After
his fitness, he approached colliery management with
Medical Certificate for resuming duty. Management instead
of allowing him to resume duties initiated DE for his absence
from duty. His services were terminated from 23-6-95. He
submits that proper opportunity for his defence was not
allowed to him. Medical certificate issued by Doctor was
rejected by Enquiry Officer without assigning any reasons.
On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with
back wages.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to
7/9 opposing claim of workman. Preliminary objection is
raised that workman was terminated on 23-6-95. The
dispute is belatedly raised after several years is not
tenable. The ratio held in AIR-2000-SC-839 is quoted. It
is further submitted that 1st party workman was absent
without intimation or sanctioned leave on various
occasions. Workman was also absent during the period
24-3-93 to 29-1-94. Chargesheet was issued to workman
under Clause 26.24 of standing orders. The enquiry was
conducted and charges were proved. Workman was
found guilty of misconduct. Though workman could
have been dismissed on humanitarian ground the
workman was let off and allowed on duty. His absence
was treated as dies-non.
4. Ist party workman did not show improvement in his
conduct. His attendance was poor. In spite of workman was
given opportunity to improve, he remained absent from duties
unauthorisely without permission or sanctioned leave. Again
charge sheet was issued to workman on 13-12-95 under clause
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2075
26.24, 26.30 of standing orders. The attendance of workman
in 1992 was 157 days, in 1993 was of 42 days and in 1994
was of 17 days. Reply given by workman was not
satisfactory. Therefore enquiry was initiated. Workman
participated in enquiry along with co-worker Khikhan Das.
The charges were explained to him. Workman denied
charges explained to him. Enquiry was conducted.
Management examined witness Shri R.K.Pandey, leave clerk,
Udaibhan Soni. The document Form B & G Registers were
produced. It is submitted that Enquiry officer submitted
report holding workman guilty of charges. Show cause
notice was issued to workman. His explanation was found
unsatisfactory by Disciplinary Authority. For proved
misconduct of unauthorized absence, workman was
dismissed from service. It is reiterated that enquiry
conducted against workman is legal. He was given
opportunity for his defence. If enquiry is vitiated,
management be given opportunity to prove misconduct.
That workman had not reported to Medical officer of
colliery. He did not avail treatment from hospital of the
company. On such grounds, IInd party prays for rejection
of claim.
5. Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 9/1 to
9/2 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
6. As per order dated 26-7-2012, enquiry conducted
against workman was found proper and legal.
7. Considering pleadings on record and orders 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 against workman is
In Affirmative
proved from evidence in
Enquiry proceedings?
(ii)
Whether the punishment of
dismissal imposed against
In Negative
workman is proper and
legal?
(iii)
If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to?"
As per final
order
REASONS
8. As stated above, enquiry conducted against workman
is found proper and legal. Therefore the question whether
charges alleged against workman are proved or not needs
to be decided considering the evidence in Enquiry
Proceedings. Exhibit M-1 is chargesheet issued to workman
under clause 26.24 of habitual absence dated 24-1-94. Said
chargesheet pertains to absence from duty from 24-4-93.
As per Exhibit M-2, workman was found guilty, in spite of
dismissing from service, on humanitarian ground he was
let off and allowed on duty. The period of absence was
treated as dies-non. Exhibit M-3 is settlement between
management and Union agreeing to various conditions.
Condition No. 3 is that it was agreed that the period of
absence of workman will be treated dies-non. Exhibit M-4
is chargesheet dated 13-12-94 pertaining to absence from
31-10-94 to 8-12-94. Exhibit M-5 is notice of enquiry given
to workman. M-6 is copy of Enquiry proceedings. The
statements of management's representative and
management's witness Shri R.K. Pandey, Udaibhan Soni as
well as the workman were recorded. Management's witness
have stated about unauthorized absence of the workman
and his working days in 1992 was 157 days, in 1993 was of
42 days and in 1994 was of 17 days. The evidence of
management's witnesses was not challenged rather the
workman in his statement of claim stated that he was
suffering from illness and he was receiving treatment.
Earlier he was suffering from heart disease. Enquiry officer
observed that workman had not sent intimation of his illness
or receiving treatment at colliery hospital. It was the reason
that Enquiry Officer held charges proved. Workman says
he was absent, he has not intimated to management, any
document of his treatment are not produced. The evidence
is sufficient to prove that the workman was unauthorisely
absent. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point
No.1 in Affirmative.
9. Point No. 2—In view of my finding in point No. 1 that
charges against workman are proved from Enquiry
Proceedings, question remains whether punishment of
dismissal imposed on workman is proper and legal. The
statement of workman that he was suffering from heart
disease and other ailments is not challenged by the
management's representative. The representation submitted
by workman Exhibit M-10 finds clear reference of his illness
and he was not allowed to join duty after he was found fit.
The pleadings and evidence on record shows that workman
joined service on 1-6-74. He was in service of IInd party
management for more than 20 years. While imposting
punishment of dismissal, Disciplinary Authority did not
consider his long service. In the circumstances, it appears
that punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is
excessive. In my considered view, considering length of
service of workman, punishment of compulsory retirement
would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in
Point No. 2.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the Sub Area Manager, Amlai and
Chachai Sub Area of SECL PO Dhanpuri, Distt.
Shahdol (MP) in terminating the services of Shri
Bhaiyalal Lodhi Ex-Clipmen, Vivek Mine w.e.f. 22/
23-6-1995 is not proper and legal.
2076
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(2) Punishment of dismissal of workman is quashed.
Punishment of dismissal is modified to compulsory
retirement. IInd party is directed to allow retiral
benefits to Ist party workman.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 962-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wñ lhñ ,yñ ds
izac/kra= ds laca/k fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 43@1982½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21&04&2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22011@10@1982&Mhñ 4¼ch½@vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 962.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act,1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 43/82) of the Cent. Govt.
Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of WCL and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 21-04-2015
[No. L-22011/10/1982-D.IV(B)/IR (CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMNET
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/43/82
Secretary
Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),
PO Chandametta,
Distt Chhindwara
...Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager,
Western Coalfields Ltd.,
Pench Area,
PO Parasia,
Distt. Chhindwara
...Management
Award w.r.t. back wages after remand of matter by
Hon'ble High Court.
Passed on this 26th day of March 2015
1. As per letter dated 18-6-92 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I. D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-
22011(10)/82-D.IV(B). The dispute under reference relates
to:
"Whether the refusal of the management of Pench
East Colliery of Western Coalfields Ltd. in Pench
Area, PO Parasia, Distt Chhindwara to provide work
to Shri Ramjanam and 300 others truck loaders
employed at their Dighawani Quarry and to regularize
them as Colliery workers is lawful and proper? If not,
to what relief are these workmen entitled?"
"Whether the dismissal of S/Shri Ayub S/o Hafijullah,
Fuljhar S/o Anoop, Setband S/o Rampat, Dhonda S/o
Charitra, Baliram S/o Panchoo, Yashin S/o Sahadat, Tub
loaders Rawanwara Khas Colliery of Pench Area of WCL,
PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara w.e.f. 24-4-78 was legal and
Justified? If not, to what relief are these workmen entilted?"
"Having regard to the arbitration award dated
16-9-77 in the case of Shri Ramuttin, Tub loader,
whether the workman named above is entitled to
wages for the period from 1-10-75 to 27-9-77. If so, to
what relief is the workman entitled?"
2. Reference R/43/82 by Government was decided on
27-6-90. Ist party all 301 workers represented by Union
were allowed reinstatement with backwages. The award
was challenged before Hon'ble High Court by management
in Miscellaneous petition 2681/90 as per order passed by
Hon'ble High Court dated 23-3-05. The Matter is remanded
to this Tribunal to decide question of backwages afresh in
the light of discussions made in the judgement.
3. In para-16 of the judgment, his Lordship observed
coming to the question of backwages CGIT has not given
any finding w.r.t. gainful employment of workman for period
of 10 years for which backwages were granted. Gainful
employment is one of the material factor to be considered
as held by Apex Court in 1983-SCC-459, 1984-1-SCC-283.
4. When case was taken for hearing, it was noticed that
the documents in the matter were weeded out on 22-5-03.
The record shows Union had sort various amendments
pertaining to raising dispute by Union for regularization of
Ramjanam and 300 others. Award was passed on 27-6-90.
Said award was challenged in Writ Petition No. 2618/90
that Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 13-12-90 stayed
payment of backwages. Legality of representation of 99
claimants by Shri Rajnu Paswan etc. It is surprise to say
that the amended pleadings not relate to gainful employment
of all the labours connected with the dispute. IInd party
management filed additional Written Statement at Page 17
to 18 raising the objection that Rajnu Paswan was not
having any authority to represent the claimants. He has no
locus-standi in view of Section 36 of ID Act. The
controversy about locus-standi of Rajnu Paswan was
decided by my predecessor as per order dated
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2077
2-2-09 observing that all 99 workers have filed vakalatnama
of Shri R.C. Shrivastava and 26 out of them have also filed
vakalatnama of Shri S.K. Rao Advocate meaning thereby
that out of 99 workers, 26 workers have engaged two
advocates namely Shri R.C. Shrivastava and Shri S.K. Rao,
it is incorrect to say that 99 workers are not genuine persons.
5. Considering the controversy between parties relating
to back wages and directions issued by Hon'ble High Court,
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 it is established by
Ist Party that Ramjanam
In Affirmative
and 300 others Truck
Loaders were not in gainful
employment after their
discontinuation from work?
(ii)
Whether Ramjanam and
300 others are entitled to
In Affirmative
backwages?
(iii)
If so, to what relief the
As per final
workman is entitled to?"
order
REASONS
6. Shri Mahendra Chatterjee filed affidavit of his
evidence as witness of Ist party. He has narrated the course
of litigation and awards passed by this Tribunal. The order
of reinstatement was confirmed. SLP was filed by IInd party.
Hon'ble Apex Court directed to reinstate workman within
10 days. The question of back wages was to be decided by
Hon'ble High Court within 3 months. Lastly in his affidavit,
he says that after discontinuation of service from 21-6-80
till his reinstatement, he and all other workers were not
employed. However in his cross-examination, he says that
affidavit of his evidence is related to personal claim and
not w.r.t. the claim of other workers. His evidence in cross-
examination shows that out of 301 workers, 9 workers were
reinstated in mines in Maharashtra, remaining 292 workers
were reinstated in Pench Area. He claims ignorance w.r.t.
dispute of Identity of workers and criminal case prosecuted
against any of the workman or Secretary of Union Shri
Bannerjee. He also claims ignorance that out of 292 workers,
100 workers did not submit information for filling Form B.
he admits that 192 workers submitted information were
terminated from service R/88/95 is pending w.r.t. legality of
termination of services of those 100 labours. Thus the
evidence of Mahendra Chatterjee on the point of
employment needs to be considered for his own claim.
7. Ist Party has submitted identical affidavit of workers
Vidhi, Deenanath, Rampatathi & Brijlal Surju. All of them
have stated that they were not in employment after
termination of their service till their reinstatement. Shri Vidhi
in his cross-examination says that he was resident of
Mahadanda Distt. Maharajganj in U.P. He was residing
with his brother at Pench Kanhan Area. He was born in
1959. He was discontinued in 1980 and reinstated in 1992.
He was married. He had come with his wife. He denied that
he was doing any work for maintaining his family members.
He did not take any efforts to work under any contractor.
He was visiting his native place twice in a year. His family
hold some lands but he was unable to tell his income. Shri
Dinanath in his cross-examination says that he was resident
of East Chhindwara. He resides in ancestral house. He was
reinstated in April 1992. His form B was filled. He was
married 10 years before. During 1980 to 1992, he was residing
with his maternal under at Tandsi. His maternal uncle was
supporting him. He was doing miscellaneious work of filliing
water etc. in cross-examination of other witnesses, nothing
was brought by the counsel for management that those
workers were employed at any other place. Rampatathi said
he was supported by his uncle. After his reinstatement,
quarter was not allotted to him though other workers Paras
Shah Bahadur, Surendra, Rajwanti Dev, Lalman, Ambika,
Brijlal, Ramnaresh, Paitun, Ramayan, Shivdhani, Kaviraj,
Sursari, Bachhu, Jawahar, Bihari, Nageshwar, Nandu, Kailas,
Attarlal Prabhunath, Nandlal, Harihar, Ramjanam,
Ramvriksh, Hira, Dayanand, Dhirju, Lakhan, Bheegal,
Purnawasi, Kalicharan, Ramnayan, kedar, Prabhunath,
Kanhai, Videshi, Sajaat,Ramvachan and Rampati filed
affidavit of evidence stating that they were unemployed
but they failed to appear for their cross-examination
therefore their evidence cannot be considered in the matter.
8. Copy of evidence of Mahendra Chatterjee in R/88/95
is produced at Exhibit M-1. The reference No. 88/95 was
about termination of services of 100 employees who failed
to furnish information for filling Form B. his evidence related
to termination of services of 100 workers in R/88/95. Subject
matter was different therefore the same cannot be
considered for deciding the question of back wages.
9. Shri Bharat Singh Sakrawar Union Secretary in his
affidavit of evidence says that the workers related to the
dispute were reinstated on 6-4-92. Workers were not doing
any work during 1980 to 1992. In his cross-examination, he
says that he was not working on any post in WCL. He got
membership of SKMS Union in 1978. He was elected General
Secretary of Union in 2008, 2012. Durinig 1978 to 2008, he
was working as office Secretary. No election was held for
the post of Office Secretary. Union General secretary had
appointed him as Office Secretary. He received education
in Government law college, Chhindwara during 81 to 84. He
filed affidavit of evidence as per record in Union office.
The documents relating to the matters are produced. There
is absoutely no question put to him about non-employment
of any of the workers. His evidence that all the workers
were not doing any work after discontinuation of their
services still reinstatment remained unchallenged.
2078
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10. In evidence of Shri Rajnu Paswan on affidavit, he
narrated about the journey of litigation that 300 workers
reinstated in 1992. 100 workers were illegally terminated by
management. He has represented case of 99 workers in
CGIT & High Court. Those 99 workers were not doing any
work till their reinstatement or retirement. In his cross-
examination this witness says he was not working in WCL,
Pench Area. That he was member of SKMS Union Pench
Area, Chhindwara. The workers related to the dispute had
taken membership of SKMS Union but he was unable to
tell exact period. He denied that all workers relating to the
dispute were from Bihar. He explained that workers were
from MP, UP, West Bengal, Bihar etc. that after termination
in 1990, all the workers were residing with their relatives,
brothers etc. till their reinstatement in 1992. He was unable
to tell which contractors were working in Pench Area. That
he did not made efforts for providing work to those workers.
He claimed that he was not acquainted with the contractors.
Those 100 workers were supported by their brother, father,
relatives. He received its information on personal visits.
All those 100 workers were residing in Pench Area itself.
He denied that he is depositing against management as he
was terminated from service. He claimed ignorance about
criminal case prosecuted against 16 workers and Union
Secretary Shri P.K. Bannerjee. Evidence of Shri Rajnu
Paswan about 100 workers were not doing any work is not
shattered in his cross-examination.
11. Evidence of management's witness Shri K.P. Sharma
is on the point that Shri Ramjanam, Bechu, Rajkumar,
Kishan, Dwarika, Rambishal, Harinandan, Jogendra, Ram
lagan and Jogendra were married. They were having
children, they were in gainful employment. However the
witness remained absent for his cross-examination
therefore his evidence cannot be considered.
12. Evidence of Hirok Sarkar is on the point that Sheikh
Mukhtar, Balikaran, Rampalat, Munna were married. They
were in gainful employment. Said witness was not cross-
examined by counsel for Ist party. His affidavit is silent
about the period of gainful employment where they were
working etc. the details are not given in his affidavit of
evidence. Management's witness Shri A.C. Koushik in his
affidavit has stated that the establishment of IInd party
was in loss and many posts have been abolished, no
appointments were made since 1988. His evidence remained
unchallenged. His evidence is not devoted on the point of
gainful employment of any of the workers related to
reference.
13. Document Exhibit M-5, M-6 shows loss incurred by
IInd party from 1987-88 to 2013-14.
14. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri R.C. Shrivastav
relies on ratio held in Case of Ramnath versus Extra
Assistant Commissioner reported in AIR 1952-NGP-313.
Their Lordship held the law doesnot require any number of
witnesses to prove a particular fact. Ofcourse it is open to
a final court of fact to believe or to disbelieve a statement,
but simply because the statement is of one witness that
cannot by itself be a ground for not acting upon that
testimony.
The facts of present case are not comparable as in above
cited case, the applicant was appointed and he refused to
perform duty. In context of the facts stated, the ratio was
held in the case. Present dispute pertains to backwages
after all 301 workers have been reinstated in service. Ratio
cannot be beneficially applied to case at hand.
In case of M.P. State Electricity Board versus Jarina Bee
reported in 2003-II-LLJ 244, their Lordship dealing with
backwages held award of full backwages not natural
consequence of setting aside dismissal of workman. It has
discretional element and no strait jacket formula can be
evolved.
In case of Bhojabhai Danabhai Rabari and State of
Gujarat reported in 2012-I-LLJ-174 (Guj) their Lordship of
Gujarat High Court dealing with backwages held not to be
granted on reinstatement. Workman held was not entitled
to back wages. In para-3, their Lordship observes the issue
of entitlement of back wages has been considered by this
court time and again and consistently held that even after
punishment imposed upon the employee is quashed by
the Court or Tribunal, the payment of back wages still
remains discretionary. Power to grant back wages is to be
exercised by the Court keeping in view the facts in their
entirety as no strait jacket formula can be evolved nor a
rule of universal application can be laid for such cases.
Even if the delinquent is reinstated, it would not
automatically make him entitled for back wages as
entitlement to get back wages is independent of
reinstatement.
Similar view was taken in case of Chairman cum
Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. and others versus
Ananta Saha and others reported in 2011-III-LLJ-165(SC).
In case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another
versus S.C. Sharma reported in 2005-II-LLJ 153, Supreme
Court set aside, however that part of the impugned order
which granted the respondent back wages. It was observed
the respondent had neither pleaded nor placed any material
to show that he was not gainfully employed. It pointed out
that the initial burden was on the employee to prove the
above fact.
In present case, no doubt all 300 workers are not
examined on the point of their employment after termination
of their service till their reinstatement. However evidence
of Union General Secretary Shri Bharat Sakrawar on the
point remained unchallenged. Evidence of other witnesses
also supports, also corroborate evidence of Shri Bharat
Sakrawar the management has not adduced cogent
evidence that any of the workers were in gainful
employment.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2079
15. The evidence of workers discussed above shows
that some of them were doing some miscellaneous work.
The period of claim of backwages is from 1980 to 1992. All
workers were of younger age. It is difficult to believe that
all those 300 workers were idle for more than 12 years. The
evidence of the witnesses that they were supported by
their relatives, father, brother etc. cannot be discarded unless
some cogent reason is brought before court. No such
evidence is brought by management. Considering ratio
discussed in above cases, the matter of backwages vests
in discretion of this Tribunal. The evidence of witnesses of
IInd party that the establishment is in loss cannot be a
ground for rejection of claim for backwages. Considering
totality of evidence and circumstances and that either side
is not allowed to take disadvantage to enrich themselves
on account of long journey of litigation. In my considered
view, 25% of backwages would be appropriate. For reasons
discussed above, I record my finding in Point No. 1, 2 in
Affirmative.
16. In the result, award is passed as under:—
"301 workers shown in the list with the order of
reference are entitled to 25% backwages from date of
their discontinuation i.e. 21-6-80 till reinstatement in
6-4-1992. If any of the workers attain age of
superannuation or dies during intervening period,
the backwages will be restricted to the date of their
superannuation or death. Amount of back wages as
per award be paid to the all the 301 workers within 30
days from the date of publication of this Award."
In case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per
annum from the date of award till its realization.
17. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per fules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 963-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ ds izca/
kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 38@2004½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@303@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 963.—In purusuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Govenrment
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 38/2004) of the Cent.
Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court ASANSOL as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Kalipahari (R) Colliery of M/s. ECL,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
21/04/2015.
[No. L -22012/303/2003-IR(CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
Present:
Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra
Presiding Officer
Reference No. 38 of 2004
Parties:
The management of Kalipahari (R)
Colliery, ECL
Vs.
Sri Kashinath Shaw
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management:
Sri P.K. Das,
Ld. Advocate, ECL
For the union (Workman):
Sri R.K. Tripathi, Org.
Secy., KMC
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated: 10.03.2015
A W A R D
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter NO.L-22012/
303/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 23.06.2004 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Kalipahari
(R) Colliery in changing the date of birth in the record of
management in respect of Sh. Kashinath Shaw, Trammer
from 19.10.1957 to 18.01.1945 is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/303/2003-IR
(CM-II) dated 23.06.2004 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 38 of 2004
was registered on 05.07.2004. Accordingly an order to that
effect was passed to issue notices through the registered
post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in
the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements
along with the relevant documents a list of witnesses in
support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order
notices by the registered post were sent to the parties
2080
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal,
through their representative and filed their separate sets of
written statement in support of their respective claims.
In brief, the workman has stated in his written statement
that the worker concerned Sri Kashinath Shaw is a
permanent employee of Kalipahari (R) Colliery under Sripur
Area of M/s Eastern Coalfield Limited. During the time of
his appointment hid date of birth was assessed by the
M.O. of the colliery as 25 years as on 19.10.1982. In the
Appointment Letter which was subsequently issued by
the management his date birth was mentioned as 25 years
as on 19.10.1982. Subsequently, the service Record Excerpts
was supplied to him by the management and in the Service
Record Excerpts his age was also recorded as 19.10.1957.
Taking into account the date mentioned in his Medical
Report and Appointment letter where the same was recorded
as 25 years as on 19.10.1982. In his Identity Card issued by
the management his date of birth was also recorded as
19.10.1957. But, of late, the management of Kalipahari
colliery vide their letter Ref. No. 1548 dated 23/24.12.1996
advised him to submit documents in support of his date of
birth stating therein that his date of birth is not recorded in
the Colliery Form 'B' Register. Soon after that, another
letter was issued to him by the Dy. Personnel Manager of
Kalipahari (R) colliery informing him that his date of birth is
18.01.1945. Workman demanded that his date of birth be
corrected as 19.10.1957 which is already recorded in his
pre-employment Medical report. Appointment Letter,
Service Record Excerpts and Identity Card all issued by
the management under the signature of the concerned
officers. But he was superannuated in year 2005 in unlawful
manner by the management.
Management, on the other hand in their written
statement stated that the instant dispute raised by the
conerned person is misconceived. Management admitted
that the concerned workman was appointed on 30.03.1983.
At the time of his Appointment his age was recorded as 25
years as on 19.10.1982 in some of the documents. But in
the 'Form B Register' which is statutory and very vital
document the column of 'Date of Birth' was kept blank.
Therefore, he was advised to appear before the Apex
Medical Board on 18.7.1997. Accordingly, Sri Kashinath
Shaw appeared before the Apex Medical Board and his
date of birth was recorded 10.01.1945 in Form 'B' Register
as per report of Apex Medical Board and the same date of
birth was also computerized. So, the employee has been
correctly superannuated by the management in the monthy
January, 2005. Management has further stated that in the
instant case there is no anomaly in his date of birth and
therefore, the workman is not entitled to any relief.
Workman has filed nine Xerox copies of documents
and 4 original documents. The workman has filed an
Affidavit in his oral evidence and he has been cross-
examined by the management. Management has not filed
any oral of documentary evidence.
Shri R.K. Tripathi, Learned Union Representatives
appeared on behalf of the workman has argued that at the
time of his appointment of Sri Kashinath Shaw his date of
birth was determined 25 years as on 19.10.1982.
Accordingly, his date of birth was already recorded as
19.10.1957 in his Service Record Excerpts, Identity Card
and in his Appointment Letter where his age was recorded
as 25 years as on 19.10.1982. But at the time of preparing
the computerized record of date of birth the date of birth of
Sri Kanshinath Shaw was wrongly recorded as 19.01.1945
in lieu of 19.10.1957. So the workman should be allowed to
continue in service based on his date of birth as 19.10.1957.
Sri P.K. Das, Learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the
management argued that entering the date of birth in
computer is a part of a system. The workman did not ubmit
any documentary evidence in support of his date of birth
correction.
I have heard the argument of Sri R.K. Tripathi, Chief
Organizing Secretary of the union (KMC) appearing on
behalf of workman and Sri P.K. Das, Learned Advocate,
appearing on behalf of the management (Kalipahari (R)
Colliery, ECL).
It is not disputed that Sri Kashinath Shaw was a
permanent employee of Kalipahari (R) Colliery under Sripur
Area of M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited. It transpires from
records that the concerned workman is a illiterate person.
It has been also accepted by both the parties that before
empolyment his age was assessed by the M.O., of the
colliery as 25 years as on 19.10.1982 and the same was duly
mentioned in his Appointment letter issued by the
Management. Similarly, in the Identity card and Service
Excerpts his date of birth was mentioned by the management
as 19.10.1957. The workman has produced the Xerox copy
of his PAN card No. ATHPS2805D wherein his date of
birth his mentioned as 19.10.1957 Workman has also
submitted an Affiidavit declaring his date of birth as
19.10.1957. In the Affidavit he has specifically mentioned
that he had never appeared before the Apex Medical Board
after his appointment for his age determination. He was
once appeared before the M.O. of the colliery during the
time of his Appointment when his age was assessed as 25
years as on 19.10.1982. He has also stated that he received
his Appointment letter after the said medical examination
and in the Appointment Letter his age was recorded as 25
years as on 19.10.1982. Subsequently, after his joining in
employment he was issued Identity card and Service Record
Excerpts by the management where his date of birth is
correctly mentioned as 19.10.1957 based on the medical
examination report and Appointment Letter. During his
tenure of service, he never raised any dispute about his
recorded age. He has given his thumb impression on good
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2081
faith in the "Signature/Thumb Impression column" of the
Form 'B' Register during the time of his appointment as he
is an illerate person.
Sri Kashinath Shaw has been cross-examined by the
management. He stated that he received Appointment Letter
under the signature of competent authority of the
management of E.C. Ltd. wherein his date of birth is clearly
mentioned as 25 years as on 19.10.1982 and in the Identity
Card and Service Record Excerpts also his date of birth is
mentioned as 19.10.1957. The concerned M.O. who
assessed the age of the concerned workman was not cross-
examined. It is evident that the management by issuing a
letter dated 23.12.1996 and asked Sri Kashinath Shaw to
produce documents in support of his date of birth on the
plea that his date of birth is not recorded in the "Date of
Birth column" of the Form 'B' Register. I am surprised to
observe that when there is entry in his Service Record
Excerpts and Identity Card, how and why the Date of Birth
column of the Form 'B' Register was kept blank by the
management and why for this reason the workman
concerned was asked to appear for age determination by
the Apex Medical Board and his age was assessed as 50 to
55 yaears as per guideline of the Company and accordingly
his date of birth was determined as 10.01.1945 which was
subsequently entered in Form 'B' Register's column and
computerized record of the company.
Registrar General, High Court of Madras Vs. M.
Manickam, (2011) 10 S.C.R. page no. 325, Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as follows:-
"The medical certificate produced in the instant
case is described as "Age Proof Certificate" - it is
very vague and unreliable - Whether or not any
Radiological examination or any Ossification test
was conducted is not reflected in the certificate - It
only states that on the basis of physical examination
and from appearance of the officer and on the basis
his own statement the age was determined - The
Doctor who was examined to prove the certificate
also did not produce any text report or copy thereof-
Thus, reliance can not be placed on the authenticity
and validity of the said age certificate."
I am in respectful agreement with the view propounded
by Hon'ble Supreme Court that through the nature of the
case is different but the ratio is fully applicable with the
present reference. The report of doctor regarding age has
not been submitted by the management. Doctor has not
been examined by the management. It is not clear whether
any Radiological Test was conducted for determining the
age of the concerned employee. It is relevant to mention
that the date of birth of the concerned employee was
assessed by the M.O. of the colliery. There is no evidence
that the date of birth of the concerned employee was
previously recorded and the record was wrong.
In view of discussion above the Order passed by the
management on 18/29.10.2004 in respect of superannuation
of the concerned employee is set-a-side. Management is
directed to record the date of birth of the concerned
workman as 19.10.1957 instead of 18.01.1945. Management
is further directed to re-instate in employment the concerned
employee and to pay him @50% of the back wages from
the date of imposed superannuation to the date of his
resumption to duty.
O R D E R
Let an "Award' be and the same is passed as per above
discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and
needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 964-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ-lh-,y- ds
';kelqUnjiqj dksfy;jh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 77@1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 21@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y& 22012@417@1998&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 964.—In purusuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Govenment
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 77/1999) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court ASANSOL as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Shyamsunderpur Colliery of M/s. ECL,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
21/04/2015.
[No. L-22012/417/1998-IR(CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 77 OF 1999
PARTIES:
The management of Shyamsunderpur
Colliery, ECL
Vs.
Sri Aklu Shaw
2082
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REPRESENTATIVES
For the management:
Sri P. K. Das.
Ld. Advocate, ECL
For the Union (Workman):
Sri S.K. Pandey, Gen.
Secy., CMC
Industry: Coal
State: West Bengal
Dated: 17.03.2015
A WA R D
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide is letter No. L-22012/
417/98-IR(CM-II) dated 07.07.1999 has been pleased to refer
the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of
Shyamsunderpur Colliery of Bankola Area of M/s. ECL in
dismissing Sh. Akles Shaw, Underground Trammer, from
services is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the
workman entitled?
Having received the Order No. L-22012/417/98-IR(CM-
II) dated 07.07.1998 of the above said reference from the
Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 77 of 1999
was regisrered on 23.07.1999. Accordingly an order to that
effect was passed to issue notices through the registered
post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in
the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements
along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses
in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order
notices by the registered post were sent to the parties
concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal,
through their representative and filed their separate sets of
written statement in support of their respective claims.
In brief compass, the case of the workman concerned as
per his written statement is that Sri Aklu Shaw was a
permanent employee of M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited as
U.G. Trammer. But he was deputed as a Security Guard by
the management against his willingness. As such, such
deputation is illegal as per the prescribed norms, rules and
circular of the company. Sri Aklu Shaw was charge sheeted
vide charge sheet Ref. No. Shyam/PT/CS/96/3394 dated
02.09.1996 for alleged theft of coal. He was charged that on
31.08.1996 at about 8 p.m. one Tipping Truck No. WB-39-
1524 located with coal was to be unloaded at the Moira
Siding. But the above truck did not unload coal at the said
siding but Sri Aklu Shaw, the workman, signed the challan
as a token of receiving the coal at the Siding. The workman
was charged that the theft was committed by his
connivance. After holding domestic enquiry, the
management issued him Show Cause Notice granting only
three days time for his explanation. The Management
dismissed the delinquent workman on dated 26/28.05.1997.
According to the workman the dismisssal is illegal as there
was no such theft in the connivance. The workman has
said that he should be reinstated with full back wages and
with full incidental benefits.
On the order hand, the defense of the management in
brief is that the incident is bad in the eyes of law and the
offence is very serious and grave in nature. The
management in his written statement has stateed that Sri
Aklu Shaw, Ex. U.G. Trammer working as Security Guard
was on duty at Moira colliery siding on 31.08.1996 in the
second shift at about 8 p.m. One Tipping Truck No. WB-39
1524 was loaded with 8 (Eight) Metric Ton of Coal from
colliery supposed to be unloaded at the Siding. Sri Aklu
Shaw was supposed to receive the same at the Siding. Sri
Aklu Shaw, although has signed the challan as a token of
receiving the coal but it was found that the tipping truck
had unloaded the coal elsewhere with the connivance of
the concerned delinquent workman. For the above reason
Sri Aklu Shaw has been charge sheet vide Charge sheet
Ref. No. Shyam/PT/CS/96/3394 dated 02.09.1996 for the act
of misconduct under clause 17(1)(a) and 17(1)(i) of the
Model Standing Order applicable to him. After receiving
the explanation of the concerned workman domestic equiry
was conducted and the delinquent employee had duty
participated in the enquiry proceeding. In enquiry
proceeding, the concerned workman was held guilty by
the Enquiry Officer. The workman was given full
opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry and to
submit his explanation to the Enquiry Officer. After
considering the enquiry report and explanation, the
disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal from
service of Sri Aklu Shaw.
The workman has filed copies of the enquiry
proceedings and enquiry report. The Management has
filed 3 (Three) documents in his documentary evidence.
The workman has filed affidavit in his oral evidence. Sri
Aklu Shaw has been cross examined by the management.
Management has not filed any oral evidence.
Sri S.K. Pandey, learned union representative appeared
on behalf of the workman has argued that the workman
was charge sheeted for his connivance during theft of coal
for violation of 17(1)(a) and 17(1)(i). The concerned
workman was a U.G. Trammer but he was authorized to do
the job of a security guard which is a specialized job.
Furthermore, there was no formal instruction or Office Order
to do the job of secruity guard. The workman already gave
written representation to the management in this
connection vide his letter dated 02.03.1996 and 22.08.1996
for his deployment in his original place of work. Apart from
performing the duty of security guard, the workman was
assigned the duty of receiving coal at the siding which is
not at all a duty of a security guard. The management cannot
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2083
depute a single person to perform jobs of two persons.
Unloading of truck at some other place is not proved by
the enquiry officer. There is no FIR regarding such
incidence of alleged theft. Siding area is near about 1 K.M.
away where there was frequent load-shedding. A single
security guard cannot perform the duty of security guard
as well as receiving of coal signing the challan None of the
management witnesses has alleged against the workman
in enquiry proceeding. The Driver of the tipping truck who
unloaded the coal was also an employee of ECL. but he
was not charge sheeted for the alleged theft. The punishing
authority did not apply his mind before passing the
dismissal order.
On the other hand, Sir P.K. Das learned Advocate for
the management has argued that as per Section 17(1)(a) of
model standing order the management can direct any
employee to perform any duty to meet up the crisis and to
maintain the function of the colliery. The delinquent
employee has committed theft in connivance with other
which amount to a serious and grave misconduct for which
dismissal from service of the said workman is justified.
I have heard the workman as well as management both
the parties. It is not disputed from any corner that Sri Aklu
Shaw was a permanent workman on the post of U.G. Trammer
in E.C.L. It is also admitted by both the parties that Sri Aklu
Shaw was charge sheeted for his connivance in the alleged
theft of coal and he was after domestic enquiry dismissed
from E.C.L. The workman has filed a copy of enquiry
proceeding. The Enquiry Officer has examined Sri S.P.
Chakraborty, Sri K.N. Chowdhury, Sri C.R. Dasgupta, Sri
RamnNarayan Mishra as management's witnesses. All
these witnesses have stated in their evidence that Sri Aklu
Shaw, Trammer was deputed to work as Security Guard at
Moira Siding on 31.08.1996 near about 8 p.m. information
establishes that the coal which was received by Sri Aklu
Shaw was unloaded some where else rather than siding of
the company. These witnesses have supported the
statement of theft. After the enquiry report the disciplinary
authority asked for the explanation of Sri Aklu Shaw
regarding the enquiry report. The enquiry officer has
recorded the statement of the witness in enquiry report,
After enquiry report. on receiving the explanation of Sri
Akli Shaw about the coal theft, the disciplinary authority
has passed the dismissal order. It appears from the records
that there was fullest compliance of princile of natural
justice. The delinquent workman was given full opportunity
not only to prove his defiance during the enquiry but also
to cross examine the witnesses of the management.
Theft is a misconduct in Model Standing Order of ECL.
So far as the relationship employee and employer is
concerned, the employee has certain express and/or implied
obligations to his employer. Involvement in serious offence
kile theft of the employee is serious and harmful to the
interest of the employer for breaching and/or implied
obligation by the employee concerned. Therefore. unless
it would be trifing nature it would constitute misconduct.
Whereas the employee has entered into a position of
'servant' and if he does anything incompatible during
faithful discharge of his duties to his master, the later has
the right to dismiss him. The relationship of master and
servant implies necessarily that the servant shall be in a
position to perform is duty properly and faithfully. If the
servant acts in contrary to the above, the master has
absolute right to dismiss him.
The offence of theft committed by an employee, shows
that he is dishonest and his suitability and reliability to
continue in service may be affected by that reason. The act
of theft or in connivance with Commission of theft is positive
intention to cause loss to the employer. It is not a sheer
negligence but intentional offence to put financial loss to
the company which is strictly prohibited in the Model
Standing Order. It is relevant to note that concerned
delinquent employee was performing the duty of Security
Guard. The safety and security of any company rests on
the shoulder of Security Guard. If Security Guard himself
commits theft or with his connivance theft is committed,
this act is more than serious than theft committed by any
other employee/workman.
The Cuddalore District Central Co-operative Bank
Limited, Cuddalore Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Cuddalore, and another Writ Petition No. 29282 of 2003, D/
B/6/20D 2014 Lab. I.C. 651 (Madras High Court) the Hon'ble
Madras High Court held that in this case the workman was
dismissed from service on account of serious financial
irregularities and misappropriation of fund. In domestic
enquiry, the charges were proved beyond doubt. Hon'ble
Madras High Court has held the setting-a-side, dismissal
order is not appropriate. The Management witness has no
reasons to falsely implicate the workman.
I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by
Hon'ble Madras High Court. In view of Hon'ble Madras
High Court also the dismissal order is proper.
"Workman may be transferred due to the exigencies
of work or from one station to another, from one
coal mine to another or from one establishment/
department/section to another, within the same
company or same holding company provided that
the pay, grade and other conditions of service
including continuity of services of the workmen are
not adversely affected by such transfer and provided
further that, if a workman is transferred from one
job to another, the jab should be of similar nature
and such as he is capable of doing further that (i)
expcet in case of emergency minimum ntoice of two
weeks is given of such transfers, and (ii) reasonable
joining time is allowed in case of transfers from one
station to another."
As per the above clause a workman can be transferred
from one job to another of similar nature. In emergency no
2084
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
prior notice is required to be given to the concerned
employee. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the
argument advanced by the union representative that
deputation of delinquent workman to security guard is illegal
or unjustified.
Lodging of FIR is required under Criminal procedure.
But Departmental proceeding is a separate proceeding
whereas, FIR is for criminal activities. The criminal act may
give rise to both the proceedings i.e. Criminal proceeding
as well as departmental proceeding and both the
proceedings may proceed simultaneously. But it is not
necessary that for departmental or domestic enquiry there
must always be a criminal proceeding. It is not necessary
that before conducting domestic enquiry for a misconduct
of the delinquent workman there must always be a criminal
proceeding also.
In HPCL Vs. Survesh Berry (Air 205 Supreme Court 1406)
Hon'ble Apex Court held that "Crime act of commission in
vioation of law or omission of public duty, the
departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in service
and efficiency of public service."
Punishment of dismissal for act of theft by Security
guard for wrongful gain is not disproprtionate or harsh
punishment. Every person is presumed to know the
consequences of his act. In view of the matter, it is unjust
and improper to set-a-side the order of dismissal imposed
on the workman concerned.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per above
discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of
India. Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and
needful. The reference io accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 965-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y- ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 84@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@244@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 965.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 84/2005) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Victoria West Colliery of M/s. BCCL,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
21/04/2015.
[No. L-22012/244/2004-IR(CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT :
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 84 OF 2005
PARTIES:
The management of Victoria West Coliery, BCCL
Vs.
Sri Gopal Bouri
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the management:
Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv.
For the union (workman):
None
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated: 12.03.2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers confered by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
244/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 12.07.2005 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Victora
West Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Shri Gopal
Bouri, U.G. Loader from services is legal and justified?
It not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/244/2004-IR(CM-
II) dated 12.07.2005 of the above said reference from the
Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 84 of 2005
was registered on 17.08.2005 and accordingly an order to
that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2085
Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv. appears on behalf of the
management, but he has not filed his authorization till date.
None appears on behalf of the union/workman.
Registered notices issued to both of the parties on
31.08.2005. 18.05.2009, 16.12.2011, 29.03.2012 and 15.10.2014.
But the union neither appeared even for a single day since
beginning nor took any step till date. It seems that the
union is not at all interested to proceed with the case further.
Since the workman neither appearing nor taking any step
from the beginning, the case is closed. As such the case is
closed a 'No Dispute Award' may be passed accordingly.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute
existing Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India.
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
12. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 966-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-bZ-lh-,y- ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 233@1991½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@500@1990&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 966.—In pursuance of Sectrion 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref.233/91) of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of SECL, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 21/04/2015.
[No. L-22012/500/1990-IR(CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/233/91
Shri Narayan Biswas,
S/o Late V.K. Biswas,
Ex. Drill Operator, SECL,
Q.No. M/117, Dipika Colony,
Gevra Project,
Bilsapur.
Workman
Versus
Dy. General Manager,
SECL,
Gevra Project
PO Gevra Project,
Distt. Bilsapur (MP)
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 13th day of March, 2015
1. As per letter dated 19.12.91 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/
500/90-IR (C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Dy.
General Manager, SECL, Gevra, Project in dismissing
Shri Narayan Biswas from service w.e.f. 25.3.90 is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman is shown as IInd party submitted
statement of claim at page 3/1 to 3/6. Case of workman is
that he was employed on post of drill operator in the colliery.
His services were dispensed with as per order dted 24-3-
90. The dismissal order was issued by the Manager, Ghevra
project, SECL without authority. Chargesheet was issued
to workman on 24-2-90. The charges related to alleged
incident dated 23-2-90. Workman submitted report to police
about said incident on 24-2-90. Workman was assaulted
and suffered fracture in his right hand. He was also
prosecuted for offence under Section 295, 325 of IPC. During
pendency of criminal case, the enquiry was conducted
against him to favour complainant Shri B.K. Sharma.
Enquiry was conducted hastely. Criminal case was
prosecuted on same facts. Management was committed to
punish him. He was served with chargesheet one after
another. IInd chargesheet was issued on 4-3-90 but it was
not served on him. He was not informed dates of the enquiry
proceedings. Notice was not received by him. General
secretary of Mazdoor Union submitted application for
adjourment before Enquiry Officer on 16-3-90 requesting
15 days time. Thereafter he was not informed about the
dates of enquiry proceedings.
3. Workman further submits that he had filed civil suit
before Civil Judge Class II Khatghora for injunction. Notice
in said suit was received by management on 24-3-90. IInd,
chargesheet was issued on 4-5-90. It is reiterated that
enquiry was not conducted properly following principles
of natural justice. Exparte enquiry was conducted to
pressurize him. Witness of management were not cross-
2086
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
examined. On such grounds, workman prays for his
reinstatement with back wages.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/8.
Management submits that workman was appointed on
26-10-85 as Drill Operator Cat-D in Gevra Project. Shri D.K.
Sharma was working as Sr. Under Manager in same project.
On 23-2-90, Shri D.K. Sharma complained to management
in writing that the workman was found near Key P&S 95
shovel where as he was assigned duty at RECP-05. On his
asking about it, workman abused and assaulted inflicting
injuries at his nose, legs and eye. Incident was reported to
police. Criminal case was prosecuted against workman.
Chargesheet was issued to workman, Enquiry was
conducted on 14-3-90, 16-3-90, 21-3-90. Workman did not
appear before Enquiry Officer on any of the dates despite
of public notice was issued for enquiry fixed on 21-3-90
enquiry was proceeded exparte. 7 witnesses of management
were examined. Evidence of management's witnesses was
closed by Presenting Officer. Enquiry Officer submitted
his findings that charges against CSE were proved. Evidence
of witnesses was corroborated by Medical Report. FIR
that workman and abused and caused grievous injury to
co-worker Shri D.K. Sharma. It is reiterated that after
receiving report of Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority
agreed with findings and imposed punishment of dismissal
Management further submits in enquiry is found vitiated
for any reasons, management be permitted to prove
misconduct in Court. IInd party prays that order of dismissal
of workman is proper and legal.
5. Management submitted rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/6
reiterating its contentions in Written Statement.
6. As per order dated 2-5-06 by my predecessor, enquiry
conducted against workman is found legal.
7. Considering pleadings on record and order on
preliminary issue, the point 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
In Affirmative
alleged against workman is
proved from evidence in
Enquiry proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment of
In Affirmative
dismissal imosed against
workman is proper and legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?
entitled to any
relief."
REASONS
8. In view of enquiry conducted against workman is
found legal, points raised by my learned counsel for
workman in its written notes of argument pertaining to
legality of enquiry cannot be considered. Notes of
arguments refers to criminal case prosecuted against
workman was withdrawn by State of MP. Complainant was
not referred for medical examination, medical report was
not produced before Enquiry Officer. The statements of
witnesses of management were not consistent with injuries
suffered by management's witnesses Shri D.K. Sharma. The
evidence of witnesses cannot be relief.
9. Learned counsel for management Shri A.K. Shashi
submits enquiry is found legal. Criminal case was
withdrawn. The evidence of management's witness is
sufficient to prove charges against workman. Workman
had admitted occurrence of incident. He had not filed FIR.
Charges are proved. Dismissal of workman is proper.
Considering tenour of argument, evidence in Enquiry
Proceedings needs to be considered. On careful perusal of
evidence in Enquiry Proceedings, it is found that
management examined witnesses on point of service of
notice of enquiry to the CSE and witnesses to incident.
Shri D.K. Sharma complainant in the case has stated on
23-2-90, when he was standing near P&S 95, CSE found
loulting near P&S-95. He was allotted duty at RECP-05. On
his enquiry workman has abused in indecent language.
The language uttered by workman in name of his mother,
sister are recorded in his statement. He was also assaulted
by CSE inflicting injury on his left eye, nose, lower lip,
blood was coming out from his injury. He was referred for
medical examination. Witness No.4 Narendra Kumar in his
statement says CSE had inflicted injuries to Shri D.K.
Sharma witness Bhien Singh also corroborates evidence
of Shri D.K. Sharma, Narendra Kumar that he had seen one
person inflicting Shri D.K. Sharma. He had separated them,
blood was oozing from nose of Shri D.K.Sharma. In his
further evidence, on questions by management
representative the witness says that on his enquiry
Foreman told that the name of person inflicting injury was
Biswas. Management's witness No.6 M.S. Johar in his
evidence says on 23-2-90, CSE Narayan Biswas was
abusing indecent language to Shri D.K. Sharma. Right eye
of Shri D.K. Sharma was swollen. He had seen CSE at 5 PM
at point of Drill No. RECP-05. Witness No. 6 Shri R.P. Jaiswal
in his statement says that he had come by truck, he had
seen Narayan Biswas struggling with Shri D.K. Sharma,
blook was oozing from face of Shri D.K. Sharma. The
evidence of management's witness is not identical on all
points. Witness No.8 T. Mehto in his statement says that
CSE Narayan Biswas told him that he had beaten Shri D.K.
Sharma. The scope of judicial review cannot be exercised
to re-appreciate evidence. The decree of proof in domestic
enquiry is not similar to the burden of proof in similar case.
The evidence of management's witness is sufficient to
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2087
prove charges alleged against workman therefore I record
my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
10. In his notes of arguments, counsel for workman has
raised objection that punishment order was issued by
Manager who was not competent authority. In reply to it,
learned counsel for management submits after receiving
report of Enquiry Officer, punishment of dismissal was
approved by Competent Authority and order of punishment
was issued by Manager cannot be said illegal. No evidence
is produced on record about Competent Authority allowing
the workman. Therefore argument on point cannot be
accepted. As per my finding against Point No.1, charges
proved against workman are of grave nature inflicting injury
to Shri B.K. Sharma who was Sr. Official of CSE. The
pubishment of dismissal of service cannot be said excessive
or disproportionate. No interference is called in the order
of dismissal. For above reasons, I record my finding in
Point No.2 in Affirmative.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Dy. General
Manager, SECL, Gevra Project in dismissing Shri
Narayan Biswas from service w.e.f. 25.3.90 is legal
and proper.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 967-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QñlhñvkbZñ ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 191@1998½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@149@,Q@1993&vkbZñvkjñ ¼lh&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Dellhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 967.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 191/98) of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management Food Corporation of India, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 21/04/2015.
[No. L-22012/149/F/1993-IR(C-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/191/98
General Secretary,
Bhartiya Kamgar Mahasangh,
Nandini Chowk Ward No. 35,
Distt. Rajnandgaon (MP)
Workman/Union
Versus
District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Durg (MP)
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 12th day of March, 2015
1. As per letter dated 19-8-98 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L 22012/
149/F/93-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the demand of the Union that 112 Railway
Siding Contract Labourers should be treated at per
with depot labourers with retrospective effect from
16-3-90 is justified? If so, what benefit are the said
workmen entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party Association of workers submitted
statement of claim at Page 2/1 to 2/3. Case of 1st party
workman is that 112 contract labours working at Railway
Siding, one of the labour Baldev Mishra died. His widow
claimed employment on compassionate ground as per
application dated 18.12.96. She had claimed that 3 minor
children and mother-in-law were dependent on her. Her
application was not considered. Names of 111 labours
relating to dispute is submitted along with statement of
claim. The Ist party Association submits that all the 112
labours were working as contract labours. Those labours
were sometimes working in godown and sometimes at
Railway siding. They were doing work of loading, unloading
of food grains at both the points. The contract system was
abolished by IInd party. Work performed by labours
engaged by contractor and departmental labours was similar
therefore both kind labours were entitled to similar benefits.
In view of Section 20(2) and 21 of Contract Labour (R&D)
Act. That Ist party Association had given notice dated
27.9.96 to IInd party under Equal Remuneration Act, 1976.
Any action was not taken on said notice. That all 112
labours shown in the annexure are entitled to similar
benefits from 16.3.90. Ist party Association raised dispute
pertaining to the labours working on Railway Wagon siding
under control of IInd party were doing the work of loading
in the godown directly and not at Railway wagon siding.
Any representation dated 11-11-97 submitted to IInd party
41 labours were having their surname as Paswan out of the
State. That 87 employees junior to workman were regularised
giving benefit of permanent employee total 158 labours
were regularised. 28 labours shown in Annexure A were
2088
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
not regularised. Junior to them were regularised by IInd
party. It is submitted that consequent to abolition of
contract system in Rajnandgaon depot, the permanancy
benefit was given excluding 112 labours shown in annexure
A. The labour shown at Sl. No. 98 to 125 were working prior
to 1982 were regularised. It is reiterated that the junior
employees are regularised and Ist party workman are denied
benefit of regularization. The labours at Sl. No. 228 to 270
were regularised even they did not worked for a single day.
The 111 employees shown in Annexure A are unemployed.
IInd party as per circular dated 5-11-94 was extracting work
of unloading 90 bags per day to avoid the damage charges.
It is submitted that they are entitled to status of
departmental labours the benefit of equal wages as per
seniority. On such ground, Ist party Association is praying
for regularization of 111 labours as the labours shown in
Annexure B are regularised.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 15/1 to
15/10 opposing claim of Association. Preliminary objection
is raised that the dispute is referred at the instance of
Bhartiya Kamgar Mahasangh which came in existence in
October 1991. Prior to 1991, said Union was not in existence.
Workers connected with the dispute were working with
contractors as contract labours since 1980. From 1980 to
1991, any payment was not placed before the management
of FCI claiming parity with the depot labours. That those
labours were never employed by FCI. Govt. of India without
taking any consideration demand of Union regarding
contract labours be treated at par with the departmental
labours. The reference is referred without application of
mind. Such reference is not tenable.
4. As per terms of reference demand of Union pertains
to 112 labours working at Railway siding should be treated
at per with depot labours. Workers neither given any
particular nor given details of the contractors with whom
they were working. The Union has not filed any document
in support of their claim working with contractors. Union
has not given particulars regarding date of birth, age photo,
period of working of contractors. The names of contractor
are not disclosed. It is submitted that loading and unloading
process of wagon is not under control of FCI. Vide order
dated 11-10-96, it was open for FCI to transport foodgrains
making their own arrangements. If any contractor engage
some labours at Rail Heads and works for various
department, it cannot be said that those labours are
contractors of FCI. The contractors are carrying loading,
unloading work of various departments. They are not
impleaded as party. That 112 workmen are not covered
under Section 2(s) of ID Act.
5. It is submitted that FCI is constituted as per Act of
1964. It deals with import, procurement, storage throughout
the country. FCI has office, depots through out the country.
It is undertaking of Government of India. FCI functions
under directions and instructions issued by Govt. of India
FCI was appointing contractors for handling transport work
at various depots. Such practice was continuing till 1989.
Contractors were bring labours from open market of their
choice considering the suitability. The wages was paid by
FCI to such contractors as per quantum of work. There is
FCI workers Union ooperating in IInd party functioning
more than 90% membership. Said Union has the power to
safeguard interest and welfare of workers. During 25.7.89
to 24.7.91, M/S Universal Transport was engaged at
Rajnandgaon depot for engaging transportation. Labours
have resorted to strike. The work of Rajnandgaon depot
was paralised because of strike. Therefore FCI introduced
mate system. The agreement was arrived between Union
and management on 1.4.91. In pursuance of said agreement,
158 workers working with mate were regularised. After
regularization of those 158 workers whose names given in
Annexure A were not disclosed. IInd party reiterates that
works shown in Annexure A were not working with FCI.
There is no employer employee relationship. Those workers
are not entitled to regularization with IInd party. It is denied
that the contractor's workers and departmental workers
were performing identical jobs. FCI is not principal employer
of those labours. IInd party is not liable for any
consequences under Section 20(2), 21 of CL (R&A) Act.
On such ground, IInd party submits that Ist party workmen
are not entitled to any relief.
6. Ist party workmen filed rejoinder at Page 17 reiterating
their contentions in statement of claim contending that 112
labours are entitled to similar treatment as labours working
in the depot.
7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the demand of the
Union that 112 Railway
siding Contract Labourers
should be treated at par
In Negative
with depot labourers with
retrospective effect from
16.3.90 is justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workmen are
workman is entitled to?
not entitled to
any relief.
REASONS
8.
The terms to reference pertains to demand of the
Union that 112 Railway siding contract labours would be
treat at par with depot labours with retrospective effect
from 16.3.90. The dispute is referred as per order dated
19.08.98. IInd party has denied employer employee
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2089
relationship. It is further contented that Railway siding is
not under its control. Railway siding is property of Indian
Railway. Copy of agreement dated 12.4.91 is produced at
Page 25/11. Clause II(b) provides—“the workers working
on piece reated basis were allowed benefit of exgratia bonus,
CPF Compensation under Workmen Compensation Act,
Gratuity, Attendance allowance, National Paid Holidays,
Ist Aid etc. the said agreement was entered between FCI
Workers Union and the management. Ist party Union was
not party to said agreement. The terms of reference pertains
to employees working at Railway Siding claiming similar
benefits of depot labours.
9. Identical affidavit of evidence are filed by Ist party of
Hiraman Yadav, Nirha Jabbar, Kripa Singh, Naresh Sahu,
Kailash, Makhanlal Yadv, K.G. Usahu, Shyamlal Sahu, Satish
Kumar, Sawant Ram, Shyamlal Sahu, Santosh Kumar,
Prakash Yadv, Bhodaram, Yogotram, Dhanuram, Satish
Kumar Yadav, Nila Sahu, Vishnuram, Dehararam, Manoj
Kumar, Santosh Kumar, Lakhanram, Anandram, Pitaram,
Ramesh Kumar, Vishwanath, Nandan Sahu, Bisran Yadav,
Ramkishan Yadav, Pallyram and other labours. All of them
have stated that they were doing work of loading unloading
since 1980. Without any notice, they were discontinued.
That due to good crops, work of IIIrd party was increased.
The labours from other states were discontinued. In their
cross-examination most of those labours says they were
doing the work of loading unloading at Railway siding
under different contractors. To be precise, Kripa Ram Gond
in his cross-examination says he was working under
contractor but he was not knowing his name. He was
discontinued by contractor. I Card was not given to him.
Naresh Sahu, Kailash Ram, Keju Sahu, Paltan Ram,
Shyamlal, Satish Kumar, Sawant Ram Sahu, Shyamlal Sahu,
Santosh, Annu Bai, Balaram and many others not appeared
for their cross-examination. Shri Makhanlal in his cross
says he was working in Railway siding during 1980 to 1990.
wages were paid by contractor. He was discontinued by
FCI. Shri Prakash Yadav in his cross says he was working
with contractor Girish Agrawal. He was discontinued in
1990. Bhoduram in his cross says he was working in Railway
siding. He was also working in FCI. The wages were paid
by contractor. FCI did not give him appointment letter. Jokad
Ram Satnami says he was working with contractor but
could not tell his name. Dhanuram also deposed that he
was working with contractor. Almost all witnesses of Ist
party workmen who were subjected to cross-examine
admitted that they were working under contractor. Wages
were paid by contractor. It is surprise to say that Ramkishan
Devidas also says that they were working under contractor.
There is absolutely no evidence that all those 111 workers
were working with contractor engaged by FCI. At point of
Railway siding, FCI had any kind of control of the labours
engaged by the contractor appointed by IInd party. Thus
employer employee is not established. It is also established
that those 111 workers were engaged by contractor
appointed by 1st party at Railway siding. In absence of
such evidence, employer employee relationship could not
be established. Provisions of Section 20(2), 21 of CL(R&A)
Act cannot be invoked.
10. Evidence of management's witness Parth Shah and
Vijay Kumar Sonkusare on affidavit supporting contentions
of IInd party is filed. It is clear that FCI had engaged
contractors Shri Girish Kumar, Pradeep Kumar etc. for
carrying transport handling work at Rajnandgaon Depot.
Workmen were not engaged by such contractors for
carrying transport handling work at Railway Siding. Shri
Vijay Kumar in his cross-examination says that contract
was given by FCI management for engaging labours by
mate. Mate system was abolished around 1990. The
notification about regularization of labours is not produced.
He has denied that 113 labours were working at
Rajnandgaon depot. Railway siding gets rack at the FCI at
the time the goods are unloaded. The witness of
management claimed ignorance after departmentalization
of contract labours, what post was given to them. He claims
ignorance whether after discontinuing those 113 labours,
new labours were employed at Rajnandgaon depot. The
question asked in cross-examination to management's
witness all those 113 labours in Rajnandgaon depot are in
connection with the terms of reference itself. The terms of
reference pertains to parity of pay and other benefits to the
employees working at Railway siding. The pleading and
evidence are not consistent with the terms of reference.
11. The management's witness Shri Parth Shah in his
cross-examination denied that the goods were loaded in
Railway Wagon from FCI godowns. He denied suggestion
that FCI was engaging outside labours for such work.
Though Ist party has produced documents pertaining to
loading, unloading details, 1st party has not adduced any
evidence to prove those documents. From reasons
discussed above, it is clear that the pleadings and evidence
of 1st party are not consistent with terms of reference
claiming parity of benefits of 111 employees shown in
Annexure-A. The benefits given under agreement dated
12-4-91 discussed above cannot be extended to those
employees as they were not engaged by the contractors
engaged by FCI. For above reasons, I record my finding in
above point in Negative.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The demand of the Union that 112 Railway siding
Contract Labourers should be treated at par with depot
labourers with retrospective effect from 16-3-90 is not legal
and proper.
(2) Ist party labours are not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
2090
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 968-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,Q-lh-vkbZ- ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ua- 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 42@2010½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y&22011@14@2010&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 968.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 42/2010) of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Food Corporation of India, Bright Security
Service, Food Corporation of India, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 21/04/2015.
[No. L-22011/14/2010-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 42/2010
Registered on 28.6.2010
Sh. Nanak Chand S/o Sh. Angan Ram, Gali No. 2,
Bhagnavpura, T-Abohar, City Abohar, Distt. Ferozepur,
Punjab
...Petitioner
Versus
The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, District
Office, Malwal Road, Ferozepur City, Punjab.
Brig. Jaswant Singh Sandhu, Bright Security Services, 38,
Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar, Punjab.
The General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional
Office, Punjab Region, Sector 31-A, Bay No. 34 to 38,
Chandigarh, Punjab.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
:
Sh. Harpal Singh, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. N. K. Zakhmi, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 15.10.2014
Central Government vide Notification No. L-22011/14/
2010 [IR(CM-II)] dated 14.6.2010, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-
section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
1.
"Whether the contract between the management
of FCI, Ferozepur and the Contractor namely
M/s. Bright Security Services Ltd. is sham and
bogus?
2.
Whether the demand of Sh. Nank Chand S/o Sh.
Angan Ram for reinstatement with full back wages
and to treat him as regular employee of the FCI is
legal and justified?
3.
To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and
submitted statement of claim that he was appointed on
1.5.1995 as Security Guard at FCI Godown, Abohar, where
he worked till 10.8.1998 when his services were terminated
illegally. He has further pleaded that his attendance was
marked by the staff of the FCI who used to pay him salary.
The disciplinary action and control also vest with the FCI.
That the termination of his services is illegal and he be
reinstated in service with back wages.
Respondent management filed written reply pleading
that the work of Security Guard is not of a regular nature
and it was only seasonal which was being given by the
management to the contractor to provide labourer. It was
given to different agencies and it was given to Bright
Security Service, Amritsar in the year 1991. FCI used to
make payment to the contractor which in turn was making
the payment to the labourers. That the workman is not an
employee of the FCI.
Parties were given opportunities to lead evidence.
In support of his case, the workman appeared in the
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand the management examined Rahul
Chandan who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand taken
by the respondent management in the written statement.
I have heard Sh. Harpal Singh, counsel for the workman
and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the
workman that workman was appointed by the FCI who
used to pay him salary and his attendance was also marked
by the employees of the FCI who was also deducting Rs.
100/- every month from his pay and as such, he is an
employee of the FCI who used to exercise full control over
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2091
him and the contract entered into between the FCI and the
Bright Security Service is a sham transaction.
It may be added at the outset that no appointment letter
was issued to the workman and he was not engaged as per
any Rules and Regulations of the management for
recruitment. On mere assertion of the workman, it cannot
be said that he was an employee of the respondent
managment. He did not produce or prove any record on
the file that his presence was ever marked by the employees
of the respondent management and it also used to pay him
any salary or was exercising any control over him. When
he was not paid any salary by the management, it cannot
be said that he was ever an employee of the respondent
management. No doubt, the Court can see whether the
contract entered into between the management and the
contractor is a sham transaction, but no circumstance has
come on the file to establish that contract was just a
camouflage and the workman was actually employed by
the FCI. Thus, in the absence of any cogent and convincing
evidence, it cannot be held that workman was ever
appointed by the FCI. Being so, it cannot be said that the
contract between the agency and the respondent
management was a sham transaction and that too without
the impleading of the agency as a party in the reference
and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
In result, the reference is answered that the contract
between the respondent management and the contractor
was not a sham transaction and since he was not an
employee of the respondent management, it cannot be said
that his services were terminated by it and he is not entitled
to any relief and the reference is answered accordingly.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 969-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh-,l- ,.M lh-
vkj-ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/
kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 891@2005½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@04@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@271@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 969.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 891/2005 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 2, Chandigarh as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Central Soil & Conservation Research
& Training In and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 21/04/2015.
[No. L-42012/271/2001-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 891/2005
Registered on 12.9.2005
Workmen of Central Soil and Water Conservation, Research
and Training Institute Research Centre, Chandigarh.
Petitioners
Versus
The Officer Incharge, Central Soil & Water Conservation
Research & Training Institute, Research Centre, Sector 26,
Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
Sh. Ashwani Bakshi Adv.
For the Management
Sh. S.K. Gupta Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 14.10.2014
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/271/
2001 [IR(CM-II)] dated 12.5.2003, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-
section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the 20 workmen who were taken back in
the service as per settlement dated 4.4.1988 arrived
at between the union and management are entitled
back wages and benefits of the continuity of the
service? If so, to what relief they are entitled to?"
In response to the notice, the workmen submitted
statement of claim pleading that they were working as daily
wage workers with the respondent management and their
services were terminated on 21.12.1987. They raised a
dispute and a settlement took place on 4.4.1988 and all the
20 workmen were taken on duty. As per settlement, the
continuity of service and back wages was to be referred to
the Labour Court. The workmen were taken on duty in
pursuance of the settlement dated 4.4.1988. That they are
entitled to continuity of service and full back wages for the
period they remained out of service.
2092
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Managment filed written reply pleading that it is not an
'industry' and no finding was recorded during the settlement
that their termination was illegal. It is pleaded that workmen
were taken on duty in compliance of the settlement but
they are not entitled to continuity of service and back wages
as the order of the termination was never held illegal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.
Munna Lal appeared in the witness box and filed his
affidavit supporting the case of the workmen.
On the other hand the respondent management has
examined Sh. S.S. Chauhan and Tirlok Singh, who filed
their respective affidavits on the line of the defence taken
by the respondent management in the written statement.
I have heard Sh. Ashwani Bakshi, counsel for the
workman and Sh. S.K. Gupta, counsel for the management
and also perused the written submissions.
It is not denied that the workmen were working as daily
wage workers with the respondent management and their
services were terminated on 21.12.1987. When the dispute
came before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, a
settlement was effected on 4.4.1988 and as per this
settlement, the photocopy of which is on the file, the
workmen were to be re-employed in the same capacity and
both the parties agreed that the issue of wages and
continuity of service be referred to the Tribunal mutually.
It is also not disputed that the workmen were reinstated in
service in pursuance of the settlement. Now the workmen
claims wages for the period they remained out of service
and continuity in service. It was submitted that since the
workmen were reinstated by the managment in pursuance
of the said settlement and therefore the only consequence
is that they are entitled to back wages and continuity of
service which the management refused to grant to the
workmen.
Suffice it to say that the workmen were retrenched from
service on 21.12.1987. During the settlement, the
respondent management only agreed for their re-
employment as per settlement dated 4.4.1988. Though it is
mentioned in the settlement that parties will agitate the
matter of back wages and continuity of service before the
Tribunal. But the workmen are not entitled to the said
benefits on the basis of the settlement. There is nothing on
the file that their retrenchment was illegal at any point of
time and they can be given the back wages and continuity
of service only if their services were terminated illegally.
Since the illegality of the retrenchment of the workmen is
not proved on the file, they are not entitled to the benefits
as claimed by them.
Being so, it is held that the workmen are not entitled to
the back wages and benefits of continuity of service and
they are not entitled to any relief and the reference is ansered
accordingly.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 970-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w-lh-,y- ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj esa iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 107@07½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y& 22012@25@2001@vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 970.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 107/07 of the Central Govt.
Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Western Coalfields Ltd., and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 21/04/2015.
[No. L-22012/25/2001-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/107/07
Shri Ratiram Chourey,
S/o Shri Imrat,
R/o Ward No. 5, Patel Nagar,
Near Hand Pump Jhuggi,
Pathakhera,
Tehsil Ghodadongri, Betul.
...Workmen
Versus
General Manager
Western Coalfields Ltd.,
PO Pathakhera,
Betual
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 19th day of January, 2015
1. As per letter dated 23-10-07 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, as per Notification No. L-22012/25/
2001-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2093
"Whether the action of the management of
M/s WCL in terminating the services of Shri Ratiram
Chourey is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving references, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 3/1 to 3/2. Case of workman is that in 1981, he was
engaged in PK-2 mines. The employees similarly engaged
working under contractor were working on saw mill. They
were allowed regularization. The services of workman were
terminated without regularizing. The services of workman
were terminated without regularizing him. Workman raised
dispute before authorities. IInd party had contented that
the workman was not working on its establishment. The
conciliation proceedings failed. Government fund dispute
was not fit for making reference. Workman filed Writ Petition
No. 1803/03. As per judgement dated 24-4-07, Government
was directed to make reference of his dispute.
3. Workman submits that he was working for 12 years
from 1981 to 1993. Without giving opportunity of hearing,
his services were terminated is illegal. Termination of service
is in violation of principles of natural justice. Workman
submits that he should have been regularized as other
workmen with contractor were regularized. Workman prays
for his reinstatement with backwages.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement. Management had
denied employment of workman. In this statement of claim,
workman has pleaded that he was engaged by contractor.
That dispute is raised by workman after 19 years is belated.
From Writ Petition filed by workman 1803/03, the reference
is made by the Government. While making reference order,
it was observed that Respondent No. 1 was given liberty
to raise all questions before Tribunal. That dispute raised
by workman beyond 7 years is not tenable. IInd party has
referred to ratio held in various cases.
5. It is further submitted that Coal India is a company
of Govt. of India. The service conditions of employees are
covered by NCWA. Coal India has recruitment policy. The
requisition is required to be sent to the Employment
Exchange. The Committee selects the candidates holding
interviews. The management is entitled to get miscellaneous
casual nature of work executed through contractors. The
contractors were temporary and casual in nature. For this
management invites tender from the contractors. The lowest
bidder is awarded the contract. The management floated
the tendera dated 10-9-81 for coal and stone/shale removal
from MPEB crusher. The termination of employees engaged
by contractor was with contractor. IInd party was not
concerned with termination of contractor employees. All
adverse contentions of workman are denied. It is submitted
that workman was working through contractor, he cannot
be regularized. On such contention, IInd party prays for
rejection of claim.
6. Considering pleading on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
management of M/s WCL in
In Affirmative
terminating the services of
Shri Ratiram Chourey is
legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
7. Workman has filed affidavit of his evidence covering
his contentions in statement of claim. That from 1981, he
was working in PK-2 Mines. Other employees engaged by
contractor were regularized. His services were terminated
without hearing, he was not regularized by the management.
contractor Ramjas has filed his affidavit. Workman in his
further evidence proved documents Exhibit W-6, W-7. In
his cross-examination workman says he is not educated.
He was working under contractor Ramjas. He was doing
work of removal of stones and coal. His wages were paid
by contractor. He worked under contractor. Other workers
were also regularly working like him. He further says that
he had not retained copy of W-6/1, W-7/1 submitted to
WCL. He was paid weekly wages. WCL was making
payment to contractor. He denies that documents produced
by him are fabricated/bogus.
8.
From evidence of workman, it is clear that he was
working under contractor. The terms of reference relates to
legality of termination of services of workman by IInd party.
The reference does not relate to regularization of services
of workman like regularisation of services and other workers
with contractor. The substance of the relief claimed by
workman for regularization is beyond the terms of reference.
Workman has pleaded that termination of his service is
illegal. The evidence of workman and witness Lakhanlal is
clear that they were working under contractor, contractor
is not made party. It is not case of workman that the contract
was sham and bogus and he was employee of the Principal
employer i.e. IInd party.
9.
The documents produced on record Exhibit 7, 7/1
are affidavits of the contractor Ramjas. He was not
subjected to cross-examination. Management has
produced tender notice M-1 for removal of coal, stone/
shale dated 5-9-81. Exhibit M-2 is letter issued to contractor
contending several terms and conditions. Exhibit M-3 is
letter to General Manager sent by Personal Manager. Exhibit
M-4 is also letter by Dy.Chief Personal Manager to General
Secretary of Union that demand for regularization of
Narayan could not be considered. Exhibit M-5 is letter given
2094
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
by Dy. Chief Personal Manager denying demand for
regularisation in proceeding before RLC.
10. Management's witness Shri R.D.Tuddu supported
contentions in Written Statement filed by management of
IInd party. That workman was not engaged by IInd party.
The work was awarded to Ramjas contractor. Management's
witness in his cross-examination denies sln,g that workman
was working with IInd party. He claims ignorance whether
workman was working under contractor. In view of
admission in cross-examination of workman, he was
working under contractor, the contractor is not impleaded
as party. There is no pleading or evidence that the contract
was sham and bogus or the workman was employ of IInd
party. Claim of workman cannot be upheld.
11.
Learned counsel for IInd party Shri A. K. Shashi
has relied on catin of cases 2007(1) SCC-408, AIR 2007-SC-
1166, 2001-1-SCC-424, 2004-II-LLJ460, 2000-1-LJ-561, 1998-
LAB.I.C.1702. I have gone through the ratio held in all
those cases, detailed discussion in all those cases is not
necessary. Workman has failed to plead and prove that
contract was bogus and he was employee of IInd party. In
absence of such pleading and proof, it cannot be said
workman was terminated by IInd party. Employer- employee
relationship is not established between parties therefore I
record my finding that it is not proved that workman was
terminated by Ilnd party.
12.
In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of IInd party in terminating the services
of Shri Ratiram Chourey is not proved illegal as
workman was not engaged or terminated by Ilnd
party.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief. Parties to
bear their own costs.
13. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R. B.PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 971-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,llhlh,y ds izca/
kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k eas
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@2010½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22013@1@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 971.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/12/2010) as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 28/04/2015.
[No. L-22013/1/2015-IR(C-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, GODAVARIKHANI.
Present :
SRI G.V. KRISHNAIAH,
Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer.
Thursday, on this the 10th Day of July, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No.12 OF 2010
Between:—
Erukala Rajaiah. Ex-Coal Filler, EC No. 0916471,
S/o. Mallaiah, age 42 years, C/o. B. Amarender Rao,
Advocate, Raghupathi Nagar (Ganganagar), P O:
Godavarikhani, District Karimnagar — 505 209, Andhra
Pradesh.
... Petitioner
-And-
1. The Superintendent of Mines, SC Co., Ltd., GDK,
No.6-B Incline, PO. Godavarikhani, District
Karimnagar-505 209, Andhra Pradesh.
2. The General Manager, S.C. Co., Ltd., Ramagundam
Area — 1, PO. Godavarikhani, District Karimnagar—
505 209, Andhra Pradesh.
3. The Chairman and Managing Director, S.C.Co., Ltd.,
P.O. Kothagudem, Khammam District, Andhra
Pradesh.
... Respondents
This Industrial Dispute petition coming on before me
for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Amarendar Rao,
Advocate, for the petitioner and Sri D. Krishnamurthy,
Advocate, for the respondents, and the matter having stood
over before me for consideration till this date, the Court
passed the following:—
AWARD
1. This is a petition filed U/Sec.2-(A) (2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 by the petitioner seeking re-instatement
with back wages. The petitioner worked as Coal Filler in
the respondent company. He was removed from service on
the ground of absenteeism.
2. According to the petitioner he joined in the company
in the year 1987 and worked without any adverse remarks
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2095
and had put in more than required 100 musters. It was only
in the year 2003, because of severe ill-health, domestic
problems and demise of his family members petitioner had
put in 93 musters. The petitioner underwent medical
treatment in the respondent company hospital, referral
hospitals and private hospitals. However without
considering the health condition of the petitioner,
respondent issued charge-sheet, dt. 22.2.2004 alleging
habitual absenteeism. The petitioner gave his explanation,
but a false enquiry was conducted on 18.6.2004 and after
issuing show-cause notice, on 16.4.2004 petitioner was
removed from service. The punishment imposed by the
respondent is shockingly disproportionate and amount to
economic death of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner may
be reinstated with continuity of service and other
consequential benefits and full back wages.
3. The respondent filed counter stating that petitioner
raised a dispute before the Asst. Labour Commissioner
(Central), Mancherial vide conciliation proceedings No.1/
14/2005, dt 10.5.2005 through Secretary, SCMLU (INTUC)
and the same is ended in failure and referred to Central
Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad
and it was dismissed by passing NIL award. The petitioner
suppressed the same filed this case. The petitioner attended
his duties as follows:
Sl. No.
Year
No. of Musters
1.
2000
171
2.
2001
152
3.
2002
140
4.
2003
93
5.
January 2004 to
86
November, 2004
4.
The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet and
enquiry was held against him in which he admitted his
absence from duties. Enquiry was conducted following all
the rules and as per the principles of natural justice.
Petitioner was counselled on 25.4.2004 and was kept in
observation for three months, the petitioner failed to put in
the required musters. During those three months he
attended for only 28 days instead of 60 musters. The
respondent company cannot employ chronic absentees.
The present petition is not maintainable after dismissal of
the reference in LCID No.45 of 2006 by Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad.
5. The petitioner filed memo U/Sec.11A conceding the
validity of Domestic enquiry. During the course of hearing
Ex.M-1 to M-14 have been marked on behalf of the
respondent and no documents are marked on behaf of the
Petitioner.
6. Now the point for consideration is wheather the
Petitioner can be re-instated into service?
7. Even according to the respondent the number of
musters put in by the petitioner up to 2002 was quite
reasonable, considering the fact that the work of an under
ground coal filler involves a lot of physical strain. That too
petitioner joined in service in the year 1987 and obviously
upto the year 2003 he worked satisfactorily. Further there
was some hastiness acts on the part of the respondent as
the counseling was done on 24.5.2014 and an undertaking
was taken from the petitioner that he will put in minimum of
20 musters every month from June, 2004 to August, 2004,
but even after the expiry of 3 months period enquiry was
conducted on 18-6-2004. Thus it is apparent that the
petitioner was not given the chance to prove his readiness
to join work. Enquiry report was given on 20.7.2004 and
show cause notice was given on 16.9.2004. Subsequently
petitioner was dismissed from service as per order, dt.
6.1.2005 with effect from 10.1.2005.
8. The statutory right of the petitioner to move this
petition cannot be taken away by mere filing of reference
before Central Government Industrial Tribunal. Considering
the fact that the petitioner served the respondent
organization for about 14 years without any remark and it
was only in the year 2003-2004, that there was less
attendance by the petitioner, he need not have been
punished with the extreme punishment of dismissal. In one
stroke the respondent has stated that the petitioner will
not be in service from 1987. Viewed from any angle the
punishment given to the petitioner is shockingly
disproportionate and completely ignoring the previous
service of the petitioner for 14 years. Certain unavoidable
circumstances in the life of a person may compel him to
forego his duties at the place of employees, but that does
not mean that he is to be dismissed from service without
taking into account his previous service. Therefore this is
a fit case to re-instate the petitioner and accordingly the
petitioner is to be re-instated into service within 30 days
from the date of this award becoming enforceable.
9. In the result, the dismissal order dt. 6.1.2005 marked
as Ex.M-10 passed by the respondent No. 2 is set aside.
The respondents' company is hereby directed to re-instate
the petitioner into service as coal filler within (30) days
from the date of this award becoming enforceable. The
petitioner is entitled to protection of the services rendered
by him from the year 1987 till his dismissal from service and
accounted for all purposes. However the petitioner is not
entitled to any back wages, but he is entitled to all attendant
benefits.
G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
2096
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For workman:-
For Management:-
-Nil-
-Nil-
EXHIBITS
For workman:-
-Nil-
For Management:-
Ex. M-1
Dt. 15-02-2004
Charge Sheet o/copy
Ex. M-2
Dt. 22-03-2004
Explanation to the charge
sheet
Ex. M-3
Dt. 24-05-2004
Undertaking given by the
petitioner after counseling
regarding his absenteeism.
Ex. M-4
Dt. 08-06-2004
Enquiry notice.
Ex. M-5
Dt. 18-06-2004
Enquiry proceedings.
Ex. M-6
Dt. 20-07-2004
Enquiry report.
Ex. M-7
Dt. 16-09-2004
Show cause notice.
Ex. M-8
Dt. 16-09-2004
Ack, to show cause notice.
Ex. M-9
Dt. --
Explanation to the show
cause notice.
Ex. M-10
Dt. 06-01-2005
Dismissal order.
Ex. M-11
Dt. 02-08-2006
Order of Govt. of India, New
Delhi, referring the dispute
to the CGIT, Hyderabad.
Ex. M-12
Dt. 11-10-2006
Notice in ID-45/2006 issued
by the Secretary to Govt.
CGIT, Hyderabad, x.copy.
Ex. M-13
Dt. 02-02-2009
Award in ID. No. 45/2006 of
CGIT, Hyderabad, x.copy.
Ex. M-14
Dt. 24-03-2009
Notification letter No.
22012/246/2005-IR (CM.II)
Govt. of India, New Delhi.
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 972-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wñlhñ,yñ ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1@2012½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28&04&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22013@1@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 972.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award of the Cent. Govt. Indus.
Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Nagpur (ID/1/2012) as shown
in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of WCL and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 28.04.2015.
[No. L-22013/1/2015-IR(C-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/Application 1/2012
Date: 30.01.2015
Applicant:
Rajesh S/o Dashrath Leader,
Aged about 38 years,
Occupation-Ward boy,
R/o. Ramnagar, Qtr. No. 238
Ghugus, P.O. Ghugus,
Distt. Chandrapur, 442505
Versus
Respondents:
(1)
Western Coalfields Limited,
Civil Lines, Nagpur,
Through its Managing Director.
(2)
The Chief General Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Wani Area, Urga Gram,
Post- Tadali, Distt. Chandrapur.
(3)
The General Manager,
Western Coalfields Ltd.
Ghugus Coalliery,
Post- Ghugus,
Distt. Chandrapur.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2097
AWARD
(Dated: 30th January, 2015)
This is an application filed by the applicant, Shri Rajesh
Dasharath Leader ("the applicant" in short), under section
13(A) of the Industrial employment (Standing Orders) Act,
1946 ("Act, 1946" in short) for interpretation of the Certified
Standing Order of Western Coalfields Limited ("WCL" in
short).
The case of the applicant as projected in the application
is that he has passed class VII and WCL is a company
formed by the Government of India in pursuance to the
Coal Mines Notionalization Act, 1973 and is a subsidiary
of Coal India Limited and the Standing Order of WCL dated
19.02.1993 has been duly certified and the same has been
amended from time to time and the service conditions of
the employees of WCL including himself are governed by
the provisions of the said certified Standing Order and he
came to be appointed as a General Mazdoor Category 1 on
29.10.1999 and in due course, he was promoted and posted
at Rajib Ratan Hospital, Ghugus w.e.f. 31.12.2007 and his
wife, Archana got burn injuries and expired on 06.11.2008
and 6.11.2008 was his rest day and from 06.11.2008, he
attended the post funeral ceremonies of his wife and on
09.11.2008, he was arrested by the police and on 06.10.2009,
he was granted bail by the Hon'ble High Court and he was
released on bail and on 15.10.2009, he went for joining his
duties at the hospital, but he was not allowed to join duty,
so he contracted his counsel at Nagpur and on 07.11.2009,
his counsel addressed a letter to the Additional General
Manager, WCL, Ghugus, which was duly received by the
respondents and by the said letter, demand was made to
allow him to resume his duties but even then, he was not
allowed to join duties and his salary from 04.11.2008 was
also not paid to him and at the relevant time, he was having
12 days of earned leave, 11 days of causal leave and 60
days of medical leave and therefore, there was no reason
to withhold his salary from 04.11.2008.
The further case of the applicant is that he had informed
the respondents on 18.11.2008, through the Jail
Superintendent, Chandrapur about his detention in
custody and therefore, the respondents ought to have
suspended him, consequent upon his arrest by the police
on 06.11.2008 and his absence was on valid reason and
was therefore was not a misconduct, but he was served
with the charge sheet dated 17.11.2008, under clause 26.30
of the certified Standing Order, on the allegation of his
remaining absent from 04.11.2008 without any intimation
or sufficient reason and his arrest was a reasonable cause
for his not resuming duty and therefore, charge sheet
should not have been issued by the respondents under
clause 26.30 of the Standing Order against him and in
pursuance to the said charge sheet, a departmental enquiry
was conducted and in his report, the enquiry Officer, Shri
Mahesh Harkatal concluded that after the completion of
the Criminal proceedings, final action could be taken and
from such facts, it is clear that the charge of unauthorized
absent from duty was not proved against him and the charge
under clause 26.30 of the standing Order did not have any
relation with his convicted in the criminal case.
It is also pleaded by the applicant that the respondents
isued another charge sheet dated 20.12.2009 under clause
26.8 of the Certified Standing Order against him on the
allegation of his conviction in any court of Law for criminal
offence involving moral turpitude and he faced his trial in
Sessions Case No. 29/2009 under sections 498-A, 304-B
and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Learned
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chandrapur and by order
dated 23.09.2009, he was convicted by the Court under
section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15000/-,
i.d. to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two
months and against his conviction and sentenced, he filed
Criminal Appeal No. 463/2009 before the Hon'ble High Court,
Nagpur Bench and the appeal was admitted and he was
granted bail and the substantive sentence of imprisonment
was suspended as per order dated 06.10.2009 of the Hon'ble
High Court and clauses 28.2 to 28.4 of the certified Standing
Order deal with suspension of a delinquent employee, but
he was not suspended by the respondents and he was also
not allowed to join duties and as he was not allowed to join
duties, he was entitled to subsistence allowance as
prescribed or the entire period needs to be treated as duty
and therefore, it is necesary to interpret as to whether, an
employee can be deemed to be under suspension and
enttled to subsistence allowace, in case the said employee
is not allowed to resume duty.
The applicant has prayed to interpret the Certified
Standing Order and to find out as to whether he is entitled
to full salary/subsistence allowance, when he was not
allowed to resume duties, even though he went to join
duties.
3. The respondents have filed a joint written statement
and have pleaded inter-alia that the application is not
maintainable in the eye of Law and is liable to be rejected as
the applicant has not approached the Tribunal with clean
hands and he has tried to mislead the Tribunal and has
suppressed material facts and the applicant remained absent
from duty without any sanctioned leave or information from
04.11.2008 and for the said reason, charge sheet dated
16/17.11.2008 under clause 26.30 of the certified Standing
Order of WCL was served on him and he submitted the
reply to the said charge sheet, stating that he was arrested
by the Police on suspicion of his involvement in his wife's
death and was detained in judicial custody and 10 months
of the arrest of the applicant, a leter dated 09.09.2009 was
received from the police station Ghugus, Chandrapur
regarding the arrest of the applicant on 09.11.2008, in
connection with his wife's death and that the applicant was
2098
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
charge sheeted in Crime No. 151/2008, under sections
498-A, 304-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was
kept in judicial custody and in view of such information,
action against the applicant was not taken on the basis of
the charge sheet dated 16/17.11.2008 and the applicant was
convicted in Sessions Case No. 29/2009 under section
498-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and to pay a
fine of Rs. 15000/- and the applicant has filed criminal Appeal
No. 436/2009 before the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench
against the order of conviction and sentence and by the
order of the Hon'ble High Court, dated 06.10.2009, the
applicant was released on Bail on 10.10.2009 and by the
order of the Hon'ble High Court, the sentence of
imprisonment has been suspended pending hearing and
final disposal of the criminal appeal and the said appeal is
still subjudiced and due to conviction of the applicant in
the criminal case, charge sheet dated 17/20.12.2009 under
clause 26.8 of the Certified Standing Order was submitted
against him and the applicant submitted his explanation to
the said charge sheet on 28.12.2009 and as his explanation
was found not to be satisfactory a departmental enquiy
was conducted against him by adopting due procedure
and the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal
from service against the applicant, holding the charge to
have been fully proved against him. By way of amendment
that the applicant filed a case before the Assistant
Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandrapur-Cum-
Conciliation Authority vide case No. 54 (117) 2011 dated
14.10.2011 for payment of subsistence allowance and wages
and to allow him to join duty and the applicant during the
enquiry proceeding or before that had not applied for
subsistence allowance and he made an application for
subsistence allowance only on 27.01.2012, after filing of
the case before ALC and before failure of conciliation, the
present application has been filed and unless, the
conciliation proceeding before the ALC is completed, the
applicant cannot take the shelter of the Tribunal as in both
the proceedings, the relief claimed is indirectly and
consequentially the same and as such, this application is
liable to be rejected.
4. It is also averred by the respondents that to entertain
an application u/s. 13-A of the Act, 1946 and to decide the
same, a specific notification is required to be published by
the appropriate Government in this official gazette and there
is no such notification empowering this Tribunal to
entertain the application u/s. 13-A of the Act, 1946 and to
decide the same, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide
the application and the application is not maintainable and
no salary is payable to the applicant from 04.11.2008 as he
did not work from the said date as per the principle of "No
Work, No Pay" and to his credit and the management
reserves the right to suspend a workman being prosecuted
in a court of law for any criminal offence involving moral
turpitude or murder until the disposal of the trial, as per
clause 28.9 of the Certified Standing Order and the applicant
is not entitled for subsistence allowance as per clauses
28.4 and 28.9 of the Certified Standing Order and the
application filed by the applicant is liable to be rejected.
5. In the rejoinder, the applicant has pleaded that, the
quesion raised by him is the question of interpretation of
the Standing Order and in case No. CGIT/NGP/Application
No. 1/2006 decided on 22.03.2012, it has been held by this
Tribunal that an application u/s. 13-A of the Act, 1946 is
maintainable and the various grounds raised in the reply
by the respondents are without any substance and reference
to the proceedings before the ALC is totally unwarranted
and the proceeding before the said authority was at the
instance of the union, whereas, the present application is
filed by him in his individual capacity and the application
is maintainable.
6. In suport of his claim, the applicant has examined
himself as a witness and in his evidence on affidavit, he
has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim.
In his cross-examination, the applicant has admitted that
as from 04.11.2008, he did not join his duty and did not
work from 04.11.2008, he was not paid wages by the
management and he did not submit any leave application
to the management of WCL for remaining absent from duty
and prior to November, 2008, he had already availed all
type of admissible leaves in this account and as he remained
unauthorized absent, management submitted the first
charge sheet on 17.11.2008 and after receipt of the charge
sheet, he sent a notice through the Superintendent of
Chandrapur Jail to the management and management did
not take any further action on the charge sheet dated
17.11.2008. The applicant has further admitted that due to
his conviction in the criminal case, he was not allowed to
join duty by the management and a second charge sheet
was submitted by the management on 17.12.2009, on the
ground of his conciliation in the criminal case and as per
the final order of the Disciplinary Authority dated
01.09.2013, he has been dismissed from service and I had
not filed any application before the management for grant
of subsistence allowance to him during the period of the
enquiry and for the first time, on 27.01.2012, he filed an
application for subsistence allowance and management
gave reply to his application on 21.02.2012.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the applicant that in this application it is
necessary to interpret the Certified Standing Order to find
out as to whether the applicant, who was not allowed to
resume his duties, even though, he went to join duties to
entitled to full salary or subsistence allowance and clause
28.9 of the Standing Orders deals with the provisions of
suspension of a workman, when he is prosecuted in a court
of law for a grave criminal offence involving moral turpitude
or murder until the disposal of the trial and payment of
subsistance allowance and the applicant was arrested by
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2099
the police on 09.11.2008 for commission of the offences
u/s. 302, 498A and 304B of the IPC for the death of his wife
and on 06.10.2009, he was released on bail by the Hon'ble
High Court and on 15.10.2009, he went to join his duties,
but he was not allowed to join duty and he was illegally
and without any order or without having any provision in
the Standing Orders was kept away from duties.
It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the
applicant that the applicant was convicted by the learned
Additional Session Judge, Chandrapur by order dated
23.09.2009, under section 498-A of the I.P.C. and sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
15000/- and the applicant preferred an appeal against the
order of his conviction and sentence before the Hon'ble
High Court, Nagpur Bench and by order of the Hon'ble
High Court, dated 06.10.2009 he was released on bail and
the sentence of imprisonment was suspended and the
respondents had served a charge sheet dated 17.11.2008
on the applicant for remaining unauthorized absent from
duty, but did not take further action when on the said charge,
as it was made known that the applicant was detained in
the Jail custody, but another charge sheet dated 20.12.2009
was served on the workman on the allegation of his
conviction u/s. 498A of IPC and he was dismissed from
service on 01.09.2013 and it is therefore necessary to
interpret the Standing Orders and to held that the applicant
is entitled to full salary and allowance admissible to him
and that he be deemed to be on duty from 15.10.2009 till the
date of dismissal.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the repondents that in absence of any notification u/s.
13A of the Act, 1946 by the Central Government,
empowering this Tribunal to interpret the Standing Orders,
the Tribunal has no power to interpret the Standing Orders
and the applicant had not asked for any subsistence
allowance prior to 27.01.2012 and he has raised on an
industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Chandrapur regarding the non-
payment of salary/subsistence allowance for conciliation
and during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings,
he had filed this application and for that this application is
not maintainable and under clause 28.9 of the Certified
Standing Orders, the right to suspend a workman is with
the management and as the applicant was not suspended
and as he had not worked, he is also not entitled for the
salary basing on the principle of "no work no pay" and the
application is liable to be rejected.
10. First of all, I will take up the submission made by the
learned advocate for the respondents regarding the
jurisdiction of this Tribunal to entertain and dispose of the
application, on the ground that a special notification under
section 13A of the Act, 1946 is necessary, empowering this
Labour Court to exercise the jurisdiction to entertain and
dispose of applications under section 13-A and as there is
no such notification, this tribunal is not empowered to
entertain and dispose of the application.
It is to be mentioned here that, in his application the
applicant has referred to the order passed in application
No. 1/2006 by this Tribunal on 22.03.2012, holding that this
Tribunal has jurisdiction to interpret the standing orders,
even in absence of any notification u/s. 13-A of the Act,
1946 by the Central Government. It will not be out of place
to mention that in Application No./2006, order had been
passed, basing on the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble
High Court of Bombay as reported in 1969 LAB IC-934
(Chipping and Painting Employees' Association Private
limited, Bombay Vs. A.T. Zambre and another). The Ho'ble
high Court, in the said decision have held that:
"(A) Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,
(1946), S. 13A-Respondent appointed Presiding
Officer of Labour Court under S. 8, Industrial Dispute
Act. He can decide questions relating to interpretation
and application of standing order, even in absence
of notification under S. 13 A-Industrial Disputes Act,
(1947), Ss. 2(k), 7, 8, 10 (1) (c), Schedule 2, Entries 1
and 2.
Where the respondent was appointed as Presiding
Officer of the Central Government Labour Court under
S. 8 of the Industrial Disputes Act but there was no
notification issued under S. 13A of the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act either
empowering the respondent to dispose of the
application for reinstatement of the workman who
was treated as having abandoned his services in
terms of the standing orders, by overstaying his leave
without getting the same extended, or the questions
or proceedings as to application or interpretation of
a standing order under the provision of section 13A,
the respondent is competent even in the absence of
a notification under section 13A to entertain an
application under sec. 13-A and under Sec. 7 of the
Industrial Disputes Act read with Entries 1 and 2 of
the Second Schedule to the Act."
However, after going through the above said decision
of the Hon'ble High court in detail, it is found that the
Hon'ble high court have also stated that:—
"The application and interpretation of Standing
Orders would undoubtedly fall within the definition
of an 'industrial dispute' in Section 2(k) Industrial
Disputes Act. An industrial dispute after it is referred
to a Labour Court under the provision of Section
10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, would be a
proceeding. Similarly, a question arising as to the
application or interpretation of a Standing order
under s 13-A could be referred to any Labour Court
constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act and
would be a proceeding. A question under section
2100
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13A as to the application or interpretation of a
standing order would be a proceeding of the same
kind as a dispute under section 10 (1) (c) of the
Industrial Disputes Act as to the application or
interpretation of a standing order under Entry No. 2
in the Second Schedule. The words and specified for
the disposal of such proceedings in section 13A
would mean 'Specified for the disposal of disputes
under Entry No. 2 in the Second Schedule to the
Industrial Disputes Act.
The object of section 13-A which is to provide a
provision which enables workmen to the question of
application and interpretation of standing orders
determined without the intervention of appropriate
Government will best be served by the above
interpretation which is a reasonable interpretation.
Once a labour court is consituted to deal with matters
in Entry No. 2 in second schedule, the question must
be referred to such Court and if there are more than
one Court so authorized in any area, the party
referring the question would obviously have a choice
of forums, unless there were certain rules under which
his choice was limited."
From the principles as mentioned above, it is clear that
though this Tribunal is empowered to exercise the power
under section 13-A of the Act, of the Act, 1946, without
any specific notification by the Central Government in that
regard, the Tribunal is not empowered to entertain an
application filed u/s. 13-A of the Act, 1946 filed by a party
directly before the tribunal. The Party is required to raise
an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer in that
regard and on failure of the concilation; a failure report has
to be submitted to the appropriate government and the
Appropriate Government has to refer the industrial dispute
to the Tribunal for adjudication and then only, the Tribunal
can adjudicate the dispute and pass the necesssary order.
Admittedly, in the case, the applicant has raised the
dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Chandrapur and
the same is pending for conciliation. So, applying the
principles as enunciated by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court
as mentioned in the decision referred above to the case in
hand, it is found that the application filed by the applicant
directly before this Tribunal is not maintainable and the
same is liable to be rejected. In view of the finding that the
application is not maintainable, there is no scope to decide
the application on merit. Hence it is ordered:—
ORDER
The application is not maintainable and is rejected. The
applicant is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 973-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wñlhñ,yñ ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@2014½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28&04&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@39@2014&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 973.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Govenment
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 12/2014 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, NAGPUR as shown in
the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
management of Western Coalfields Limited, Umrer Area,
and their workmen, reveived by the Central Government
on 28-04-2015.
[No. L-22012/39/2014-IR(CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/12/2014
Date: 12.01.2015
Party No.
1 :
The
Sub-Area
Manager,
Western
Coalfields
Limited,
Makardhokda Sub-Area,
Po & Tah. Umrer, Distt. Nagpur-
4110204 (MS).
:
The Deputy Chief Personal Manager,
Western
Coalfields
Limited,
Markardhokda Sub-Area,
Po & Teh. Umrer, Distt. Nagpur-
4110204 (MS).
Versus
Party No. 2
:
The President, Samyukta Khadan
Mazdoor Sangh (SKMS),
WCL, Umrer Area, Tah. Umrer,
Distt. Nagpur-441204.
AWARD
(Dated: 12th January, 2015)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2101
(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 W.C.L. and the workman, Shri Deorao B.
Kuhite for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/39/2014-
IR (CM-II) dated 30.05.2014, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Western
Coalfields Ltd., Makardhokda Sub-Area by denying
the regularisation of post of Clerk Gr. I to Accounts
Clerk Gr. I or denying change of designation in
respect of Sh. Deorao B. Kuhite is just, fair & legal?
If not, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled/"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
by registered post with acknowledgement due to file their
respective statement of claim and written statement.
On receipt of the notice the workman appeared on
22.09.2014 and the case was adjourned to 20.11.2014 for
filing of Statement of claim, documents and list of witnesses
and reliance by the workman. The management
representative appeared on 20.11.2014. On 20.11.2014,
neither the workman appeared nor filed any statement of
claim. However, in the interest of justice the case was
adjourned to 12.01.2015 for filing of statement of claim by
the workman, to give him a chance to take part in the case.
On 12.01.2015 also, the workman did not appear. No
Statement of claim was also filed by the workman. Hence,
the case was closed and fixed for award.
3. It is well settled that whenever a party challenges the
legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the
illegality of the order and it is imperative for him to file
written statement before the Industrial Court setting out
grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also
produce evidence to prove his case. If the party fails to
appear or file written statement or produce evidence, the
dispute referred by the Government cannot be answered in
favour of the said party and the party would not be entitled
to any relief.
Judging the present case with the touch stone of the
settled principles as mentioned above, it is found that the
workman has neither appeared nor filed any statement of
claim and as such, he is not entitled to any relief. 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] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 974-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wñlhñ,yñ ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 48@2009½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28&04&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@42@2009&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 974.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 48/2009
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
dispute between the management of Western Coalfields
Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 28-04-2015.
[No. L-22012/42/2009-IR(CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/48/2009
Date: 14.01.2015.
Party No. 1
:
The Chief General Manager,
Ballarpur Area,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Ballarpur, At/PO: Sasti,
Chandrapur (MS).
Versus
Party No. 2
:
The Secretary,
Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS),
At/PO: Ballarpur,
Chandrapur (MS).
AWARD
(Dated: 14th 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 and their workmen, Shri, for adjudication,
as per letter No. L-22012/42/2009-IR (CM-II) dated
16.03.2010, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Ballarpur
Area of WCL in allegedly denying promotion to
2102
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
S/Shri S.B. Deshmukh, R.L. Narawar, T.K. Raipure
and P.G. Golibar is legal and justified? To what relief
are the claimant workmen entitled for?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri, ('the
workman' in short), filed the statement of claim and the
management of ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written
statement.
The case of workman as presented by the union in the
statement of claim is that it is a registered trade union under
the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and Party No. 1 is a government
company and is a state within Article 12 of the Constitution
of India and JBCCI has formulated different promotional
cadres for different trades including for promoting of the
Ministerial/Clerical cadre, Stores Personnel and loading
Personnel etc. and the coal companies are bound to
implement such cadre scheme to give promotion to their
employees and Annexure VIII-3 of Cadre Scheme VIII (Cadre
Scheme for ministerial staff) circulated vide implementation
instruction No. 34 dated 17.07.1984 provides promotional
growth for Loading Personnel and according to the said
scheme, the carrier growth is Assistant Loading Clerk Grade
III, Loading Clerk Grade II, Assistant Loading Inspector/
Assistant Loading Superintendent T&C Grade-C, Loading
Inspector/Assistant Loading Superintendent T&C Grade-
B and finally Senior Loading Inspector/Senior Loading
Superintendent T&C Grade-A and all the four workmen
who are working as Loading Clerk Grade-II were transferred
from one mine to another and one sub area to another and
due to such deliberate transfers, they were not considered
for promotion.
It is further leaded by the union on behalf of the workmen
that Shri M.P. Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal Kusma, who
joined as General Mazdoor Category-I w.e.f. 09.12.1992 and
21.12.1992 were regularized as General Clerk Grade-III w.e.f.
01.01.1994 vide office order dated 16.03.1994 and 30.03.1995
respectively and out of way within a year, they were again
promoted as General Clerk Grade-II w.e.f. 01.01.1995, without
observing the time limit fixed for promotion to the higher
post as prescribed in the cadre scheme and they were
brought to the loading cadre as Clerk Grade-II w.e.f.
15.03.1997 and promoted as Assistant Loading Inspector
Grade-C and at present they are working at Ballarpur Open
Cast Mine on promotion to the post of Loading Supervisor
Grade-B w.e.f. 14.10.2005.
The further case as presented by the union on behalf of
the workmen is that workman, Shri S.B. Deshmukh initially
was appointed on 06.11.1989 as an apprentice and in 1990,
he was confirmed in Category-II and he was regularized as
Assistant Loading Clerk Grade-III w.e.f. 06.11.1993 and he
was the senior most employee under the cadre scheme of
Loading Personnel and Shri Deshmukh was transferred
from Sasti O/c to Gouri O/c and again he was transferred to
Sasti Colliery on 25.08.2006 and because of such frequent
transfers, he has been stagnant in the post of Loading
Clerk Grade-II since 01.07.1997 without promotion and he
was superceded by Shri M.P. Prabhudas, Shri Venugopal
and others twice, once at the time of promotion to the post
of Assistant Loading Inspector Grade-C and again at the
time of promotion to the post of Loading Superintendent
Grade-B in the year 2005 and since April, 2010, he is working
at Ballarpur Colliery 3 & 4 pits as Loading Clerk Grade-II.
It is further pleaded by the union that workman, Shri
P.G. Golibar was initially appointed on 18.10.1990 and he
was regularized as Assistant Loading Clerk Grade-II w.e.f.
01-07-1997 alongwith Shri Deshmukh and Shri Narawar
and he has been stagnant in the said post since the last 13
years without promotion and he has been superceded by
Shri M.P. Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal at the time of
promotion to the post of Loading Clerk Grade-I and
Supervisor Grade-B and workman, Shri T.K. Raipure was
appointed as Apprentice Trainee Operator w.e.f. 03.12.1990,
but he was performing the duties at the Weighbridge and
he was regularized in the post of Assistant Loading Clerk
Grade-III w.e.f. 01.01.1994 and he was promoted to Clerk
Grade-II w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and since then he has been made
stagnant in that post without promotion and he has been
superceded by Shri M.P. Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal at
the time of promotion to the post of Loading Clerk Grade-I
and Supervisor Grade-B and Shri Raipure belongs to
schedule caste and his promotion was to be regularized as
per the reservation policy for SC/ST of Government of India
and workman, Shri R.L. Narwar belongs to schedule tribe
and he was initially appointed on 10.10.1991 and was
regularized in the post of Assistant Loading Clerk Grade-
III w.e.f. 01.01.1994 and was promoted to Grade-II w.e.f.
01.01.1997 and depriving of the workmen of their legitimate
promotion by Party No. 1 was in gross violation of the
statutory provisions of Law and though the workman made
representation to their Controlling Officer by their
representation dated 29.12.2008, but Party No. 1 did not
consider their representation and Party No. 1 committed
unfair labour practice and the workmen are entitled for
promotion from the date of promotion of Shri Venugopal
and Shri Prabhudas with all other consequential benefits.
3. The Party No. 1 in the written statement, after denying
all the adverse allegations made in the statement of claim
has pleaded inter-alia that the reference is vague and not
maintainable in the eyes of Law, as the post to which and
the date from which promotion to the workmen was denied,
the designation, post and place of posting of the workmen
have not been mentioned in the schedule of reference and
in absence of such essential ingredients, a proper and
logical proceedings cannot be held.
It is further pleaded by the party No. 1 that giving
promotion to the employees is managerial function and it
cannot be claimed as a matter of right, unless it is
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2103
established that there is wrongful suppression and violation
of cadre scheme and the dispute is highly belated and the
cause of action is alleged to have been emerged in the year
1998, where as the dispute has been raised in the year 2009,
after a gap of 11 years and therefore, the dispute is not
maintainable and in WCL cadre scheme exists for the
employees working in the loading discipline and the entry
point post in this cadre is Assistant Loading Clerk in clerical
grade III and the next higher posts are loading Clerk Grade
II and Assistant Loading Inspector/Superintendent in T &
S grade C and all promotions up to grad C take place within
Unit/Sub Area level as per the prevailing practice and all
eligible candidates working at unit/Sub Area establishments
only considered by the DPC for promotion and as per the
recommendations of the DPC, promotion are being given
to the employees with the Unit/Sub Area and for promotion
to the post of T & S grade B, the consideration zone is
Area level.
The further case of the party No. 1 is that workmen, Shri
S.B. Deshmukh, Shri R.L. Narawar and Shri R.L. Goliwar
were promoted to the post of Loading clerk grade II on
01.07.1997 and workman, Shri T.K. Raipure was promoted
to the post of Loading Clerk grade II on 01.01.1998 in the
Loading cadre and when the DPC was held in the year 1998
for the promotion to T & S grade C post the workmen not
eligible to that post as they had not put in the qualifying
experience in clerical grade II post, so, the question of
considering their case for promotion by the DPC did not
arise and the workmen had not been superseded in any of
the above promotions and they have been granted the
benefit of service up-gradation to the next higher grade
and placed in T & S grade C.
The further case of the party No. 1 is that the claim made
by the union on behalf of the workmen is totally
misconceived and contrary to the norms/rules of promotion
and they have mixed up the seniority of the employees,
while alleging supercession and they have drawn
comparison between the employees of two different
establishments while assessing the seniority list of T & S
grade C post and the transfer of the workmen had been
done on administrative grounds, but such transfers did
not affect their promotions and no representation had been
made by the workmen in this regard and the chart enclosed
as annexure "A" shows that from their respective initial
dates of appointment, the workmen had remained posted
at Sasti Opencast Mine for 11/12 years and had also received
promotions.
It is also pleaded by the party No. 1 that the case of Shri
Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal Kusma stands on a different
footing and they were appointed at Gouri Open Cast Mine
and Gouri Cast being a faster growing unit, the services of
Shri Prabhudas and Shri Kusuma were utilized in higher
positions and consequently they had to be regularized in
the higher posts in term of regularization rules/norms and
no objection was ever raised by any employee or union of
Gouri Open Cast and to question it now is irrelevant and
they were transferred to Sasti Open Cast Mine, Sasti Sub
Area in Clerical Grade-II post and when DPC for promotion
to Grade-C post was held at Sasti O/c Sub Area in the year
1998, they were in loading Clerk Cadre and their promotion
to Clerk Grade-II was on 01.01.1995 and since their transfer
was on administrative ground, they carried their seniority
in the post and accordingly, they were considered by the
DPC for promotion and were promoted to Grade-C post
and this position was accepted by the workman, which
was obvious from the fact that they did not lodge any
protest against his promotion and as regard the promotion
of Shri Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal Kusuma to Grade-B
was done on the basis of the recommendations of the Area
level DPC and at that time, none of the workman was eligible
for promotion to Grade-B post, hence there was no question
of their supersession and the representation vide
application dated 19.12.2008 was of a general nature and
no specific grievance was made against the promotion of
Shri Venugopal Kusuma and Prabhudas in the same and
the said representation was also highly belated and
unmerited and deserved no consideration and the
comparative statement filed vide document No. W-22 is
distorted and it has never adopted any unfair labour
practice and the claim made by the workmen has no merit
and is liable to rejected and the workmen are not entitled to
any relief.
4. In the rejoinder, after denying the adverse allegations
made in the written statement, it is pleaded by the Party
No. 1 that the Party No. 1 has all the essential details about
all the four workmen and as the right of the workmen was
infringed by way of wrongful supersession by juniors,
without following the due procedure of cadre scheme fixed
by JBCCI/NCWA and the reservation policy, the same
cannot be said to be managerial function and the dispute
has been rightly raised at the appropriate time and there
was no delay in raising the dispute and there was
supersession of the workmen by their juniors of other
discipline in the year 2000, 2002, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010
and the workmen have been deprived of their legitimate
promotion and Party No. 1 was not following the guidelines
of JBCCI/NCWA in regard to transfer of employees
engaged in sensitive posts and it has transferred only a
few of them and retaining their own favourable candidates.
5. Besides placing reliance on documentary evidence,
both the parties have led oral evidence in support of their
respective claim, whereas, one Shri Sudhakar J. Borkar has
been examined as the only witness by the Party No. 1. The
respective examination in chief of all the aforesaid witnesses
are on affidavit.
So far the documentary evidence is concerned, 24
documents have been admitted into evidence on behalf of
2104
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the union and marked as Exts W-I to W-XXIV. Five
documents have been admitted into evidence on behalf of
the Party No. 1 and marked as Exts. M-I to M-V.
6. Before delving into the merit of the case, I think it
necessary to mention that during the pendency of the
reference, on 08.05.2012, the workman, Shri T.K. Raipure
and the management of Party No. 1 filed the settlement
reached between them in Form 'H' dated 06/07.05.2015 and
made prayer to dispose of the reference relating to Shri
T.K. Raipure in terms of the said settlement and the prayer
was allowed and order was passed to treat the reference in
respect of Shri T.K. Raipure as "no dispute" award and to
make the settlement in Form "H" as part of the award.
7. During the course of the argument, the learned
advocates for the parties reiterated the stands taken by
them in the statement of claim, rejoinder and written
statement respectively.
8. So far the oral evidence adduced by the parties are
concerned, the evidence of the three witnesses examined
by the union is more or less in the same line of the stands
taken in the statement of claim and rejoinder. However, Shri
Lade in his cross-examination has admitted that in the year
1998, Mr. Narwar and Mr. Goliwar were not considered for
promotion to Grade-C, as they were not qualified for such
promotion.
The workman, Shri Deshmukh in his cross-examination
has admitted that on 02.11.1993, he was promoted as
Assistant Loading Clerk, Grade-III and on 01.07.1997 as
Loading Clerk, Grade-II and as he was not eligible for
promotion to the post of Assistant Loading Inspector
Grade-C, he was not considered for promotion by the DPC
and he was given the benefit of service linked up-gradation.
Like wise, workman, Shri Pramod G. Goliwar in his cross-
examination has admitted that his case is similar to the case
of the other three workmen and as his case was never put
up before the DPC, he was not given the promotion and he
was given service linked upgradation by Party No. 1.
9. Perused the record. Considered the evidence, both
oral and documentary, adduced by the parties and so also,
the submissions made by the learned advocates for the
parties. From the materials on record, the following
undisputed facts are found.
(i) There is a cadre scheme for ministerial staff (loading
personnel) as per the Implementation Instruction
No. 34 dated 17.07.1984 issued by the JBCCI, (Ext.
W-II) and in the said cadre scheme, the minimum
educational/technical qualification, eligibility for
promotion and mode of promotion have been
prescribed.
(ii) Ext. W-II prescribes that for promotion to the post
of Assistant Loading Inspector/Superintendent
from the post of Loading Clerk grade II, three years
experience as loading clerk in clerical grade II is
necessary and the mode of such promotion is by
the recommendation of the DPC.
(iii) The zone of consideration for promotion up to the
post
of Assistant
Loading
Inspector/
Superintendent grade C is unit/Sub Area level and
the zone of consideration for promotion to the post
of Loading Inspector/Superintendent grade B and
upwards is Area level.
(iv) Workmen, Shri S.B. Deshmukh, Shri P.G. Goliwar
and Shri R.L. Narawar were promoted to Clerk Grade-
II w.e.f. 01.07.1997, 01.01.1998 and 01.07.1997
respectively, while they were working at Sasti Open
Cast Mine.
(v) Shri Venugopal and Shri Prabhudas were initially
appointed as general mazdoor category-I at Gouri
Opencast Mine and they were regularized as clerk
grade III, w.e.f. 01.01.1994, as they had been
deployed in the clerical job and completed minimum
240 days attendance, by the order of the Personnel
Manager, Gouri Sub Area dated 16/17.08.1994, Ext.
W-VI.
(vi) Shri Venugopal and Shri Prabhudas were
made Clerk grade II w.e.f. 01.01.1995 at
Gouri Opencast Mine, as per the order of
the competent authority dated 30.03.1995,
Ext. W-VII.
(vii) The regularization of Shri Venugopal Kusuma and
Shri Prabhudas in Clerk Grade-III w.e.f. 01.01.1994
and their promotion to Clerk Grade-II w.e.f.
01.01.1995 were not challenged by any workman or
union of Gouri Sub Area.
(viii) Shri Venugopal Kusuma and Shri M.P. Prabhudas
along with others were treated as Clerk Grade-II
performing the job of loading clerks, as per order
dated 14/15.03.1997, Ext. W-VIII and such order was
also not challenged by anybody.
(ix) When the DPC for consideration of promotion to
the posts of Assistant Loading Inspector/
Superintendent, T&C Grade-C at Sasti Open Cast
Mine was held, Shri Venugopal Kusuma and Shri
M.P. Prabhudas were working at Sasti Open Cast
Mine as they had been transferred from Gouri Open
Cast Mine to Sasti Open Cast Mine and as they
has completed three years of service in Loading
Clerk Grade-II, their cases were Considered by the
DPC for promotion and they were recommended
for promotion to Grade-C along with others by the
DPC.
(x) As none of the four workmen had completed three
years of service in Clerical Grade-II at the time of
the DPC in 1998, they were not eligible for such
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2105
promotion and for that, their cases were not
considered for promotion to the post of Assistant
Loading Inspector/Superintendent grade C by the
DPC.
10. The claim made by the union on behalf of the
workmen is that Shri M. Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal
Kusuma, who belonged to Ministerial Staff (General Cadre)
and much juniors to the workmen were brought to Loading
Personnel Cadre illegally and were given promotion as
Asstt. Loading Inspector in Grade w.e.f. 01.01.1998, whereas,
the workmen were not given such promotion and Shri
Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal were again promoted to
Grade-B from Grade 'C' vide order dated 14.10.2005 ignoring
the seniority of the workmen and as such, the workmen are
entitled for the reliefs as claimed.
The case of the Party No. 1 is that the workmen were
given promotions as per rules and the workmen did not
raise any objection to the transfer of Shri Prabhudas and
Shri Venugopal and their categorization and promotion at
any point of time and as an afterthought, the dispute was
raised by the workmen in 2008, by giving the representation
and as there was no illegality in the promotion of Shri
Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal or the other workers, the
workmen are not entitled to any relief.
As already mentioned earlier, the workmen were
promoted to the post of Clerical grade II on 01.07.1997,
whereas, Shri M. Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal Kusuma
were transferred to Sasti Sub-Area from Gouri Sub-Area as
clerk grade II, vide office order dated 07.12.1996 and they
were designated as clerk grade II performing the job of
loading clerk, as per order dated 14/15.03.1997. The workmen
did not raise any objection or protest either to the transfer
of the said two employees from Gouri Opencast Mine to
Sasti Opencast Mine or their designation or even their
promotions. Though, the union has claimed that the
workmen were all-along protesting the denial of promotion
to them, not a single document, except the copy of the
representation dated 19.12.2008 has been filed in support
of such claim. Hence, it can be held that there was never
any protest from the side of the workmen prior to 19.12.2008.
In the representation dated 19.12.2008 also, no specific
grievance was raised regarding giving of promotion to Shri
Venugopal and Shri Prabhudas. It is also found from the
record that the workmen accepted all their promotion
without any objection It is also found that promotion was
never denied to the workmen due to their transfer. It is also
found from the record that the mode of promotion to the
post of clerical grade II onwards in the cadre of loading
personnel is on the recommendation of the D.P.C. It is also
clear from the materials on record that the workmen were
not recommended by the DPC held in 1998 for their
promotion, as they did not have the requisite experience of
three years in clerical grade II but, Shri Prabhudas and
Shri Venugopal were promoted as Asst. Loading Inspector
grade C on the recommendation of the D.P.C. The said two
employees were already in clerical grade II, doing loading
work, prior to the promotion of the workmen as loading
clerk grade II. On perusal of the document Ext. W-XXII, it is
found that the other employees named in the same were
considered for promotion to grade C posts, while working
in other Unit/sub Area and as the zone of consideration for
promotion to grade C posts is in unit/Sub Area level, the
workmen are not entitled to claim promotion on the basis
of the promotion given to the employees of other Unit/Sub
Area. It is clear from the materials on record that the
workmen were given promotions on the due dates by Party
No. 1, by taking into consideration their merits and seniority
and they were not superseded by their juniors and they are
not entitled for the reliefs as claimed. Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
The reference in respect of the workman, Shri T.K.
Raipure be treated as "no dispute" award and the settlement
in Form "H" between the said workman and the
management of party No. 1 be treated as part of the award,
in respect of Shri Raipure.
The reference is answered in the negative and againt
the rest three workmen, Shri S.B. Deshmukh, Shri R.L.
Narawar and Shri P.G. Goliwar. The said workmen are not
entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 975-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w-lh-,y-
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 123@2002½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@04@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@300@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 975.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 123/2002 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Ballarpur Sub Area of
Western Coalfields Ltd., and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 28/04/2015.
[No. L-22012/300/2001-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
2106
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/123/2002
Date: 22.01.2015
Party No. 1
:
The Sub Area Manager
Ballarpur Sub Area of Western
Coalfields Ltd.
Post & Tah. Ballarpur
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
Versus
Party No. 2
:
Shri K.K. Singh,
Sr. Vice President,
R.K.K.M.S. (INTUC),
Sadbhavana Bhawan,
WCL Colony, Durgapur,
Padmapur Sub Area,
Post Durgapur,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
AWARD
(Dated 23rd 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 Ballarpur Sub Area of Western Coalfields
Ltd. and their workman, Shri Sobhu Basantoo, for
adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/300/2001-IR(CM-II)
dated 09.07.2002, with the following schedule:-
"Whether the action of the management of Ballarpur
Colliery 3&4 Pits of Western Coalfields Ltd. in
dismissing Shri Sobhu Basanti, Loader from service
vide order No. WCL/BA/BUG/H/51C/167 dated 03/
12.02.2001 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled?"
It is to be mentioned here that as there were errors in the
schedule of reference in regard to the name of the workman
and in regard to the letter number of the order of dismissal
of the workman, as per corrigendum of the order of the
Ministry bearing letter No. L-22012/300/2001-IR(C-II) dated
01.05.2003, the errors in the schedule were corrected and
the corrected schedule is as under:—
"Whether the action of the management of Ballarpur
Colliery 3 & 4 Pits of Western Coalfields Ltd. in
dismissing Shri Sobhu Basantoo, Loader from service
vide order No. WCL/BA/BUG/H51C/167 dated 03/
12.02.2001 (No. Vekoli/Bakhe/Ba/Bhu/H/51C/167
dated 03/12.02.2001) is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled?
2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to
file their respective statement of claim and written statement,
in response to which, the union 'RKKMS" ("the Union" in
short) on behalf of the workman, Shri Sobhu Basantoo,
("the workman" in short) filed the statement of claim and
the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., (Part
"No. 1" in short) filed the written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the statement
of claim by the union is that the workman was appointed as
a Trammer-cum-Loader in Ballarpur 3/4 pits colliery w.e.f.
06.11.1972 and he worked with part No. 1 continuously
with unblemished service record and as there was mistake
regarding his name in the records and registers of part No.
1, the workman applied for correction of such mistake vide
service excerpts supplied to him, inviting objection by the
part No. 1, as per the instruction of JBCCI in the year 1987
and as the son of the workman was required to obtain a
caste certificate, he was in need of a certificate issued by
the party No. 1 having particulars about the caste and
income etc. of the workman for production before the
Tahasildar, Ballarpur Tahasil and the workman approached
the part No. 1 for such a certificate and at the time, it came
to his knowledge that correction of his name had not been
done and the name of the workman was mentioned as
"Sobhu Basantoo" in the attendance register, where as in
the pay sheet, his name was mentioned as "Sahdeo
Basantoo" and the name "Sahdeo Basantoo" had been
mentioned in place of "Sobhu Basantoo" due to clerical
mistake and therefore, the workman again applied for
correction of his name as "Sobhu Basantoo" vide his letter
dated 25.04.1996 addressed to the Manager, Ballarpur
Colliery and the Personnel Manager, Ballarpur sub Area
wrote letter No. 109 dated 31.07.1997 to the police in charge
of Dhanapur Police Station to verify as to whether the
workman was Sobhu Basantoo or not and though a copy
of the said letter, was given to the workman, he was not
informed about submission of the report if any, by the
police and the part No. 1 thereafter took the fingerprint of
the workman on plain paper on some pretext.
The further case of the workman as presented by the
union is that part No. 1 issued the charge sheet dated
09.06.1998 against the workman and the said charge sheet
was vague and not specific and the workman submitted
his reply to the same and subsequently, enquiry was said
to have been conducted and though, the workman applied
for time on some occasions, he could not able to attend the
enquiry due to the misdirection and confusions created by
the union representative and the workman received the
show cause notice dated 26.07.1999 issued by the party
No. 1 and the workman submitted his reply to the said
show cause notice and thereafter, no communication was
received by the workman from party No. 1, but all of a
sudden after lapse of about two years, the workman was
served with the order of dismissal from service dated
03/12.02.2001 and there were several infirmities in the letter
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2107
of dismissal and the decision taken was mechanical and
without application of mind and evaluation of the evidence
and the workman appealed vide his letter dated 15.02.2001
to the Chief General Manager, Ballarpur Area of WCL, but
his appeal was rejected as informed by the Personnel
Manager, Ballarpur Area vide letter No. 2653 dated
19.03.2001.
It is also pleaded by the union on behalf of the workman
that the enquiry proceedings and report of enquiry were
not fair and proper and the same were in violation of the
principles of natural justice and the documents available
with party no. 1 in respect of the workman were not examined
and taken into consideration, while passing of the orders
and the entire process was mechanical and without
application of mind and even though, repeated request
was made for re-enquiry and personal hearing by the
workman, the same was not allowed and documents were
not supplied to the workman.
The further case of the workman as presented by the
union is that the fingerprints on the so-called service file
were not of the workman and due to official mistake, entry
of other particulars of the workman had been mentioned in
the same and during the enquiry, the clerk, who had made
the entries in the service file and the handwriting expert
were not examined and hence, the enquiry proceeding
including report of the enquiry and dismissal was illegal
and the allegation made by the party No. 1 that the workman
to be as imposter was quite belated and therefore, the charge
sheet is to be quashed and the CMPF particulars of the
workman submitted to the CMPF authorities for the
currency period ending 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1992 and
01.04.1993 to 31.03.1994 and for other years support the
contention that he is a genuine worker and the certificate
issued by the Gram Pradhan of the village of the workman
dated 04.12.2002, the certificate issued by the officer-in-
charge of Dhanpur Police Station, domicile certificate issued
by the Dy. District Magistrate, statement of contribution
of CMPF submitted to CMPF authorities for the currency
period ending in March, 1984 and other documents show
that the workman is the genuine worker and not an imposter
and there is no existence of any Sahdeo Basantoo and the
same is created due to the mistake of the office and the so
called Sahdeo Basantoo has not been examined and he
had never appeared or lodged any complaint and the
workman has been victimized.
Prayer has been made by the union for the reinstatement
of the workman in service with continuity, full back wages
and all consequential benefits.
3. The party no. 1 in the written statement after denying
the adverse allegations made in the statement of claim has
pleaded inter-alia that on Sahadeo Basantoo was employed
on 06.11.1972 at erstwhile Ballarpur colliery, then owned
and managed by a private company and entry to the said
effect was made in the "Form-B" register and the said mine
was taken over and nationalized from 01.05.1973 under the
Coal Mines Nationalization Act, 1979 and after
Nationalization, the management of the said mine came
under its (Western Coalfields Limited) control and the same
was placed under the management of Wardha Valley Area
comprising the several collieries of Ballarpur and
Chandrapur and during the transition i.e. taking over the
management of the mines including Ballarpur colliery,
allegedly lot of manipulations and tampering of the records
were resorted to, with the motive of inducting wrong
persons by impression and on the representation made by
the workman to change his name from Sahadeo Basantoo
to Sobhu Basantoo, the case was deeply examined in context
of the various entries made in different records and it was
noticed that several manipulations had been done and
prima-facie case of impersonation was identified and
therefore, immediate step was taken to get the LTI of the
person, who had affixed it on service sheet with LTI of the
workman and for the said purpose, the LTI of the workman
was obtained and the LTI were sent to the handwriting
expert for verification and opinion and the report submitted
by the handwriting expert revealed that the LTI of the
workman did not match with the LTI on the service book,
which led to the obvious inference that the workman was
not the same person who had entered the service at the
initial stage as Sahadeo Basantoo and in this background,
it was decided to call for the explanation of the workman,
with a view to provide him an opportunity to explain the
discrepancies, which allegedly amounted to misconduct
under the relevant provisions of the Certified Standing
Orders and accordingly the charges therein with a direction
to submit his explanation within three days of the receipt
of the same, but as the workman did not submit any
explanation and in order to give the workman a fair
opportunity, it was decided to make a departmental enquiry
and Shri D. Subbarao, the colliery Engineer, Ballarpur 3/4
Pits was appointed as the enquiry officer and the workman
was advised to appear in the enquiry with his co-worker
and to produce evidence if any and the enquiry officer
fixed the enquiry on 24.08.1993, but the workman did not
attend the enquiry and thereafter, 9 more dates were given
to the workman by the enquiry officer by fixing the enquiry
to 27.08.1998, 03.09.1998, 08.09.1998, 17.09.1998, 12.10.1998,
27.10.1998, 12.11.1998, 22.12.1998 and 12.01.1999, and even
though the workman was on duty on those dates, he did
not attend the enquiry, the enquiry officer completed the
enquiry exparte and submitted his report holding the
workman guilty of the charges to the Manager, Ballarpur
colliery 3/4 Pits along with the case file and the copy of the
enquiry report was sent to the workman vide letter no. 138
dated 26.02.1999/04.03.1999, which has duly received by
him and the workman submitted an undated reply to the
same to the Sub-Areas Manager, stating therein that he
did not attend the enquiry, as he was misguided and was
also ignorant of the rules of the enquiry and he also
requested and satisfactory and considering the seriousness
2108
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of the misconduct, he was dismissed from service with
approval at the competent authority vide order dated 03/
12.02.2001 and the workman filed an appeal to the Chief
General Manager and the CGM did not find any merit in the
appeal and accordingly, the decision of the CGM was
intimated to the workman vide letter dated 19.03.2001 and
the exparte enquiry held against the workman was perfectly
justified and fair and his dismissal from service on the
proved act of misconduct was legal and justified and the
workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. It is necessary to mention here that during the
pendency of the case, the workman expired on 06.06.2004
and as such, his legal heirs, namely Madanlan(Son), Manju
Devi (Daughter), Sanju Devi (Daughter), Sadanand (Son)
and Kavita (Daughter) were submitted in his place.
5. In the rejoinder, the facts mentioned in the statement
of claim have been reiterated by the union.
6. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from
services, as a punishment in the departmental enquiry held
against him, the fairness of the departmental enquiry was
taken up for consideration as a preliminary issue and by
order dated 05.12.2014, the departmental enquiry held
against the workman was held to be legal, proper and in
accordance with the principles of natural justice.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the union that in this case, the copies of the
documents relied on by the management in the departmental
enquiry were not served on the workman at least three
days prior to the date of the enquiry in violation of the
principles of natural justice and fraud was played by the
party No. 1 on the Court and as such, the party No. 1 is
liable to be thrown out summerarily and the enquiry report
submitted by the Enquiry Officer not bear the date on which
the same was submitted and the same clearly establishes
that there was manipulations and concoction and
documents produced in the enquiry were manipulated and
the findings of the Enquiry Officer basing on such
manipulated documents are perverse. It was further
submitted by the learned advocate for the union that the
order of punishment has been approved by the Appellate
Authority and for that the workman lost the chance of
appeal and the report of the enquiry officer is not a reasoned
order and as the order of dismissal is in violation of the
Standing Orders, the same is not sustainable and the legal
heirs of the deceased workman are entitled to receive all
the legal dues and monetary compensation from the date
of the dismissal of the workman till date of his death.
In support of the submissions the learned advocate for
the union placed reliance on the decisions reported in
(1999) 7 SCC-739 (Yoginath Vs. State of Maharashtra), AIR
1994, S.C. 853(S.P. Chengalvaraya Vs. Jagannath), Air 1973
S.C. 2650 (Western India Match Co. Ltd. Vs. Workmen), Air
1990 S.C. 1308 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh)
and AIR 1985 S.C. 1121 (Anil Kumar Presiding Officer)
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the party No. 1 that by order dated 05.12.2014, the
Tribunal has already held the departmental enquiry
conducted against the workman to be legal, proper and in
accordance with the principles of natural justice and the
evidence adduced in the departmental enquiry against the
workman remained unchallenged, as the workman did not
attend the enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer
are based on the evidence on record of the enquiry and the
Enquiry Officer has assigned reasons in support of his
findings and he has properly analyzed the evidence and
there is no perversity in his findings and commission of
gross misconduct has been proved against the workman
in a properly conducted departmental enquiry and as such,
the punishment of dismissal from service passed against
the workman cannot be said to be shockingly
disproportionate and there is no scope to interfere with the
punishment and the workman was not entitled to any relief,
so, the legal heirs of the deceased workman are not entitled
to any relief.
In support of the submissions, the learned advocate for
the party No. 1 placed reliance on the decisions reported in
Air 1972 S.C. 2182(M/S the Benaras Electric Light and
Power Co. Ltd. Vs Labour Court II) and AIR 2003 SC 1462
(Regional Manager, UPSRTC Vs. Hoti Lal).
9. So far the contentions regarding non supply of
documents, notices of the enquiry were not served on the
workman at least three days prior to the date of the enquiry
and approval of the punishment by the Appellate Authority
are concerned, it is to be mentioned that such contentions
had been raised by the learned advocate for the union at
the time of consideration of the preliminary issue of fairness
of the departmental enquiry and the said contentions were
considered and answered against the workman, so there is
no scope of reconsideration of the said submissions.
10. In view of the other submissions made by the learned
advocates for the parties, I think it proper to mention the
settled principles regarding the power of a Tribunal in
interfering with punishment awarded by the competent
authority in departmental proceedings, as enunciated by
the Hon'ble Apex Court.
In a number of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court have
held that:
"The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the
disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated
with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot
interefere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or
competent authority where they are not arbitrary or
utterly perverse. The power to impose penalty on a
delinquent officer is conferred on the competent
authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made
under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. If
there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2109
and in accordance with principles of natural justice
what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a
matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the
competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be
imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct,
the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own
discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of
penalty unless it is Malafide is certainly not a matter
of the Tribunal to concern itself with. The Tribunal
also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion
of the enquiry officer or the competent authority is
based on evidence even if some of it is found to be
irrelevant or extraneous to the matter."
It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:-
"A review of the above legal position would establish
that the disciplinary authority and on appeal, the
appellate authority being fact finding authorities have
exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view
to maintain discipline. They are invested with the
discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping
in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct.
The High Court/tribunal, while exercising the power
of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own
conclusion on penalty and impose some other
penalty. If the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority
shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it
would appropriately mould the relief, either directing
the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the
penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may
itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose
appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in
support thereof."
"In departmental proceedings, the disciplinary
authority is the sole judge of facts and in case an
appeal is presented to the appellate authority, the
appellate authority has also the power/and
jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and come
to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact-
finding authorities. Once findings of fact, based on
appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High Court
in writ jurisdiction may not normally interfere with
those factual findings unless it finds that the
recorded findings were based either on no evidence
or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or
legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of
the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before
the High Court. Since the High Court does not sit as
an appellate authority over the factual findings
recorded during departmental proceedings, while
exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court
cannot, normally speaking substitute its own
conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent
for that of the departmental authorities. Even insofar
as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned,
unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the
disciplinary or the departmental appellate authority,
is either impermissible or such that it shocks the
conscience of the High Court, it should not normally
substitute its own opinion and impose some other
punishment or penalty. Both the learned Single Judge
and the Division Bench of the High Court, it appears,
ignored the well-settled principle that even though
judicial review of administrative action must remain
flexible and its dimension not closed, yet the Court,
in exercise of the power of judicial review, is not
concerned with the correctness of the findings of
fact on the basis of which the orders are made so
long as those findings are reasonably supported by
evidence and have been arrived at through
proceedings which cannot be faulted with for
procedural illegalities or irregularities which vitiate
the process by which the decision was arrived at
Judical review, it must be remembered, is directed
not against the decision, but is confined to the
examination of the decision-making process."
It is also settled beyond doubt that departmental enquiry
is not bound by strict rules of Evidence Act, but by fair
play and natural justice. Only total absence, but not
sufficiency of evidence before Tribunal is ground for
interference. If the enquiry has been properly held the
question of adequacy or reliability of evidence cannot be
canvassed before the court and in a departmental enquiry,
penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a
finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of
probability."
11. Judging the present case in hand with the touch
stone of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex
Court as mentioned above, it is found that the Enquiry
Officer has based his findings on the evidence on record
the enquiry, after proprly analyzing the evidence and the
Enquiry Officer has also assigned cogent reasons in support
of his findings. It is also found that this is not a case of no
evidence at all or that the findings of the enquiry officer are
totally against the whole body of the evidence on record
of the enquiry. Hence, the findings of the Enquiry Officer
cannot be said to be perverse.
I think it proper to mention here that as the facts and
circumstances of the present case are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the case referred in the
decisions cited by the learned advocate for the workman,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the case in hand.
12. So far the proportionality of the punishment is
concerned, commission of grave misconduct under clauses
2110
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
26.1 and 26.9 of the Certified Standing order has been
proved against the workman in a properly conducted
departmental enquiry against him. Hence, the punishment
of dismissal from service cannot be said to be shockingly
disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct
committed by him. Hence, there is no scope to interfere
with the punishment imposed against the workman. Hence,
it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of Ballarpur Colliery 3 &
4 Pits of Western Coalfields Ltd. in dismissing Shri Sobhu
Basantoo, Loader from service vide order No. WCL/BA/
BUG/H/51C/16 dated 03/12.02.2001(No. Vekoli/Bakhe/BA/
BHU/H/51C/167 dated 03/12.02.2001 is legal and justified.
As the deceased workman was not entitled to any relief,
the legal heirs of the deceased workmkan are not entitled
to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 976-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wñlhñ,yñ ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 11@2008½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@283@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 976.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 11/2008 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Western Coalfields Ltd., and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 28/04/2015.
[No. L-22012/283/2007-IR (CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/11/2008
Dated: 3.2.2015
Party No.1
:
The Sub Area Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Kamptee sub Area, Nagpur.
Versus
Party No. 2
:
Shri Shakir Ali,
S/o Subedar (Stowing Fitter),
R/o Kamptee Colliery, Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated: 3rd February, 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 Western coalfields limited and their
workman, Shri Shakir Ali, for adjudication, as per letter No.
L-22012/283/2007-IR (CM-II) dated 03.04.008, with the
following scheduled:
"Whether the action of the management of Western
Coalfield Limited in denying the correction of the
date of birth as 21..04.1955 in service excerpts, form
"B" register and service book in respect of Shri
Shakir Ali and the action of the premature
superannuating the concerned workman is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief is the deprived
workman entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Shakir Ali,
('the workman" in short), filed the statement of claim and
the management of Western Coalfields Limited ("Party No.
1" in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as projected in the statement
claim is that he was appointed at Kamptee colliery, which
was owned by Karamchand Thaper group of Coal Mines,
in the middle of the year 1971 and as per the practice in
vogue at that time, he was sent for vocational training and
subsequently, he was appointed in Kamptee colliery by
party no. 1 as stowing mazdoor and in course of time, he
was promoted and lastly he was working as stowing Fitter-
category VI at Inder colliery and he was prematurely retired
from service w.e.f. 30.06.2005 by party no. 1, vide letter of
retirement dated 17/18.06.2005 issued by Superintendent
of Mine, Inder colliery and at the time of his employment in
the year 1971, his dated of birth was recorded as 21.04.1955,
basing on the school leaving certificate and the T.C. issued
by Nehru Krishak Inter College, Khalilabad and at that
particular time, a person having completed 16 years of age
was appointed in the mines as per the Mines Act and Rules,
by the employer, but to his surprise, in the year 1988-89, he
was informed by party no.1 that in the records of party no.
1, his date of birth had been recorded as 01.07.1945 and on
verifiction of the Form "B" register at serial no. 898, 27
years as on 01.07.1945 as per ADC "(Age determination
Committee) was found to have been mentioned in figures
and words, by cutting down the earlier entry" written as
11.11.1948 as per CMPF record and their was a short
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2111
signature of an official doing such correction, but such
initial was without any designation or seal of the staff and
not admitting, but assuming that his date of birth is
11.11.1948 as per CMPF record, still then, the date of his
retirement was not correct.
It is further pleased by the workman that the Joint Bi-
partite Committee for Coal Industry issued Implementation
Instruction no. 76 dated 25.04.1988 regarding formulation
of a procedure of determination/verification of the age of
the employees and for resolution of disputed cases in
respect of the date of birth in service records and clause 'B'
of the said Implementation instruction no. 76 relates to
review/determination of date of birth in respect of the
existing employees and clause 'C' of the said Instruction
says that, "where there is a variation in the age recorded in
the "Form-B" register, CMPF records and Identity cards,
the matter is to be referred to the Age Determination
Committee/Medical Board and in his case, there was glaring
mistake in the age recorded by the party
no. 1 and the age relied on by him and such difference was
ten years, but party no. 1 did not follow the instructions as
required by law and the provisions applicable to the parties
and the age determination committed acted in an arbitrary
manner and as such, the decision of the age determination
committee is illegal and unjustified and the entire procedure
adopted by the said committee was contrary to the settled
position of law and denial of the apportunity to him for
determination of his age was contrary to the instructions
issued by JBCCI and the party no. 1 had issued a letter
dated 23.09.1988, informing him that his age was recorded
as 27 years as on 1945 i.e. his date of birth was recorded as
1st July, 1945 and the said letter was issued by the party
no. 1 as his age was found to be disputed in terms of the
Implementation Instruction no. 76 issued by JBCCI-IV,
under National Coal Wage Agreement-III and party no. 1
has supplied four copies of blank forms of service excerpts
to all the employees and asked them to sign the same and
to return three copies of the said forms to the Manager of
the Mine and such forms were also received by him and as
per the instructions, he signed the form by mentioned his
full name, permanent address and the names of his family
members and submitted the same to party No. 1 and he had
specifically asked the Personnel Officer of the Mines about
keeping column no. 6, which was meant for mentioning the
date of birth, blank and he submitted the school leaving
certificate and requested for necessary correction of his
date of birth as 21.04.1955, but he was told that the said
column and other columns, which were left blank would be
filled in by the officer of the Mine and a copy of the said
form was handed over to him, duly signed by the Manager
of the Mine, in which, his date of birth was mentioned as
01.07.1945 with remarks, "By Age Determination Committee"
and he again pointed out to the Management that he was
never called before the Age Determination Committee and
the decision of the committee was wrong and not
acceptable to him and he immediately submitted a letter in
the year 1988 to party no. 1 and strongly disputed about
his age recorded in the service sheet and "Form-B" registers
and such facts were admitted by the party no. 1 in the
conciliation proceedings and he also submitted another
applicable along with the true copy of the Transfer
Certificate issued by the Principal, Nehru Krishak Inter
college, Khalilabad, in which his date of birth was recorded
as 21.04.1955 and requested for correction of the wrong
recording of his date of birth and the manager, Kamptee
colliery, vide his letter dated 23.09.1988 informed him that
his date of birth was determined as 01.07.1945 by the "Age
Determination Committee" and he met the concerned officer
of the Mine for getting his date of birth corrected and
submitted representation on 14.10.1988 and 17.02.1990 for
correction of his date of birth as per the school leaving
certificate and that the procedures mentioned in 1.1 No. 76
were not followed in his case, but the same was not accepted
by the party no. 1 was recorded as 27 years as on 13.11.1972,
as per the recommendation of the Age Determination
Committee and the same is final and vide letter dated
27/28.01.2005 of the Superintendent/Manager, Inder colliery,
he was intimated that his age was recorded as 27 years as
on 13.11.1972, as per the recommendation of the Age
Determination Committee and the same is final and in the
three "Form-B" registers maintained by party no. 1, there
are differences in regard to his age and the cutting of the
entries in the earlier register creates doubt about the
authenticity of his date of birth as recorded in the register
by the party no. 1 and in "Form-A" the declaration given
by him at the time of his employment dated 02.01.1972,
which was filled in by the Mines official and duly certified
by the Manager of Mines with the official seal of "Oriental
Coal Company Ltd., Kamptee Colliery", his date of birth
has been mentioned as 11.11.48 and the action of party no.
1 in ignoring his claim and the record/proof produced by
him in support of his date of birth as 21.04.45 was without
any justification and the same was improper and contrary
to the provision of law and considering his date of birth as
01.07.45 on the basis of the report submitted by the Age
Determination Committee, instead of 01.04.1955 and retiring
him on 30.06.2005 illegal, improper and contrary to law and
he was not given any opportunity to remain present before
the Age Determination Committee and to defend his case
about his date of birth and though there was a glaring
mistake in the records of the company, the party no. 1 did
not give any opportunity to him to appear before the
Medical Board, constituted for the purpose of determination
of age, hence, the report submitted by the Age
Determination Committee was illegal, improper and contrary
to the records.
The workman has prayed to declare the action of party
no. 1 in denying correction of his date of birth as 21.04.1955
to be illegal and unjustified and for his reinstatement in
service with continuity, full back wages and all
consequential benefits.
2112
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. The party no. 1 in the written statement, after denying
all the adverse allegations made in the statement of claim
has pleaded inter-alia that the present dispute is not an
industrial dispute as per the Act and the relief claimed by
the workman is civil in nature and as such, the Tribunal has
no jurisdiction to entertain the present case and the claim
is liable to be rejected and the workman has not approached
the Tribunal with clean hands and the case of the workman
is false, frivolous and without merit and the workman has
willfully concealed about filling Writ Petition No. 3894/2006
by him for correction of date of birth before the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court, Ngapur Bench and dismissal of the
said Writ Petition by the Hon'ble High Court by order dated
28.09.2006 and the workman was retired from service on
30.06.2005 on superannuation and after his retirement, the
workman has raised the dispute regarding his date of birth
and there was delay in raising the dispute and on the
ground of delay and latches, the case is not maintainable.
It is further pleaded by the party no. 1 that the date of
birth of the workman was recorded in the official records,
such as, "Form-B" register, service book and other records
as 27 years as on 13.11.1972 as per initial Medical
Examination (IME) and the IME took place as he had not
produced any document in support of his date of birth and
stated his date of birth as 27 years at the time of his initial
appointment and after having full knowledge of his said
recorded date of birth, the workman accepted the same
and in token of his such acceptance, he put his thump
impression on all official and service records and the
Implementation Instruction no. 76 issued by the JBCCI,
the highest committee are binding on all the employees of
Coal India including the WCL and in view of the
Implementation Instruction no. 76 issued by the JBCCI, it
had supplied the service excerpts to all its employees for
correction of the entries made in "Form-B" register and in
1.1 no. 76, instructions were issued for resolution of
pending dispute in regard to date of birth/initial
appointment and permanent address of the employees and
the workman, who had himself got recorded his different
date of birth in CMPF records and Form-B register and as
per 1.1 No. 76, his case was put up before the Age
Determination Committee ("ADC" in short) of Kamptee
Sub Area and the ADC by following all the provision of 1.1.
no. 76 and rules and guidelines made for review of the date
of birth, determined the date of birth of the workman as
01.07.45 in the 1988 and 1.1. No. 76 indicated that if year of
birth is recorded in lieu of exact date of birth, to arrive into
exact date of birth, 1st July of the year is to be taken into
consideration and as such the date of birth of the workman
is arrived as at as 01.07.1945 and the same was also counter
signed by the employee and the fact of determination of
the workman as 01.07.45 was explained to the workman in
vernacular language and he was also informed about the
same by sending a letter alongwith the report of the ADC
and the workman accepted his date of birth as 01.07.1945
i.e. 27 years as on the date of appointment and as a token
of acceptance, the workman put his thump impression on
the fresh "Form-B" and accordingly, he was retired from
service on 30.06.2005 and therefore correction of the date
of birth of a retired employee that too, who had signed all
his service record especially Form-B twice after having full
knowledge of his recorded date of birth, is not permissible
as per the law and rules of JBCCI and the workman had
obtained the transfer certificate of "Nehru Krushak Inter
College, Kaliabad" on 26.05.2001 and therefore, it is very
clear that he had produced false and fabricated document
at the time of ADC in the year 1988 and the impugned
transfer certificate makes him 16 years of age at the time of
appointment and the claim of appointment of employee at
the age of 16 years is false and as per the 1.1. No. 76(B) (I)
(a), the impugned transfer certificate, on the basis of which
the workman claimed to change his date of birth was not
permissible and valid, because the same was issued on
26.05.2001 and the workman did not raise any dispute after
filing of the service excerpts till his retirement and accepted
all his retirement benefits and after receiving all the
retirement benefits without any protest and after one and
half years of the date of his retirement, i.e. on 07.12.2006,
he raised the present dispute with ill intention and on the
basis of false transfer certificate and therefore, the reference
is liable to be answered in the negative.
The further case of party no. 1 is that the workman was
not appointed in the middle of the year 1971 and his date of
appointment was 13.11.1972 as per the service record and
the retirement of the workman w.e.f. 30.06.2005 was not
premature and he did not produce any school leaving
certificate at the time of his appointment and his date of
birth was never recorded as 21.04.1955 and the appointment
of the workman was on 13.11.1972 and at that time, he
declared his age as 27 years and on the basis of his
statement, his date of birth was recorded as 27 years on
13.11.1972 in the "Form-B" register and so also in the service
book and the date of birth as mentioned in the CMPF record
cannot be considered, as there is major contradiction in
the claim of the workman and the records of the CMPF and
according to the claim of the workman his date of birth is
21.04.55, whereas, his date of birth as per the CMPF record
is 11.11.48 and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. In the rejoinder, the workman has denied all the
adverse allegations made in the written statement and
pleaded that the reference has been made by the Central
Government for adjudication to this Tribunal and as such,
the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the present
dispute and he has a good case on merit and there was no
delay in raising the dispute and there was no initial medical
examination and there was no basis for the party No. 1 to
record his age as 27 years as on 13.11.1972 and the reference
is required to be answered in the affirmative.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2113
5. At this juncture, I think it proper to mention that during
the pendency of the reference, the party No. 1 filed an
application for dismissal of the reference, on the ground
that Writ Petition No. 3894/2006 had been filed by the
workman before the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench for
correction of his date of birth and the said writ was dismissed
by the Hon'ble High Court on 28.09.2006 and therefore the
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata and by
order dated 12.01.2012, the application filed by the party
No. 1 was allowed by this tribunal on the ground that the
reference is hit by the provisions of res-judicata and the
reference was dismissed. The workman challenged the
said order by filing of Writ Petition No. 3097/2012, before
the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench and the Hon'ble
High Court by order dated 03.10.2012 was pleased to allow
the writ petition and to quash and set aside the said order
and remanded the reference for disposal according to Law.
It is also to be mentioned that L.P.A. No. 520/2012 filed by
the party No. 1 before the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur
Bench against the order of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ
petition No. 3097/2012 was disposed of on 20.02.2013 by
the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court,
holding that, “no case is made out warranting interference
in the impugned order.”
6. Besides the documentary evidence, the workman has
examined himself as a witness in support of his claim.
It is to be mentioned that no oral evidence has been
adduced by the party No. 1 in support of its claim. The
party No. 1 has relied on documentary evidence only.
7. In his examination-in-chief on affidavit, the workman
has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim
and the rejoinder. He has also proved the document, the
copy of his medical examination report dated 23.10.1986,
under Rule 29B of the Mines Rules as Ext. W-Vi. In his
cross-examination, the workman has admitted that he did
not submit any school leaving certificate before the
authority in 1971, when he entered into the service and
when he was appointed in 1971, he was examined by the
medical Board and also underwent vocational training and
in the copy of the Form-B register, Ext W-II filed by him, his
age has been mentioned as 27 years on the date of his
appointment and he has put his LTI on Ext. W-II and he has
filed the Form-B register of Inter Colliery, Ext-W-III and in
Ext., W-III, his date of birth has been mentioned as
01.07.1945 and he has put his LTI on the said register and
in the copy of the service book, Ext. W-IV, producted by
him, his date of birth has been mentioned as 01.07.1945 and
he has put his LTI on the same. The workman has further
admitted that neither in his statement of claim nor in his
affidavit, he has mentioned that he was medically examined
on 23.10.1986, under Rule 29B of the Mines Rules, for the
purpose of age determination and as per the Mines Rules,
it is necessary for the medical examination of each employee
in every five years and his medical examination on
23.10.1986 was to find out his fitness for continuance of
his working in the Mines.
8. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the workman that the workman was initially
appointed at Kamptee colliery in the year 1971 as a stowing
mazdoor and in the course of time, he was promoted to
higher categories and lastly, he was working as stowing
fitter category VI at Inder Colliery and at the time of his
initial appointment, his date of birth was recorded as
21.04.1955, basing on the school leaving certificate and
T.C. issued by Nehru Krishak Inter College, Khalilbad, but
in 1988, he was informed by the party No. 1 that his date of
birth has been recorded as 27 years as on 01.07.1945 as per
ADC in the Form B register and on perusal of the said
register, it can be found that the earlier entry made in the
same, “11.11.1948 as per CMPF record” was scored out
with a short signature of an official doing the correction,
but without any designation or seal and Implementation
Instruction No. 76 dated 25.04.1988 was issued by the JBCCI
for review/determination of the date of birth of the
employees working in the Coal Industries and in clause B
of the said 1.1.76, the procedures for reviewing/determining
the age of the existing employees have been given and as
there was glaring mistake regarding the date of birth of the
workman in the records of the party No. 1, it was necessary
to correct the age of the workman on the basis of the school
leaving certificate produced by him as 21.04.1955, instead
of 01.07.1945 and the party No. 1 did not follow the
instructions as required by law and the age determination
committee acted in an arbitrary manner without calling him
to appear before them to defend his claim and party No. 1
vide letter dated 23.09.1988 informed the workman that the
Age Determination Committee decided his date of birth as
01.07.45 and as per the instructions of the party no. 1, the
workman mentioned his full name, address permanent
address and the names of his family members in the blank
forms of service excerpts supplied to him and signed and
submitted the same to party no. 1 and the workman was
specifically instructed not to fill up column no. 6 meant for
mentioning the date of birth and a copy of the said service
excerpts was supplied to the workman, wherein his date of
birth was mentioned as 01.07.45 with the remarks “By Age
Determination Committee” and the workman raised
objection to such recording stating that he was never called
before the ADC and the decision of the committee to be
unjust and not to be acceptable to him and though the
workman raised strong objection of recording his date of
birth as 01.07.45 instead of 21.04.1955 as per his
representations dated 14.10.1988 & 17.02.1990 and
produced the true copy of the Transfer Certificate issued
by the Principal, Nehru Krushak Inter-College, Kaliabad in
support of his claim, but party no. 1 did not consider his
objection and though I.I. No. 76 is mandatory and binding
on party no. 1, party no. 1 did not follow the procedure
prescribed in the same properly and party no. 1, holding
2114
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the recommendation of the Age Determination Committee
as final, prematurely superannuated w.e.f. 30.6.2005.
It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the
workman that the records of the party no. 1 are not authentic
and there existed three "Form-B" Registers in respect of
the workman and the particulars of his employment in the
Mine had been mentioned in those registers and the cutting
down of the earlier entry regarding the age of the workman
in the “Form-B” register, “As 11.11.1948 as per CMPF
record” and making new entry, “ 27 years as on 13.11.1972
as determined by ADC” creates suspicion and doubt about
the authenticity and jurisdiction of the entry on the record
and the Medical Examination report of the workman, Ext.
W-VI shows that he was 32 years of age on 23.10.1986 and
in the CMPF form the date of birth has been reported as
11.11.48 and such facts show that the date of birth of the
workman had been recorded differently, in different records
and as per the school leaving certificate produced by the
workman, the date of birth of the workman is 21.04.55 and
due to premature retirement of the workman, there was loss
of ten years of service to him and the report of the Age
Determination Committee is totally incorrect and the
important producer of Medical Examination of the workman
was not done to determine his age of the said committee
and as per the own medical examination report of party no. 1,
Ext. W-VI, the year of birth of the workman is 1954 and
accordingly, the workman was deprived of nine years of
service and the action of the party no. 1 in denying the
correction of the date of birth and retiring him from services
prematurely is quite illegal and unjustified and as such, the
reference is to be answered in favour of the workman and
the workman is entitled for the reliefs as claimed.
In support of the submission, the learned advocate for
the workman placed reliance on the decision reported in
2002 LAB IC-874 (Secretary Managing Committee vs. Smt.
Usha Saha) and 2002 (95) FLR-556 (Ardeshir B. Cursetji Vs.
Abjulla Fakir).
9. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the party no. 1 that there was inordinate
unexplained delay in raising the dispute by the workman
and the reference is not maintainable on the ground of
delay and latches and the dispute as raised by the workman
is not an industrial dispute and the same is purely civil in
nature and for that also, the reference is not maintainable
and the workman did not produce any school leaving
certificate at the time of appointment and the workman has
admitted such fact in his cross-examination and as such,
his age was mentioned on the records as determined by
the Medical Board and the workman after accepting the
same to be correct, put his thumb impression on the same
and as the date of birth of the workman was mentioned
differently in the CMPF record, his case was referred to the
Age Determination Committee for determination of his date
of birth as per I.I. No. 76 and the said committee by following
the procedure given as per I.I. No. 76 determined the date
of birth as 01.07.1945 and the school leaving certificate
produced by the workman was not authentic and he
obtained a false and bafricated certificate and the same
was not a valid certificate as required under I.I. No. 76 for
correcting the date of birth and the workman is not entitled
to any relief.
In support of the contentions, the learned advocate for
the party no. 1 placed reliance on the decisions reported in
(2000) 8 SCC-696 (G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Shiv
Kumar), (2003) 8 SCC-673 (Sushil Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar),
(2008) 13 SCC-133 (Babloo Pasi Vs. State of Jharkhand),
(2006) 5 SCC-584 (Ravinder Singh Vs. State of UP) and AIR
1993 SC-2647 (Secretary & Commissioner Vs. R.
Kirubakaran).
10. Now, taking into consideration the principles
enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble
High Courts in the decisions cited by the learned advocates
for the parties, the present case in hand is to be considered.
11. First of all, I will take up the submission made by the
learned advocate for the party no. 1 that the dispute raised
by the workman is purely civil in nature and not an industrial
dispute and as such, the reference is not maintainable.
However, I find no force in the said contention, because
the dispute in question is regarding the retirement of the
workman by the party no. 1 before the date of
superannuation and such dispute squarely falls within the
definition of “Industrial Dispute” as provided in the Act
and can be referred to the Tribunal for adjudication under
section 10 of the Act.
12. The next contention raised by the learned advocate
for the party no. 1 was that due to delay and latches, the
reference is not maintainable and the workman is not
entitled to any relief. It was submitted that the dispute in
question relates to the year 1988 and the same was raised
only in 2006 by the workman and that also, after one and
half years of his retirement and the delay has not be
explained and as such, the reference is not maintainable.
In reply, it was submitted by the learned advocate for
the workman that there is no delay in raising the dispute,
as the workman was making representations and raising
the dispute and when the reference has been made by the
appropriate government after failure of the conciliation,
the reference is to be adjudicated on merit and the
submissions made by the learned advocate for the party
no. 1 that the reference is not maintainable due to delay
cannot be accepted.
So, far delay in raising the industrial dispute is
concerned, it is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a
large number of decisions including the decisions cited by
the learned advocate for the party no. 1 that:—
"It is true that the laws of Limitation which might bar
any civil court from giving remedy in respect of lawful
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2115
rights should not be applied by the Industrial
Tribunal. On the other hand, it is a well accepted
principle of Industrial adjudication that over state
claim should not be generally encouraged or allowed
unless there is a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
Apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from
the entertainment of claims after a considerable long
lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account
the unsettling effect this is likely to have on the
employer's financial arrangement.
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
Inordinate delay in raising dispute would result in
producing unjust result and it may prove
counterproductive to industrial peace. The inactivity of a
worker in raising dispute may disentitle him from the relief
and no premium can be permitted for the inactivity of the
claimant or the applicant. One cannot be permitted to take
benefit of one's own wrong.
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
Delay should not be unreasonable. Fact that the
workman was making repeated representation not sufficient
explanation of delay.
Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone
of the settled principles as mentioned above, it is found
that the workman was intimated by party no. 1 vide letter
no. 23.09.1988, Ext. W-V that his date of birth was
determined as 01.07.1945 by the Age Determination
Committee and the workman raised protest against such
findings of the Age Dertermination Committee and
requested to record his date of birth as 21.04.1955 on the
basis of the school leaving certificate submitted by him
and submitted representation dated 14.10.1988 and
17.02.1990. It is also found that even thought no action
was taken by the party no. 1 on such representations, the
workman remained inactive and he did not raise any dispute
further till his retirement on 30.06.2005. The workman also
did not raise any objection about his date of birth and
retirement, even after service of the notice of retirement on
superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2005 by the party no. 1. Though
the cause of action arose in 1990, the workman raised the
dispute only in 2006 and there was delay of about 16 years
in raising the dispute. The delay has not been explained by
the workman. So, it is held that due to the inordinate
unexplained delay, in raising the dispute the workman is
not entitled for the reliefs claimed by him.
13.
As the claim of the workman is based on the
Implementation Instruction No. 76 dated 25.04.1988, issued
by the JBCCI, I think it proper to mention the necessary
provisions of the said instructions relevant for this case.
Clause 'B' of the said instructions, which deals with the
"Review/determination of date of birth in respect of existing
employees reads as follows:
(B) Review/determination of date of birth in respect of
existing employees.
1 (a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation
certificate or Higher Secondary certificate issued by the
recognized Universities or Board or Middle pass certificate
issued by the Board of Education and/or department of
Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid
bodies should be treated as correct provided they were
issued by the said Universities/Boards/Institutions prior
to the date of employment.
(b) Similarly, Mining, Winding Engine or similar other
statutory certificates where the Manager had to certify the
date of birth recorded in (i) (a) will be treated as authentic.
(ii)
Wherever there is no variation in records, such
cases will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring
and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the
Management. The Management after being satisfied on
the merits of the case will take appropriate action for
correction through Age Determination Committee/Medical
Board.
(c) Age Determination Committee/Medical Board for
the above will be constituted by the Management. In the
case of employees whose date of birth cannot be determined
in accordance with the procedure mentioned in (i) (a) or (b)
(i) (c) above, the date of birth recorded in the records of the
Company, namely Form "B" register, CMPF records and
Identity Cards (un-tampered) will be treated as final.
Provided that where there is a variation in the age recorded
in the records mentiond above, the matter will be referred
to the Age Determination Committee/medical Board
constituted by the Management for determination of age.
(d) For determination of the age, the Committee/Medical
Board referred to above may consider the evidence
available with the Colliery Management and/or adduced
before it by the employee concerned.
It is clear from clause (b) (I) (a) that Matriculation
Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the
recognized universities or Board or middle pass certificate
issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of
Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid
Bodies should be treated as correct, provided they were
issued by the said univerisities/Boards/Institutions prior
to the date of employment.
So far the case of the workman is concened. he had
produced the Transfer Certificate alleged to be issued by
the Principal, Nehru Krushak Inter College, Khalilabad,
showing that his name was struck off from the school due
to his continuous absent while he was in class-IX. The
said certificate was obtained on 26.05.2001 as found from
the copy of the certificate filed by the workman. As the
certificate produced by the workman was neither a
2116
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
certificate as mentioned in clause (b) (I) (a) of I.I No. 76 nor
the same was obtained prior to the date of his employment,
so basing on the said certificate, there was no question of
correction of the date of birth of the workman.
14. Though the workman was claimed that at the time of
his appointment in 1971, basing on the School Leaving
Certificate produced by him, his date of birth was recorded
as 21.04.1955. However, the workman in his cross-
examination has admitted that he did not produce any
school leaving certificate before the authority at the time
of his appointment. The workman has also not produced
any document or record of party no. 1, in which his date of
birth was recorded as 21.04.1955. On the other hand, all the
documents produced by the workman, Exts. W-II to W-IV,
the "Form-B" registers and the service book, his date of
birth has been mentioned as 01.07.1945 and the workman
has put his thumb impression on such documents.
Alonwith other documents, the workman had filed the
copies of the Transfer Certificate alleged to be issued by
Nehru Krushak Inter College. On perusal of the same, it is
found that the same was issued on 26.05.2001. However,
the workman filed such a certificate on 12.01.2015 claiming
the same to be the original certificate issued by the said
college. On perusal of the certificate produced by the
workman on 12.01.2015, it is found that the same was
obtained on 14.10.1977 and the word “Duplicate” in red ink
has been written on the same. The said certificate is not the
original of the copy of the Certificate produced by the
workman earlier. The said certificate has not been proved
by the workman himself or by examination of any other
competent witness. Such facts create suspicion regarding
the genuineness of the Transfer Certificate alleged to be
issued by Nehru Krushak Inter College.
The workman has stated that in the CMPF Form, his
date of birth was recorded as 11.11.48 and such date was
also recorded in the "Form-B" register and the same was
scored out by party no. 1 illegally. However, the date of
birth of the workman mentioned in the CMPF Form is of no
avail to him, as the same is not the correct date of birth of
the workman according to himself.
15. According to the workman, the Age Determination
Committee did not follow the procedure provided in I.I. No.
76, as he was not asked to appear before the said committee
at the time of determination of his age and as he was not
sent for his medicual exmination by the Medical Board to
determine his age. On persual of the II. No. 76, it is found
that no provision has been made in the same for the
appearance of the employee in person before the Age
Determination Committee. So, there was no question of
party no. 1 directing the workman to appear before the said
committee. It is found from the materials available on record
that the Age Determination Committee considered the
Transfer Certificate produced by the workman in support
of his claim to change his date of birth and the documents
available with the party no. 1, to determine the age of the
workman. The claim of the workman to correct his date of
birth was on the basis of the Transfer Certificate (School
Leaving Certificate) and not on the ground of his not having
any document in support of his date of birth. So, there was
no question of sending him to the Medical Board for his
medical examination by party no. 1 to determine his age.
Hence, I found no force in the submissions made by the
learned advocate for the workman in that regard. On persual
of the records, it is found that there is nothing on record to
show that the Age Determination Committee did not follow
the procedures prescribed in I.I. No. 76, while determining
the date of birth.
16. The last contention raised by the learned advocate
for the workman was that on 23.10.1986, the workman was
medically examined by the medical officer of party no. 1
and report of such examination was submitted to the
authority and in the said medical examination report, the
age of the workman was determined as 32 years on
23.10.1986 and by taking such facts into consideration, it
can be found that according to the own document of party
no. 1, the year of birth of the workman was 1954 and by
taking the margin of error of one year in such determination
on either side it can be held that the year of birth of the
workman was 1955 as claimed by the workman and on the
basis of such documents, the date of birth is necessary to
be corrected as 21.04.1955.
The document, Ext. W-VI, which is the medical
examiniation report of the workman on 23.10.1986, is of no
help to the workman due to the following grounds :
(a) In the statement of claim, there is no pleading
regarding the document, Ext. W-VI.
(b) The medical examination of the workman as per Ext.
W-VI was not to determine the age of the workman,
but the same was a regular medical checkup as
required under the Mines Act and the workman
himself has admitted the same.
(c) The age of the workman as mentioned in Ext. W-VI
was assessed from the appearance of the workman
and there was no determination of his age.
(d) Such a document has not been mentioned as a valid
document in I.I. No. 76 to correct the date of birth
of an employee.
As the facts and circumstances of the case in hand are
quite different from the facts and circumstances of the cases
referred by the Hon'ble High Courts, in the two decisions
cited by the learned advocate for the workman, with respect,
I am of the view that the same have no clear application to
the present case.
17. From the materials on record and the discussions
made above, it is found that the action of the party no. 1 in
denying correcting the date of birth of the workman is
justified. Hence, it is ordered:-
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2117
ORDER
The action of the management of Western Coalfield
Limited in denying the correction of the date of birth as
21.04.1955 in service excerpts, form-"B" register and service
book in respect of Shri Shabir Ali and the action of
superannuating the concerned workman w.e.f. 30.6.2005 is
legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 977-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh,ih,vkjVh ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxdh fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxdh vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ua- 2 p.Mhx<+ tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 325@2005½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28&04&2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@181@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 977.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 325/2005 of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2 Chandigarh
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Council for Advancement of People's
Action & Rural and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 28/04/2015.
[No. L-42012/181/2001-IR (CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
PRESENT: SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, PRESIDING
OFFICER
Case No. I.D. No.325/2005
Registered on 12.8.2005
Sh. Ravinder Kumar, S/o Sh. Pritam Chand,
R/o House No.461, Sector 45A,
Chandigarh
...Petitioner
Versus
The Council for Advancement of People
Action and Rural Technology
(Regional Committee), through
its Director (CAPART), SCO No.179-180,
2nd Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh
...Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
Sh. D.C. Mittal Adv.
For the Management
Ex parte
AWARD
Passed on 18.3.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/181/
2001 IR(CM-II)) Dated 6.8.2002, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section
(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the Director Council for
Advancement of People's Action and Rural
Technology, Chandigarh in ordering disengagement/
termination of services of Sh. Ravinder Kumar S/o
Pritam Chand, the workman engaged through
contractor who has completed 240 days service is
just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to and from which date?"
In response to the notice, the workman filed statement
of claim pleading that he was selected by a duly constituted
selection committee and was appointed as Lower Division
Clerk by the management through M/s Rakshak Security
Services Private Limited and he joined the service with the
management on 1.5.1998 at a fixed salary of Rs.2000/- per
month which was later on enhanced to Rs.3120/-.
It is further pleaded that management has all the
disciplinary control over his work, attendance, leave and it
was the management who used to pay him the salary.That
the work is of permanent nature and is still continuing with
the management.
It is further pleaded that in fact no contract was given to
M/s Rakshak Security Services but the arrangement was
only made for payment of salary which was a camouflage.
His services were terminated w.e.f. 1.11.2000 without paying
him any retrenchment compensation. That new persons
were also employed by the management without serving
him any notice. In the circumstances, the termination of his
services is illegal and unfair.
The management filed written reply pleading that office
was opened at Chandigarh in March-April and contract
was given to M/s Rakshak Security Services Private Limited
for providing the services of security arrangement, house-
keeping and Secretarial Services. That the said company
assigned the claimant to the management in May, 1998 and
it was the company who used to pay him the salary and
was responsible for deducting ESI, PF and to meet all the
necessary requirements under the labour Laws. That the
workman was never appointed by the management and
has no disciplinary control over him. That the workman
2118
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
was never an employee of the management. That the
services of the workman were not terminated by it.
In support of its case the workman appeared in the
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
The management was proceeded against ex parte vide
order dated 23.2.2012 and the application filed by it for
setting aside the ex parte order was dismissed vide order
dated 22.5,2014. As such the management did not lead any
evidence.
I have heard Sh. D.C. Mittal, counsel for the workman.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the
workman that the workman was directly appointed by the
respondent management who terminated his services
without paying him any retrenchment compensation. That
the management also employed new persons in his place
without serving any notice on him and as such, the
termination is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.
It may be added at the outset that the first question to
be seen is whether the workman was ever engaged by the
respondent management who is a statutory body. It has its
rules and regulations for making the appointments. Nothing
has come on the file that any such procedure was followed
while giving appointment to the workman. No appointment
letter has been placed on record by the workman to establish
that he was actually appointed by the respondent
management.
It is the case of the respondent management that
services were hired from M/s Rakshak Security Services
Private Limited when its office was opened in Chandigarh
in 1998 and the workman himself pleaded in his statement
of claim that his services were hired through the said agency.
He has further himself pleaded that the arrangement for
payment of salary through M/s Rakshak Security Services
was made which is a camouflage. Thus the workman himself
admits that his services were hired by M/s Rakshak Security
Services who used to pay salary. Though workman has
appeared in the witness box but he did not lead any
evidence to show that his ESI and PF was deducted by the
management at any point of time.
In the circumstances, when no appointment letter was
issued by the respondent management and the workman
was not paid any salary by it and it is not proved on the file
that his PF etc. was ever deducted by the management, the
workman cannot claim himself to be the employee of the
respondent management. In view of his own pleadings, it
can be safely concluded that he was an employee of M/s
Rakshak Security Services Private Limited who provided
him to the management for doing certain job and it was the
said company who terminated the services and the said
company has not been made party to this reference.
Being so, it cannot be said that the services of the
workman were terminated by the respondent management
and he is not entitled to any relief. The reference is
accordingly answered against the workman. Let hard and
soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government
for information and further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 978-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh,ih,vkjVh ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxdh fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxdh vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2 p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 327@2005½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@182@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e& II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 978.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1447), the Central Government hereby
publishes the Award Ref.327/2005 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 2, Chandigarh as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of CAPART and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 28/04/2015
[No. L-42012/182/2001-IR (CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
PRESENT : SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 327/2005
Registered on 12.8.2005
Sh. Vinod Kumar, S/o Sh. Nakli Ram,
R/o House No.3139, Sector 25D,
Chandigarh
...Petitioner
Versus
The Council for Advancement of
People Action and Rural Technology
(Regional Committee), through its
Director (CAPART), SCO No.179-180,
2nd Floor, Sector 17,
Chandigarh
...Respondents
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2119
APPEARANCES
For the workman
Sh. O.P. Batra, Adv.
For the Management
Ex parte
AWARD
Passed on 18.03.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/182/
2001 IR(CM-11) Dated 15.7.2002, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section
(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the Council for Advancement
of People's Action and Rural Technology, Chandigarh
in ordering disengagement/termination of services
of Sh. Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Nakli Ram, the workman
engaged through contractor is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief he is entitled to?"
In response to the notice, the workman filed statement
of claim pleading that he was selected by a duly constituted
selection committee and was appointed as Sweeper by the
management through M/s Rakshak Security Services
Private Limited and he joined the service with the
management on 9.4.1998 at a fixed salary of Rs.1000/- per
month which was later on enhanced to Rs.1700/-.
It is further pleaded that management has all the
disciplinary control over his work, attendance, leave and it
was the management who used to pay him the salary. That
the work is of permanent nature and is still continuing with
the management.
It is further pleaded that in fact no contract was given to
M/s Rakshak Security Services but the arrangement was
only made for payment of salary which was a camouflage.
His services were terminated after 10.11.2000 without paying
him any retrenchment compensation. That new persons
were also employed by the management without serving
him any notice. In the circumstances, the termination of his
services is illegal and unfair.
The management filed written reply pleading that office
was opened at Chandigarh in March-April and contract
was given to M/s Rakshak Security Services Private Limited
for providing the services of security arrangement, house-
keeping and Secretarial Services. That the said company
assigned the claimant to the management in May, 1998 and
it was the company who used to pay him the salary and
was responsible for deducting ESI, PF and to meet all the
necessary requirements under the labour Laws. That the
workman was never appointed by the management and
has no disciplinary control over him. That the workman
was never an employee of the management. That the
services of the workman were not terminated by it.
In support of its case the workman appeared in the
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
The management was proceeded against ex parte vide
order dated 23.2.2012 and the application filed by it for
setting aside the ex parte order was dismissed vide order
dated 22.5.2014. As such the management did not lead any
evidence.
I have heard Sh. O.P. Batra, counsel for the workman.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the
workman that the workman was directly appointed by the
respondent management who terminated his services
without paying him any retrenchment compensation. That
the management also employed new persons in his place
without serving any notice on him and as such, the
termination is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.
It may be added at the outset that the first question to
be seen is whether the workman was ever engaged by the
respondent management who is a statutory body. It has its
rules and regulations for making the appointments. Nothing
has come on the file that any such procedure was followed
while giving appointment to the workman. No appointment
letter has been placed on record by the workman to establish
that he was actually appointed by the respondent
management.
It is the case of the respondent management that
services were hired from M/s Rakshak Security Services
Private Limited when its office was opened in Chandigarh
in 1998 and the workman himself pleaded in his statement
of claim that his services were hired through the said agency.
He has further pleaded that the arrangement for payment
of salary through M/s Rakshak Security Services was made
which is a camouflage. Thus the workman himself admits
that his services were hired by M/s Rakshak Security
Services who used to pay salary. Though workman has
appeared in the witness box but he did not lead any
evidence to show that his ESI and PF was deducted by the
management at any point of time.
In the circumstances, when no appointment letter was
issued by the respondent management and the workman
was not paid any salary by it and it is not proved on the file
that his PF etc. was ever deducted by the management, the
workman cannot claim himself to be the employee of the
respondent management. In view of his own pleadings, it
can be safely concluded that he was an employee of M/s
Rakshak Security Services Private Limited who provided
him to the management for doing certain job and it was the
said company who terminated the services and the said
company has not been made party to this reference.
Being so, it cannot be said that the services of the
workman were terminated by the respondent management
2120
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and he is not entitled to any relief. The reference is
accordingly answered against the workman. Let hard and
soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government
for information and further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 979-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wñlhñ,yñ ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 55@2013½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@117@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 979.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref.55/2013 of the
Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, NAGPUR as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Sasti U/G Mines Dhoptala Sub Area of
Ballapur Area of WCL and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 28/04/2015.
[No. L-22012/117/2013-IR (CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/55/2013
Date: 03.02.2015.
Party No.
1 :
The Sub-Area Manager,
Sasti U/G Mines of Ballarpur Area,
Western Coalfields Limted, Po Sasti,
Tah. Rajura, Distt. Chandrapur (MS).
Versus
Party No.
2 :
The General Secretary,
Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress,
Dr. AmbedkarWard, Ballarpur,
Post Ballarpur,
Distt. Chandrapur.(M.S.
AWARD
(Dated: 3rd February, 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 W.C.L. and the workman, Shri Deorao B.
Kuhite for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/117/2013-
IR (CM-II) dated 11.09.2013, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Sasti U/G
Mines of Ballarpur Area, Western Coalfields Limited
in denying employment to Shri Sriniwas, the
dependant son of Shri Gundeti Rainarsu Ankalu, who
has already put in 35 years service, which is contrary
to the provisions of Para 9.4.4 of NCWA is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
by registered post with acknowledgment due to file their
respective statement of claim and written statement.
On receipt of the notice the management appeared on
03.03.2014 through their advocates. Inspite of issuance of
repeated notice by registered post with acknowledgement
due and sufficient service of notice on the petitioner,
neither the petitioner appeared in the reference nor filed
any statement of claim on 17.12.2014 and in the interest of
justice and to give a chance to the petitioner to take part in
the reference, the case was adjourned to 03.02.2015 for
filing of Statement of claim, documents and list of witnesses
and reliance by the petitioner. On 03.02.2015, both the
parties remained absent. On 03.02.2015, as neither the
petitioner appeared nor filed any statement of claim. Hence,
the case was closed and fixed for award.
3. It is well settled that whenever a party challenges the
legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the
illegality of the order and it is imperative for him to file
written statement before the Industrial Court setting out
grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also
produce evidence to prove his case. If the party fails to
appear or file written statement or produce evidence, the
dispute referred by the Government cannot be answered in
favour of the said party and the party would not be entitled
to any relief.
Judging the present case with the touch stone of the
settled principles as mentioned above, it is found that the
petitioner has neither appeared nor filed any statement of
claim and as such, he is not entitled to any relief. Hence, it
is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative and against
the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2121
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 980-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ,eVh ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 698@2005½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@81@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e& II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 980.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 698/2005) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Institute of Microbial Technology and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
28/04/2015.
[No. L-42012/81/2001-IR (CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 698/2005
Registered on 25.8.2005
Sh. Satish, Son of Sh. Tej Pal, R/o House No.4881, Malaya
Colony, UT, Chd.
Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Science and Technology, Anusandhan Bhawan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi.
2. Institute of Microbial Technology, Sector 39,
Chandigarh through its Director.
Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
Sh. Prakash Chand, Adv.
For the Management
Sh. I.S. Sidhu, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 26/3/2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/81/
2001-IR(CM-II) dated 27.12.2001, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-
section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of Institute
of Microbial Technology, Chandigarh in terminating
the services of Sh. Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Tej Pal,
w.e.f. 18.5.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to?"
The workman submitted statement of claim pleading
that he was appointed as sweeper through the contractor
on 6.1.1996 for a period of one year, and after the expiry of
the contract period, respondent No. 2 allowed him to work
without any break. He has continuously worked from
6.1.1996 to 18.5.1999 with the management and was drawing
a salary of Rs.1884/- per month. He moved an application
before the Central Administrative Tribunal for regularization
of his services and on coming to know about this,
respondent No. 2 terminated his services on 18.5.1999
without paying him any retrenchment compensation. He
has further pleaded that he worked under the supervision
of respondent No. 2 who has full control over him and his
attendance was marked by it. That the contract was for a
period of one year showing that he worked under the
respondent management and was its employee. Since his
service was terminated illegally, he be reinstated in service.
Respondent management filed written reply
controverting the averments and denied that there was
any relationship of employer and employee between the
parties. It is pleaded that the workman was deployed as a
part of the manforce provided by the contractor who was
awarded contract for doing certain jobs. Workman was not
directly appointed by the respondents. It is further pleaded
that the workman and others abandoned the services on
14.5.1999 as the contractor transferred one of their co-
workman. That the respondent management did not
terminate the services of the workman who was not its
employee.
Parties were given opportunity to lead its evidence.
Workman appeared in the witness box and filed his
affidavit reiterating his case as set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand the management has examined Sh.
Cherring Tobden who filed his affidavit Exhibit R1 reiterating
the stand taken by the respondent management.
I have heard Sh. Prakash Chand, counsel for the
workman and Sh. I.S. Sidhu, counsel for the management
and perused the file carefully.
2122
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It was argued by Mr. Prakash chand, learned counsel
for the workman that workman continuously worked with
the management from 6.1.1996 to 18.5.1999 which itself
shows that he was an employee of the respondent
management and further submitted that the management
did not examine the alleged contractor to establish that
workman was actually an employee of the contractor and
therefore it be concluded that there is relationship of
employer and employee between the parties and since the
services of the workman were terminated illegally, he be
reinstated in service.
I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.
It may be added at the outset that workman himself has
pleaded in para 1 of the claim petition that he was appointed
through a contractor on 6.1.1996 for a period of one year.
Thus he admits that he was an employee of the contractor
and not of the management. Nothing has come on the file
that after the completion of one year, he was ever appointed
by the management by following any Rules and Regulations
and from mere assertions made by the workman, it cannot
be said that he was allowed by the management to work
with it as its employee.
No evidence whatsoever has been led by the workman
that he was paid salary by the management to establish
that he was an employee of the management and it cannot
be said that he was ever paid any salary by the management.
The stand taken by the management is that he was a
man of the contractor who deployed him to do work with
respondent No. 2. The workman himself relies on a certificate
Exhibit X1 which was put to Cherring Tobden, examined by
the management. Its relevant portion reads as follows:—
It is to certify that Sh. Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Tej Pal,
R/o House No. 4881, Maloya Colony Chandigarh
is working as a sweeper here since January, 1996
till date on contract basis under various
contractors.
Its perusal shows that it was issued by a Scientist
mentioning therein that the workman was working as a
helper since January, 1996 on contract basis under various
contractors. Thus the document relied upon by the workman
itself falsify his case that he was an employee of the
management and rather clearly proves the case of the
management that he was a man of the contractor. This
admission on the part of the workman clinches the issue
that he was a workman of the contractor. In the
circumstances, if the management has not examined in
contractor, the same is of no help to the workman.
There is no denial of the fact that workman and others
filed OA No.471-PB-99 which was decided on 11.1.2000
and it was observed in para 4 of the judgment as follows:—
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
going through the pleadings, we find that applicants
are essentially employees of contractor who
provided labour to respondent No.2."
This order has not been challenged and it has attained
finality.
Thus the competent Court where the matter was also
agitated by the workman specifically held that he was an
employee of the contractor.
Thus, it cannot be said that he was ever engaged by the
respondent management at any point of time and he worked
with the contractors and being so, there is no relationship
of master and servant between the parties and it cannot be
said that his services were terminated by the management.
In result, the reference is answered against workman
holding that his services were not terminated by the
management and he is not entitled to any relief against it.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer,
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 981-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dk èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ,eVh ds izcaèra=
ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ua- 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 695@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-04-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@80@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 981.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 695/2005 of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Institute of Microbial Technology, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
28/04/2015.
[No.- L-42012/80/2001-IR (CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 695/2005
Registered on 25.8.2005
Sh. Surender Kumar, S/o Sh. Lakhmi Chand
resident of House No. 4046,
Village Maloya, Chandigarh
...Petitioner
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2123
Versus
1.
Union of India through its Secretary,
Ministry of Science and Technology,
Anusandhan Bhawan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi.
2.
Institute of Microbial Technology,
Sector 39, Chandigarh through its
Director
...Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
Sh. Prakash Chand, Adv.
For the Management
Sh. I.S. Sidhu, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 26/3/2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/80/
2001 [IR(CM-II)] dated 16.7.2002, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-
section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of Institute
of Microbial Technology, Chandigarh in terminating
the services of Sh. Surender Singh S/o Sh. Lakhmi
Chand, w.e.f. 18.5.1999 is legal and Justified? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
The workman submitted statement of claim pleading
that he was appointed as helper-cum-sweeper through the
contractor on 18.12.1992 for a period of one year, and after
the expiry of the contract period, respondent No.2 allowed
him to work without any break. He has continuously worked
from 18.12.1992 to 18.5.1999 with the management and was
drawing a salary of Rs.1884/- per month. He moved an
application before the Central Administrative Tribunal for
regularization of his services and on coming to know about
this, respondent No. 2 terminated his services on 18.5.1999
without paying him any retrenchment compensation. He
has further pleaded that he worked under the supervision
of respondent No. 2 who has full control over him and his
attendance was marked by it. That the contract was for a
period of one year showing that he worked under the
respondent management and was its employee. Since his
service was terminated illegally, he be reinstated in service.
Respondent management filed written reply
controverting the averments and denied that there was
any relationship of employer and employee between the
parties. It is pleaded that the workman was deployed as a
part of the manforce provided by the contractor who was
awarded contract for doing certain jobs. Workman was not
directly appointed by the respondents. It is further pleaded
that the workman and others abandoned the services on
14.5.1999 as the contractor transferred one of their co-
workman. That the respondent management did not
terminate the services of the workman who was not its
employee.
Parties were given opportunity to lead its evidence.
Workman appeared in the witness box and filed his
affidavit reiterating his case as set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand the management has examined Sh.
Cherring Tobden who filed his affidavit Exhibit R1 reiterating
the stand taken by the respondent management.
I have heard Sh. Prakash Chand, counsel for the
workman and Sh. I.S. Sidhu, counsel for the management
and perused the file carefully.
It was argued by Mr. Prakash Chand, learned counsel
for the workman that workman continuously worked with
the management from 16.9.1996 to 18.5.1999 which itself
shows that he was an employee of the respondent
management and further submitted that the management
did not examine the alleged contractor to establish that
workman was actually an employee of the contractor and
therefore it be concluded that there is relationship of
employer and employee between the parties and since the
services of the workman were terminated illegally, he be
reinstated in service.
I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.
It may be added at the outset that workman himself has
pleaded in para 1 of the claim petition that he was appointed
through a contractor on 6.1.1996 for a period of one year.
Thus he admits that he was an employee of the contractor
and not of the management. Nothing has come on the file
that after the completion of one year, he was ever appointed
by the management by following any Rules and Regulations
and from mere assertions made by the workman, it cannot
be said that he was allowed by the management to work
with it as its employee.
No evidence whatsoever has been led by the workman
that he was paid salary by the management to establish
that he was an employee of the management and it cannot
be said that he was ever paid any salary by the management.
The stand taken by the management is that he was a man
of the contractor who deployed him to do work with
respondent No.2. The workman himself relies on a certificate
Exhibit X1 which was put to Cherring Tobden, examined by
the management. Its relevant portion reads as follows:—
It is to certify that Sh. Surender Kumar S/o Sh.
Lakhmi Chand, R/o House No. 4046, Village Maloya
Chandigarh is working as a helper/sweeper here
since 18.12.1992 till date on contract basis under
various contractors.
2124
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Its perusal shows that it was issued by a Scientist
mentioning therein that the workman was working as a
helper since 1996 on contract basis under various
contractors. Thus the document relied upon by the workman
itself falsify his case that he was an employee of the
management and rather clearly proves the case of the
management that he was a man of the contractor. This
admission on the part of the workman clinches the issue
that he was a workman of the contractor. In the
circumstances, if the management has not examined in
contractor, the same is of no help to the workman.
There is no denial of the fact that workman and others
filed OA No.471-PB-99 which was decided on 11.1.2000
and it was observed in para 4 of the judgment as follows:—
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
going through the pleadings, we find that applicants
are essentially employees of contractor who
provided labour to respondent No.2."
This order has not been challenged and it has attained finality.
Thus the competent Court where the matter was also
agitated by the workman specifically held that he was an
employee of the contractor.
Thus, it cannot be said that he was ever engaged by the
respondent management at any point of time and he worked
with the contractors and being so, there is no relationship
of master and servant between the parties and it cannot be
said that his services were terminated by the management.
In result, the reference is answered against workman
holding that his services were not terminated by the
management and he is not entitled to any relief against it.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 982-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dk èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ,eVh ds izcaèra=
ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ua- 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 699@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-04-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@62@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 982.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 699/2005 of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Institute of Microbial Technology, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
28/04/2015.
[No. L-42012/62/2001-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No.699/2005
Registered on 25.8.2005
Sh. Raja Ram, Son of Sh. Kundiyan Ram, R/o House No.1026,
Village Khanpur, Ward No.10, Tehsil-Kharar, Distt. Ropar
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Science and Technology, Anusandhan Bhawan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi.
2. Institute of Microbial Technology, Sector 39,
Chandigarh through its Director.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
Sh. Prakash Chand, Adv.
For the Management
Sh. I.S. Sidhu, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 26/3/2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/62/
2001-IR(CM-II) dated 8.1.2002, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-
section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of Institute
of Microbial Technology, Chandigarh in terminating
the services of Sh. Surender Singh S/o Sh. Lakhmi
Chand, w.e.f. 18.5.1999 is legal and Justified? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
The workman submitted statement of claim pleading
that he was appointed as helper-cum-sweeper through the
contractor on 1.1.1992 for a period of one year, and after
the expiry of the contract period, respondent No. 2 allowed
him to work without any break. He has continuously worked
from 1.1.1992 to 18.5.1999 with the management and was
drawing a salary of Rs.1884/- per month. He moved an
application before the Central Administrative Tribunal for
regularization of his services and on coming to know about
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2125
this, respondent No. 2 terminated his services on 18.5.1999
without paying him any retrenchment compensation. He
has further pleaded that he worked under the supervision
of respondent No. 2 who has full control over him and his
attendance was marked by it. That the contract was for a
period of one year showing that he worked under the
respondent management and was its employee. Since his
service was terminated illegally, he be reinstated in service.
Respondent management filed written reply
controverting the averments and denied that there was
any relationship of employer and employee between the
parties. It is pleaded that the workman was deployed as a
part of the manforce provided by the contractor who was
awarded contract for doing certain jobs. Workman was not
directly appointed by the respondents. It is further pleaded
that the workman and others abandoned the services on
14.5.1999 as the contractor transferred one of their co-
workman. That the respondent management did not
terminate the services of the workman who was not its
employee.
Parties were given opportunity to lead its evidence.
Workman appeared in the witness box and filed his
affidavit reiterating his case as set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand the management has examined Sh.
Cherring Tobden who filed his affidavit Exhibit R1 reiterating
the stand taken by the respondent management.
I have heard Sh. Prakash Chand, counsel for the
workman and Sh. I.S. Sidhu, counsel for the management
and perused the file carefully.
It was argued by Mr. Prakash Chand, learned counsel
for the workman that workman continuously worked with
the management from 18.12.1992 to 18.5.1999 which itself
shows that he was an employee of the respondent
management and further submitted that the management
did not examine the alleged contractor to establish that
workman was actually an employee of the contractor and
therefore it be concluded that there is relationship of
employer and employee between the parties and since the
services of the workman were terminated illegally, he be
reinstated in service.
I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.
It may be added at the outset that workman himself has
pleaded in para 1 of the claim petition that he was appointed
through a contractor on 1.1.1992 for a period of one year.
Thus he admits that he was an employee of the contractor
and not of the management. Nothing has come on the file
that after the completion of one year, he was ever appointed
by the management by following any Rules and Regulations
and from mere assertions made by the workman, it cannot
be said that he was allowed by the management to work
with it as its employee.
No evidence whatsoever has been led by the workman
that he was paid salary by the management to establish
that he was, an employee of the management and it cannot
be said that he was ever paid any salary by the management.
The stand taken by the management is that he was a
man of the contractor who deployed him to do work with
respondent No.2. The workman himself relies on a
certificate Exhibit X1 which was put to Cherring Tobden,
examined by the management. Its relevant portion reads as
follows:—
It is to certify that Sh. Raja Ram S/o Sh. Kundiya
Ram R/o House No.1026, Village Khanpur, Ward
No. 10, Village Khanpur is working as a helper/
attendant here since January, 1992 till date on
contract basis under various contractors.
Its perusal shows that it was issued by a Scientist
mentioning therein that the workman was working as a
helper since January, 1992 on contract basis under various
contractors. Thus the document relied upon by the workman
itself falsify his case that he was an employee of the
management and rather clearly proves the case of the
management that he was a man of the contractor. This
admission on the part of the workman clinches the issue
that he was a workman of the contractor. In the
circumstances, if the management has not examined in
contractor, the same is of no help to the workman.
There is no denial of the fact that workman and others
filed OA No.471-PB-99 which was decided on 11.1.2000
and it was observed in para 4 of the judgment as follows:—
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
going through the pleadings, we find that applicants
are essentially employees of contractor who
provided labour to respondent No. 2."
This order has not been challenged and it has attained
finality.
Thus the competent Court where the matter was also
agitated by the workman specifically held that he was an
employee of the contractor.
Thus, it cannot be said that he was ever engaged by the
respondent management at any point of time and he worked
with the contractors and being so, there is no relationship
of master and servant between the parties and it cannot be
said that his services were terminated by the management.
In result, the reference is answered against workman
holding that his services were not terminated by the
management and he is not entitled to any relief against it.
Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central
Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
2126
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 983-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ,eVh ds izcaèra=
ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
uañ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 694@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@79@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 983.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 694/2005 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Institute of Microbial Technology and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
28/04/2015.
[No. L-42012/79/2001-IR (CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 699/2005
Registered on 25.8.2005
Sh. Pawan Kumar, Son of Sh. Ralla Ram, R/o Village
Khanpur, Ward No.10, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Science and Technology, Anusandhan Bhawan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi.
2. Institute of Microbial Technology, Sector 39,
Chandigarh through its Director.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
Sh. Prakash Chand, Adv.
For the Management
Sh. I.S. Sidhu, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 26th March, 2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/62/
2001 (IR(CM-II)) Dated 24.12.2001, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section
(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of Institute
of Microbial Technology, Chandigarh in terminating
the services of Sh. Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Ralla Ram,
w.e.f. 18.5.1999 is legal and Justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to?"
The workman submitted statement of claim pleading
that he was appointed as Sweeper through the contractor
on 1.8.1994 for a period of one year, and after the expiry of
the contract period, respondent No. 2 allowed him to work
without any break. He has continuously worked from
1.8.1994 to 18.5.1999 with the management and was drawing
a salary of Rs. 1884/- per month. He moved an application
before the Central Administrative Tribunal for regularization
of his services and on coming to know about this,
respondent No. 2 terminated his services on 18.5.1999
without paying him any retrenchment compensation. He
has further pleaded that he worked under the supervision
of respondent No. 2 who has full control over him and his
attendance was marked by it. That the contract was for a
period of one year showing that he worked under the
respondent management and was its employee. Since his
service was terminated illegally, he be reinstated in service.
Respondent management filed written reply
controverting the averments and denied that there was
any relationship of employer and employee between the
parties. It is pleaded that the workman was deployed as a
part of the manforce provided by the contractor who was
awarded contract for doing certain jobs. Workman was not
directly appointed by the respondents. It is further pleaded
that the workman and others abandoned the services on
14.5.1999 as the contractor transferred one of their co-
workman. That the respondent management did not
terminate the services of the workman who was not its
employee.
Parties were given opportunity to lead its evidence.
Workman appeared in the witness box and filed his
affidavit reiterating his case as set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand the management has examined
Sh. Cherring Tobden who filed his affidavit Exhibit R1
reiterating the stand taken by the respondent management.
I have heard Sh. Prakash Chand, counsel for the
workman and Sh. I.S. Sidhu, counsel for the management
and perused the file carefully.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2127
It was argued by Mr. Prakash Chand, learned counsel
for the workman that workman continuously worked with
the management from 1.8.1994 to 18.5.1999 which itself
shows that he was an employee of the respondent
management and further submitted that the management
did not examine the alleged contractor to establish that
workman was actually an employee of the contractor and
therefore it be concluded that there is relationship of
employer and employee between the parties and since the
services of the workman were terminated illegally, he be
reinstated in service.
I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.
It may be added at the outset that workman himself has
pleaded in para 1 of the claim petition that he was appointed
through a contractor on 1.8.1994 for a period of one year.
Thus he admits that he was an employee of the contractor
and not of the management. Nothing has come on the file
that after the completion of one year, he was ever appointed
by the management by following any Rules and Regulations
and from mere assertions made by the workman, it cannot
be said that he was allowed by the management to work
with it as its employee.
No evidence whatsoever has been led by the workman
that he was paid salary by the management to establish
that he was an employee of the management and it cannot
be said that he was ever paid any salary by the management.
The stand taken by the management is that he was a
man of the contractor who deployed him to do work with
respondent No. 2. The workman himself relies on a certificate
Exhibit X1 which was put to Cherring Tobden, examined by
the management. Its relevant portion reads as follows:-
It is to certify that Sh. Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Ralla
Ram, R/o Village Khanpur, Ward No. 10, Tehsil Kharar,
distt. Ropar, Chandigarh is working as a sweeper
here since 1.8.1994 till date on contract basis under
various contractors.
Its perusal shows that it was issued by a Scientist
mentioning therein that the workman was working as a
helper since 1.8.1994 on contract basis under various
contractors. Thus the document relied upon by the workman
itself falsify his case that he was an employee of the
management and rather clearly proves the case of the
management that he was a man of the contractor. This
admission on the part of the workman clinches the issue
that he was a workman of the contractor. In the
circumstances, if the management has not examined in
contractor, the same is of no help to the workman.
There is no denial of the fact that workman and others
filed OA No. 471-PB-99 which was decided on 11.1.2000
and it was observed in para 4 of the judgment as follows:—
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
going through the pleadings, we find that applicants
are essentially employees of contractor who
provided labour to respondent No .2."
This order has not been challenged and it has attained
finality.
Thus the competent Court where the matter was also
agitated by the workman specifically held that he was an
employee of the contractor.
Thus, it cannot be said that he was ever engaged by the
respondent management at any point of time and he worked
with the contractors and being so, there is no relationship
of employer and employee between the parties and it cannot
be said that his services were terminated by the
management.
In result, the reference is answered against workman
holding that his services were not terminated by the
management and he is not entitled to any relief against it.
Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central
Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 984-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ,eVh ds izcaèra=
ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
uañ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 700@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@78@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 984.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 700/2005 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 2, Chandigarh as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Institute of Microbial Technology and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
28/04/2015.
[No. L-42012/78/2001 - IR (CM-II)
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 700/2005
Registered on 25.8.2005
2128
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sh. Prem Chand, S/o Sh. Jagan Ram resident of House No.
4225, Palsora Colony No.II, Chandigarh
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Science and Technology, Anusandhan Bhawan Rafi
Marg, New Delhi.
2. Institute of Microbial Technology, Sector 39,
Chandigarh through its Director.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
Sh. Prakash Chand, Adv.
For the Management
Sh. I.S. Sidhu, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 26/3/15
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/78/
2001 (IR(CM-11)) Dated 30.1.2002, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub-Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-
Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of Institute
of Microbial Technology, Chandigarh in terminating
the services of Sh. Prem Chand S/o Sh. Jagan Ram,
w.e.f. 18.5.1999 is legal and Justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to?"
The workman submitted statement of claim pleading
that he was appointed as helper through the contractor on
1.1.1991 for a period of one year, and after the expiry of the
contract period, respondent No.2 allowed him to work
without any break. He has continuously worked from
1.1.1991 to 18.5.1999 with the management and was drawing
a salary of Rs. 1884/- per month. He moved an application
before the Central Administrative Tribunal for regularization
of his services and on coming to know about this,
respondent No. 2 terminated his services on 18.5.1999
without paying him any retrenchment compensation. He
has further pleaded that he worked under the supervision
of respondent No. 2 who has full control over him and his
attendance was marked by it. That the contract was for a
period of one year showing that he worked under the
respondent management and was its employee. Since his
service was terminated illegally, he be reinstated in service.
Respondent management filed written reply
controverting the averments and denied that there was
any relationship of employer and employee between the
parties. It is pleaded that the workman was deployed as a
part of the manforce provided by the contractor who was
awarded contract for doing certain jobs. Workman was not
directly appointed by the respondents. It is further pleaded
that the workman and others abandoned the services on
14.5.1999 as the contractor transferred one of their co-
workman. That the respondent management did not
terminate the services of the workman who was not its
employee.
Parties were given opportunity to lead its evidence.
Workman appeared in the witness box and filed his
affidavit reiterating his case as set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand the management has examined
Sh. Cherring Tobden who filed his affidavit Exhibit R1
reiterating the stand taken by the respondent management.
I have heard Sh. Prakash Chand, counsel for the
workman and Sh. I.S. Sidhu, counsel for the management
and perused the file carefully.
It was argued by Mr. Prakash Chand, learned counsel
for the workman that workman continuously worked with
the management from 1.1.1991 to 18.5.1999 which itself
shows that he was an employee of the respondent
management and further submitted that the management
did not examine the alleged contractor to establish that
workman was actually an employee of the contractor and
therefore it be concluded that there is relationship of
employer and employee between the parties and since the
services of the workman were terminated illegally, he be
reinstated in service.
I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.
It may be added at the outset that workman himself has
pleaded in para 1 of the claim petition that he was appointed
through a contractor on 1.1.1991 for a period of one year.
Thus he admits that he was an employee of the contractor
and not of the management. Nothing has come on the file
that after the completion of one year, he was ever appointed
by the management by following any Rules and Regulations
and from mere assertions made by the workman, it cannot
be said that he was allowed by the management to work
with it as its employee.
No evidence whatsoever has been led by the workman
that he was paid salary by the management to establish
that he was an employee of the management and it cannot
be said that he was ever paid any salary by the management.
The stand taken by the management is that he was a
man of the contractor who deployed him to do work with
respondent No. 2. The workman himself relies on a certificate
Exhibit X1 which was put to Cherring Tobden, examined by
the management. Its relevant portion reads as follows:—
It is to certify that Sh. Prem Chand S/o Sh. Jaggan
Ram, R/o House No. 4225, Palsora Colony No. 2
Chandigarh is working as a helper/sweeper here since
January, 1991 till date on contract basis under various
contractors.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 9] 2015@oS'kk[k 19] 1937
2129
Its perusal shows that it was issued by a Scientist
mentioning therein that the workman was working as a
helper since January, 1991 on contract basis under various
contractors. Thus the document relied upon by the workman
itself falsify his case that he was an employee of the
management and rather clearly proves the case of the
management that he was a man of the contractor. This
admission on the part of the workman clinches the issue
that he was a workman of the contractor. In the
circumstances, if the management has not examined in
contractor, the same is of no help to the workman.
There is no denial of the fact that workman and others
filed OA No.471-PB-99 which was decided on 11.1.2000
and it was observed in para 4 of the judgment as follows:—
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
going through the pleadings, we find that applicants
are essentially employees of contractor who
provided labour to respondent No. 2."
This order has not been challenged and it has attained
finality.
Thus the competent Court where the matter was also
agitated by the workman specifically held that he was an
employee of the contractor.
Thus, it cannot be said that he was ever engaged by the
respondent management at any point of time and he worked
with the contractors and being so, there is no relationship
of master and servant between the parties and it cannot be
said that his services were terminated by the management.
In result, the reference is answered against workman
holding that his services were not terminated by the
management and he is not entitled to any relief against it.
Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central
Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk- 985-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ,eVh ds izcaèra=
ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
uañ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 688@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@63@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2015
S.O. 985.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 688/2005 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Institute of Microbial Technology and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
28/04/2015.
[No. L-42012/63/2001-IR(CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 688/2005
Registered on 25.8.2005
Sh. Bittu, S/o Sh. Makhu resident of House No. 1109, Ward
No. 9, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Science and Technology, Anusandhan Bhawan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi.
2. Institute of Microbial Technology, Sector 39,
Chandigarh through its Director.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
Sh. Prakash Chand, Adv.
For the Management
Sh. I.S. Sidhu, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 26.3.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/63/
2001-IR(CM-II) dated 8.1.2002, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-
section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of Institute
of Microbial Technology, Chandigarh in terminating
the services of Sh. Bittu S/o Sh. Makhu, w.e.f.
18.5.1999 is legal and Justified? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled to?"
The workman submitted statement of claim pleading
that he was appointed as sweeper through the contractor
on 1.2.1992 for a period of one year, and after the expiry of
the contract period, respondent No. 2 allowed him to work
without any break. He has continuously worked from
1.2.1992 to 18.5.1999 with the management and was drawing
a salary of Rs. 1884/- per month. He moved an application
before the Central Administrative Tribunal for regularization
of his services and on coming to know about this,
respondent No. 2 terminated his services on 18.5.1999
without paying him any retrenchment compensation. He
2130
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2015/VAISAKHA 19, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
has further pleaded that he worked under the supervision
of respondent No. 2 who has full control over him and his
attendance was marked by it. That the contract was for a
period of one year showing that he worked under the
respondent management and was its employee. Since his
service was terminated illegally, he be reinstated in service.
Respondent management filed written reply
controverting the averments and denied that there was
any relationship of employer and employee between the
parties. It is pleaded that the workman was deployed as a
part of the manforce provided by the contractor who was
awarded contract for doing certain jobs. Workman was not
directly appointed by the respondents. It is further pleaded
that the workman and others abandoned the services on
14.5.1999 as the contractor transferred one of their co-
workman. That the respondent management did not
terminate the services of the workman who was not its
employee.
Parties were given opportunity to lead its evidence.
Workman appeared in the witness box and filed his
affidavit reiterating his case as set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand the management has examined
Sh. Cherring Tobden who filed his affidavit Exhibit R1
reiterating the stand taken by the respondent management.
I have heard Sh. Prakash Chand, counsel for the
workman and Sh. I.S. Sidhu, counsel for the management
and perused the file carefully.
It was argued by Mr. Prakash Chand, learned counsel
for the workman that workman continuously worked with
the management from 1.2.1992 to 18.5.1999 which itself
shows that he was an employee of the respondent
management and further submitted that the management
did not examine the alleged contractor to establish that
workman was actually an employee of the contractor and
therefore it be concluded that there is relationship of
employer and employee between the parties and since the
services of the workman were terminated illegally, he be
reinstated in service.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
It may be added at the outset that workman himself has
pleaded in para 1 of the claim petition that he was appointed
through a contractor on 1.2.1992 for a period of one year.
Thus he admits that he was an employee of the contractor
and not of the management. Nothing has come on the file
that after the completion of one year, he was ever appointed
by the management by following any Rules and Regulations
and from mere assertions made by the workman, it cannot
be said that he was allowed by the management to work
with it as its employee.
No evidence whatsoever has been led by the workman
that he was paid salary by the management to establish
that he was an employee of the management and it cannot
be said that he was ever paid any salary by the management.
The stand taken by the management is that he was a
man of the contractor who deployed him to do work with
respondent No. 2. The workman himself relies on a certificate
Exhibit X1 which was put to Cherring Tobden, examined by
the management. Its relevant portion reads as follows:—
It is to certify that Sh. Bittu S/o Sh. Makhu, R/o House
No. 1109, Ward No. 9, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar is
working as a helper/sweeper here since 1.2.1992 till
date on contract basis under various contractors.
Its perusal shows that it was issued by a Scientist
mentioning therein that the workman was working as a
helper since February, 1992 on contract basis under various
contractors. Thus the document relied upon by the workman
itself falsify his case that he was an employee of the
management and rather clearly proves the case of the
management that he was a man of the contractor. This
admission on the part of the workman clinches the issue
that he was a workman of the contractor. In the
circumstances, if the management has not examined in
contractor, the same is of no help to the workman.
There is no denial of the fact that workman and others
filed OA No.471-PB-99 which was decided on 11.1.2000
and it was observed in para 4 of the judgment as follows:—
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
going through the pleadings, we find that applicants
are essentially employees of contractor who
provided labour to respondent No. 2."
This order has not been challenged and it has attained
finality.
Thus the competent Court where the matter was also
agitated by the workman specifically held that he was an
employee of the contractor.
Thus, it cannot be said that he was ever engaged by
the respondent management at any point of time and he
worked with the contractors and being so, there is no
relationship of master and servant between the parties
and it cannot be said that his services were terminated by
the management.
In result, the reference is answered against workman
holding that his services were not terminated by the
management and he is not entitled to any relief against it.
Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central
Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.